Jump to content

Talk:Duke of Marlborough (title)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled

[edit]

I would put this under John Churchill not Duke of Marlborough and use the Duke of Marlborough page to direct to pages for each Duke (presuming the other dukes were notable). I know the British system is diferent but which would be easier? -rmhermen

I'm inclined to leave it. He's far more famous as "The Duke of Marlborough", and from the time he was made Earl Malborough his legal name was "Marlborough", not "John Churchill". Putting him under "John Churchill" would be like putting "John Wayne" under "Marion Morrison". As for the other dukes, fortunately none of them were more than faintly notable (the famous Winston Churchill was not duke). If push comes to shove that's what the notation 2nd Duke of..., 3rd Duke of... is for. -- PaulDrye

Then at least shouldn't he be listed as 1st Duke not just Duke. We call them Quenns Eliz. I and II, although the first Elizabeth didn't call herself that. -rmhermen

We've stepped into a difficult spot here, in which there's no good solution but popularity. During his life, I scan the following proper names for Our Man:

- John Churchill - Sandridge (short form)/John, Baron Sandridge (long form) - Marlborough/John, Earl Marlborough/John, Duke Marlborough

as well as the titles:

- Baron of Sandridge - Earl of Marlborough - Duke of Marlborough - 1st Duke of Marlborough

Ten different names correct in one way or another. Which to choose, which to choose? All I can say is that The Duke of Marlborough is known far and wide as "The Duke of Marlborough". The other eight possibilities are just trivia about his life. A reality check: Google reports 5,730 hits for "Duke of Marlborough", 539 for "1st Duke of Marlborough" and 4,440 for "John Churchill" (many of which are different people). If someone cares to type in any of the other possibilities, redirect them here, but let's stick to calling him by what he is generally known as -- PaulDrye

>his star began a meteoric rise.

...they don't go in that direction. But then again, I'm not accustumed to English metaphors.

if the queen like John Chuchill so much than why was he replaced with the duke of Ormonde?


Name of 5th Duke of Marlborough

[edit]

This article links to the 5th Duke of Marlborough (1766-1840) as George Spencer-Churchill, 5th Duke of Marlborough. The article Blenheim Palace links to the same person as Charles, 5th Duke of Marlborough. Both are redlinks. Anybody know which is correct/better. -- Chris j wood 1 July 2005 19:17 (UTC)

female succession

[edit]

The succession is first to John's daughters and their heirs-male:

  • Henrietta, 2d Duchess of Marlborough (no surviving male issue; she had two sons, one of whom died young and the other died two years before she did))
  • Anne, Countess of Sunderland → the present line of Dukes of Marlborough
  • Elizabeth, Duchess of Bridgewater (male issue extinct)
  • Mary, Duchess of Montagu (male issue extinct)

Next, John's grand-daughters and their heirs-male:

  • Henrietta (dau of 2d Duchess), Duchess of Newcastle (no male issue)
  • Mary (dau of 2d Duchess), Duchess of Leeds (male issue extinct)
  • Anne (dau of Sunderland), Viscountess Bateman (male issue extinct)
  • Diana (dau of Sunderland) → Dukes of Bedford
  • Anne (dau of Bridgewater) → Earls of Jersey
  • Mary (dau of Montagu), Countess of Cardigan (no male issue)
  • Isabella (dau of Montagu), Countess of Beaulieu (no male issue)

If Anne's sons' issue should go extinct, it appears clear to me that the next heir is Bedford, not Jersey as the article now says. Comments? —Tamfang 05:52, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hopiakuta, why did you change my arrows above to question-marks? —Tamfang 07:46, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are wrong. Lady Diana Spencer's marriage to the fourth duke of Bedford only produced a still born son. The current dukes of Bedford descend from the fourth duke's second marriage. john k (talk) 13:54, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Aha. Thank you. —Tamfang (talk) 16:07, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've just noticed that question.

If the marks had changed, it had been inadvertent.

This is an old machine;

I was attempting to copy the arrow

into the addressbar, which did not work.

If you do it, w/ the left-facing, & the right-facing, as a searchterm , what do you get??

What about as an internallink ??

Thank You,

[[ hopiakuta | [[ [[%c2%a1]] [[%c2%bf]] [[ %7e%7e%7e%7e ]] -]] 09:13, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Various arrows redirect to Arrow (symbol). Why on earth would you want to put it in the addressbar? —Tamfang 01:36, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1704  ??

[edit]

The disc. has something about [1]:

•Duke of Marlborough;
•England;
•Holy Roman Empire;
•United Provinces at Blenheim;
• Blenheim ;
•1704;...

Someone, please, disambiguate this,...

Thank You,

[[ hopiakuta | [[ [[%c2%a1]] [[%c2%bf]] [[ %7e%7e%7e%7e ]] -]] 15:51, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguate what?? —Tamfang 07:39, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did write that. Please do not unwrite, edit, vandalize {< http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&oldid=152032956 >},...

As for the question, one portion would be: Does any specific paragraph list the extent of England, Britain, et al, late seventeenth [1600-1700] through whichever [possibly random] era? How much of Germany & France were English, &, to what extent?

Well, I could, as well, add those same questions f/ previous eras,...

Certainly, @ various moments, England has had North America, South America, Africa, Asia,...; as confusing as it is to follow that chronology, their relationship to mainland Europe is even moreso.

Thank You,

[[ hopiakuta | [[ [[%c2%a1]] [[%c2%bf]] [[ %7e%7e%7e%7e ]] -]] 08:43, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since the loss of Calais in 1702, the British crown's only possessions in France are the Channel Islands (which are not under the UK parliament). Britain captured Gibraltar in 1704, and may have had some Mediterranean islands at the time, I don't know. From 1714 to 1837, Britain and Ireland were in crown union with Hanover, i.e. they were separate states that happened to have the same monarch. Britain later held Heligoland, an island now part of Germany. I hope that answers at least one portion of your question. This is obviously not the place to give you a complete history of British overseas possessions. —Tamfang 01:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Remainder

[edit]

I find the remainder a bit confusing. So obviously, first it goes to the daughters of the first duke, and their heirs-male. Then it goes to the daughters of the daughters of the first duke, and their heirs male. After that, I'm a bit unclear. Does it next go to heirs male of daughters of daughters of daughters of the first duke? Or would the heirs male of daughters of sons of daughters of the first duke be eligible as well? If the former, I believe the next heirs after the Jerseys would be the Duke of Buccleuch and his relations. If the latter, it gets more complicated. john k (talk) 16:35, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article is not really quite right in referring to it passing in the female line. What it indicates is that there are a series of special remainders in favour of daughters and on the failure of their male issue to granddaughters. I would assume that the text given is a quotation for the origianl patent (or nearly so). Special remainders were not all that unusual in the 18th century; all that is unusual here is that there were so many. Another example is Viscount Cobham, a title inherited by Baron Lyttelton due to the failure of issue of a lady who had an earlier special remainder. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:28, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The issue I was getting at was how to interpret and other descendants into the future in like fashion, with the intent that the Marlborough title never become extinct. - do all great-granddaughters have special remainders, or only the daughters of his granddaughters? john k (talk) 01:08, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If that is an exact quotation, I would think so. However this is a remote possibility, and if it arose, I suspect that the matter would have to be determined by the House of Lords Priviledges Committee, or whoever determines the right to peerages now that most hereditary peers are excluded from the House of Lords. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:41, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You would think which? —Tamfang (talk) 05:26, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would still be the House of Lords Privileges committee, wouldn't it? My understanding was that they continued to rule on who was entitled to Irish peerages even after 1922, so presumably they would still decide on normal peerages. Especially since being a hereditary peer in the peerages of England, Scotland, Great Britain, and the UK is still meaningful, at least for the moment - it is the pool from which the 92 hereditaries still in the House are chosen whenever a vacancy arises. john k (talk) 21:24, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I do not know, being unfamiliar with the details of the legislation. However, some one must have the job of ruling on this. In the acse of Baronetcies, the Home Secretary acts as registrar and rules on succession. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:24, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The rules given indicate that every holder of the title will descend from the first Duke in a line that is all-female for some number of generations and then all-male for some other number of generations (either of which strictly could be zero). So only great-granddaughters (etc.) who are daughters of daughters of daughters (etc.) are treated specially. The last rule still seems ambiguous, however, because of the last-but-one rule, which appears to treat all "other" such granddaughters in age order, irrespective of the ages of their mothers: "other" excluding the daughters of the eldest daughter. In the next generation, therefore, would the corresponding "other" exclude only the daughters of the eldest daughter's eldest daughter, or the daughters of all the eldest daughter's daughters?
It's possible though that 'seniority' here is understood to mean primogeniture in each generation (i.e. as for male heirs). If so there is no such ambiguity, but then the rules as given seem a complicated way of stating it (which is a point against that interpretation). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.173.39.88 (talk) 13:58, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Remainder of subsidiary titles

[edit]

Do the subsidiary titles follow the same succession or a more standard arrangement? Timrollpickering (talk) 12:48, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would assume that all the peerages of the first duke were affected alike by the same Act of Parliament, for the same reason; but the earldom of Sunderland and barony Spencer of Wormleighton were subsequently attached to Marlborough by marriage, and is subject to (as you say) a more standard arrangement. —Tamfang (talk) 21:34, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

unique female succession?

