Talk:Duke of Argyll

Roll of the Peerage

The Argyll title is not on the Roll of the Peerage as updated 1 november 2011 - anyone able to comment? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.224.47.12 (talk) 17:27, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Should someone make his son a wikipedia page considering he is next in line and has served as page of honour to the queen — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alezandrinia (talk • contribs) 10:54, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Disqualified from holding a Scottish seat?

Quoth the article:

The 5th Duke sat as a member of parliament for Glasgow until his father's accession to the Dukedom in 1761 disqualified him from representing a Scottish seat. He then became the member for Dover until 1766, when he was created as Baron Sundridge and obtained the right to sit in the House of Lords.

Why would his father's accession have disqualified him from holding a Scottish seat, but not an English one? --Jfruh (talk) 04:09, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if there should be anything about this in the article, but there's a 2013 paper about the UK parliamentary franchise which addresses this sort of thing.

After the Act of Union with England, the right to stand and vote in elections to Scottish constituencies was carried over from the situation immediately beforehand. One rule it had was that peers and their eldest sons were excluded from burgh seats.

England had had a rule that no Peer of the Kingdom had any right to give his vote in the election of a Member of the House of Commons.

On his father's ennoblement, the 5th Duke wasn't a peer (of anywhere), but was the eldest son of a peer of Scotland. This barred him from standing in Glasgow Burghs, but not in England. I don't know what the full eligibility criteria were in Dover, though. Aoeuidhtns (talk) 14:10, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

References

Coat of Arms

This is most probably a funny coincidence, but the Argyll coat of arms resembles the symbols of the capital-city of Lisbon, Portugal. See below. Cheers! The Ogre (talk) 13:31, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Numbering

So if this dukedom of the UK was created in 1892, doesn't that restart the numbering ?Eregli bob (talk) 00:17, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Duke of Argyll. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080319081421/http://www.ukdukes.co.uk:80/the_dukes/the_duke_of_argyll/ to http://www.ukdukes.co.uk/the_dukes/the_duke_of_argyll/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:21, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Family

Shouldn't someone make a wikipedia page for his son considering he is the heir to be — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alezandrinia (talk • contribs) 10:57, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Remainder of the 1892 duchy

I had a look at the Gazette record for the 1892 duchy, and found a couple of things which aren't in the article. One is the remainder for the duchy (as usual, it's to "the heirs male of [the first Duke's] body, lawfully begotten").

The other is the date of the award. The notice was was published in the Gazette on 8 April 1892, although there is a mistake in the date for the notice itself (7 April 1862). The article gives the date as 17 April 1892, without a reference. I'm not familiar with how they do this sort of thing. Could someone confirm what the date should be for this? Thanks. Aoeuidhtns (talk) 03:23, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

References