Jump to content

Talk:Duke of Hamilton

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

(First comments)

[edit]

Deleting the information about the Earls of Selkirk has left a discontinuity. Mintguy (T) 22:51, 9 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I'm sorry...Can you recover it? I think the Earl of Selkirk stuff should mostly be in its own article, regardless. john 23:29, 9 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Is this the same family that Alexander Hamilton is descended from? Forrest McDonald's 1979 Alexander Hamilton: A Biography mentions that

"Hamilton's father, James Hamilton, was of noble lineage. He was the fourth son of a Scottish laird, descended from a ducal line, who had married the daughter of an "ancient Baronet," Sir Robert Pollock. Such a bloodline, as Hamilton remarked late in life, gave him "better pretensions than most of those who in this Country plume themselves on Ancestry."

Ron Chernow's 2004 Alexander Hamilton similarly states

Hamilton's other star-crossed parent, James Hamilton, had also been bedeviled by misfortune in the islands. Born around 1718, he was the fourth of eleven children (nine sons, two daughters) of Alexander Hamilton, the laird of Grange in Stevenston Parish in Ayrshire, Scotland, southwest of Glasgow. In 1711, that Alexander Hamilton, the fourteenth laird in the so-called Cambuskeith line of Hamiltons, married Elizabeth Pollock, the daughter of a baronet. As Alexander must have heard ad nauseam in his boyhood, the Cambuskeith Hamiltons possessed a coat of arms and for centuries had owned a castle near Kilmarnock named the Grange. Indeed, that lineage can be traced back to teh fourteenth century in impeccable genealogical tables, and he boasted in later years that he was the scion of a blue-ribbon Scottish family: "The truth is that, on the question who my parents were, I have better pretensions than most of those who in this country plume themselves on ancestry."

Publius 21:40, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Earl of March

[edit]

Gentlemen, if the 1st Duke of Hamilton had been created Earl of March instead of Earl of Arran, Lanark, and Cambridge, would he and 2nd Duke of Hamilton have done anything differently during the Civil War (Did the Scottish Earldom of March still have special responsibilities or privileges associated with it at that time?) --Anglius 23:33, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on the titles - When the Dukedom of Lauderdale was created, the Duke had as a secondary title that of Marquess of March to demonstrate his descent from the Dunbar Earls of March. When he died those two titles died with him. Comment on the question - I think the old responsibilities for the Scottish Marches were eroded if not defunct by the time of the Civil War. I've never seen mentions of anyone with those responsibilities in the 17th century. I could look it up. Possibly Dawson mentions it. David Lauder 15:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Surname

[edit]

We seem to have been promoting name forms which are incorrect. From what I can gather in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Lord Selkirk changed his surname to Hamilton when he married the Duchess. He was then created duke in his own right for his lifetime after the Restoration. From 1656 onwards, he used the surname Hamilton. His son only ever used the surname Hamilton. The name "Douglas-Hamilton" was not devised until the nineteenth century. john k (talk) 04:27, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abernethy, Fife and the crown

[edit]
Through the Lordship of Abernethy, the Duke of Hamilton (as successor to the Earl of Fife) has the duty of bearing the Crown of Scotland.

This line could bear explaining. Why is Abernethy "successor" to Fife? —Tamfang (talk) 05:29, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Lords of Abernethy were a cadet branch of the original Mac Duff, Earls of Fife. When Duncan IV died with out male heirs the office of crown bearer went to the Lords of Abernethy, while the earldom was inherited by Duncan's daughter. apparently the succession laws changed, because the Earl of Angus inherited it from his mother. Tinynanorobots (talk) 00:41, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

'Marquises'

[edit]

Is marquises really the standard plural of marquis in Scotland? It looks funny to one who knows the French — masculine un marquis, deux marquis, feminine une marquise, deux marquises. What's the feminine in Scotland? —Tamfang (talk) 07:26, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Marchioness, as per England. And yes that's the correct spelling for collective Marquises! Brendandh (talk) 17:56, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How are they pronounced? —Tamfang (talk) 16:46, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Marquis is pronounced exactly the same as Marquess, i.e. "Mark'is" or "Markwess" (dependent on local accent or dialect). The Scots form retains the original French spelling but is phonetically Scots, whereas the English version is an English phonetic rendering of the French e.g.: Boeuf-Beef; Porc-Pork etc. The Scots use can be attributed to the various treaties and personal unions between the Kingdom of France and the Kingdom of Scotland known as the Auld Alliance, whereby the Scots and French were mutual citizens of each country, and when long after Norman-French fell out of use in the English court, a later French was still in common use at the Scots' court well into the late 16thc. The common usage in English (including Scottish Standard English, this is English wikipedia afterall!) to represent a plural following a terminal letter 's' is to insert an 'e' between the 's's, to avoid confusion with possesives. A couple of examples: Glass, Glasses, Glass's; or, Angus (one), Angus's (possessive) or Anguses (loads of them).
Marchioness is prononounced (forgive lack of IPA!) "Marsh-on-ess".
Furthermore when looking at various records relating to English peers of this dignity until the 19thc. their title is frequently written as 'Marquis' Brendandh (talk) 01:04, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Marquis or Marquess?