[edit]
The Dukedom of Marlborough is the only dukedom in the United Kingdom that can still pass in the female line.

What, are there no surviving Scottish dukedoms that can? —Tamfang (talk) 21:31, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Remember how recent and rare Scottish dukedoms are; earldoms are more common. Our article lists eight, of which one is Rothesay (which does not descend); the oldest of the others is Hamilton (1643); presumably all of them are by patent. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:19, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And the dukedom of Hamilton passed to a woman in 1651; but that was a special remainder. Oh well. —Tamfang (talk) 08:20, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
According to our articles on them, the Scottish dukedoms of Hamilton, Montrose and Roxburghe can all still be inherited by women, though it is just as hypothetical as Marlborough in the first two cases (there would have to be no heirs male at all over a dozen generations back). I'll remove the wrong claim from the article, accordingly.--141.100.201.16 (talk) 15:37, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move to "Duke of Marlborough (title)"

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. The consensus here is that #1 is far and away the primary topic. To answer Peter E. James's concern, don't worry as part of executing this move I will be checking all of the links to this page in the near future. Feel free to help. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 22:56, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Duke of Marlborough → Duke of Marlborough (title) – This move would allow the Duke of Marlborough to become a redirect to British commander John Churchill, 1st Duke of Marlborough (1650 – 1722), per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. The first duke gets about 14,000 views a month,[2] whereas none of the other dukes get more than 2,600 views a month.[3] If you search for "Duke of Marlborough" -Wikipedia on Google books, you can see that this phrase generally refers to the first duke, and that it is usually used without qualification, i.e. as if it was his name. For example, there is a book entitled Blenheim 1704: The Duke of Marlborough's Masterpiece. Britannica mentions only the first duke. The 9th duke married a Vanderbilt heiress, but otherwise dukes two through eleven don't seem to done anything terribly notable. This proposal was prompted by a similar move for the article Duke of Wellington, discussed here. Kauffner (talk) 08:29, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Naming should follow real world usage and published sources. To keep this article where it is because there is a group of obscure Wiki articles with titles in the same form is incestuous. Adding a parenthetical disambiguator to make way for a primary topic is done all the time on Wiki. If you admit that the first duke is the primary topic, then WP:PRIMARYTOPIC directs us to make this entry redirect to him. Kauffner (talk) 02:54, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It would be like recommending Duke of York as a re-direct to Prince Andrew of the UK. GoodDay (talk) 17:35, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Nom clearly demonstrates that the first duke is the primary topic of the term "Duke of Marlborough". Jenks24 (talk) 05:16, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. This is probably a consistency thing for me. Maybe it's because I'm familiar with naming practices on here, but the idea that people typing in "Duke of Marlborough" are expecting to get a specific person (rather than an article on the title and those who held it) seems dubious. I'm sure QE2 is currently the most common target of the term Queen of England, but I wouldn't expect to see her article as the target of the link. Rennell435 (talk) 08:07, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- having a capnote pointing to John Churchill, 1st Duke of Marlborough will entirely meet the nom's objection. If this is taken to an extreme, it may be asked who is the primary subject for Earl of Shaftesbury? The first Earl, a minister under Charles II then leader of the opposition (treasonably); the third Earl, noted philosopher; or the 7th Earl, the 19th century philanthropist. We have a convention and should stick to it. It does not always work perfectly, but that cannot be helped. Allowing frequent exceptions is a recipe for chaos. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:24, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That the term should lead to the primary topic is a formal rule under WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, not an exception. Kauffner (talk) 04:28, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, the first duke is clearly the primary topic. It is false logic to claim that we are being "consistent" by declining to act on this - we are actually being inconsistent with the overriding WP:Primary topic principle, which serves readers well all over Wikipedia and which readers and editors expect to be followed in clear cases like this one.--Kotniski (talk) 10:52, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - per primary topic, the same principle has been adopted with Duke of Wellington. As to worries this might be a rule rather than an exception, I can't think of many instances where a title is so identified with one person save Marlborough, the Iron Duke, and the Duke of Edinburgh (though the last might be - at a push - accused of recentism). And to answer GoodDay's concern - Duke of York is much more ambiguous with King George VI, the battleship and the Grand one with all the troops. GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:03, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – If this works for Duke of Wellington no reason for general consensus not to have a similar move for other well known personalities, where appropriate. Also because I don't believe titles should be inherited, but earned - those who served a greater purpose to earn them title deserve the credit of having being the primary topic linked to them. As far as Wiki goes though, the results speak for themselves, and usually there is only one established person who people seek via that title. The rest are usually descendants of lesser importance. Ma®©usBritish (talk) 07:26, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for more or less the reasons laid out by Marcus; this will open the floodgates for well-meaning ideologues to argue their way through the peerage about which individual "deserves" to be the primary topic based on some half-baked POV. Better to be consistent with the occasional hatnote than open the door a crack for that kind of petty bickering. Choess (talk) 03:50, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:Well it was only a matter of time before we got to this one. This is yet another row sparked by the agenda around WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. As that guideline is under considerable debate at present I suggest it is entirely inappropriate to be requesting moves with that as the criterion. The most suitable thing to do would be to have a moratorium on changes based on WP:PT until the matter is resolved, and I have opened an ANI notice (here)on the subject. Xyl 54 (talk) 00:16, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • As far as the issue here is concerned, I would strongly oppose.
Both pages are named in accordance with WP:TITLE and with the naming conventions of the Peerage and Biography projects. John Churchill is a featured article as it stands and there is no interest there to re-title it; in fact there was no interest in disturbing this arrangement at all before the matter was raised by the WP:DAB crew.
There is also no overriding reason to make this change. A search for the first duke will (now) find a redirect at Duke of Marlborough John Churchill should anyone not know the dukes name, and the DoM article has a hatnote, and a statement in the fist paragraph, referring people to the JC page if that’s what they are looking for.
If the project has a lot of articles with links to DoM that are meant for JC, then the solution is to fix the shoddy editing that produced them, not to impose a shoddy re-titling exercise. Xyl 54 (talk) 00:24, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
A comment on Peter James' concern: Duke of Marlborough (title) will be a good link for all of these, but it will rarely be difficult to pick the right Duke: for example, Benwell was born in 1764; the Duke in that year was George Spencer, 4th Duke of Marlborough. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:16, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

