Prince of Waterloo

The title Prince of Waterloo is retained by the Dukes of Wellington. This Dutch title of nobility was given to Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington as a victory title, by King William I of the Netherlands of the then recently (by the Vienna Congress) united Low Countries, this in recognition of his defeat of the French Emperor Napoleon I at the Battle of Waterloo in 1815. Arthur Wellesley and all his descendants belong to the Dutch nobility, in which all the descendant dukes have the title of "Prince of Waterloo" (Prins van Waterloo) and the rest of their family the Dutch honorific "Jonkheer" or "Jonkvrouw".

In addition to this title, the Dutch king also granted Wellington 2,600 acres (10.5 km²) of land. To this day the Dukes of Wellington retain the title Prince of Waterloo [ [http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,846328,00.html Cash Talk - TIME ] ] , and enjoy an annual income of around £100,000 from the longstanding tenants occupying the land.

Owing to the establishment of the kingdom of Belgium in 1831, the title (being Dutch) and the land (located in Belgium) became separated.

The land held by the Prince of Waterloo has recently (2001) come under pressure from a retired Belgian senator. [ [http://www.themediadrome.com/content/news/june_2001/waterloo_rents.htm The Mediadrome - News - Waterloo Rents ] ] In 1817 the Belgian government struck a deal to pay the duke £1,600 a year in return for the proceeds of sales of timber which the duke wanted to clear from the forested land. Until 1988, successive dukes enjoyed this annual payment, but the present Prince of Waterloo, Arthur Valerian Wellesley, 8th Duke of Wellington, agreed to forgo the payment in exchange for outright ownership of 60 acres (240,000 m²) of the 2,600 acres (10.5 km²) to which he has rights. But some Belgian taxpayerswho who say the deal does not reflect the value of the land - which they say is part of Belgium's national territoryFact|date=September 2007 - use the debate to draw attention to the wider issues of the original agreement, contending that Belgium was effectively coerced into accepting the terms of the original agreement because it could not afford to upset Britain.

Notes