[edit]

We need some consistency over whether the subsiduary titles are 'Marquis of...' or 'Marquess of...'. Debtrett's favours the latter. Shipsview (talk) 14:58, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Marquis it is then - or will be if someone tackles this article, and the individual Dukes' pages. Shipsview (talk) 21:09, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The following seems to be the generally accepted style, and the one used by the family:

The Duchess of Hamilton & Brandon (b 1976), wife of Alexander Douglas Douglas-Hamilton, 16th Duke of Hamilton (b 31 Mar 1978), gave birth to a son and heir Douglas Charles Douglas-Hamilton, styled Marquess of Douglas & Clydesdale, born 9 July, 2012.

Shipsview (talk) 07:59, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

early peerages

[edit]

Why are the titles Lord Hamilton (1445) and Marquis of Hamilton (1599) not in the list at the top of the page? —Tamfang (talk) 18:13, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps those titles became extinct in 1651? john k (talk) 20:46, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Earl of Cambridge

[edit]

I have asked User:Brendandh to provide a source for the claim that the Dukes of Hamilton are still Earls of Cambridge (see User talk:Proteus, User talk:Brendandh and User:Proteus/Duke of Hamilton for discussions). In my view, the source provided does not say what Brendandh says it does (and rather states that the Dukes hold an Earldom of Arran and Cambridge in the Peerage of Scotland created in 1643 along with the Dukedom, and no longer an English Earldom of Cambridge). I have therefore marked as disputed the relevant sections. I would be grateful if other editors could study the sources, as it seems clear that Brendandh and I are not going to agree. Proteus (Talk) 11:34, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Both Complete Peerage and Scottish Peerage agree that
  • The 2nd Marquess of Hamilton [a Scottish Peerage] was created Earl of Cambridge, in the English Peerage in 1619.
  • Both of his sons died in the Civil Wars, the second after Worcester in 1651; the English Peerages were therefore extinct 1651.
  • The elder son, the 3rd Marquess, received a grant of several Scottish titles in 1643, most of them with a special remainder (first to his brother, then to his own daughter and her descendants bearing the name of Hamilton, then to his heir of entail). These include the titles of
    • Duke of Hamilton
    • Earl of Arran and Cambridge (a single Scottish title, of that style)
    • others.
  • It is those titles which Anne Hamilton, Duchess of Hamilton, inherited; they had been held by her father and uncle.
Anne Hamilton did not, therefore, surrender the Earldom of Cambridge, which she did not hold, and it was not regranted to her. During the Restoration, several Stuart princelings were created Earl of Camnbridge; so was the youngest son of George III; if there had been an Earl of Cambridge in existence, some other title would have been chosen.
General statements about her receiving the titles of her father and uncle do not disprove this; she did receive their titles. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:28, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rosalind K. Marshall in Anne's ODNB biography confirms this : At the age of nineteen Anne became duchess of Hamilton and Châtelherault, marchioness of Clydesdale, countess of Arran and Cambridge, and Lady Aven, Polmont, Machanshire, and Innerdale. Regards, PurpleHz (talk) 13:07, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hamilton/Douglas-Hamilton

[edit]