English and/or Scotch peerage ?

[edit]

Reading Sir W. Churchill's biography, and learning without other clue that he served " as commander of the 6th Battalion of the Royal Scots Fusiliers", I was wondering whether these possible "Scottich roots" - or duties - might date back to his father. And as a matter of fact, the history of the title "Duke of Marlborough", what his father was, actually refers to the "Scottich peerage". But to the "Peerage of England" as well (Dukedom of Marlborough). May be something obvious for British people has to be precised for learners in British history, tradition and culture. Was W.Churchill Scottish ? Or can every British citizen serve in any Battalion, whatever Scottich, English or Welsh ? Thank you Crocy (talk) 16:45, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The title Baron of Eyemouth in the Scottish Peerage and Lord in the Parliament of Scotland could not have been conferred by William - long before the Glorious Revolution! Most have been by Charles II or by James Duke of York after his period viceroy in Scotland. Fenton Robb (talk) 20:25, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unique female succession, again

[edit]

The article here claims that "It is the only current dukedom...that can pass to a woman and through a woman" (repeated further down) which seems dubious to me.
Whitaker is clear enough on the rules in the UK: “Most hereditary peerages pass on death to the nearest male heir, but there are exceptions, and several are held by women. A woman peer in her own right retains her title after marriage, and (if her husband has a title also) she is designated by two titles jointly, the inferior one second” and “…the rank of a hereditary woman peer in her own right is inherited by her eldest son (or in some cases daughter)”.
And (though there aren't any dukedoms currently held by women) they list three countesses in their own right at present (Mar, Mountbatten and Sutherland), with one female heir (Mistress of Mar), and nine Baronesses, with two female heirs. So there doen't seem to be any problem in British inheritance rules over women inheriting titles.
it's also misleading; "the only dukedom...that can pass to a woman and through a woman" makes it sound like some pioneering move towards female equality. In fact, the terms of the grant are significantly worse for the Marlborough girls than they should be otherwise; under male-preference primogeniture Henrietta's daughter's wouldn't have been set aside for their male cousin.
There's been no response to the cite requests for about a year, now; are there any objections to the claim being deleted? Swanny18 (talk) 17:08, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing you have said in your post undermines the accuracy of the quote you began with. Garlicplanting (talk) 12:46, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for replying: So, do you have a citation to support it? The requests have been there for over a year now.
And it isn't so much the accuracy of the quote I'm questioning (though the Duchies of Cornwall, and Lancaster, spring to mind) but that it isn't relevant. There is nothing special in English inheritance law about titles passing “to a woman” or “through a woman”; we might just as well say it is the only current dukedom in the peerage of England that begins with an 'M': And as it is more disadvantageous than usual for this title to be passed “to” or “through a woman”, the statement is misleading.
Is there any good reason to keep it in? Swanny18 (talk) 20:40, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The DofL doesn't exist as a peerage and the DofC still doesn't have a provision for female succession. On your other point that "There is nothing special in English inheritance law about titles passing “to a woman” or “through a woman”" is just wrong. Of the ~3,500 peerages ever created the tiniest fraction have every had female succession as a possibility (most became extinct with it never occurring), the majority of those are baronies created nearly 700 years ago. Those since (except a few Scottish titles) have been created via special remainders (hint the word 'special') because they are so astonishingly rare. Only a handful have been created in the last 300 years and of those few almost all allow female succession only in the first generation so revert to (or already have) to standard male succession. So the M title remains exceptional in allowing female succession beyond the first generation and in being a Dukedom. This really isn't controversial stuff. Any of the usual peerage resources has a similar discussion for citation. Garlicplanting (talk) 11:10, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The DofL doesn't exist? That's questionable, surely? And “The Queen, the Duke of Lancaster” is a real person to a lot of people. Also, if DofC isn't inheritable by a woman it is certainly been inherited through a woman in the last two centuries.
