Please join the David Starkey Members' Club via Patreon www.patreon.com/davidstarkeytalks or Subscribestar www.subscribestar.com/david-starkey-talks and submit questions for members Q & A videos. Also visit www.davidstarkey.com to make a donation and visit the channel store shop.davidstarkey.com. Thank you for watching.
It should be remembered that the Duchy of Cornwall and its Duke enjoyed relative autonomy from the dictates of Westminster up until the reign of Henry Vlll, in 1508 Henry VIl issued the Cornish Stannary Parliament the Charter of Pardon giving it veto rights over Acts and Statutes issued by Westminster. Although this recognition lasted less than 41 years, ultimately undone by the Act of Uniformity, it nevertheless places the Duchy of Cornwall in a special category from the rest of England. Even today the true status of Cornwall and the rights of the heir apparent has never been challenged in the courts, the overriding impression is that it has been deemed best to leave “sleeping dogs lie”.
I am wishing you would discuss at length the “hereditary” office of Chief Butler of England and Ireland, but had trouble submitting. The office was in the hands of the Payn family by 1399, followed by Geoffrey Chaucer’s son, Thomas. This has relevance to the provenance of the Ellesmere Chaucer, first mentioned in the 1568 will of Henry Payne of Hengrave, Suffolk. Thank you
Thank you for this. I've been studying titles as a hobby for many years--not just in the UK but throughout Europe--but learned a lot of details from you about the British system. I'm very impressed!
I believe that many of Edward III 's sons gained their titles by marriage to heiresses who would've been wards of the king. These were the centuries of high infant mortality, often leaving only daughters to inherit. The kings would permit marriages to non-royals for a monetary consideration (nice little earner!). I'm fascinated by the many marriages engineered by Ralph Neville (Westmoreland) for his Beaufort/Neville children. He was obviously hugely wealthy and was determined that all his well-connected kids got titles. My local "peer" is Lord Derby (I live in Knowsley) and when he inherited the title from his uncle he was a bachelor in his 30s. He pretty soon got married - his wife is a Neville. 😃
I’m not sure Harry would ever be Duke of York. Isn’t it usually the case that only one person would hold the title at a time? For example; Anne wasn’t created Princess Royal until after her great aunt died, not immediately upon Elizabeth II’s ascension as the first born female of the reigning Sovereign. I suppose Charles would have to be reigning and outlive Andrew before the title of Duke of York would be assigned. The title has to be available before it’s given.
Yes, you're correct here. The present title or use of Duke of York invested in Prince Andrew will have to become extinct, or dissolved through bill of attainder, for the title to be conferred anew upon another individual.
We Canadians understand that Crown lands are property of the government and do not literally belong to the Queen, something that sometimes confuses Americans. The other day I was looking at the Wikipedia page enumerating royal residences in England and they make a distinction between residences belonging to the Crown (such as Buckingham palace) and those that are the private property of the Queen (such as Balmoral). I`m also aware that in the UK many people, instead of owning the land that their house is on, will have 99 year leases and other forms of indirect semi or pseudo ownership. I was wondering,if, for the benefit of North Americans, you can explain how property rights work in the UK and how that intersects with peerage rights over land.
I'm Australian and I know of an Island off the coast of Queensland that an Irishman succeeded in getting a 99 year lease agreement directly from Queen Victoria in circa 1876. It was not subject to Australian law until 1975. Despite by then being only ten minutes away from the mainland by motor boat. It was a haven for drug lords and draft dodgers.
Not strictly true. Leased (called leasehold) properties exist and someone will hold the title to that lease so the property owner owns the house and the leaseholder owns the land and gets a payment from the property owner for this. Most property owners however own freehold property which means they own the land their property is built on.
1. The land law in Scotland is completely different to England. 2 In England, there was a massive reform in 1925 with the Law of Property Act 1925, which created 'estates in land'. There are two main types 'freehold' which is actual ownership but of 'rights in land' rather than of 'land', but no meaningful difference. 2. Leasehold which is buying the rights to land from the freeholder (or another leaseholder) for a term of years, typically 99 or 999 years. The leaseholder 'leases' land from the freeholder and is almost exactly the owner for most purposes, but may have to pay an annual rent, or follow covenants, (not to open a bar on the land etc.) or risk forfeiting the leasehold. Peerage rights are effectively non-existent. But the Duke of Westminster owns a large part of Mayfair (expensive London) but he has many leaseholders who pay him rent on the leases. There are some 'manorial' rights over land, like a village green which have the right to graze sheep on the land etc. but that doesn't affect most people. Some leaseholders can buy out the freeholder too and become freeholders.
@@EdMcF1 Interestingly, the legislative building of the Government of Ontario, Canada, (sometimes called the provincial parliament) sits on property that was leased to the City of Toronto for 999 years by the University of Toronto. A provision of the lease said that the city had to allow the provincial government the right to build the Legislature there if they chose to do so. The city still maintains the northern part of Queen's Park (named to honour Queen Victoria, opened by the then-Prince of Wales, later King Edward VII).
de Vere was made Marquis of Dublin, subsequently upgraded to Duke of Ireland. Titles were technically inheritable only in the male line, though in practice they were often "recreated" for a female for example Richard Neville became Earl of Warwick in right of his wife, and Earl of Salisbury in descent from his mother.
I love David Starkey. He openly shares all this fascinating information with a stinking Plebian like me who hasn't got a penny to scratch his arse.. sheer passion and generosity. This channel is helping change my life. And for that, Thankyou. The Man is a national treasure 🙏❤️😎
Another level of complication is that when Britain received a language transplant via the Normans, the letter S would have been pronounced by French speakers. It's there for a reason!
As far as I can recall, 'baron' although not used as a title before the Normans, originates from an old English word roughly meaning soldier, coming from a word for boy. It is related to the Northern dialect word 'bairn' meaning child. I believe it indicates that in Norman England there was an association between low level lords and Old English descent. Would be it be right to think high level lords from Anglo Saxon England were removed by the Normans but low level lords were absorbed into the new system?
@The Epic Random Dude Not quite. Baron is a Old French word of Germanic origin, specifically Frankish *barō. It seems to originally simply meant simply warrior, probably a term for common (freedman) members of the Germanic warrior retinue, or comitatus. The Frankish word has a possible cognate in Old English, beorn, also meaning warrior, but it's distinct from the word for child or boy (Old English bearn). Furthermore, usage of the Norman French term ber/baron has no clear associations with Anglo-Saxons. While a minority of Anglo-Saxon lower-ranking magnates and thegns did survive and didn't subsequently rebel, they rarely owned the land; they were more likely to have been leaseholders to a Norman overlord, or the king himself.
