The Nitty-Gritty on Dukes

Andrea here, musing today about . . . dukes. It’s hard not to think about them, as these days, every Regency romance novel seems to have “duke” in the title. Which would logically lead one to imagine that in Britain, dukes are a farthing a dozen.

But not so! A cursory glance at Debrett’s, the bible of the British peerage, quickly corrects that fantasy. So I thought it would very fun—and very educational—to take quick look at the reality of dukes and dukedoms in order to have a more accurate idea picture of the past and the present. (Above: the 18th Duke of Norfolk at his estate.)

According to Debrett’s, there are 24 dukes in all of Great Britain (not counting royal dukes—we’ll get to them in a moment.) The title ‘duke’ derives from the Latin word dux, which means ‘leader,’ and it is the highest of the five peerage ranks. (The others being marquess, earl, viscount and baron.)

The first man who was not closely related to the royal family to receive a dukedom was Sir William de la Pole, who was made Duke of Suffolk in 1448. The premier duke and earl of England is the Duke of Norfolk. (Premier means the dukedom is the oldest one in the realm, and Norfolk’s is dated at 1397 through a complex explanation which I shall not attempt to explain here.) The premier peer of Scotland is the Duke of Hamilton and Brandon, created in 1643. And the premier duke, marquess and earl of Ireland is the Duke of Leinster, a title created in 1766. (Above: Sir William de la Pole

Now onto royal dukes! A prince of royal blood (ie. The sons or grandsons of a monarch) is usually given a dukedom when he comes of age, or marries. Prince William was made the Duke of Cambridge when he married Kate Middleton, and Prince Harry was made the Duke of Sussex when he married Meghan Markle. (A nice story about Harry’s dukedom is that the title had had last been held by a son of King George III. The Regency Duke of Sussex was an ardent abolitionist, and publicly condemned slavery. One imagines Queen Elizabeth was aware of this when she chose the title for him.) (Above: the Duke of Sussex)

Another interesting aside that Prince Edward, the Queen Elizabeth’s youngest son went against tradition and merely requested an earldom. According to Debrett’s he will inherit Prince Philip’s title of Duke of Edinburgh, but only when the prince of wales becomes King. Other royal dukes include Queen Elizabeth’s second son, Prince Andrew, who is the Duke of York, and the Queen’s two cousins, the Duke of Kent and the Duke of Gloucester, who are both grandsons of King George V.

Some of the most famous dukedoms include the Duke of Marlborough (featured in the recent film The Favourite) which was came into existence in 1702, when Queen Anne created the title for John Churchill in reward for his victory at the battle of Blenheim. Sir Winston Churchill was a descendent (his father was a younger son of the 7th Duke of Marborough) and was born at Blenheim Palace, the magnificent sprawling residence built by the original duke. Legend has it that when the British government wanted to reward Churchill with a peerage for leading Britain through WWII, Churchill said the only peerage he would accept was the Duke of Marborough. Alas, his cousin wasn’t too keen to give up Blenheim and the other perks of being part of such an august lineage, so Churchill remain a mere Sir. (Above: the Duke of Marlborough)

The Dukedom of Devonshire is also a famous one, with a tumultuous history. The 5th Duke married Lady Georgiana Spencer and a had a notoriously stormy marriage. The eldest son and heir of the 10th earl, William Cavendish was a dashing WWII soldier who married JFK’s sister, much to the dismay of both sets of parents—she was Catholic and he was Anglican. He was killed in battle shortly after the marriage. (Right: William Cavendish)

The Dukes of Devonshire were also quite active in politics, including the 4th duke who was prime Minister from 1756-57, and the 9th duke, who served as Governor-General of Canada. The 8th duke is probably the most of his line—he served in government for over 40 years, and his posts included Secretary of State for India and Secretary of State for War. (Another interesting anecdote is that he married the widowed dowager Duchess of Manchester, who became known as the Double Duchess.)