I grant you inheritance by women suo jure is unusual (and I admit I hadn't realized how unusual 'til now: Living in a country which has, and has several times had, a female monarch, and knowing we don't go in for Salic Law here, and having looked in on the pages for Mar, Warwick, and Surrey, that have all had sui uxoris titleholders in their time, I had assumed it was more common).
But I still have a problem with the phrase “to a woman and through a woman”, which looks highly original to me. Not that long ago, the article simply said the succession was “through the female line” and that Marlborough got a special Act of Parliament to allow his daughters to inherit. Now, it has this phrase, and repeats it three times throughout the article. It also has to specify “current” (because we've had suo jure Duchesses before) and “dukedom” (as we have current female peers), which takes us back to dukedoms beginning with M.
So the phrase needs a citation (as was requested), or we should go back to the way it was; and we need to agree on whether it is significant enough to be in the introduction as one of the half-dozen most important facts about the title. Swanny18 (talk) 19:13, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
L is not a peerage it is a property holding that is called a duchy. The Crown cannot in law hold peerages. The DofC and the Duchy of C are similar - two quite separate entitles a title and a property holding. The closest thing to the mistaken Dukedom of L is the myth over the D of Normandy still misused in the C Islands. Whatever people think is the case it only matters what is fact and law. The DofC doesn't get inherited through anyone (in the peerage law sense of the word) since it is freestanding. It is automatically held by the eldest son of the sovereign even if that sovereign never held the title or could.
The peerages you cite are as you have now found truly very exceptional titles created 800-1000 yrs ago when succession was feudal and so female succession a possibility.
You won't find a citation for the specific wording since it is not a peerage law term. The form of words looks to my mind to be crafted to distinguish it from titles that can pass to but not through females or vice versa. Through the female line could be read to mean very many different things in succession terms so is probably not helpful in terms of precision. I cannot obviously think of a better form of wording that doesn't involve repeating the complicated remainder. Garlicplanting (talk) 13:48, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So am I right in thinking this phrase is entirely made-up, that it isn't some legal description, and that it isn't (and won't be) supported by any reference or citation? In which case there shouldn't be any problem about taking it out, and putting in something more useful (and trimming the repetition down a bit at the same time). Its precision may be better than repeating the entire complicated remainder, but as the Succession section does just that anyway, the supposed precision is a little redundant, I feel.
And I had imagined the DofL and DofC would be special cases, but my original point was they immediately sprang to mind (and if I am (as I hope) of average intelligence, then they'll probably spring to a lot of other peoples minds, too: quite possibly they sprang to the mind of whoever requested the citations in the first place). If we have to hedge the contention in the article round with caveats like “that one's a duchy, but it's not a dukedom” or “the Queen is the Duke of Lancaster, but she isnt a duke”, or “it's a title, but not a title”, or “she can possess the DofC, but can't pass it on” then it rapidly ceases to have any relevance. We're back to “duchies beginning with M”, or “duchies named after small market towns in the West Country”, or something.
Anyway, I've made some changes, which resolve the issues I have and should (hopefully) satisfy the citation requirement; if they are not acceptable please revert or edit accordingly, and we can carry on here. Swanny18 (talk) 22:44, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As ever this is a very technical area and the form of words was clearly an attempt to make it easier. The Remainder being unique has no term in peerage law (though the meaning given - though not the specific words we used are amply supported in the peerage sources)
I obviously wasn't clear enough. The Q is not D of Lancaster or Normandy. No such titles exist. It is simply a property holding given a name of a past title. You could create a property holding called the 'Duchy of Wikipedia' it would no more make you a duke or create a dukedom.
I can see the edit. It needs a little fettling as one bit is now wrong. I'll reword. Garlicplanting (talk) 12:22, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for tidying up those edits.
On the other stuff, I can appreciate your point and I appreciate the position in peerage law; what you said was clear enough. I was just mindful not everybody sees it that way, even if it is a myth or a mistake. But I can live with it. Swanny18 (talk) 23:09, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 07 April 2015