This makes me remember a passage from Victor Hugo's book, The Man Who Laughs, in which Ursus has a plaque on the wall of the van, with the following title (or so i remember): Things that are worth remembering
Thank you, David, yet again, a thoroughly engaging and informative talk. I loved your amusing reminiscence of childhood playing dukes et al. with your friend. Was this a lamentation of falling educational standards, in that most children now have a very poor understanding of British history? I wonder; perhaps the twinkle in your eye gave the game away.
No its another example of David's far right post colonial historical revisionism and you cannot accuse people who actively didn't vote for a convicted habitual compulsive liar of falling educational standards
I'll just repeat my thanks for something worthwhile on RUclips where mostly otherwise, lamentably woke and moronic comments abound. Here it is again: Thank you, David, yet again, a thoroughly engaging and informative talk. I loved your amusing reminiscence of childhood playing dukes et al. with your friend. Was this a lamentation of falling educational standards, in that most children now have a very poor understanding of British history? I wonder; perhaps the twinkle in your eye gave the game away.
@@derekmills1080 can you answer my question please, are you aware this guy is a racist and a white nationalist? Don't be a coward in your moment of glory. Nobody likes a coward, answer please 🤔
Very interesting. I have always wanted to know what happened to make the barons end up at the bottom of the pile. When the Magna Carta was signed in 1215 it was written by a group of barons. Since the titles of Dukes, Marquis, Earl, Viscount weren't in place at the time what happened? As the hierarchy seems to come from France and the French had barons in the 1th century why didn't barons remain close to the top of pecking order?
@Happy Grandma The Germanic-rooted word baron originally meant a common freedman member of the ancient and early-medieval Germanic warrior retinue, or comitatus. Count (Old French, from Latin comēs, literally 'companion') originally meant a companion of the leader of the retinue (Old French dus/duc, from Latin dux, simply 'leader'), though both titles also inherit functions of the same names from Roman administration. Obviously, as time went on, these terms became formalities, and new functionary names came about (e.g. marshal, constable). Why a marquess ranks below a duke but above an earl or count, I don't know.
@@tiffanysanchez9184 Very few are aware of the ancient part land, part sea creature called the Wale which evolved into a Whale. Many think the name of the actual country took it’s name from King of Wales, which are modern day Humpback Whales. Whatever the truth, it’s a whale 🐳 of a story, isn’t it?
Thats why its strange Starkey is so into the dividing english separatists lately, only because BBC ghosted him. He should be above that as a man of knowledge and culture. Cone over more like Boris than Nestor lately.
It's an important distinction that baronet titles, or baronetcies, are not themselves peerage titles, though it is is possible for a Peer (a Duke, Marquis, Earl, Viscount, or Baron/Lord) to also hold a baronetcy.
I don't think it is entirely fair to condemn the court of public opinion over Andrew. He was presented with the opportunity of due process, he chose instead to pay off his accuser. While legally he may not have admitted guilt, I think the public are entitled on that basis to draw their own conclusions.
After the grotesque spectacle of the Depp/Heard trial, I think we can understand why Andrew chose not to put his future in the hands of the American justice system.
@@VernonStradling Oh I can understand the desire not to, when money is no object, but it only solves the immediate problem. It can't buy back your good name, indeed the resort to the pay off damages that further.
there were bombastic titles given by khalifs, like "Rukn ad-Dawla"- "Pillar of State", "Saif ad-Dawla"- "Sword of State" etc. one Muslim scholar said "when first grandiose title "__ of State" taken for the sake of public recognition, then final Fate of this State was recognised by public"
Thanks for this interesting presentation. Montesquieu (1689 - 1755) is said to be the first to promote/suggest the separation of the legislative, the executive and the judicial powers and yet you suggest it was prevalent in England some time before. Have I misunderstood?
Interesting. The downgrading of the title Clarence from the monarch's second son explains why George III gave it to his third son and to some extent why Edward VII when himself Prince of Wales gave it to his son (next in line), Albert Victor. A bit of a shame it wasn't continued into current times - either Earl of Wessex or Duke of Cambridge should have taken Clarence.
I do wonder if it was the Dukedom HMTQ had intended to give Edward before he insisted that he did not wanted to be a duke but the Earl of Wessex for romantic and symbolic reasons.
It was Queen Victoria, not Albert, Prince of Wales (the then future Edward VII), who conferred the title of Duke of Clarence (more fully, in this instance, Duke of Clarence and Avondale) upon Prince Albert Victor, in 1890. The Sovereign alone is the fount of honor, hence only the Sovereign retains the prerogative to create peerage titles, baronetcies, knighthoods, etc. Edward VII only gained this prerogative when he ascended the throne in 1901, upon his mother's death (the Duke of Clarence and Avondale had predeceased them both, in 1892).
Though an American with 350+ yrs since any of my known ancestors lived in Wales, I find this topic quite fascinating. Is there any truth to the legend that Edward I, as a sop to the unruly Welsh rebels after executing their own prince of Wales, promised to give them a new prince "born in Wales and who speaks no English" -- hence hurrying Edward's very pregnant queen to Caernarfon Castle so she could give birth to the new prince of Wales (and later Edward II)?
More interesting are the entirely fatuous address "styles" of "highness" and "majesty". In normal use our brains disconnect these from the actual meanings of the words to avoidly laughing at the absurdities entailed. I recommend we revert to synonyms on a rotating annual basis to ground our words to reality: eg. "His lofty awesomeness King Charles". Let the hilarity begin.
Very interesting, thank you. Andrew may have been tried in the 'court of public opinion', but, well, he did pay 12 million quid to a woman he claimed he'd never met, so...
