Talk:Earl of Selkirk

message: Bear with me a little more!  Suppose the duke/earl has three sons (Tom, Dick, Harry).  Tom becomes duke, Dick becomes earl.  Dick then dies childless, survived by both Tom and Harry.  Which of them is the next earl?  Did the 7th earl have a younger brother?  —Tamfang 03:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Harry. - Kittybrewster 03:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  My thinking was crooked.  Under the "duke is youngest brother" theory Harry is earl, and under the "earldom reverts to duke's eldest brother" theory Harry is earl. ;)  Okay – Tom dies leaving sons, then Dick dies s.p. – I guess the next earl is the new duke's brother, not Harry.  What parallels exist to this, that the succession depends on the relative longevity of one who does not inherit in either case?  —Tamfang 06:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it goes to the present Duke's next youngest brother. I believe it is unique. Kittybrewster 11:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The style of Princess Royal, if it were automatic, would be another example. —Tamfang 06:08, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Er...so what happens if Tom dies leaving one son, then Dick dies s.p.  Who becomes Earl, the new Duke (Tom's son) or Harry? john k 11:48, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The new duke.  —Tamfang 16:21, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

text: The heir of Dick's second son, no? It stays among Dick's descendants until they become extinct, and only then passes back to the Duke... right? john k 00:10, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, it's easier to think of it in terms of Tom (X) Dick (Y) and Harry (Z). If the title goes to Y then his sons Y1,Y2,Y3 and all their heirs male have to be extinguished before it could go to (Z) and his heirs (assuming X is still alive) or back to any new duke and/or his Y heir. Alci12 13:09, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  a detail about the special remainder 

message: I have a recollection that Lord James Douglas-Hamilton and a cousin fought a court case over the exact translation of the inheritance - basically on the death on a childless second son Earl, should it have devolved on the third son or onto the next generation's Duke's younger brother? It was further complicated as the third son had passed away as well, leaving his son to claim. And Douglas-Hamilton was always intending to renounce the peerage himself, but fighting so his son could inherit it. Timrollpickering 17:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Court ruling 

message: : The novodamus dictated that, should the earldom ever devolve to the holder of the title of Duke of Hamilton, his younger brother and his heirs should succeed to the title before him.
A recent edit changed brother to son and before to after.  That fails to express the rule (if I understand right) that a duke inherits the earldom only if he has no brother. —Tamfang (talk) 16:39, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems that my understanding was wrong.  Now that the junior lines named in the patent are extinct, if an earl has a brother but no son, the earldom passes to the dukes brother if any, else to the duke. —Tamfang (talk) 01:04, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  another detail ... 

message: It says that the 1st earl of selkirk changed his name because he was of "a lesser degree" than his wife. sure a duchess is higher ranked than an earl, but not that much. Rather it was probably required for him to receive his wife's property. Tinynanorobots (talk) 16:52, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  name change