When exactly did the change happen? Looking at the London Gazette, the future 10th Duke is called "the Right Honourable Alexander Hamilton (commonly called Marquis of Douglas and Clydesdale)" in 1806, his younger brother is called "the Right Honourable Archibald Hamilton, commonly called Lord Archibald Hamilton" the next year, and the younger son of the 11th Duke (later 7th Earl of Selkirk) is called "Lord Charles George Archibald Hamilton" in 1872. The earliest reference I can find to anyone with the surname Douglas-Hamilton is in 1874, with a reference to "Charles Henry Douglas- Hamilton, late of Upper Mount, Shanklin, Isle of Wight, in the county of Southampton, Esquire, Commander in the Royal Nary, deceased, who died on or on or about the 30th day of November, 1873" (i.e. the father of the 13th Duke). This accords with Cracroft's Peerage, which asserts that the surname was adopted by Augustus Barrington Price Anne Powell Hamilton (father of the Commander Douglas-Hamilton above and grandfather of the 13th Duke), at some unspecified point before he died in 1849 (if we can rely on the fact that he is "Hamilton later Douglas-Hamilton" and yet his children are simply "Douglas-Hamilton", then at some point before the birth of his first son in 1807). Is this correct? I can see no evidence it was ever used by the 12th Duke or his brother (and, indeed, as the 12th Duke was a courtesy peer from birth, he never would have used a surname in any event), and it seems it may have been an innovation purely of the 13th Duke's line of the family. Proteus (Talk) 22:54, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Burkes Peerage of 1922 contains the earliest reference to Douglas-Hamilton that I can find: Lieut Augustus Barrington Price Anne Powell Douglas-Hamilton, RN (1781-1849). He was (if I have this correct) a great-grandson of the 4th Duke, and grandfather of the 13th Duke. From The Peerage.com, it appears that he changed his name from Hamilton to Douglas-Hamilton. I am not sure whose argument this supports, but it is my tuppence ha'penny worth. Shipsview (talk) 11:47, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but this has already been gone through some years ago. When William Douglas, 1st Earl of Selkirk married Anne, Duchess of Hamilton in 1656, he took on the surname Douglas-Hamilton in exactly the same way that he took on his jure uxoris dukedom from his wife. Whether or not later generations were wrongly referred to as Hamilton, by commentators of the day is neither here nor there, that is the date. In much the same way as the 3rd Duke of Buccleuch married the daughter of the Duke of Montagu and appended her surname to his own. Brendandh (talk) 17:06, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The only mention of the issue in this talk page I can see is in the "Surname" section above, where John K stated the opposite to your position. Is there a different discussion you could direct me to? (In any event, the fact that something has been discussed before isn't a bar to it being discussed again.) Do you have a source for your assertion? I can't find any reference works saying that. Those that mention it say he "assumed the surname of Hamilton" or similar (note not the "additional surname of Hamilton"). Did double-barrelled surnames even exist in the 17th century? I can't think of any examples from that time. (By the way, the London Gazette isn't "commentators", it's the official newspaper of the British Government. It's about as authoritative a source as you could get, and it would be most odd if the Dukes of Hamilton let it get their surname wrong for 200 years.) Proteus (Talk) 19:00, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Some sources: (a) Balfour Paul's Scots Peerage states (vol. VII, pp. 516-517), of the future 2nd Earl of Selkirk, "CHARLES HAMILTON, who, with other brothers and sisters, bore from his birth his mother's, not his father's name ... On his assumption of the title [i.e. the Earldom of Selkirk] the Earl dropped the name of Hamilton, and resumed his patronymic of Douglas."; (b) Debrett's Peerage 1790 says that William Douglas "took the name of Hamilton", and calls the 8th Duke "Douglas Hamilton"; (b) Debrett's Peerage 1825 calls the 10th Duke "Alexander Hamilton"; (d) Debrett's Peerage 1840 does likewise; and (e) Debrett's Peerage 1865 calls the 12th Duke "William Alexander Louis Stephen Hamilton Douglas", and gives the ducal surname as "Hamilton Douglas" (no hyphen) (but unfortunately doesn't say when this surname was adopted). Proteus (Talk) 19:48, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't be silly Mr Proteus. DH at the end of my signature does stand for what you seem to find so odd. Have you read the above? 19th c. commentators may say what they will re:surnames, because rather like some wikipedians, they didn't feel the need to qualify their sources and back then as now pedantry was tedious, and the reliance on information that was at the least 3rd hand . Have you been to Lennoxlove House? There you will see on the main staircase, a collection of portraits, by Lely and others, with contemporary frames with contemporary nameplates. On the first floor landing there is a portrait of the 4th Duke of Hamilton (also the 6th Earl of Cambridge just to further wiggle yer woggle!), and on either side portraits of his parents. Further down the stair, you would come accross more portraits of his brothers, all with the patronym Douglas-Hamilton. So, what's your story with this then? Brendandh (talk) 00:20, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Jolly good... but "the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth". Would you know of a published study on the Lennoxlove portraits that would support this contemporary usage of the dual surname? Opera hat (talk) 01:14, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