Actually, there have been, but so far always as subsidiary titles, and not used for royal princes for over two hundred years. Before the present Duke of Edinburgh, the present Sovereign's youngest brother, was invested with that title, he was known as His Royal Highness The Earl of Wessex and Forfar. So royal Earls and even Viscounts and Barons are historically attested. It's just an historical quirk that the dignity of Marquess has been recently neglected as a title for royal princes, but some princes in the fifteenth, sixteenth, seventeenth, and eighteenth centuries did bear the designation of Marquess in support of even higher Ducal dignities, the most recent example being that of Prince George, Duke of Edinburgh and Marquess of the Isle of Ely, who succeeded to the throne as George III in 1760, upon which his previous titles merged within the Crown. There's also the example of Henry VIII's second Queen Anne Boleyn, who before her marriage in 1533 was created Lady Marquess of Pembroke, in 1532 (a title forfeited in 1536 upon her execution).
Aye, but what about the title of 'baron'? All them barons badgering King John to sign the Magna Carta in 1215 - but seeming the first official baron weren't till 1313! Who was being called a baron afore then? - and on what basis? A very entertaining listen.
Unless The Duke of York is attainted or has his title removed by other means then until he dies the title remains with him. Were he to have had a son then said son would inherit the title. Since he only has daughters that creation of the title dies with him. The interesting thing is that no Duke of York since the very first creation has EVER had a son succeed to the title. Either they've died sonless or the title has merged with the crown. Second creation was murdered by Richard III. Third creation merged with the crown as Henry VIII. Fourth creation merged with the crown as Charles I. Jacobite creation was a cardinal and thus (at least in theory) celibate. Sixth creation merged with the crown as George V. Seventh creation merged with the crown as George VI. Eighth creation is still extant but will become extinct with the first holder. I agree with Dr Starkey that it's extremely unlikely that the Duke of Cambridge will ever be created Duke of York. It's very likely that his uncle will still be around until after his father is dead anyway, precluding any creation of him as Duke of York. Much, much more likely that the next creation of the title will be for Prince Louis of Cambridge after his father ascends to the throne.
@@tin_tiara That's as I understood it; the title is hereditary in the male line, so if the current Duke had a son that issue would be next Duke rather than it reverting to the sovereign's 2nd son. It's only a run of bad luck (lack of heirs male) that has prevented a new cadet line of York becoming established. Or, as in the cases of Henry VIII, James II and George VI, the Duke becoming King in succession to his childless brother.
"I agree with Dr Starkey that it's extremely unlikely that the Duke of Cambridge will ever be created Duke of York." But he will be created Prince of Wales when his father succeeds to the throne. Which will overshadow all other titles.
Why is there no present day Duke of Clarence? Wasn't the last one supposed to marry Princess May of Teck and then when he died she married his younger brother. Was he the last Duke of Clarence and why?
So far, yes, he has been the last Duke of Clarence (more fully, in his case, Duke of Clarence and Avondale). The Sovereign could revive the title at his discretion, but so far has not chosen to do so.
The Crown S02 episode 03 entitled Lisbon showed the investiture of the Duke of Edinburgh by the Queen... whether this happened or not, I assume this is what Dr Starky was saying about some Dukes having a semi-royal ceremony etc..
My 5th great grandfather was an Irish baronet, I'm quite confused how the first baronet got his title since he was a supporter of the Monmouth rebellion lol. If someone could tell me how baronets are created, I'd appreciate it 🙂
It’s basically an hereditary Knighthood, a Sir, for someone more important than being bestowed only a Knighthood for their life time; but less important than making them a Peer (Baron, Viscount etc). A Baronet and a Knight are part of the aristocracy/gentry, but not necessarily a Noble. They originally came about when King James, I believe it was, wanted to raise money for his army (originally you had to pay for it). There are even Baronets of Nova Scotia in Canada! 👍
@@tradingforbeginners oh that makes a lot of sense, I wonder if they were respected considering they had to pay for it? I never knew Canada had baronets! I assume they don't bestow the titles anymore? I hardly hear of Canadian knights let alone baronets
@@evacope1718 The baronetage of Nova Scotia closed when the crown of Scotland united with that of England in 1707, creating the new polity of Great Britain. Baronetcy titles within the baronetage of Nova Scotia still in existence at the time persisted and were fully recognized, this remaining the case to the present day, but no new titles in the baronetage could be created after 1707.
They usually are merely accorded the honorifics of "Her Royal Highness The Princess So-and-so" (in earlier centuries they tended to be referred to as "The Lady So-and-so"), with the Sovereign's eldest daughter often given the special designation of The Princess Royal. Insofar as royal daughters are married to Peers of the realm, they take the feminine form of their husbands' titles (i.e., the late Princess Margaret was the Countess of Snowdon by virtue of being married to the Earl of Snowdon), but otherwise rarely if ever wield peerage titles (in fact, I know of no royal daughter in English history to have been given a peerage title in her own right).
Duke/Baron of Gerardi. Yes, this will be my initial start by birth - August 20th, 1973. Title over my YDNA Italian nobility House with my mother's paternal line being Greek nobility families (Petrocochino and Mavrocordatos). Then ask for titles over land: Duke of Carthage, Crown Prince of Tunisia, etc
My father is a descendant of Henry I through his illegitimate son Robert Fitzroy( de Caen) the 1st earl of Gloucester and a Welsh princess . also my father is the descendant of Henry II Plantagenet illegitimate son William Longespee, 3rd earl of Salisbury and Ida The Countess of Norfolk. I realise the line started as illegitimate but they had titles and married titled heiress. Therefore many descendants had many titles right down the centuries Why did my family loose all of those said titles? Where did they go? We’re they absolved or retained by the Crown ?
There can be and are Dukes within the Peerages of Scotland and Ireland, but it's highly unlikely anyone today or in future would be invested with the title of 'Duke of Scotland' or 'Duke of Northern Ireland', because these would be too sweepingly grand, encompassing whole realms and infringing upon the Sovereign's majesty and sway over those territories.
I wanted him to explain why Earl was kept over count - I heard its because of Norman pronunciation and childish giggling by Anglo-Saxons due to a rude homophone... Would be nice to know for certain how much salt I should take that with
I would love to have a conversation about the Duke, his son, the “au pair,” her father Payn and her sister Chaucer- along with their relationships to another Payn: John Payn “the Pincerna Regis” (d. 1402). There is a lot of history to found there.
Who created the title "Earl of Essex" which is now extinct? I am a direct descendant of the Capell family through my late mother's paternal lineage. The late Princess Diana was also a descendant of this noble family via Mary Capell Somerset.
The Earls of Essex of the Capell family still survive. The title was created in 1661 by King Charles II. The title had been previously held by the Devereux family, invested with the title by Queen Elizabeth I in 1572, but that line died out in 1646.
