So whatever might be said about ranking non-royal dukes according to protocol, he certainly has closer ties to the British royal family than (say) the Duke of Marlborough. If it came to that, Fife has a long history; it's just that prior to 1900, it was only an earldom.
In any case, I'm assuming that all dukes, regardless of seniority of titles, outrank earls. They are known to be the highest ranking peers of the realm (addressed as "Your Grace", unlike lower peers) -- ranking right after the royals, on the social ladder.
QV had approved the marriage of her granddaughter Louise to a subject; and deciding that it would not do for the future Princess Royal to be married to a mere earl, saw fit to elevate Fife to a dukedom.
To your specific question, yes, the Duke of Marlborough (1702, England) ranks 9th in order of precedence of non-royal dukes, well ahead of the Duke of Fife (1900, United Kingdom) who ranks 24th and last.
How do they rank? According to seniority of title? Would, then, Marlborough outrank Fife?
The general order of precedence among dukes is:
Dukes in the Peerage of England, in order of creation
Dukes in the Peerage of Scotland, in order of creation
Dukes in the Peerage of Great Britain, in order of creation
Dukes in the Peerage of Ireland created before 1801, in order of creation
Dukes in the Peerage of the United Kingdom and dukes in the Peerage of Ireland created after 1801, in order of creation
Whilst the general order of precedence is set according to the age of the peerage, the sovereign may accord any peer higher precedence than his date of creation would warrant. The royal dukes are dukes of the United Kingdom, but rank higher in the order of precedence than the age of their titles warrants, due to their close relationship to the monarch. This will change once these peerages are held by people who are no longer royal dukes (ie in the next generation).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_dukes_in_the_peerages_of_Britain_and_Ireland
582
Message Thread | This response ↓
« Back to index