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. There is consensus here and I think at the previous move discussion that the 1st Duke is the primary topic for the term "Duke of Marlborough". ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 05:54, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Duke of Marlborough (title) → Duke of Marlborough – It doesn't require "title" as a disambiguation. None of the other peerage articles have this. See Category:Dukedoms in the Peerage of England, Category:Dukedoms in the Peerage of Scotland etc. – —МандичкаYO 😜 03:37, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:05, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not see significant validity in the arguments in the earlier thread. The current Duke of Marlborough is, in our time, a popularly referenced Duke of Marlborough but he is still just a Duke of Marlborough. I appreciate that there is only one Duke of Marlborough at any one time but I think that there are still parallels with the use in Wikipedia of such, ahhm, titles as Baron, Count, Duke, Grand duke and Viscount etc. The article is not about the title but about, according to the TOC: the History of the Dukedom; the Family seat; the Succession to the title; Other titles of the Dukes; the Coats of arms; the Motto; 'the Earls of Marlborough, second creation (1689); and the Dukes of Marlborough (1702). GregKaye 07:15, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, articles on individuals holding substantive titles are usually and should be found under their respective names with the title suffixed. The generic "Duke of Someplace" has largely replaced "Dukes of Someplace" and "Dukedom of Someplace" as the name of the article about a title's history, succinctly referring to that of the titleholders insofar as each bore the title. No reader need desist from considering any particular duke as the Duke in their own estimation, but why should Wikipedia play favourites when it can list and link to all of them, and show us how they are connected (or not) besides? A distinction without a difference seems to be in the making: an article about the title is about "the History of the Dukedom, etc." FactStraight (talk) 07:59, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. It's safe to assume that nearly everyone who types in the "Duke of Marlborough" as a search term is looking for the commander who fought Louis XIV. Printed encyclopedias don't have peerage articles at all. I don't see the logic in arguing that everything else should move out of the way for them. Man from Nephew (talk) 09:57, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Printed encyclopedias don't have peerage articles at all. On a point of information: the 1911 Britannica had an article on "Marlborough, Earls and Dukes of". Opera hat (talk) 19:43, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The article title "Dukes of Marlborough" would certainly get my vote, per 1911 Britannica. As near as I can tell, the practice of referring to a peerage as "Duke of Foo" is strictly Wikipediaese. Man from Nephew (talk) 05:52, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- In occasional cases, the first Duke (or a particular duke) is by far the most likely search target. Accordingly the Duke of Foo redirects to the article on that duke, and it has a capnote so that those who wanted the list article can easily reach it at a second click. This is an estabnlished practice, whcih we should nto change. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:56, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the nom is wrong: Duke of Wellington redirects to the first Duke. I suspect that there will be other cases of this, but they are exceptional. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:01, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - the "Duke of Foo" title shouldn't always redirect to the first duke, it should either redirect to the most notable and primary topic duke, or it should be a page for the title, or it should be a disambig. It's probably case specific. In this case, as Man from Nephew says, the first duke is the primary topic, so this is fine as it is.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:53, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Wikidata description

[edit]

This article is not about a "folk song". Please could someone able to correct this data do so. Thank you for looking at this. GreyGreenWhy (talk) 17:56, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

6 months later, I am able to edit Wikidata a little so have fixed this. This is what I tried and failed to write on the talk of the wikidata entry:
I would be surprised if there is any language of Wikipedia on which this title refers to the folk song [4] rather than the English noble title or the person. I have altered the description accordingly, but I cannot figure out how to change the rest of the wikidata entry. Thanks, GreyGreenWhy (talk) 14:31, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Viscount Churchill

[edit]

The Line of succession section omits the 2nd through 5th Barons Churchill, of whom the last three were also the 1st through 3rd Viscounts Churchill, a line that became extinct in 2017: see Baron Churchill (1815 creation). Is this a deliberate omission? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 14:38, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Redrose64: All extinct branches are absent. --95.24.66.204 (talk) 09:34, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 15 May 2023

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not Moved (non-admin closure) >>> Extorc.talk 06:27, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Duke of Marlborough (title) → Duke of Marlborough – The status of the 1st Duke of Marlborough as the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is weak. The present (12th) Duke frequently ranks above the 1st Duke in pageviews. [5]estar8806 (talk) ★ 01:53, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The line of succession and Lady Olympia

[edit]

As of right now Olympia is marked #29 in succession as if she would succede to the title should all heirs male of Anne Spencer, Countess of Sunderland die. But that seems to contradict both the previous section of the article and my understanding of what the remainder says.

It says that the title goes to
the 1st Duke's Heirs Male of the Body Lawfully Begotten (HMBLB);
his eldest daughter and her HMBLBs;
his second and other daughters, in seniority, alongside each of theirs HMBLBs;
his eldest daughter's oldest daughter and her HMBLBs;
his eldest daughter's second and other daughters, in seniority, alongside each of theirs HMBLBs;
all other daughters of his daughters, in seniority, alongside each of theirs HMBLBs and and other descendants into the future in like fashion, with the intent that the Marlborough title never become extinct.

If I am reading it right, then Olympia could only succede if the male-line descendants of EVERY single female that was born in the previous generations counting from the 1st Duke also died out.

I am reading it as: Heirs Male of the 1st Holder, All Daughters in primogeniture order and their HMBLBs, All Granddaughters in male-preference primogeniture order and their HMBLBs, All Greatgranddaughters in male-preference primogeniture order and their HMBLBs etc? This would result in the tree below, where the marks are (Order of female and her HMBLBs, Dagger if the line is certainly extinct and otherwise a Roman numeral as the order among the living branches)

  • John Churchill, 1st Duke of Marlborough (1650–1722) and his HMBLBs
    • (1,†) Harriet Churchill (1679–1679) and her HMBLBs
    • (2,) Henrietta Churchill (1681–1733) and her HMBLBs
      • (6,†) Harriet Godolphin (1701–1776) and her HMBLBs
      • (7,†) Margaret Godolphin (1703–1703) and her HMBLBs
      • (8,†) Mary Godolphin (1723–1764) and her HMBLBs
        • via Francis Osborne, 5th Duke of Leeds (1751–1799):
          • (20,IV) Mary Osborne (1776–1862) and her HMBLBs (headed by the 9th Earl of Chichester)
          • (21,†) Catherine Osborne (1791–1878) and her HMBLBs
        • (14,†) Harriot Osborne (1744–1744) and her HMBLBs
    • (3,) Anne Churchill (1683–1716) and her HMBLBs (current line)
      • via Charles Spencer, 3rd Duke of Marlborough (1706–1758)
        • via George Spencer, 4th Duke of Marlborough (1739–1817)
          • (22,†) Caroline Spencer (1763–1813) and her HMBLBs
          • (23,V) Elizabeth Spencer (1764–1812) and her HMBLBs (a Subset of #3, headed by Robert Vere Spencer Bernard)
          • (24,VI) Charlotte Spencer (1769–1802) and her HMBLBs (possibly †)
          • (25,VII) Anne Spencer (1773–1865) and her HMBLBs (headed by the 12th Earl of Shaftesbury)
          • (26,VIII) Amelia Spencer (1774–1829) and her HMBLBs (possibly †)
        • (15,II) Diana Spencer (1734–1808) and her HMBLBs (headed by 9th Viscount Bolingbroke)
          • (27,IX) Henriette St John (1762–1834) and her HMBLBs (possibly †)
          • (28,†) Anne St John (1764–1764) and her HMBLBs
          • (29,†) Elisabeth Beauclerk (1766–1793) and her HMBLBs
          • (30,X) Mary Beauclerk (1766–1851) and her HMBLBs (possibly †)
        • (16,†) Elizabeth Spencer (1737–1831) and her HMBLBs
          • (31,†) Charlotte Herbert (1773–1784) and her HMBLBs
      • via John Spencer (1708–1746)
        • via John Spencer, 1st Earl Spencer (1734–1783)
          • (32,†) Georgiana Spencer (1757–1806) and her HMBLBs
          • (33,XI) Henrietta Spencer (1761–1821) and her HMBLBs (headed by the 12th Earl of Bessborough)
          • (34,†) Charlotte Spencer (1765–1766) and her HMBLBs
          • (35,†) Louisa Spencer (1769–1769) and her HMBLBs
        • (17,†) Diana Spencer (1735–1743) and her HMBLBs
      • (9,†) Anne Spencer (1702–1769) and her HMBLBs
      • (10,†) Diana Spencer (1710–1735) and her HMBLBs
    • (4,†) Elizabeth Churchill (1687–1714) and her HMBLBs
      • (11,I) Anne Egerton (1705–1762) and her HMBLBs (headed by the 10th Earl of Jersey)
        • via George Villiers, 4th Earl of Jersey (1735–1805):
          • (36,XII) Charlotte Villiers (1771–1808) and her HMBLBs (headed by the 28th Baron de Clifford)
          • (37,XIII) Anne Villiers (1772–1832) and her HMBLBs (headed by the 7th Earl of Durham)
          • (38,XIV) Caroline Villiers (1774–1835) and her HMBLBs (headed by the 8th Marquess of Anglesey)
          • (39,†) Georgiana Villiers (1776–1776) and her HMBLBs
          • (40,XV) Sarah Villiers (1779–1852) and her HMBLBs (possibly †)
          • (41,†) Elizabeth Villiers (1783–1810) and her HMBLBs
          • (42,†) Frances Villiers (1786–1866) and her HMBLBs
          • (43,XVI) Harriet Villiers (1788–1870) and her HMBLBs (headed by the 10th Baron Bagot of Blithfield Hall)
    • (5,†) Mary Churchill (1689–1751) and her HMBLBs
      • (12,†) Isabella Montagu (1706–1786) and her HMBLBs
        • (18,†) Isabella Hussey-Montagu (1750–1772) and her HMBLBs
      • (13,†) Mary Montagu (1711–1775) and her HMBLBs
        • (19,III) Elizabeth Montagu (1743–1827) and her HMBLBs (head by the 10th Duke of Buccleuch)
          • (44,XVII) Elizabeth Scott (1767–1837) and her HMBLBs (head by the 16th Earl Home)
          • (45,XVIII) Mary Scott (1769–1823) and her HMBLBs (headed by the 9th Earl of Courtown)
          • (46,†) Caroline Scott (1774–1854) and her HMBLBs
          • (47,XIX) Harriet Scott (1780–1833) and her HMBLBs (headed by the 13th Marquess of Lothian)

212.79.110.67 (talk) 00:46, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think that's right (at least in principle - I haven't checked the chart). As I understand it, male-preference primogeniture applies from Generation X (with X = 1 being the 1st Duke), with the proviso that if that male line runs out, you effectively treat all the women in Generation X + 1 as if they were men; if their male line runs out, you repeat the process - but the critical point is that you only do that one generation at a time. That's only operated once: the male line from Generation 1 ran out (as the 1st Duke had no surviving sons), so the women in Generation 2 (the 1st Duke's daughters) were treated as if they were men; but some of those women's male lines still survive, so we haven't even got around to treating the women in Generation 3 as men yet. For Lady Olympia to inherit, the male lines descending from all the women in Generation 2 would need to run out, and then so would all the male lines descending from women in Generation 3, Generation 4, etc, all the way down to wherever Lady Olympia is (Generation 14, if my count is right). Of all those descended from the 1st Duke, she's probably actually one of the last in line. Proteus (Talk) 11:43, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Duke_of_Marlborough_(title)&oldid=1220389201"