I wonder if William has decided whether to make Charlotte the Princess Royal or the Duchess of York (could be problematic if she marries). Guess it will depend on which one kicks the bucket first.
Absolutely loved this ❤ 👏 Following suit, I do believe one day when Prince of Wales becomes King, we must consider the Duke of York his younger brother? Since Andrew, second son of Queen Elizabeth II is still very much alive! I do believe Harry's behavior as second son could be the reincarnated George, Duke of Clarence? Edward IVs brother may have lived and died playing the fool's card? But fair to say Harry may be drowning himself in a barrel of Marsmey over his choice in wife these days? Seems those loyal to British customs might consider resuming the traditional title for the 2nd son? 😒 🤔 😒 🤔 not bad for a dumb American girl now am I? 😆 🤣
The only way Prince Louis, and Princess Charlotte can be given the titles the Duke Of York and Princess Royal respectively three things must happen to make it possible A: When their Dad William ascends to the throne and become’s King and B: when the former title holder’s ie Prince Andrew and Princess Anne pass away those titles will be free to pass to Louis and Charlotte also C: I believe Letter’s patent must be issued at least in the case of the title Duke of York to make Louis Duke Of York but also may be needed to make Charlotte Princess Royal. P.S I too am also an American but I have studied as a hobby mind you the Royal Family, their history, and the titles I’m not perfect at it but I do hope I have helped you
@@tiffanysanchez9184 To the best of my understanding, everything you state here is correct. Letters patent are definitely required to properly and legally create a peerage title (of which Duke of York is an example), but I'm not sure if this necessary for the conferring of the dignity of Princess Royal. There is one other way the title of Duke of York could be freed up to confer upon someone other than Prince Andrew while Prince Andrew lives, and that is if a bill of attainder were issued against him, depriving him of the title.
Harry would not be made Duke of York on his father's accession as long as there is another Duke of York. If Andrew had a son, he would become Duke of York upon Andrew death. It is a coincidence of history that for centuries all Dukes of York either died without heir (Richard, son of Edward IV) or predeceased their father (Frederick) or became king themselves (Henry of cursed memory, Charles I, James II, George VI).
What you say is correct, except that a bill of attainder issued against the present Duke of York could deprive him and any potential future heir male of his body of the title, thus freeing it for conferral upon another.
And many of these families still own the lands given to them by William The Conqueror and they sit in the House of Lords …. and still “Lord It” over the peasants which at one time were their property as well.
Will Charlotte become Duchess of York or the next Princess Royal, or both? It's a new situation. I suspect Charles wants the Edinburgh title to go to one of William's children after Edward's death.
Dr Starkey, I understood that some titles were granted to non-royals in recognition of some special service provided. How does this fit into the structure you discuss or am I wrong? Thank you.
This wasn’t clarified: In contrast to Scotland, and England, the Act of Union of 1801 was disastrous for Ireland. It lost its parliament and resulted in the Irish Question being at the forefront of British politics throughout the nineteenth century. Home Rule was promised then shelved followed imminently by the Easter Rising 1916, the War of independence 1919-21 followed by partition and the creation of Northern Ireland. If Ireland had not been denied its own parliament in 1801, could things have been very different?
Please join the David Starkey Members' Club via Patreon www.patreon.com/davidstarkeytalks or Subscribestar www.subscribestar.com/david-starkey-talks and submit questions for members Q & A videos. Also visit www.davidstarkey.com to make a donation and visit the channel store shop.davidstarkey.com. Thank you for watching.
Alfred lord tennyson was most apt on the subject in his poem kind hearts and coroners Prince Andrew proves the point
It should be remembered that the Duchy of Cornwall and its Duke enjoyed relative autonomy from the dictates of Westminster up until the reign of Henry Vlll, in 1508 Henry VIl issued the Cornish Stannary Parliament the Charter of Pardon giving it veto rights over Acts and Statutes issued by Westminster. Although this recognition lasted less than 41 years, ultimately undone by the Act of Uniformity, it nevertheless places the Duchy of Cornwall in a special category from the rest of England. Even today the true status of Cornwall and the rights of the heir apparent has never been challenged in the courts, the overriding impression is that it has been deemed best to leave “sleeping dogs lie”.
David starkey is a fascist and I really would not put much faith in his far right historical revisionism
I am wishing you would discuss at length the “hereditary” office of Chief Butler of England and Ireland, but had trouble submitting.
The office was in the hands of the Payn family by 1399, followed by Geoffrey Chaucer’s son, Thomas. This has relevance to the provenance of the Ellesmere Chaucer, first mentioned in the 1568 will of Henry Payne of Hengrave, Suffolk.
Thank you
How come this racist is not cancelled?
As ever, Starkey is a joy to listen to.
Difference between Feudalism and Democracy:
In Democracy, it's your vote that counts.
In Feudalism, it's your count that votes :)
In feudalism you demonstrate feuds. In democracy you feud with demomstrators.
Thank you for this. I've been studying titles as a hobby for many years--not just in the UK but throughout Europe--but learned a lot of details from you about the British system. I'm very impressed!
I believe that many of Edward III 's sons gained their titles by marriage to heiresses who would've been wards of the king. These were the centuries of high infant mortality, often leaving only daughters to inherit. The kings would permit marriages to non-royals for a monetary consideration (nice little earner!). I'm fascinated by the many marriages engineered by Ralph Neville (Westmoreland) for his Beaufort/Neville children. He was obviously hugely wealthy and was determined that all his well-connected kids got titles.
My local "peer" is Lord Derby (I live in Knowsley) and when he inherited the title from his uncle he was a bachelor in his 30s. He pretty soon got married - his wife is a Neville. 😃
A wonderful and intensely interesting story, beautifully told. Thank you, sir.
I’m not sure Harry would ever be Duke of York. Isn’t it usually the case that only one person would hold the title at a time? For example; Anne wasn’t created Princess Royal until after her great aunt died, not immediately upon Elizabeth II’s ascension as the first born female of the reigning Sovereign. I suppose Charles would have to be reigning and outlive Andrew before the title of Duke of York would be assigned. The title has to be available before it’s given.
Yes, you're correct here. The present title or use of Duke of York invested in Prince Andrew will have to become extinct, or dissolved through bill of attainder, for the title to be conferred anew upon another individual.
