Talk:Marquess of Queensberry
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
It's QUEENSBERRY, not QUEENSBURY. -- Someone else 10:39 13 Jun 2003 (UTC)
YES. Sorry I've just realised that. I confirmed it with Burke's just now, after I noticed the discrepency. I assumed the source I was using was correct but it was wrong. Mintguy 10:44 13 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] James Douglas, 3rd Duke of Queensberry
I would like to inquire, gentlemen, as to whether His Grace existed or not? The 4th and 5th Dukes are frequently accorded instead as 3rd and 4th, respectively. -Anglius 22:58, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- The Dukedom was surrendered and regranted with a remainder excluding this James Douglas (who was a homicidal maniac), whilst the Marquessate was not. He therefore succeeded as 3rd Marquess but the Dukedom went to his younger brother, who became 3rd Duke (and later, on the death of his elder brother, 4th Marquess). The regrant is also the reason for the later separation of the titles: the regranted titles were regranted with remainder to heirs general, whereas the unregranted titles (the ones inherited by the 1st Duke, along with the Marquessate of Queensberry) were left with remainder to heirs male. Proteus (Talk) 23:06, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- I thank you, sir, for your information. Did he still inherit the Dukedom of Dover? --Anglius 01:44, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- I thank you, Mr."Proteus." --Anglius 29 June 2005 00:02 (UTC)
[edit] John Sholto Douglas (1844-1900)
Was he the 8th Marquess or the 9th? The New Age Encyclopedia 1983 lists him as the 8th. (Is this explained by the surrender and regrant already discussed?
Also, how was he related to Johnny Douglas?Ibroadbent 05:11, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
- According to Burke's Peerage, John Sholto is th 9th Marquess. As for Johnny Douglas, I found no traces of him in the genealogy given by Burke's so any relation probably does not exist... Nevertheless, there is another possibility: a link by the female line.
[edit] Descent of Marquessate
I am confused about how the Marquessate of Queensbery descended. The current marquess does not seem to be descended from the original marquess at all. When the marquessate separated from the dukedom, the dukedom descended through a daughter of the 2nd duke, and the marquessate appears to have descended to a male line heir of the 1st earl. Since the male lines of the 1st marquess had ended, and the marquessate did not have the special remainder to a female line, shouldn't the marquessate have become extinct, and the current marquess be the Earl of Queensberry? Dglenn 15:32, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Article Incomplete
I agree, at least in part, with the above. This article is either incomplete or in error, or both. It tells that the title became extinct upon the death of one Francis Douglas in 1893, yet any perusal of the list of Marquesses shows that the title is clearly not extinct since a living man holds it and has a living heir.
Obviously, the title could have been granted to another family or another branch of the Douglas family, but the article leaves us with no clue. Even so, this seems unlikely since very few hereditary peerages have been created since Victoria's 1901 death. I believe the only two in the last fifty years (barring Prime Ministerial earldoms, the last one being granted to Harold Macmillian in '84) were two political supporters created viscounts by Baroness Thatcher--but since both men died without heirs, the titles didn't last long.
So it would be very helpful for someone knowledgeable on the subject to clear this up by connecting the dots (as it were...)
As for inheriting thru the female line, this clearly does happen as especially in the Medieval and Early Modern periods, as many nobles held their titles in "right of" the daughter of the previous holder of the peerage. How common this is now I admit I do not know. PainMan 01:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