First, I would appreciate it if you would treat me with a little more courtesy, and cease with the insults. We write articles based on reliable sources. I have tried to discuss this issue based on such sources, but your first response to me in doing so is simply "Please don't be silly Mr Proteus". Neither patronising nor insulting me will contradict the sources I have cited, and it is not "silly" to engage in discussion in line with Wikipedia guidelines. Your approach seems to be "Decide what you think the answer is, and then dismiss any sources that disagree as clearly wrong. The reason they are wrong is that they don't agree with you. Their authors must be unreliable idiots." A while ago, when we were discussing the Earldom of Cambridge, you stressed how respectable Sir James Balfour Paul was, and how reliable he was as a source (more so than even the Complete Peerage, I believe). Now, when he disagrees with you (well, he disagreed with you then, as you'd misread him, but that's another matter), he wasn't pedantic enough, he misused sources and he relied on third-hand information? And the same with every other reference work available? Instead, we're to rely on something written on the bottom of a painting?
Secondly, yes, I had worked out that you were likely to be a Douglas-Hamilton. (I assume you're Brendan Thomas Douglas-Hamilton, son of the late Lord Hugh Malcolm Douglas-Hamilton, not that it's particularly relevant.) This doesn't give you any special authority, either under Wikipedia guidelines or indeed factually (family history and lore passed down by word of mouth, even in noble families, is notoriously unreliable), and indeed it makes me (although of course other editors may take the opposite view) doubt your neutrality somewhat, as you seem to take any viewpoint contrary to your own (the Duke of Hamilton is not Earl of Cambridge, his surname was a 19-century invention and was not held by the 1st to 12th Dukes, etc.) not merely as someone disagreeing with you but as a personal affront and an insult to your family. I suggest you either take a step back, and consider the issues that arise on this topic neutrally and without preconceptions or bias, or decide that you cannot do so and restrict yourself to editing in non-Douglas-Hamilton topics.
Thirdly, addressing the point at hand, as Opera hat has mentioned, your argument is original research. Do you have any reliable sources contradicting the Debrett's/Scots Peerage/ONDB (cited by John K above) usage? (As to the paintings, we would need evidence not only that the nameplates say what they say, but a published source confirming them to be contemporary.) Because the situation at the moment is that all the reliable sources cited seem to me to show that the surname of the Dukes of Hamilton was "Hamilton" until the 12th Duke changed it to "Hamilton Douglas", and then "Douglas-Hamilton" after the title was inherited by the 13th Duke, whose branch of the family had adopted this surname seemingly at some point in the early-to-mid 19th century. That may not be true, but it's what the sources say. I'm entirely happy to amend my view if you do produce such sources (you're probably in a better position than any of us to access them, and if you do want to help write an accurate and neutral article you'd almost certainly be a massively helpful contributor) - I have absolutely no interest in the early Dukes bearing any particular surname (or any particular title, or whatever), I just want the article to be as accurate as possible. Proteus (Talk) 09:08, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
More informations on the 4th Duke from the ODNB:
‘James, like his twelve brothers and sisters, took his mother's surname, for the second duke of Hamilton's entail stipulated that her husband and children were to ‘take on, use and weir the name and armes of the house of Hamilton’ (Notes by third duke on the second duke's entail, Hamilton archives at Lennoxlove, RH 55/32/4; also 1693 memorandum for the fourth duke, RH 89/36/21)’. Regards, PurpleHz (talk) 13:38, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
since all the sources say just Hamilton, I will change it. btw wasn't the last names of nobility regulated by law? I remember reading about someone discussing asking permission of the crown to use a double name. anyway, there should be some legal documents that would have the full legal name of such important persons. Tinynanorobots (talk) 22:25, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OFFS, "all the sources"? Why don't you chaps just go and have a trot to Lennoxlove and have a look at the hard copy, eh? Brendandh (talk) 23:57, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a horse, and if I did, I wouldn't be in trotting distance. Tinynanorobots (talk) 16:14, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well perhaps you should..... Brendandh (talk) 20:42, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]


This appears to partly a conflict between authorities: Complete Peerage agrees with the research above (the tenth and eleventh dukes were Hamilton, the 12th Douglas-Hamilton) but ODNB calls all three of them Douglas-Hamilton

However, ODNB calls the fourth Duke James Hamilton and explains "Called after his maternal grandfather, James, like his twelve brothers and sisters, took his mother's surname, for the second duke of Hamilton's entail stipulated that her husband and children were to ‘take on, use and weir the name and armes of the house of Hamilton’" (quoting from the Lennoxlove archives; you may want to doublecheck them, Brendandh). So was the change late in the seventeenth century, in the eighteenth, or in the nineteenth? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:47, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In brief, no reliable source has been presented saying that the fourth Duke (or most of his successors) were named Douglas-Hamilton. There is reliable authority that he did, and was required to, name himself Hamilton. Several reliable sources have been presented saying that the 12th or 13th Duke was a Douglas-Hamilton, and a reasonable claim as to when the name changed. Only a single editor objects to representing this. Let us have data, not vague claims about ancestral memory and vril; Wikipedia is compiled from reliable sources. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:24, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As an outside view, I would support those providing examples of the widespread usage of 'Hamilton' for those before the 12th Duke, as opposed to 'Douglas-Hamilton'. There seems to be definite consensus on this talkpage that the earlier members of the family should be simply 'xxx Hamilton, xth Duke of Hamilton' (and similar), and as the single opposing editor, Brendandh, no matter what his family background is, needs to change that consensus before carrying out the mass reversions he is doing to oppose those presenting these sources. Copy and paste moves to place pages at different titles, such as seen at Lord Anne Hamilton are procedurally unacceptable, see cut-and-paste moves for why. Benea (talk) 22:38, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

arms

[edit]

if the last name is douglas-hamilton, shouldn't the arms have douglas in the first quarter? Tinynanorobots (talk) 22:27, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, because these are the differenced arms of Hamilton. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:45, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

double name and chiefdom

[edit]

how is it the the Duke of Hamilton has a double name and is Chief of Hamilton? Tinynanorobots (talk) 03:16, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The death certificate of the 15th Duke gives his name as Hamilton, not D-H, and the 15th Duke always called himself Angus Hamilton - he never used D-H. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sebmelmoth (talk • contribs) 10:34, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is because Peers, like Monarchs, do not have proper surnames unless they forfeit their peerage, they use their territorial designation instead. Cf. the recently passed Otto von Habsburg. Brendandh (talk) 21:51, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is not right. In the 1980s when Michael Ancram became a Government Minister, the Lord Lyon wrote to him to say his name was either Michael Ker or the Earl of Ancram but not a mixture. Likewise Tam Galbraith, the father of the current Lord Strathclyde, never called himself Tam Strathclyde. This muddle of geography and surname is a modern affectation. Sebmelmoth (talk) 11:44, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your point? You have just contradicted your earlier comment. Brendandh (talk) 12:11, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
...and yet Lord Wemyss is Chief of Clan Charteris, not of Clan Wemyss. Opera hat (talk) 22:11, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Was just answering Sebmelmoth's comment above. Operahat, The Earl of Erroll is Chief of the Hays, the Earl of Crawford is chief of the Lindsays rather than the Crawfords, the Duke of Tetuan is still the O'Donnell. Your point? Brendandh (talk) 23:32, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see. I thought you were saying to Tinynanorobots that the Duke of Hamilton could be Chief of Hamilton because his title was Hamilton, regardless of his surname. Opera hat (talk) 00:23, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Going back to the original question: I've just had a look at the website of the Standing Council of Scottish Chiefs. In the section on requirements for recognition, they cite a 1950 case as determining that one cannot be Chief of a Clan unless one bears that surname alone. It gives the example of the Dukes of Buccleuch having changed their surname from Montagu-Douglas-Scott to Scott in order to remain Chief of Clan Scott (retaining Montagu and Douglas as Christian names) while the Dukes of Roxburghe are not now recognised as Chief of Clan Innes because they continue to bear the surname Innes-Ker. This would suggest the Duke of Hamilton would only be accepted as Chief of Hamilton (and he is a member of the Standing Council as such) if he bore the surname of Hamilton only - which contradicts almost every other source I've seen giving recent Dukes' surnames as Douglas-Hamilton. Opera hat (talk) 17:26, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
the peerage explanation doesn't work out, besides the Hapsburgs aren't peers. It could be the Chiefs that appear to break this rule, leave out the hyphen when the Lord Lyon is looking. 71.194.44.209 (talk) 19:41, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well that seems to be the fault of Wikipedia's naming policy on peers, doesn't it? Rather than the SCSC, Lyon's or otherwise. Habsburg was a forfeited monarch, and as such took (or had forced upon him by Hitler) a surname; Queen Elizabeth II does not have a surname, King Juan Carlos does not have a surname; They are UK&NI and Spain personified respectively. Their families do however bear the name of their houses. Much the same way with peers. Brendandh (talk) 20:39, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you mean regarding naming policies. The Standing Council, and I assume the Lord Lyon, would appear to consider the Duke's surname to be Hamilton, while Burke's Peerage and all the other standard reference works give it as Douglas-Hamilton. I have no idea what monarchs' surnames or lack thereof have to do with any of this; peers certainly do not "personify" the territory or family from which their titles derive, though this may once have been the case for great territorial lordships such as Sutherland. To say peers do not have surnames is also incorrect, an example being the Royal Licence for the Lord Frankfort to assume the surname of de Montmorency[2] - I'm sure there are many others. Opera hat (talk) 12:18, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Titles disclaimed

