Talk:Cadet branch

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Royalty and Nobility
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Royalty and Nobility, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Royalty and nobility on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 


Lord Randolph Churchill[edit]

The article contained a paragraph about Winston Churchill's father, Lord Randolph Churchill, which contained incorrect information.

Although Randolph was given a noble title, he and his offspring could not inherit the family title as he and his offspring were "cadet" members of the Churchill noble family.
  • Lord Randolph Churchill was not "given a noble title". Like every other younger son of a Duke he was entitled to a courtesy title. His father was a peer, his eldest brother was a peer. His nephew was a peer. He was never a peer. But if his elder brothers had predeceased him, and had not left any heirs, then he would have inherited the Dukedom. -- Geo Swan 23:11, 2005 May 19 (UTC)

Misleading[edit]

I believe this article continues to be misleading. IIUC the immediate family of the first Duke of Wellington represents an example of cadet branches. He had four brothers who survived to adulthood. His father was an Irish peer, the Earl of Mornington. His eldest brother inherited the Irish titles, and became involved in Politics. In the late 18 Century his eldest brother was created a Baron in the English(?) peerage, allowing him to sit in the English House of Lords. A barony is the most junior step in the peerage. Wellington earned his titles on the battlefield. One of his brothers joined the Church. The other two also entered politics. They too were created barons. So, there were four brothers who were all peers. The Earl of Mornington represented the main branch. Wellington, and his other two brothers started cadet branches, IIUC. The Earl of Mornington had sons, but there weren't legitimate, so they didn't inherit their father's titles. The eldest brother's English titles lapsed. So the next oldest brother inherited the father's titles. When his line died out, that line's English titles lapsed, and Wellington's line inherited the original Irish titles. The son or grandson of Wellington's youngest brother earned an Earldom, Earl Cowley, and his line remains in existence. IIUC it remains a cadet branch. If all of Wellington's descendants died out the descendants of Wellington's younger brother would inherit the Irish titles.

Cheers! -- Geo Swan 03:25, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Disputable content[edit]

That only the eldest son inherit his fathers title is no universal rule. In traditional germanic system all sons inherit the noble title, that is if it is just a title, and not a sovereignty over some alodial land. In the last case the younger sons and their sons in turn would usually inherit a title of lesser rank. This system is also common in the rest of central, eastern and northern Europe. In the latin countries rules seems to have been a bit more liberal, allthough a title could only belong to one person at a time he or she might have bestowed other titles on different children, even on in-laws in some cases. (For example the present Duchess of Alba and a prentender to the French throne, the Count of Paris).

I suggest that everything in this article is removed, except from the exact description of what a cadet branch is, a family branch descended from a younger son or other family member that is not the most senior member of the family, and relevant historical theories.

Carl 11:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)CarlCarl 11:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Non-European cadet branches:[edit]

I suggest that one of the Japanese demoted-clans such as the Minamoto or Taira clan ought to be added as an example of cadet branching as a global phenomenon. They're already mentioned on their respective pages as being cadet branches of the imperial family, and I feel it would help round off the page. Thoughts? 24.224.105.220 (talk) 04:39, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. By all means, do proceed. FactStraight (talk) 00:07, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Strickly speaking, the Nelson Mandel section is full of unnecessary qualifications[edit]

Be that as it may, someone ought to clean it up. Iapetus (talk) 16:41, 23 July 2013 (UTC)