EARL derives from viking JARL
DUKE from Roman DUX (=Leader)
Thank you, David Starkey, for an informative documentary. I find this kind of history just fascinating.
A wonderful and intensely interesting story, told so well. A fascinating and plain explanation of a complicated system. Thank you.
David Starkey has such an outstanding memory for detail.
We Canadians understand that Crown lands are property of the government and do not literally belong to the Queen, something that sometimes confuses Americans. The other day I was looking at the Wikipedia page enumerating royal residences in England and they make a distinction between residences belonging to the Crown (such as Buckingham palace) and those that are the private property of the Queen (such as Balmoral). I`m also aware that in the UK many people, instead of owning the land that their house is on, will have 99 year leases and other forms of indirect semi or pseudo ownership. I was wondering,if, for the benefit of North Americans, you can explain how property rights work in the UK and how that intersects with peerage rights over land.
I'm Australian and I know of an Island off the coast of Queensland that an Irishman succeeded in getting a 99 year lease agreement directly from Queen Victoria in circa 1876. It was not subject to Australian law until 1975. Despite by then being only ten minutes away from the mainland by motor boat. It was a haven for drug lords and draft dodgers.
Not strictly true. Leased (called leasehold) properties exist and someone will hold the title to that lease so the property owner owns the house and the leaseholder owns the land and gets a payment from the property owner for this. Most property owners however own freehold property which means they own the land their property is built on.
That is a really good point. As a lawyer ( but someone who doesn't know legal property history that well)I would love to learn more about it
1. The land law in Scotland is completely different to England. 2 In England, there was a massive reform in 1925 with the Law of Property Act 1925, which created 'estates in land'. There are two main types 'freehold' which is actual ownership but of 'rights in land' rather than of 'land', but no meaningful difference. 2. Leasehold which is buying the rights to land from the freeholder (or another leaseholder) for a term of years, typically 99 or 999 years. The leaseholder 'leases' land from the freeholder and is almost exactly the owner for most purposes, but may have to pay an annual rent, or follow covenants, (not to open a bar on the land etc.) or risk forfeiting the leasehold. Peerage rights are effectively non-existent. But the Duke of Westminster owns a large part of Mayfair (expensive London) but he has many leaseholders who pay him rent on the leases. There are some 'manorial' rights over land, like a village green which have the right to graze sheep on the land etc. but that doesn't affect most people. Some leaseholders can buy out the freeholder too and become freeholders.
@@EdMcF1 Interestingly, the legislative building of the Government of Ontario, Canada, (sometimes called the provincial parliament) sits on property that was leased to the City of Toronto for 999 years by the University of Toronto. A provision of the lease said that the city had to allow the provincial government the right to build the Legislature there if they chose to do so. The city still maintains the northern part of Queen's Park (named to honour Queen Victoria, opened by the then-Prince of Wales, later King Edward VII).
I wish Dr Starkey had been my teacher.
David Starkey is a brilliant orator. He creates such strong images in my mind as he speaks. Mesmerizing.
I didn’t know about the romanticized de Clare origin of the Clarence title, I always learn something new from Dr. Starkey.
Thankyou, Dr Starkey, for sharing your erudition and for continuing to illuminate for us the living dialogue between present and past.
Fascinating and plain explanation of a complicated system.
Fascinating! Thank you for breaking down these titles and their various backgrounds. You answered several questions of mine.
de Vere was made Marquis of Dublin, subsequently upgraded to Duke of Ireland. Titles were technically inheritable only in the male line, though in practice they were often "recreated" for a female for example Richard Neville became Earl of Warwick in right of his wife, and Earl of Salisbury in descent from his mother.
Once again, this is great info Dr. Starkey. Even we Americans are interested in this type of history.
Look forward to the autobiography!!!
David Starkey may not be perfect but you can tell he's studied long and hard
I love David Starkey. He openly shares all this fascinating information with a stinking Plebian like me who hasn't got a penny to scratch his arse.. sheer passion and generosity. This channel is helping change my life. And for that, Thankyou. The Man is a national treasure 🙏❤️😎
🤣🤣🤣
Great as always. Thanks so much for your content David!
It is interesting how the French "marquis" becomes "marquess" and the "s" gets pronounced but "viscount" remains unchanged with a silent "s".
Another level of complication is that when Britain received a language transplant via the Normans, the letter S would have been pronounced by French speakers. It's there for a reason!
Thank Dr Starkey. This talk was so much fun. 💕
i have always admired Dr Starkey and have even purchased a copy of his thesis.
Comprehensive answer- wonderful to listen to over dinner thank you
You say or tell it so well. Thank you...
Thank you David Starkey! My country is just an infant. First governor of my state was William Franklin. Your history is so much more interesting.
As far as I can recall, 'baron' although not used as a title before the Normans, originates from an old English word roughly meaning soldier, coming from a word for boy. It is related to the Northern dialect word 'bairn' meaning child.
I believe it indicates that in Norman England there was an association between low level lords and Old English descent. Would be it be right to think high level lords from Anglo Saxon England were removed by the Normans but low level lords were absorbed into the new system?
Why should anyone trust an infant who cannot recall their own real name?
@The Epic Random Dude Not quite. Baron is a Old French word of Germanic origin, specifically Frankish *barō. It seems to originally simply meant simply warrior, probably a term for common (freedman) members of the Germanic warrior retinue, or comitatus. The Frankish word has a possible cognate in Old English, beorn, also meaning warrior, but it's distinct from the word for child or boy (Old English bearn). Furthermore, usage of the Norman French term ber/baron has no clear associations with Anglo-Saxons.
While a minority of Anglo-Saxon lower-ranking magnates and thegns did survive and didn't subsequently rebel, they rarely owned the land; they were more likely to have been leaseholders to a Norman overlord, or the king himself.
Harry would not have been created Duke of York on his father’s succession to the Throne until the current Duke of York’s death or attainder.
Thank you very much for the clarification of a complicated past.
Excellent! 👏🏼 thank you 👏🏼
A very interesting explanation of how these titles developed.
This makes me remember a passage from Victor Hugo's book, The Man Who Laughs, in which Ursus has a plaque on the wall of the van, with the following title (or so i remember): Things that are worth remembering
That was ABSOLUTELY Fascinating!!!
Thank you Sir.
My great-great-great-great-grandfather was a prince, you don’t see me going around telling people so
Because you have humility and it’s to be admired.
Very informative. Thank you.
Now that’s how you answer a question! Splendid.
