GEN-ROYAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-ROYAL > 2006-10 > 1161455691


From: Tim Powys-Lybbe <>
Subject: Re: [GEN-ROYAL] Titular confusion
Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2006 19:34:51 +0100
References: <00c601c6f3e1$716a4960$0300a8c0@Toshiba> <c6fcd2cd0610191836n6fe0cadbx85f917839b2b8ab4@mail.gmail.com><00f701c6f3f3$9933d030$0300a8c0@Toshiba><8C8C263B741191C-85C-43E2@WEBMAIL-DC10.sysops.aol.com><01d601c6f4e0$95cd28e0$0300a8c0@Toshiba>
In-Reply-To: <01d601c6f4e0$95cd28e0$0300a8c0@Toshiba>


In message of 21 Oct, "Leo van de Pas" <> wrote:

> Dear Marlene
>
> Many thanks this confirms to me that Burke's 1999 page 1538 had it wrong as
> it gave both father and son the courtesy title of Viscount Villiers. This
> would be weird in the British system as I do not know any other father and
> son with the same title, being proper title or courtesy.

I thought that Marlene's note, below, implied that the son and grandson
did not bear the same title at the same time.

> Do you know when the 9th Earl of Jersey died in 1998? His son,
> Viscount Villiers, died 10 March 1998.
>
> Many thanks
> Leo
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <>
> To: <>
> Sent: Friday, October 20, 2006 11:35 PM
> Subject: Re: [GEN-ROYAL] Titular confusion
>
>
> > It should also be noted that the heir to the Jersey earldom can bear
> > either Viscount Villiers or Viscount Grandison. The current earl of
> > Jersey chose the latter after the death of his father who was styled by
> > the former title. Lord Jersey succeeded his grandfather as his father
> > was already deceased.
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From:
> > To:
> > Sent: Thu, 19 Oct 2006 10:58 PM
> > Subject: Re: [GEN-ROYAL] Titular confusion
> >
> >
> > Dear William,
> >
> > I think you misread my message, a courtesy title is in reality no title.
> > When there was a house of Lords the man known as Marquess of Blandford
> > had
> > no rights as his "title" was only a "courtesy" no more. I think you
> > explained well how the courtesy titles are arrived at. I did not know
> > that,
> > I thought that "tradition" gave the second title to the heir and the third
> > title to the eldest son of the heir. If the Marlboroughs had done the same
> > as the Earls of Jersey, we would have two Marquesses of Blandford? How
> > confusing.
> > Many thanks.
> > Leo
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "William Reitwiesner" <>
> > To: <>
> > Sent: Friday, October 20, 2006 11:36 AM
> > Subject: Re: [GEN-ROYAL] Titular confusion
> >
> >
> >> On 10/19/06, Leo van de Pas <> wrote:
> >>> In Great Britain, the holder of a title often has more titles and his
> >>> son
> >>> and heir gets his second title as a courtesy title, if there are more
> >>> titles than the son and heir of the heir receives the grandfather's
> >>> third
> >>> title.
> >>
> >> That's not quite correct. There is no devolution of any of the
> >> secondary titles to the heir-apparent, the peer retains all of the
> >> titles. Since there is no formal devolution of the title, what the
> >> heir-apparent is called, by courtesy, is whatever he (and the peer)
> >> choose.
> >>
> >>> So we have the Duke of Marlborough is the father of the Marquess of
> >>> Blandford and he is the father of the Earl of Sunderland.
> >>
> >> Actually the Duke of Marlborough is still the Marquess of Blandford
> >> and the Earl of Sunderland. The styling of his heir-apparent and his
> >> heir-apparent's heir-apparent is simply a courtesy
> >>
> >>> The Earls of Jersey confuse me. In Burke's 1999 we find George
> >>> Francis Child-Villiers (who apparently died that year) as 9th Earl of
> >>> the Island of Jersey, Viscount Villiers of Dartford, Viscount Grandison
> >>> of Limerick, Baron Villiers of Hoo.
> >>>
> >>> His son and heir is marked off as Viscount Villiers, and his son and
> >>> heir is also marked off as Viscount Villiers. Is this correct? What is
> >>> the explanation?
> >>
> >> Yes, that's correct. The explanation is that they wanted to do it
> >> that way, so they did. Since the courtesy use of subsidiary titles by
> >> heirs-apparent has never been regulated in any way, nobody can stop
> >> them (or any other peer/heir-apparent) from doing it whatever way they
> >> want to.
> >>
> >> -------------------------------
> >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
> >> with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
> >> quotes in the subject and the body of the message
> >>
> >
> >
> > -------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
> >
> > with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body
> > of
> > the message
> > ________________________________________________________________________
> > Check out the new AOL. Most comprehensive set of free safety and security
> > tools, free access to millions of high-quality videos from across the web,
> > free AOL Mail and more.
> >
> > -------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
> > with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
> > quotes in the subject and the body of the message
> >
>
>
> -------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message
> --
> This email has been verified as Virus free
> Virus Protection and more available at http://www.plus.net


--
Tim Powys-Lybbe                                          
             For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org/

This thread: