Template talk:Extant British dukedoms

The list is presently ordered by the precedence of the holder (i.e. the same as Template:British dukes) rather than the precedence of the title. I'm re-ordering it. Opera hat (talk) 11:26, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem I have with the current order of precedence is that all Royal dukes take precedence over ordinary dukes, irrespective of the date of creation. This is amplified further at the Coronation ceremony, whereby Royal dukes where coronation robes with six rows of dots in the ermine, whereas ordinary dukes have only four rows of dots in the ermine. The coronets of Royal dukes is also different from ordinary dukes (see the article on here entitled 'Coronets' where this is clearly illustrated).

(Please note: the Duke of Edinburgh was originally entered in the rolls of the House of Lords as a duke, not a Royal duke. Although HRH The Prince Philip was subsequently created a Prince of the United Kingdom, this did not officially change his status in the roll of the House of Lords as a Royal duke - to do this the title would have to have been re-created as a Royal duke. Despite all this, Prince Philip still wore the insignia of a Royal duke with a Type II Princes' coronet at the Coronation in 1953). Ds1994 (talk) 20:29, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A little late to the discussion, but I think it's best to leave it how it is, giving precedence by order of creation. It is not the dukedom itself that are necessarily "royal", but the fact that the holder is also a prince. For example, once the current dukes of Gloucester and Kent (both grandsons of a monarch) die, their sons will inherit their dukedoms but not be royal dukes (as great-grandsons of a monarch).Sotakeit (talk) 16:45, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sutherland and Gordon listed in UK peerage not Scotland

Why are the titles Duke of Sutherland (originally created in 1230) and Duke of Gordon (originally created in 1684) listed under the Peerage of the United Kingdom on the Template: Extant British Dukedoms instead of the Peerage of Scotland, given that their original creations were part of the Scottish peerage? Shouldn't the categorization reflect the original peerage of their creation, as it does for other titles like Duke of Lennox or Duke of Hamilton? Thx. Fega (talk) 12:53, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Scottish dukedom of Gordon became extinct in 1836. The Scottish earldom of Sutherland is an extant earldom not an extant dukedom. DrKay (talk) 14:31, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DrKay thank you! I’m sure I didn’t phrase my question properly as I’m not a native English speaker. I don’t understand the categorization of Gordon, as I believe it belongs in the Peerage of Scotland.

I know that the title Duke of Gordon was created twice:

Dukes of Gordon, first creation (1684–1836), Peerage of Scotland
Dukes of Gordon, second creation (1876–), Peerage of the United Kingdom

In the template, it’s listed under the Peerage of the United Kingdom based on the second creation, meaning it’s categorized by the most recent creation.

- Am I correct that the Peerage of Great Britain existed from 1707 to 1800?

- Am I correct that the Peerage of the United Kingdom exists from 1801 onward?

- Does this mean that all titles are categorized into peerages based on the date of their most recent creation?

- Within a peerage, is the date of the first creation what determines categorization?

Thank you in advance for your answer! Fega (talk) 14:52, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The template only shows current or extant titles, so the titles are categorized by most recent creation because that will be the extant creation. The earlier creations will be extinct. DrKay (talk) 15:17, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

THX. Fega (talk) 15:19, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]