I have an ancestor who was a baron but I was not sure where in lay in the order of titles. This video cleared it up foe me.
Excellent explanation. 👏👏 and how this ties into present day. Keeping it alive Starkey.
'Duke' was a title afforded to a military governor in the late Roman Empire ('dux anglorum').
Earl from Saxon/Icelandic is written Jarl, highest chief of a County.
Thank you for such an interesting and educational talk
fascinating as always, I would have liked something about the modern proliferation of princes
Thank you! This is the best teaching of the titles.
Thank you, David, yet again, a thoroughly engaging and informative talk. I loved your amusing reminiscence of childhood playing dukes et al. with your friend. Was this a lamentation of falling educational standards, in that most children now have a very poor understanding of British history? I wonder; perhaps the twinkle in your eye gave the game away.
You do know this guy is a known racist and white nationalist? Please tell me you are aware of this🤔
No its another example of David's far right post colonial historical revisionism and you cannot accuse people who actively didn't vote for a convicted habitual compulsive liar of falling educational standards
I'll just repeat my thanks for something worthwhile on RUclips where mostly otherwise, lamentably woke and moronic comments abound.
Here it is again:
Thank you, David, yet again, a thoroughly engaging and informative talk. I loved your amusing reminiscence of childhood playing dukes et al. with your friend. Was this a lamentation of falling educational standards, in that most children now have a very poor understanding of British history? I wonder; perhaps the twinkle in your eye gave the game away.
@@derekmills1080 can you answer my question please, are you aware this guy is a racist and a white nationalist? Don't be a coward in your moment of glory. Nobody likes a coward, answer please 🤔
@@jeremysmith8035 he's giving thumbs up to his own comments 🤣🤣
"Earl" is the Anglo-Saxon corresponding of "Yarl" in the Scandinavian languages
Germamic roots for both of them.
What a lovely room Dr Starkey .
Very interesting. I have always wanted to know what happened to make the barons end up at the bottom of the pile. When the Magna Carta was signed in 1215 it was written by a group of barons. Since the titles of Dukes, Marquis, Earl, Viscount weren't in place at the time what happened? As the hierarchy seems to come from France and the French had barons in the 1th century why didn't barons remain close to the top of pecking order?
@Happy Grandma The Germanic-rooted word baron originally meant a common freedman member of the ancient and early-medieval Germanic warrior retinue, or comitatus. Count (Old French, from Latin comēs, literally 'companion') originally meant a companion of the leader of the retinue (Old French dus/duc, from Latin dux, simply 'leader'), though both titles also inherit functions of the same names from Roman administration. Obviously, as time went on, these terms became formalities, and new functionary names came about (e.g. marshal, constable).
Why a marquess ranks below a duke but above an earl or count, I don't know.
The Prince of Wales. The Dauphine of France. Question: why did they choose their titles from the names of sea animals?
Wales is an actual place conquered by England the title isn’t named after an animal.
@@tiffanysanchez9184 Very few are aware of the ancient part land, part sea creature called the Wale which evolved into a Whale.
Many think the name of the actual country took it’s name from King of Wales, which are modern day Humpback Whales.
Whatever the truth, it’s a whale 🐳 of a story, isn’t it?
@@gregorioeduardo lol it sure is. 🙂
Wish all my teachers & scholars spoke like David
Great Education channel from David Starkey 👍
Need more teachers in like Anglosphere schooling.
Culture is the great unifier
Thats why its strange Starkey is so into the dividing english separatists lately, only because BBC ghosted him. He should be above that as a man of knowledge and culture. Cone over more like Boris than Nestor lately.
My great grandfathers of the 16th and 17th and 18th centuries had 2 baronet titles. Lost them though in the battle of Culloden.
It's an important distinction that baronet titles, or baronetcies, are not themselves peerage titles, though it is is possible for a Peer (a Duke, Marquis, Earl, Viscount, or Baron/Lord) to also hold a baronetcy.
Wonderful summary
I don't think it is entirely fair to condemn the court of public opinion over Andrew. He was presented with the opportunity of due process, he chose instead to pay off his accuser. While legally he may not have admitted guilt, I think the public are entitled on that basis to draw their own conclusions.
Exactly. And the public is entitled to draw its conclusions based on his BBC appearance for which the adjective 'disastrous' seems to be invented.
I agree, I think Her Majesty knows the truth, he wouldn’t face trial because he was guilty.
After the grotesque spectacle of the Depp/Heard trial, I think we can understand why Andrew chose not to put his future in the hands of the American justice system.
@@VernonStradling Oh I can understand the desire not to, when money is no object, but it only solves the immediate problem. It can't buy back your good name, indeed the resort to the pay off damages that further.
I mean, when he paid so many millions to the woman he said he didn't know, there is only one possible conclusion.
there were bombastic titles given by khalifs, like "Rukn ad-Dawla"- "Pillar of State", "Saif ad-Dawla"- "Sword of State" etc.
one Muslim scholar said "when first grandiose title "__ of State" taken for the sake of public recognition, then final Fate of this State was recognised by public"
Thanks Dr David
If you could only save one of those books on your shelves from a fire, which would you choose and why?
Thank you for the clarification of the royal titles.
I prefer the “Duke of Earl” 😊
Thanks for this interesting presentation.
Montesquieu (1689 - 1755) is said to be the first to promote/suggest the separation of the legislative, the executive and the judicial powers and yet you suggest it was prevalent in England some time before. Have I misunderstood?
Interesting. The downgrading of the title Clarence from the monarch's second son explains why George III gave it to his third son and to some extent why Edward VII when himself Prince of Wales gave it to his son (next in line), Albert Victor. A bit of a shame it wasn't continued into current times - either Earl of Wessex or Duke of Cambridge should have taken Clarence.
I do wonder if it was the Dukedom HMTQ had intended to give Edward before he insisted that he did not wanted to be a duke but the Earl of Wessex for romantic and symbolic reasons.
Is it not considered an unlucky title?
It was Queen Victoria, not Albert, Prince of Wales (the then future Edward VII), who conferred the title of Duke of Clarence (more fully, in this instance, Duke of Clarence and Avondale) upon Prince Albert Victor, in 1890. The Sovereign alone is the fount of honor, hence only the Sovereign retains the prerogative to create peerage titles, baronetcies, knighthoods, etc. Edward VII only gained this prerogative when he ascended the throne in 1901, upon his mother's death (the Duke of Clarence and Avondale had predeceased them both, in 1892).