I confess to having a fondness for the first Duke of Wellington. (Maybe because I’ve always loved the Sir Thomas Lawrence portrait of him.) Having visited his townhouse at Number One London, I find him a fascinating man—a supreme warrior who cried when seeing the battlefield dead (one of the rooms had portraits honoring the general he fought against.) He also served as prime minister for Queen Victoria. (Above: the Duke of Wellington)

And on a personal note, I have actually met a duke, and played golf with him. The late 10th Duke of Roxburghe was an avid golfer who built a wonderful golf course on his Scottish estate near Kelso as a way to help support the vast estate financially. I was part of a group of journalists invited to play there, and then have lunch with him in the private wing of Floors Castle, his ancestral home, and get tour of the rooms filled with memorabilia. It was a truly amazing experience.

Okay, I know you're now thinking that I’ve ruined the fairytale Regency romance fun of a charming, handsome, wealthy, eligible duke . . . but wait! I’ve saved the best for last. (Above: the Duke of Roxburghe and me)

The last dukedom created (other than royal dukes) was the Duke of Westminster in 1874. Now, the current Duke of Westminster (All our women readers, prepare to join me in a collective fluttery sigh) is Hugh Grosvenor . . . who, at age 29 happens to be not only drop-dead gorgeous but the richest man in world under thirty. His wealth (the family trust basically owns half of London) is calculated in billions (yes, that’s plural.) And Hugh is single! (All those Regency heroines romping around out there—take note!) (Above: the Duke of Westminster)

So, what do you think of the “duke” trope in Regency romance? Given all the recent turmoil within the royal family in Britain, there are many who think the titled aristocracy is archaic. Do you enjoy reading about the real-life aristocracy and their pageantries—or could you care less?

Comments

[Tim Illingworth]

Clearly, the world or Regency Romances is that of Iolanthe, after Strephon's reform of the Peerage...

"Queen.
Titles shall ennoble, then,
All the Common Councilmen:

Peers: Spare us!

Queen.
Peers shall teem in Christendom,
And a Duke's exalted station
Be attainable by Com-
Petitive Examination!

Peers: Oh, horror!"

[Mary T]

Interesting post! Always happy to learn new things.

I do think that the aristocracy is archaic in this day and age. But I'm an American so what do I know? If the people of Great Britain are happy with, it who am I to say nay?

I do enjoy a program on the Smithsonian Channel called AN AMERICAN ARITOCRAT'S GUIDE TO GREAT ESTATES. It is hosted by an American who married a Viscount. She visits many of the great estates and shows the history and how the current residents manage to keep them going. No easy task - they are very expensive.

As for dukes in a Regency historical novel -I'm ok with it. Although I think a good story is more important than the H/h's rank. And I have wondered more than once why they all have to be aristocrats.

[Kareni]

Thanks for an informative post, Andrea.

I enjoy reading about aristocrats, but I also enjoy reading about the common man. If the story is good, sign me up!

[Andrea Penrose]

Ha, ha! Thanks for sharing, Tim!

[Andrea Penrose]

Mary, thanks so much for the heads-up on the Smithsonian Channel show. That sounds fascinating!

Yes, many of the aristocratic estates need to be find commerical ways to attartct the public and make the money for update and texes. Ther are hugely expensive. That's why I was playing golf with a duke! He built the golf course on his lands and converted one of the estate buildings into a chic country inn in order to make money.

[Andrea Penrose]

and p.s.—yes I, too, care about the story rather than rank. But I guess the working class has less time to cavort at garden parties and balls!

[Andrea Penrose]

Totally agree, Kareni. A good story is a good story!

But I do confess that I love to see the grand estates, in person or in picture books. It's fun to imagine all the stories those palatial homes have seen!

[Yvonne]

I knew there were very few dukes in Regency times,(i seem to. Recall reading 28, and at least some had to be geriatric!), so I do get annoyed when every other new book features them. There are many more earls and other peers, not to mention the hereditary baronets, so those seem more reasonable. Georgette Heyer didn’t see the need to litter the place with dukes! I am., of course, not opposed to dukes (These Old Shades and Devil’s Cub) (Stephanie Lauen’s Cynster clan), but enough already!

As to the modern peerage, I have no opinion.

[LindaB]

I think all those Regencies with rich, powerful noblemen, especially dukes, are the equivalent of present-day billionaire romances, just with prettier dresses and set in the past for those who don't like contemporaries. They're all Cinderella stories: poor, sweet girl convinces rich, powerful man to marry her. Not realistic, but a very widespread female fantasy. I think a Harlequin promo I read once says it all (not the exact wording): "stories about rich, powerful men and women just like you." That said, I like Regencies because the present is too close, but I am a little tired of all the rich nobles.

[Andrea Penrose]

Yvonne, I'm willing suspend disbelief . . .but only up to a point. The trend has become a little silly, with "Duke" in every Regency romance title. A duke once in a while is fine, but not EVERY book.

[Andrea Penrose]

Linda, you right—duke, like billionaire is a codeword for the creme de la creme of rich, powerful men. Fairytales usually have a grain of truth to them about human nature, and there seems to be something that resonates in the rags to riches trope.

[Janice]

I have no real objection per se to dukes as heroes except that in the course of most novels one never sees them working - no meetings with court or politicians; no meetings with property managers or investment advisors (let alone doing their own homework); no role in the community. Most of them are always just swanning around society, seducing bored wives, entering horse races, flashing their wealth, overpowering the locals with their glory. No real duties or responsibilities. They're characters made boring and stereotypical.

Of late I find I am much more interested in stories about members of the gentry class - they seem to have more flexibility and more originality - they have scope to be real.

[Nancy Mayer]

My objection to the many dukes ia that most are portrayed as having nothing to do. They could have been any rich man. They are dukes because an editor thinks dukes are better in titles than earls. It is just like the contemporaries with billionaires. They used to be millionaires but now most have to be billionaires. Real dukes are much more interesting and do more than go apound bedding multiple women. The Regency dukes had many positions and obligations. My objections to all the dukes is that the portrayal is rarely of the unique position of a duke.

[Teresa Broderick]

I too love visiting these vast estates and reading about them. It doesn't really bother me about Dukes in stories. If the story is good, what matter.
Royalty in England is not as popular as other countries think. You do have your Royalists but I think they are more tolerated than anything. Probably an example of this was when Prince Philip died last week, the English tv channels were cleared and programmes about him were on all day long. They had the most complaints ever about no alternative programming. Not everyone wants to sit and watch that all day, especially as it was the same thing repeated over and over, just in different ways.
Great post Andrea. I love learning new things and this blog provides a lot of that.

[Andrea Penrose]

Alas, there is a whole sub-genre of Regency romances which just seem interested in transposing modern 20-something sensibilities "of let's have fun!" instead of caring about a semblance of historical accuracy. I guess its so there's an excuse to have characters in fancy ballgowns and tiaras, and have them waltz from one sumptuous party to another.

For be, depth of character is what gets me into a story, so the "romp" trope doesn't hold my attention much either.

[Sue McCormisk]

I think everything I would say has already been said. Someone above mentioned Stephanie Laurens works. Her due DO something. The Cynsters and their allies have family empires. There are other dynastic stories with similar family empires. The working aristocrat of any rank is much mure intersting to rad about than the idle rich.

[Andrea Penrose]

Nancy, we all know that most authors add an element of fantasy to their novels to create a perfect love story, but there is also a sub-genre of Regency romance that doesn't aim for any historical accuracy. I'm criticizing —just pointing it out. Clearly there are readers who love seeing modern heroes and heroines dressed up in period costumes and put in fairytale settings.

I just prefer to have a little more depth and challenges in the stories I read.

[Andrea Penrose]

So glad you enjoyed the blog, Teresa. That's very interesting about the complaints of the lack of alternatives regarding prince Philip's funeral. It does seem like many people do view the monarchy as archaic, but an important part of Britain's history, so aren't fussed about abolishing it.

And totally agree, it's the story that matters, and how a character is developed, not the hero and heroine's title or position.

[Andrea Penrose]

So true, Sue! There's are a lot of wonderful story possibilities in showing a duke handling his many responsibilities, and many authors use that well—including Laurens!

[LindaB]

Well, one type of rags to riches stories--the other is the one where you make your money yourself (this is probably the male version). Here, the women marry money, which again, is a common female fantasy. I would prefer the female fantasy to be making the money yourself. Although, one billionaire romance writer (whose name I can't remember) said that the billionaire trope had to be rich man-poor woman because it doesn't work the other way around. Oh, well.

[Mary M.]

Just so, Andrea. I have probably been the most indignant person here on the Duke trope ("Hey, there's a Duke in here so my under-researched, pseudo-Regency story must be a good one!"), so this column was interesting and very satisfying to me.*

I was most intrigued by the Sussex story. I'm sure you are right that this title was deliberately chosen for (probably requested by) Prince Harry. So fitting. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke_of_Sussex

Loved your sigh-worthy wrap-up. Nice to know there's at least one exception in real life. (One almost expects him to walk up out of the water with a soaked, clingy shirt. But that reminds us that Darcy was a mere Mister, right?)

* Caveat: Duke trope does not refer to any of the Wenches' books, or to any other true Regency author whose duke is appropriate to the story line. I do appreciate a Duke who dukes.

[Annette N]

Actually I am rather pleased to know I was correct, when I suspected that dukes were not around every corner in Mayfair during the Regency period, nor now.

Second, as far as the peerage...I am a fan of Queen Elizabeth II. She is a woman who has gone from fixing cars during WWII to becoming one of the most well known figures today. She is an example to devotion to her position. I feel empathy for her, not only at the loss of her beloved husband but also that a couple of her children did not seem to learn much on how to lead a well lived life.

As far as whether the hero is a duke, or some other big wheel, it is not a big deal to me. I appreciate well written stories. I appreciate plots which are made up of interesting events. I admire a hero who is a kind man with a sense of humor and intelligence...no matter his position in the world.

It is true today as well, your average guy is not riding through Hyde Park in his well fitting buckskins. He is seldom appearing at balls with a bored expression on his face. So, it makes sense that authors would choose to write about wealthy people with time on their hands. So, heroes happened to be of the peerage.

I thank you for this post. It is interesting, and educational and the pictures are terrific. And if it comes up, I have a granddaughter who would be perfect for the lovely young duke, she will be graduating from college shortly.

Seriously, thanks for all the good information. I hope everyone is taking care and staying well.

[Janice]

I am against modernism; I think of those books as RegencyLand. Nobody goes to Disneyland expecting accurate history; they just want a good time while they're there - but I have seen too many of these regency pastiches and I am way past the age of wanting to play with paper dolls in pretty clothes. So my taste runs heavily to the traditional. There are very few RegencyLand authors I can read, let alone watch - only those who show me that they are not ignorant of the real regency but have decided to play with certain aspects of its culture. And even then in small doses.

There is so much courage, heart and realism in the daily lives of real individuals that could be used as inspiration for fiction. I don't need to have 21st century sitcom attitudes pasted in instead. I am a bit startled to find that so many readers will settle for so little.

[Andrea Penrose]

I understand a lot of people enjoy Regencyland novels . . .and that's fine. reading is always a good thing.

But I agree with you. There are so many real-life interesting people to use as inspiration for Regency stories. I prefer to read books with rich, textures characters who show some relation to the real times.

[Andrea Penrose]

Sussex really surprised. I had pretty much thought of all of George III's sons as unpleasant wastrels. But Sussex had a lot of admirable qualities, and stood up to his father in order to marry the woman he loved.

I do think many writers s just throw a duke in the story because it's trendy, without having any idea how to make interesting in a story.

And yes. Westminster seems like a real storybook hero!

[Andrea Penrose]

Annette, so glad you enjoyed the post. Maybe your granddaughter should meet the Duke of Westminster! He seems like a very nice fellow!

[Susan/DC]

Totally agree, and in fact I find the overabundance of dukes off-putting. I go so far as to avoid books with duke in the title unless reviews are stellar and it's from an author I trust -- I've even bought some books precisely because the heroes were lesser aristocrats or even untitled (heresy though that may be in historical romance). Earls and barons, viscounts and self-made men can be rich and handsome, and the story can be just as much a fairy tale. Think Jane Austen, Georgette Heyer, and many books by Wenches past and present.

[Annelie]

You are so right!

But going to Goodreads or the comments at Amazon, many readers seem to like these books. What a pity!

[Patricia Neuendorf]

I read a lot of Regencies, and in many of them the titled hero spends a great deal of time worrying about his estate and tenants, and duties in the House of Lords. The bored dandies attending balls are heirs or younger sons without much to do.
I've seen some where they mention that the Duke should provide as much employment as possible - thus the overabundance of footmen, etc.
Of course, there's always the careless father, uncle, cousin, etc. who drained the estate and leaves our hapless hero to bring it back to profitability.
They're just fun to read about.