In British peerage, do lower-ranked nobility have to show deference towards higher-ranked nobility?

1. Duke is a higher nobility title than Earl.

In middle ages, an Earl could have been under a direct submission of a Duke, and as such, would have to show him deference and/or pay some kind of due.

However, during the Victorian and subsequent Eras, that aspect of relations between nobles no longer existed; Duke was, of course, a higher title, but an Earl and Duke could speak as equals, more or less.

Far more important was the age of the Duke and Earl in question; in your example, The Earl of Grantham is older than the Duke of Crowborough, and as such, is somewhat more 'superior'; he can afford to speak in such a manner with the Duke, especially if they are related.

Another important aspect was the age of the titles; some Earls could claim their title from middle ages, and they did have precedence over newly-created Dukes (unofficial precedence, of course; they were still ranked lower in the official one).

2. A title doesn't guarantee wealth.

An Earl (or any other noble) can be wealthier than Duke; it depends on how large their estates are, how well they were/are managed, etc.

In the times of Downton Abbey, marriages were also important; quite a few impoverished British nobles married rich Heiresses (British or American) to bring some money.

You are confusing a Duchy and a Dukedom; the former no longer exists, while the latter has nothing to do with land.

- A duchy is the territory or geopolitical entity ruled by a duke. The term implies a territorial domain, within which the duke has actual subjects and/or significant land holdings, both of which are ruled by the duke, either directly or as a vassal to a higher (Royal) authority.

- A dukedom is the title of duke, a rank of nobility, and is not necessarily attached to a duchy.

For example, Prince Andrew is the Duke of York and as such, head of the Dukedom of York.

But he has nothing to do with the (no longer existing) Duchy of York.

Currently, there are only 2 Duchies in the United Kingdom - the Duchy of Cornwall (owned by The Prince of Wales) and the Duchy of Lancaster (owned by the Monarch).

3. Yes, an Earl can have larger domains and be wealthier than a Duke; it largely depends how much their ancestors sold along the way.

4. All ranks of Nobility (but not Royalty) in order of precedence:

1. Duke and Duchess

2. Marquess and Marchioness

3. Earl / Count and Countess

4. Viscount and Viscountess

5. Baron and Baroness

6. Baronet and Baronetess

7. Knight and Dame

8. Courtesy and Honourary styles - Lord, Lady, Honourable

"Duke" is the highest peerage title.

Each of the peers have their according duties, responsibility and precedence during certain events; for example, Dukes are (after the Royal Family) the most important participants of the Coronation ceremony.

Yes, of course. That's why they are called RANKS.

Yes, an earl shows deference to a duke, and a viscount to an earl.

Rank has nothing to do with ability to manage money, or what one earns. Rank is social. There are few dukedeoms...and no such thing as an "earldom", it's called a COUNTY. Of course, even when those divisions meant income for the noble, a dukedom on poorly managed or poor producing property might make much less than a county on well-managed or highly producing property...and the earl might demand higher taxes from his vassals, and might have better money managers.

But today, one earns what one earns by what one does, professionally, not by what their rank or the land they "reign over" is.

Regarding your specific example, those people didn't have dukedoms or counties to earn them their money. That is long since past. Also...some people are more proud, and others more meek and humble. Perhaps said duke simply didn't wish to make a public issue of the situation.

In this day and age -- and for the past 100 years or so -- automatic deference hasn't really been required. There are orders of precedence for ceremonial purposes, and a duke precedes an earl in that order, but on a personal level, no one expects an earl to kowtow to a duke or show him any special respect.

Titles, moreover, don't necessarily have anything to do with wealth. Peers do not actually rule over any territories now or collect the taxes and other income from a "dukedom" or an "earldom," their titles are mostly merely symbolic, so it's quite possible for an entirely UNtitled person to be much richer than someone with a title. If a duke or earl is wealthy these days, it's because the family managed to hang on to an estate (many peers' families did not), which is not the same thing as a large piece of territory once called a dukedom or earldom, and because someone in the family was either an excellent estate and money manager or knew enough to hire a smart one.

Well now as to due reverence there is no one in the present nobility that deserves adt respect as most of them are corrupt and are involved in insider dealings and all criminal activity in Britain,respect is earned not demanded and they deserve non at all,give you an example,Lord Lucan murderer,cheat and coward,just as are the nobility.

Social rank is not the sole basis of one's economic status.

J.K. Rowling is now wealthier than Queen Elizabeth II (disregard Bill Gates as he is not British) even if J.K. Rowling has no aristocratic background, if ever she is, iit may be hundreds of generations ago from her.

I believe the Duke of Westminster is the wealthiest aristocrat in the UK. Wealthier than Queen Elizabeth II.

Unfortunately they do, dear boy. However it has always been ones dream to have the Duke of Westminster kow-tow to yours truly but one does live in hope. One is expecting the Governor Generalship of Canada any day now. Perhaps one may receive the Dukedom of Toronto?

The lowest is the commoner but he doesn't realize it.

Yes, and at the club they must allow themselves to be baggered by more exhalt nobs.

Lili is right

In answer to your second question, anyone can lose money if they don't administer it properly.