Talk:Duke of Lancaster

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage (assessed as Low-importance).

Lancashire and Cumbria Low‑importance

	North West England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lancashire and Cumbria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Lancashire and Cumbria on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Lancashire and CumbriaWikipedia:WikiProject Lancashire and CumbriaTemplate:WikiProject Lancashire and CumbriaLancashire and Cumbria articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Duke of Lancaster[edit]

Here is a cite from alt.talk.royalty regarding the Queen as Duke of Lancaster. Noisy | Talk 14:09, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's wrong, too. Have a read through alt.talk.royalty on the subject yourself and see if what's said in the newsgroup is reflected in the FAQ (which is produced by one poster whose expertise isn't British Royalty, and is hardly a group statement of belief). Proteus (Talk) 15:24, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nods, Proteus is correct, any way you look at it the Dukedom doesn't exist even if the 'Duchy' does. The titles created would have decended according to their creation - heirs male, so would have become extinct that way. Constitutional law doesn't allow the monarch to hold a title from themself so it couldn't be recreated each reign and the only way to get around that would be an act of parliament which has never been passed. The usage is then much like the use of Duke of Normandy - traditional but not legal or real.Alci12 15:50, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See also the newly formed Duke of Lancaster's Regiment. 81.159.58.248 23:35, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edward VIII[edit]

If it is hereditary, rather than belonging to the Crown, why wasn't the dukedom kept by Edward VIII after his abdication? Tad Lincoln (talk) 17:06, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because it merged with the Crown in 1399, the style exists as part of the Crown, while the Duchy exists as a company to provide income for the reigning monarch. It's passed along from Sovereign to Sovereign. When Edward VIII abdicated, he ceased to be Sovereign and thus Duke. 74.69.126.89 (talk) 17:50, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Correction, the Dukedom of Lancaster (the title) merged with the English Crown in 1413 with the accession of Henry V, though of course the Duchy of Lancaster continues to exist, but the British monarch is not Duke of it (and even if she did, she would be its Duchess), as a monarch cannot hold any lesser title than their title as monarch.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 19:25, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

City of Lancaster[edit]

I have changed "City of Lancaster" to "County Town of Lancaster", as I really can't see hoards of people singing God save the Queen to a herd of cattle. Kiltpin (talk) 12:40, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Duke of Lancaster[edit]

John of Gaunt is 3rd son of Edward III not the 4th son as published Robert Coyle (talk) 14:50, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Queen, 'Duke of Lancaster'[edit]

I'm opening up a discussion about the distinction between the Duchy/Dukedom of Lancaster, a peerage which finally merged with the Crown in 1413, and the customary title used by English and British monarchs since. There seems to be some confusion about this, which has been reflected in the structure of the article.

In my view the Duchy of Lancaster's website is misleading when it states 'the title Duke of Lancaster has been held by the reigning Sovereign'. The Duchy of Lancaster estate has, but the peerage ceased to exist when the title merged in the Crown, as many other peerages have over the centuries. The continued use of the title is the result of custom, not the continued existence of the peerage.

I accept that finding a source for this is difficult, as many publications state that the Queen is 'Duke of Lancaster' but few elaborate on why the title is used. If anyone has anything more substantial than the Daily Express that would be excellent. Similarly, if anyone disagrees with my view then please feel free to discuss it here. A.D.Hope (talk) 17:37, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Income question[edit]

In explanation of income, can Sovereign speñd the income made over to the Privy Purse for his/her own needs? Or is there a prohibition of any kind? James A. Hamilton (talk) 18:58, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

'Extinct' or 'merged in the Crown' in lead[edit]

The lead has read 'The Dukedom of Lancaster is an extinct English peerage' since July 2021, when I re-worded the section in an attempt to make it clearer. In October 2022 this was changed to 'The Dukedom of Lancaster is a English peerage merged into the the crown.'

It's my view that the earlier wording is better, as it accurately describes the current status of the peerage. The newer wording implies that the current status of the dukedom is 'merged', but merging is really an event which leads to a peerage becoming extinct. The Dukedom of Edinburgh, for example, recently became extinct when it merged with the Crown due to Charles III's accession, and remained so until it was created again for Prince Edward.

The second sentence of the lead explains that the title merged with the Crown, as does the 'history' section, so there's no real risk of a reader misunderstanding the situation. A.D.Hope (talk) 16:09, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Using the term "extict" simply causes confusion to the reader in the case of this title. It's normally used in the context of extinction of the line. Using in the context of merger into the crown is inartful and unnecessary and adds nothing. I think the current version (prior to today) is preferable. Do you have an sources using the term extinct in this context? DeCausa (talk) 17:16, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Peerages can become extinct in several ways, a family dying out is just the most common. It isn't confusing to use the term here, especially when the second sentence explains that the title became extinct by merging with the Crown. A.D.Hope (talk) 17:23, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. But let's see what others think. DeCausa (talk) 17:24, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The first two sentences could so with some trimming. Here's a suggestion:

"The Dukedom of Lancaster is a former English peerage, created three times in the Middle Ages, which was merged in the Crown when Henry V succeeded to the throne in 1413."

DeCausa (talk) 17:45, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's a very good reworking. My only suggestion would be to add 'finally' before 'merged', as the title had previously merged with the crown in 1399. A.D.Hope (talk) 17:52, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with that. DeCausa (talk) 17:55, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was about to edit the lead sentence myself, but I can see you've already done it. I'm glad we could reach a conclusion together! A.D.Hope (talk) 16:08, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]