Talk:Earl of Selkirk

The statement "If Lord Selkirk has a surviving son, the title descends normally" may not be true. I am unsure. When Lord James Douglas-Hamilton succeeded to the Earldom of Selkirk on his father's death, he was a member of the House of Commons in John Major's administration (which had a very slim majority). A vital vote was imminent. So he renounced the peerage (for himself only of course) and voted. Subsequently he was given a life peerage. Thereby getting him a vote in the House of Lords which he would not necessarily have had if he had become Lord Selkirk. Kittybrewster 14:25, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

It's unclear what point you're making. If a new earl disclaims, it doesn't change the fact that he succeeded to the title. Anyway it says here that Lord James (11th earl, brother of 15th duke) succeeded his uncle (10th earl), not his father (14th duke). —Tamfang 23:29, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your "disclaims ... succeeded" point. And the Earldom of Selkirk never goes to the Duke of Hamilton, rather it goes to the second son of the deceased Duke. My principal point was that I am uncertain that the title necessarily goes to the surviving son if Lord Selkirk has one. Kittybrewster 23:48, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to the article, the 5th and 6th earls each inherited from their father. Of course that doesn't prove that this will "necessarily" happen, but the present disclaimed 11th earl is said to have an heir apparent ...

Under the special remainder the duke is effectively considered a youngest brother. [Later: No, it's not that logical.] The 12th and 13th dukes held the earldom because they had no surviving brothers (and their late brothers, if any, had no male issue).

The succession of the 13th duke as 9th earl is a bit puzzling. According to Duke of Hamilton he was a distant cousin of the 12th/8th, descended from the 4th duke – but given his existence, why did the 12th duke get the earldom?

—Tamfang 17:30, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because the Earldom is tied to the Dukedom the former can only go - when the line dies out - to the younger brother of the *present Duke*. The 13th Duke had no brothers when he succeeded in 1895 to the Dukedom so under the terms of the original grant he also inherited the Earldom of Selkirk. No younger son or junior male heir between the 12 and 13th Duke could have taken the earldom becuase they would not have been the younger son of the *present Duke*.

Now it hits me that this makes sense if the 13th duke was not descended from the first earl. Is that the case? —Tamfang 18:46, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, The 12th Duke was decended from the eldest son of the 4th Duke, the 13th Duke from the younger brother [the brilliantly named lord Anne] of the 4th Duke. Both were the agnate grandsons of the first Earl of Selkirk. The decent seems strightforward enough.Alci12 10:28, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Earldom automatically broke free of the dukedom at the first opportunity ie the Duke's death in 1940. To claify the earlier point the special decent only matters when the male line dies out, otherwise the title decends normally to the male heir of the last earl.Alci12 14:31, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

a detail about the special remainder

Bear with me a little more! Suppose the duke/earl has three sons (Tom, Dick, Harry). Tom becomes duke, Dick becomes earl. Dick then dies childless, survived by both Tom and Harry. Which of them is the next earl? Did the 7th earl have a younger brother? —Tamfang 03:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Harry. - Kittybrewster 03:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My thinking was crooked. Under the "duke is youngest brother" theory Harry is earl, and under the "earldom reverts to duke's eldest brother" theory Harry is earl. ;) Okay – Tom dies leaving sons, then Dick dies s.p. – I guess the next earl is the new duke's brother, not Harry. What parallels exist to this, that the succession depends on the relative longevity of one who does not inherit in either case? —Tamfang 06:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it goes to the present Duke's next youngest brother. I believe it is unique. Kittybrewster 11:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The style of Princess Royal, if it were automatic, would be another example. —Tamfang 06:08, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Er...so what happens if Tom dies leaving one son, then Dick dies s.p. Who becomes Earl, the new Duke (Tom's son) or Harry? john k 11:48, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The new duke. —Tamfang 16:21, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New game! Dick has two sons. Dick's first son's issue fails after a few more generations. Is the next earl the heir of Dick's second son, or a descendant of Tom? —Tamfang 16:21, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The heir of Dick's second son, no? It stays among Dick's descendants until they become extinct, and only then passes back to the Duke... right? john k 00:10, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's easier to think of it in terms of Tom (X) Dick (Y) and Harry (Z). If the title goes to Y then his sons Y1,Y2,Y3 and all their heirs male have to be extinguished before it could go to (Z) and his heirs (assuming X is still alive) or back to any new duke and/or his Y heir. Alci12 13:09, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Court ruling

I have a recollection that Lord James Douglas-Hamilton and a cousin fought a court case over the exact translation of the inheritance - basically on the death on a childless second son Earl, should it have devolved on the third son or onto the next generation's Duke's younger brother? It was further complicated as the third son had passed away as well, leaving his son to claim. And Douglas-Hamilton was always intending to renounce the peerage himself, but fighting so his son could inherit it. Timrollpickering 17:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

another detail ...

The novodamus dictated that, should the earldom ever devolve to the holder of the title of Duke of Hamilton, his younger brother and his heirs should succeed to the title before him.

A recent edit changed brother to son and before to after. That fails to express the rule (if I understand right) that a duke inherits the earldom only if he has no brother. —Tamfang (talk) 16:39, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that my understanding was wrong. Now that the junior lines named in the patent are extinct, if an earl has a brother but no son, the earldom passes to the duke's brother if any, else to the duke. —Tamfang (talk) 01:04, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

name change

It says that the 1st earl of selkirk changed his name because he was of "a lesser degree" than his wife. sure a duchess is higher ranked than an earl, but not that much. Rather it was probably required for him to receive his wife's property. Tinynanorobots (talk) 16:52, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]