Talk:Duke of Marlborough (title)

message: 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)
replies: text: Hopiakuta, why did you change my arrows above to question-marks?  —Tamfang 07:46, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text:  Aha. Thank you. —Tamfang (talk) 16:07, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  female succession 

message: The disc.  has something about
:
;•Duke of Marlborough;
;•England;
;•Holy Roman Empire;
;•United Provinces at Blenheim;
;  %e2%80%a2  Blenheim ;
;•1704;...
Someone, please,  disambiguate  this,...
Thank You,
[[ hopiakuta  | [[ %c2%a1 %c2%bf  %7e%7e%7e%7e  -]] 15:51, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Disambiguate what??  —Tamfang 07:39, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  [[ 1704 ]] ?? 

message: Do the subsidiary titles follow the same succession or a more standard arrangement? Timrollpickering (talk) 12:48, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Remainder of subsidiary titles 

message: : 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  unique female succession? 

message: 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)
thread_title: English and/or Scotch peerage ?

message: 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)
replies: text: All extinct branches are absent. --95.24.66.204 (talk) 09:34, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Viscount Churchill 

message: :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)
replies: text: Duke of Marlborough (title) →  – 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. estar8806 (talk) ★ 01:53, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 15 May 2023 

message: 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 tothe 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  The line of succession and Lady Olympia