Though an American with 350+ yrs since any of my known ancestors lived in Wales, I find this topic quite fascinating. Is there any truth to the legend that Edward I, as a sop to the unruly Welsh rebels after executing their own prince of Wales, promised to give them a new prince "born in Wales and who speaks no English" -- hence hurrying Edward's very pregnant queen to Caernarfon Castle so she could give birth to the new prince of Wales (and later Edward II)?
Perhaps a Marcus Aurelius and stoicism insight would be interesting to listen to.
More interesting are the entirely fatuous address "styles" of "highness" and "majesty". In normal use our brains disconnect these from the actual meanings of the words to avoidly laughing at the absurdities entailed. I recommend we revert to synonyms on a rotating annual basis to ground our words to reality: eg. "His lofty awesomeness King Charles". Let the hilarity begin.
Very interesting, thank you. Andrew may have been tried in the 'court of public opinion', but, well, he did pay 12 million quid to a woman he claimed he'd never met, so...
This was fascinating
why are there never royal Marquesses?
Actually, there have been, but so far always as subsidiary titles, and not used for royal princes for over two hundred years. Before the present Duke of Edinburgh, the present Sovereign's youngest brother, was invested with that title, he was known as His Royal Highness The Earl of Wessex and Forfar. So royal Earls and even Viscounts and Barons are historically attested. It's just an historical quirk that the dignity of Marquess has been recently neglected as a title for royal princes, but some princes in the fifteenth, sixteenth, seventeenth, and eighteenth centuries did bear the designation of Marquess in support of even higher Ducal dignities, the most recent example being that of Prince George, Duke of Edinburgh and Marquess of the Isle of Ely, who succeeded to the throne as George III in 1760, upon which his previous titles merged within the Crown. There's also the example of Henry VIII's second Queen Anne Boleyn, who before her marriage in 1533 was created Lady Marquess of Pembroke, in 1532 (a title forfeited in 1536 upon her execution).
@@barrymoore4470 thank you. Solid answer!
Aye, but what about the title of 'baron'? All them barons badgering King John to sign the Magna Carta in 1215 - but seeming the first official baron weren't till 1313! Who was being called a baron afore then? - and on what basis? A very entertaining listen.
So what about the Duke of Earl?
Unless The Duke of York is attainted or has his title removed by other means then until he dies the title remains with him. Were he to have had a son then said son would inherit the title. Since he only has daughters that creation of the title dies with him.
The interesting thing is that no Duke of York since the very first creation has EVER had a son succeed to the title. Either they've died sonless or the title has merged with the crown. Second creation was murdered by Richard III. Third creation merged with the crown as Henry VIII. Fourth creation merged with the crown as Charles I. Jacobite creation was a cardinal and thus (at least in theory) celibate. Sixth creation merged with the crown as George V. Seventh creation merged with the crown as George VI. Eighth creation is still extant but will become extinct with the first holder.
I agree with Dr Starkey that it's extremely unlikely that the Duke of Cambridge will ever be created Duke of York. It's very likely that his uncle will still be around until after his father is dead anyway, precluding any creation of him as Duke of York. Much, much more likely that the next creation of the title will be for Prince Louis of Cambridge after his father ascends to the throne.
Good info, never realized it hasn't been inherited, interesting.
@@tin_tiara That's as I understood it; the title is hereditary in the male line, so if the current Duke had a son that issue would be next Duke rather than it reverting to the sovereign's 2nd son. It's only a run of bad luck (lack of heirs male) that has prevented a new cadet line of York becoming established. Or, as in the cases of Henry VIII, James II and George VI, the Duke becoming King in succession to his childless brother.
"I agree with Dr Starkey that it's extremely unlikely that the Duke of Cambridge will ever be created Duke of York."
But he will be created Prince of Wales when his father succeeds to the throne. Which will overshadow all other titles.
Why is there no present day Duke of Clarence? Wasn't the last one supposed to marry Princess May of Teck and then when he died she married his younger brother. Was he the last Duke of Clarence and why?
So far, yes, he has been the last Duke of Clarence (more fully, in his case, Duke of Clarence and Avondale). The Sovereign could revive the title at his discretion, but so far has not chosen to do so.
Vikings !!!! The Normans were vikings and Earl comes from the Nordic word Jarl .
The Crown S02 episode 03 entitled Lisbon showed the investiture of the Duke of Edinburgh by the Queen... whether this happened or not, I assume this is what Dr Starky was saying about some Dukes having a semi-royal ceremony etc..
My 5th great grandfather was an Irish baronet, I'm quite confused how the first baronet got his title since he was a supporter of the Monmouth rebellion lol. If someone could tell me how baronets are created, I'd appreciate it 🙂
It’s basically an hereditary Knighthood, a Sir, for someone more important than being bestowed only a Knighthood for their life time; but less important than making them a Peer (Baron, Viscount etc).
A Baronet and a Knight are part of the aristocracy/gentry, but not necessarily a Noble.
They originally came about when King James, I believe it was, wanted to raise money for his army (originally you had to pay for it). There are even Baronets of Nova Scotia in Canada! 👍
@@tradingforbeginners oh that makes a lot of sense, I wonder if they were respected considering they had to pay for it? I never knew Canada had baronets! I assume they don't bestow the titles anymore? I hardly hear of Canadian knights let alone baronets
Originally a title can be given as a gift for services rendered to the crown by the sovereign then is passed down through the hereditary male line.
@@evacope1718 The baronetage of Nova Scotia closed when the crown of Scotland united with that of England in 1707, creating the new polity of Great Britain. Baronetcy titles within the baronetage of Nova Scotia still in existence at the time persisted and were fully recognized, this remaining the case to the present day, but no new titles in the baronetage could be created after 1707.
Dr starkey I reckon you are HG TUDOR.... i have been obssessed with that channel for over 2 years now
How are royal daughters accommodated with respect to titles? Have they been largely ignored?
They usually are merely accorded the honorifics of "Her Royal Highness The Princess So-and-so" (in earlier centuries they tended to be referred to as "The Lady So-and-so"), with the Sovereign's eldest daughter often given the special designation of The Princess Royal. Insofar as royal daughters are married to Peers of the realm, they take the feminine form of their husbands' titles (i.e., the late Princess Margaret was the Countess of Snowdon by virtue of being married to the Earl of Snowdon), but otherwise rarely if ever wield peerage titles (in fact, I know of no royal daughter in English history to have been given a peerage title in her own right).