[edit]

As the Earldom of Selkirk has been disclaimed by James D-H presumably all its subsidiary titles are also in abeyance - including Lord Daer? After all, it is at his discretion that his son may use the title: he could keep it for himself and not offer it as a courtesy title for one of his sons. That would make all his sons "The Hon." as sons of a life baron - rather than those titles which go with being the sons of an earl? Sebmelmoth (talk) 11:28, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's up to them. See http://www.debretts.com/forms-of-address/titles/disclaimed-peer/family-of-a-disclaimed-peer.aspx. Opera hat (talk) 00:00, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think this reports usage not fact. All the titles are owned by the primary holder and as a courtesy he enables their use by family. It is not a part of the creation of a title that juniors get gravy too. Sebmelmoth (talk) 06:18, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy titles are only ever a question of usage. Nobody has a legal right to a courtesy title. That's why they're called courtesy titles. Opera hat (talk) 19:20, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is all a bit getting into Anglo 18/19th c. balls convention about the whole thing really. Look at John Douglas, Lord of Balvenie for example, or even Murdoch, Earl of Fife. Sure James the Gross and Albany claimed the rents from those estates of their offspring, yet gave their children the prestige of a Name from their House. Late Mediaeval/Early Modern Scotland was run along those lines. So what? Look at mid 20th c. Sicily for comparison, same stuff. Brendandh (talk) 00:03, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Hereditary rights of Duke of Hamilton

[edit]

In 2013, Lord Lucas of Crudwell (England) and of Dingwall (Scotland) introduced his Equality (Titles) Bill in the House of Lords. The provisions of the bill would allow for the eldest born in the family to inherit the family title. The initial statute provided that the bill would be permissive, which is to say, that, application could be made to the Lord Chancellor to change the inheritance of a title.

The initial draft bill was followed swiftly by some amendments made by the Earl of Clancarty, one of which was to make it mandatory for the title to go to the eldest child. No doubt both peers were inspired by the recent Succession to the Crown Act 2013 which enabled the eldest child of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, whether male or female, to become monarch.

There is then the further question of the myriad of hereditary offices of state which come with some chiefly titles. For example The Duke of Hamilton is Hereditary Keeper of the Palace of Holyroodhouse. There are others such as the The Earl of Errol, chief of the Hays, who is Lord High Constable of Scotland; The Earl of Lauderdale, chief of the Maitlands, is hereditary bearer of the National Flag of Scotland. There are others that would be affected, or become separated from their traditional families, without careful thought and consideration.

The implications for Scottish titles and for clan chiefs can best be followed here: [[3]] Shipsview (talk) 20:49, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Contributor 220.245.253.115 =

[edit]

We have a problem with this editor, whose contributions on this page, and in other articles, seem to be almost always reverted. Is the an Admin who can look at this? Shipsview (talk) 09:27, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Duke of Hamilton. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:59, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Head of Douglas family

[edit]

The following text is moved here from my User page on behalf of user:Reid of Clewis. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:36, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In your article on the Duke of Hamilton you claim that he is head of both the house of Hamilton and of Douglas. This cannot be as a person can only be the head of one family. The head of the Douglas family is claimed by both the Marquess of Queensberry and the Earl of Morton. All other Douglas claimants, the Duke of Hamilton, the Duke of Queensberry, the Earl of Home and the Earl of Wemyss are heads of other families. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reid of Clewis (talk • contribs) 20:12, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Duke_of_Hamilton&oldid=1217269156"