Talk:Duchy

message: In answer to the assertion that Prince Andrew of the UK, Duke of York, was an example of  a person with a duchy, I explained that he had the title of "duke", that is, a "dukedom" but had no associated "duchy", and cited the following definition of "duchy" from the Oxford English Dictionary: "in Great Britain, applied to the dukedoms of Cornwall and Lancaster (the two earliest in England) vested in the Royal Family, and having certain courts of their own, in which respect they differ from ordinary peerage dukedoms". - Someone else 09:07, 19 Oct 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  // 

message: The article states that the Duchy of Cornwall is no longer coextensive with the county of Cornwall. Well considering the Duke still has rights over the county of Cornwall which do not extend to the Duchy estates outside of Cornwall i think the following questions are pertinent.
The first point is regarding the sheriff as the officer of the Duke and his function of collecting the various revenues from within the Duchy and returning these to the Chancellor of the Duchy.   Such revenues are now returned to the various agencies of Her Majesty's Government and I wish to determine when and how this transition took place.   My questions on this point are, therefore:
 
a At what point did the sheriff of the Duke cease to collect revenues from the Duchy institutions and people? 
b What mechanisms were used to transfer this right from the Duchy to the Crown (or Parliament)? 
c Why were these prerogative rights transferred to the Crown (or Parliament)? 
d Which Acts of Parliament relate specifically to this first point? 
My second point is a more sensitive one but necessary nevertheless and relates to the constitutional position of Cornwall relative to England.   It is clear from medieval documents that Cornwall and England were distinct entities and, in fact, this is confirmed by one of the first charters of the first Duke of Cornwall and, undoubtedly, by others.   This is still the Cornish perception but no longer the official one.   My questions to you, therefore, on this point are:
 
e At what point did this particular distinction of Cornwall's integrity cease to exist? 
f Why did this particular distinction of Cornwall cease to exist if enshrined within the creation of the Duchy? 
g What mechanisms where used to remove this distinction? 
h Which Acts of Parliament relate specifically to this second point?
:There's a lot more details about this under Cornwall or Duchy of Cornwall. The historical controversy does exist; it's certainly true that Cornwall viewed itself as distinct from England in the medieval period, as evidenced by the appearance of Anglia et Cornucobia on Acts of Parliament. Cornish nationalists use this to justify their claims to greater regional autonomy. However, it's also true that many of the privileges associated with Cornwall (the Stannary Parliament, etc.) were originally associated with the Cornish tin mines, or "Stannaries", rather than the county of Cornwall itself. As to whether the Duchy is still coextensive with the county, the answer is that I don't know. Prince Charles certainly holds lands and revenues as Duke of Cornwall, not all of which are in the county of Cornwall. However, he does also have some rights to make appointments in Cornwall that do not exist elsewhere in the country. In any case, the whole thing is now fairly ceremonial. Walton monarchist89 10:55, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cornwall, Duchy and County

message: It is not true to state that there is no Duke of Lancaster. The title is held by the monarchy, and hence the Queen is the current Duke of Lancaster, and acts under that personality on some formal occasions, particularly in Lancashire. Hence the Court Circular will (rather confusingly) report those visits by the Queen under the heading of Duke of Lancaster.  For example, in the entry from 26 October 1999, you can read "Her Majesty, Duke of Lancaster, was entertained to Lunch at the Savoy Hotel this afternoon by those who have held the Office of Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster".
:The use of "Duke of Lancaster" for the Queen is a quaint tradition used in Lancashire and in relation to the duchy, but the article is correct that she is not, in fact, Duke of Lancaster. She cannot be, because the British monarch cannot hold a lesser title/peerage of her own realm. The last creation of the title merged with the crown in 1399, when the duke became King Henry IV; but even if it hadn't done, it was a male-line only peerage, which means it would have become extinct at the death of Henry VI in 1471.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.7.196.65 (talk) 21:24, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Duke of Lancaster 

message: Why is the Duke of Gordon included on thie list of current Duchies this is a title in the British or Scottish peerage in other words a dukedom and not a territorial duchy. If no one replies I shall remove it from the article  Penrithguy 23:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Duke of Gordon 

message: As with the duchy of Lancaster, the queen is not duke of Normandy. The title was abandoned in 1259 with the treaty of Paris, even in the unlikely even it wasn't it would have been subsumed by the crown of France. Claims to the kingdom of France were definitely given up in 1801, qed. The title duke or, more correctly for a woman, duchess of Normandy doesn't appear in royal titulature for any english monarch until the 19th century after the treaty of Paris. Finally, while traditionalism is strong in these matters, and by tradition I mean making things up and hoping they last more than 50 years, the title should be duchess of Normandy; the argument that "there are no duchesses in their own right in Britain/France" is bullshit: France had multiple duchesses in their own right, including in the neighbouring duchy of Brittany, while the peerage of England had Norfolk, Cleveland, Marlborough and Portsmouth held by duchesses suo jure (plus Kendal in the peerage of Great Britain and a number of Scottish duchesses).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.55.56.171 (talk) 04:41, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Duke of Normandy 

message: I just want to comment the "Dutchy of Schleswig" title under Denmark. The historical "county" of Schleswig
is spelled Slesvig in danish, while Schleswig is the german spelling of the same territory. If indeed the 
Duchy is danish it should therefore be spelled "Duchy of Slesvig" - while "Duchy of Schleswig" should be used if 
it's a german Dutchy. (A part from this issue I have no knowlidge of "Duchy-matters"). /Pontus Eriksson, Sweden  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.249.34.222 (talk) 23:24, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Duchy of "Schleswig" 

message: Putting together the Italian duchies is completely deceitful. In fact Italy was not a unifed country until 1861, when we had to invent a unified heraldry. Until the Napoleonic conquest Italy was divided in four kingdoms (Italy, Naples, Sicily and Sardinia) and other two important states, formerly belonged to the Byzantine Empire: Venice and the Papal State. So, we had completely different heraldic traditions. The Kingdom of Italy was a part of the Holy Roman Empire and followed the German  pattern of duchy, which became a de facto independent state. Similarily, in the Republic of Venice the head of state had a title equivalent to duke. On the other hand, Siciliy, Naples, Sardinia and the Papal State were similar to the kingdoms of Spain and France, where the dukes were obedient vassals. Therefore, I think you should divide the section about Italy. Lele giannoni (talk) 11:39, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Italy

message: What is considered the first duchy? Why was it created? How did the role of duchies develop historically? The article at present lacks this basic information. --Njardarlogar (talk) 11:44, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origin and history 

message: The first line of the lead section explains what a Duchy is - which is good, because that's what the article is about. The second paragraph touches on Grand Dukes and Grand Duchys and is still somewhat relevant. However, the three paragraphs after that go into the minutia of dukes, grand dukes, emperors, etc.. This is arguably relevant to the article, but definitely does not belong in the lead section. I'll leave it to others to determine whether that text should be moved elsewhere in the article, moved to another article, or deleted. Plain Text (talk) 01:07, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dukes and Grand Dukes don't belong in the Lead Section of this Article 

message: In the opening paragraph it is stated that there are currently no sovereign duchies in Europe, but the next sentence references the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg. If Luxembourg doesn't qualify as a sovereign duchy I would be interested in the details. Thanks! PurpleChez (talk) 15:14, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  request for clarification