Talk:List of dukedoms in the peerages of Britain and Ireland

message: Several titles are in the table multiple times with the same link and different creation dates.  I presume it simply means this title has been created multiple times but it may be wise to have a note somewhere explaining this.
Richard Clegg (talk) 15:08, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Duke of Lancaster/York etc

message: to the wiki table markup.  It's easier, especially for big tables.  :)  fabiform | talk 06:57, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I think your changes were lost in an edit conflict...I initially tried it in wiki table markup, but it was all screwed up, so I went over to html.  john 09:27, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: I converted your table

message: any mention of the Dukedom of Kintyre and Lorne: are we sure that it is a dukedom? -- Emsworth 22:41, Mar 28, 2004 (UTC)
:It's listed in The Handbook of British Chronology.  It was for a son of James VI, I believe, who died in infancy.  But may be one of those that was only a style, rather than a real creation. john 23:51, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: I haven't been able to find

message: The new addition to British Empire seems funny enough, besides being sort of vanity addition. A joke, apparently. 217.140.193.123 17:14, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If I may inquire, gentlemen, was Duke of Bute written in jest?--Anglius 05:00, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

text: The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. 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 debate was no consensus; I've gone ahead per WP:BOLD and moved it to List of dukedoms in the peerages of the British Isles instead. —Nightstallion (?) Seen this already? 10:39, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: van Liempt

message: : Add * Support or * Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, or add * followed by a comment, then sign your opinion with "~~~~"
* support. En-wiki is not intended to be so anglocentric. Shilkanni 20:01, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: Might I suggest List of dukedoms in the peerages of Great Britain and Ireland as a compromise?  This makes the appellation purely geographical, referring to the islands inhabited by these peerages rather than the shifting political entities, and avoiding what I gather is the somewhat controversial designation of Ireland as part of the British Isles. Fishhead64 00:08, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Add * Support or * Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, or add * followed by a comment, then sign your opinion with "~~~~"
*This suggests that we are only listing dukedoms in the Peerage of Great Britain and the Peerage of Ireland.  I'd prefer something like List of British and Irish dukedoms. john k 00:14, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Okay, lets go with that.  Let's go with something, because the current title is even more misleading than anything anyone here has proposed.  If we don't settle on something, this article will never be moved! (excuse my intense frustration). Fishhead64 00:29, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal

message: Why "List of dukedoms of the United Kingdom and Ireland"? Why not just "List of dukedoms of the United Kingdom"? as Ireland was part of the UK from 1800 until 1921. --Philip Baird Shearer 11:31, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason is because Ireland is no longer a part of the United Kingdom.  Such a title would imply it was.  Let's face it - there is no perfectly descriptive title, so I say let's just go with one of the ones I've suggested, or we're going to wind up with being told that there's no consensus and to live with "list of dukedoms."  And that is the least perfectly descriptive title of any. Fishhead64 16:05, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: I've tidied up the redirects after the moves.  However, what is left is the issue of what to do with Template:UK Peerages.  As it stands, the 'duke' links are no longer strictly correct.  Also, it strikes me that the same rationale should be applied to the other lists.  However, there doesn't seem to have been any consultation with Wikipedia:WikiProject Peerage, so I'm raising the matter there.  Noisy | Talk 11:43, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Moves

message: Is there a reason we use this for the children of Queen Victoria, rather than Saxe-Coburg-Gotha? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:15, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: von Wettin

message: Would somebody tell me exactly what construes a dukedom as extinct? It can easily be passed down from one generation to the next, sometimes is inherited by an uncle, cousin or nephew, but sometimes it becomes extinct when the closest relative is a cousin.
Just wondering,
Star Garnet (talk) 01:14, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: All successors must be descended from the first grantee, unless the patent creating the title specifies otherwise (if there are no eligible descendants at the time of creation, a clause called a "special remainder" may prevent a quick extinction by appointing a brother or nephew as heir-presumptive).  Thus an old title may pass to a distant cousin of the last holder, because there are many generations in remainder; while a new title generally does not pass to the first holder's brother. —Tamfang (talk) 16:22, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extinction 

message: : ... the 9 year old Richard II who would eventually succeed his grandfather ...
What was he called at the time? It would be better style to say "9-year-old Richard of Blankborough, who would eventually succeed his grandfather as Richard II". —Tamfang (talk) 02:04, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  style of Richard II 

message: I think a map would be a good addition to this page. 155.192.161.121 (talk) 13:01, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: And what should the map show? —Tamfang (talk) 04:36, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map 

message: Is there a reason why some of these princes are precded with The (as in "The Prince Andrew")? It looks inconsistent, but I want to make sure there's not a reason, since I see it has spread to some of the prince pages as well (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_Leopold,_Duke_of_Albany). Or is this a grammasite spreading?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bpeschel (talk • contribs) 20:28, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is there a reason for "The Prince"? 

message: Prince Harry is the current Duke of Sussex GothicGolem29 (talk) 04:01, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: The first creation of the title is extinct because Prince Augustus Frederick, Duke of Sussex only had a son through a marriage that was nullified for not getting permission from the king, so the title did not pass to his son. Also, his son Augustus d'Este had no children. Harry's dukedom is the 2nd creation of the title. Emk9 (talk) 20:07, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok thanks GothicGolem29 (talk) 09:09, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is the dukedom of Sussex extinct?