Talk:Duke of Hamilton

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Earl of March

message: 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)
thread_title:  Surname 

message: : 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Abernethy, Fife and the crown 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Marquis or Marquess? 

message: 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)
replies: text: Perhaps those titles became extinct in 1651? john k (talk) 20:46, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  early peerages 

message: 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)
replies: text: No, because these are the differenced arms of Hamilton. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:45, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  arms 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Your point? You have just contradicted your earlier comment. Brendandh (talk) 12:11, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: ...and yet Lord Wemyss is Chief of Clan Charteris, not of Clan Wemyss. Opera hat (talk) 22:11, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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 - I'm sure there are many others. Opera hat (talk) 12:18, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  double name and chiefdom 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Titles disclaimed 

message: 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: [] Shipsview (talk) 20:49, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hereditary rights of Duke of Hamilton 

message: 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)
thread_title: Contributor 220.245.253.115 =

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160713052226/http://www.cracroftspeerage.co.uk/online/content/hamilton1599.htm to http://www.cracroftspeerage.co.uk/online/content/Hamilton1599.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160818124050/http://www.cracroftspeerage.co.uk/online/content/hamilton1643.htm to http://www.cracroftspeerage.co.uk/online/content/Hamilton1643.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160725152018/http://www.cracroftspeerage.co.uk/online/content/angus1389.htm to http://www.cracroftspeerage.co.uk/online/content/Angus1389.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160805121016/http://cracroftspeerage.co.uk/online/content/douglas1633.htm to http://www.cracroftspeerage.co.uk/online/content/Douglas1633.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170104204711/http://www.cracroftspeerage.co.uk/online/content/douglas1703.htm to http://www.cracroftspeerage.co.uk/online/content/Douglas1703.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160818124050/http://www.cracroftspeerage.co.uk/online/content/hamilton1643.htm to http://www.cracroftspeerage.co.uk/online/content/Hamilton1643.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:59, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Head of Douglas family