@@barrymoore4470 Thank you very much for your reply to an old question.
Duke/Baron of Gerardi. Yes, this will be my initial start by birth - August 20th, 1973. Title over my YDNA Italian nobility House with my mother's paternal line being Greek nobility families (Petrocochino and Mavrocordatos). Then ask for titles over land: Duke of Carthage, Crown Prince of Tunisia, etc
My father is a descendant of Henry I through his illegitimate son Robert Fitzroy( de Caen) the 1st earl of Gloucester and a Welsh princess . also my father is the descendant of Henry II Plantagenet illegitimate son William Longespee, 3rd earl of Salisbury and Ida The Countess of Norfolk.
I realise the line started as illegitimate but they had titles and married titled heiress. Therefore many descendants had many titles right down the centuries
Why did my family loose all of those said titles? Where did they go? We’re they absolved or retained by the Crown ?
Could there ever be a duke of scotland/ Northern Ireland?
There can be and are Dukes within the Peerages of Scotland and Ireland, but it's highly unlikely anyone today or in future would be invested with the title of 'Duke of Scotland' or 'Duke of Northern Ireland', because these would be too sweepingly grand, encompassing whole realms and infringing upon the Sovereign's majesty and sway over those territories.
I wanted him to explain why Earl was kept over count - I heard its because of Norman pronunciation and childish giggling by Anglo-Saxons due to a rude homophone... Would be nice to know for certain how much salt I should take that with
. Due to the special english ranks of nobilty i always had the impression an Earl is more between what a count and a duke is in continental europe.
I would love to have a conversation about the Duke, his son, the “au pair,” her father Payn and her sister Chaucer- along with their relationships to another Payn: John Payn “the Pincerna Regis” (d. 1402). There is a lot of history to found there.
Who created the title "Earl of Essex" which is now extinct?
I am a direct descendant of the Capell family through my late mother's paternal lineage.
The late Princess Diana was also
a descendant of this noble family via Mary Capell Somerset.
The Earls of Essex of the Capell family still survive. The title was created in 1661 by King Charles II. The title had been previously held by the Devereux family, invested with the title by Queen Elizabeth I in 1572, but that line died out in 1646.
Thanks for this
Always interesting, but why Sussex? You did not answer, Dr.
I wonder if William has decided whether to make Charlotte the Princess Royal or the Duchess of York (could be problematic if she marries). Guess it will depend on which one kicks the bucket first.
Prince of Wales, Duke of Cornwall and Earl of Chester. 07:28
Absolutely loved this ❤ 👏 Following suit, I do believe one day when Prince of Wales becomes King, we must consider the Duke of York his younger brother? Since Andrew, second son of Queen Elizabeth II is still very much alive! I do believe Harry's behavior as second son could be the reincarnated George, Duke of Clarence? Edward IVs brother may have lived and died playing the fool's card? But fair to say Harry may be drowning himself in a barrel of Marsmey over his choice in wife these days? Seems those loyal to British customs might consider resuming the traditional title for the 2nd son? 😒 🤔 😒 🤔 not bad for a dumb American girl now am I? 😆 🤣
The only way Prince Louis, and Princess Charlotte can be given the titles the Duke Of York and Princess Royal respectively three things must happen to make it possible A: When their Dad William ascends to the throne and become’s King and B: when the former title holder’s ie Prince Andrew and Princess Anne pass away those titles will be free to pass to Louis and Charlotte also C: I believe Letter’s patent must be issued at least in the case of the title Duke of York to make Louis Duke Of York but also may be needed to make Charlotte Princess Royal.
P.S I too am also an American but I have studied as a hobby mind you the Royal Family, their history, and the titles I’m not perfect at it but I do hope I have helped you
@@tiffanysanchez9184 To the best of my understanding, everything you state here is correct. Letters patent are definitely required to properly and legally create a peerage title (of which Duke of York is an example), but I'm not sure if this necessary for the conferring of the dignity of Princess Royal. There is one other way the title of Duke of York could be freed up to confer upon someone other than Prince Andrew while Prince Andrew lives, and that is if a bill of attainder were issued against him, depriving him of the title.
My favourite - Marquess of Cholmondeley
Harry would not be made Duke of York on his father's accession as long as there is another Duke of York. If Andrew had a son, he would become Duke of York upon Andrew death.
It is a coincidence of history that for centuries all Dukes of York either died without heir (Richard, son of Edward IV) or predeceased their father (Frederick) or became king themselves (Henry of cursed memory, Charles I, James II, George VI).
What you say is correct, except that a bill of attainder issued against the present Duke of York could deprive him and any potential future heir male of his body of the title, thus freeing it for conferral upon another.
@@barrymoore4470 Yes, but that's two big IFs.
Harry should get no further titles at all.
@@str.77 I'm indifferent as to whether he does or not. It is completely up to the Sovereign's discretion to bestow titles, and on whom.
Earl comes from the Danish Jarl?
And many of these families still own the lands given to them by William The Conqueror and they sit in the House of Lords …. and still “Lord It” over the peasants which at one time were their property as well.
My great x 6 was a Baron but I cannot see how these premodern titles had any reality to them.
Will Charlotte become Duchess of York or the next Princess Royal, or both? It's a new situation. I suspect Charles wants the Edinburgh title to go to one of William's children after Edward's death.
What about Baronets?
Sir Tony 😁
Dr Starkey, I understood that some titles were granted to non-royals in recognition of some special service provided. How does this fit into the structure you discuss or am I wrong? Thank you.
The monarch can make any title. Arthur Wesley was made duke of Wellington because he beat Napoleon. His descendantns still holds that title.
You’re correct some titles were granted to non royals for services rendered to the crown.
@@tiffanysanchez9184 In fact, the vast majority of peerage titles are held by non-royal personages.
This wasn’t clarified: In contrast to Scotland, and England, the Act of Union of 1801 was disastrous for Ireland. It lost its parliament and resulted in the Irish Question being at the forefront of British politics throughout the nineteenth century. Home
Rule was promised then shelved followed imminently by the Easter Rising 1916, the War of independence 1919-21 followed by partition and the creation of Northern Ireland. If Ireland had not been denied its own parliament in 1801, could things have been very different?