Royal Dukes, Royal Duchies and Royal Ducal Titles

[Marsel]

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie

At least one other Duke of York died without legitimate issue - Frederick Duke of York the second son of George III in 1827.
<...>

Prince Frederick was not Duke of York, he was Duke of York and Albany (in its third creation). From 1716 to 1827, the title "Duke of York" wasn't created separately but as part of the Duke of York and Albany title.

There were 3 creations of the title: in 1716, it was created for Prince Ernest Augustus, the younger brother of George I (he died without legitimate issue), the second creation was in 1760 for Prince Edward, the younger brother of George III of the United Kingdom (he too died without issue), and the third creation was in 1784 for Prince Frederick, the younger son of George III (again - no legitimate issue).


After Prince Frederick's death the title "Duke of York" continued its existence separately. It's sixth creation (the 5th being in 1633 or, arguably, in 1644 for James Stuart - future James II of England) after the York-Albany interruption was in 1892 for Prince George - future George V.

[Iluvbertie]

If you aren't going to count Frederick as a Duke of York because he also held the Duke of Albany title then there haven't been 8 creations but 5.

You can't have it both ways - either he was Duke of York and one of the 8 creations, or there were only 5 creations.

He is always listed as a Duke of York and therefore is one of the 8 creations. His additional title is irrelevant.

He died without legitimate issue (just as did Richard the Prince in the Tower) and therefore your statement that Richard is the only one is wrong.

Frederick held TWO dukedoms - York and Albany as did two other holders. They are now separated dukedoms (with one in abeyance due to the Titles Deprivations Act).

[Ella Kay]

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie

It also wouldn't really be possible to create Harry Duke of York (assuming Andrew is dead) before both Beatrice and Eugenie have married as they will still use the 'of York' until they are married.

I wonder if they won't pull a Princess Alexandra, though, and drop the "of York" part if/when they marry. Alexandra was "HRH Princess Alexandra of Kent" before her marriage to The Hon. Angus Ogilvy, but she used "HRH Princess Alexandra, The Hon. Mrs. Ogilvy" after her marriage (later HRH Princess Alexandra, The Hon. Lady Ogilvy). I think the "of Kent" part is still technically a part of her title, but she does not use it.

I still agree that Harry won't get York, though. I'm more inclined to believe that the next Duke of York, should Andrew not have any more children, will perhaps be one of William's sons.

[Marsel]

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie

If you aren't going to count Frederick as a Duke of York because he also held the Duke of Albany title then there haven't been 8 creations but 5.

You can't have it both ways - either he was Duke of York and one of the 8 creations, or there were only 5 creations.

He is always listed as a Duke of York and therefore is one of the 8 creations. His additional title is irrelevant.
He died without legitimate issue (just as did Richard the Prince in the Tower) and therefore your statement that Richard is the only one is wrong.
<...>

That is not entirely correct. There were 8 creations of the Duke of York title and 3 creations of the Duke of York and Albany title.

The creations of the Duke of York title were the following.
1st creation (1385) - for Edmund of Langley, younger son of Edward III
2nd creation (1474) - for Prince Richard. younger son of Edward IV (one of the Princes in Tower)
3rd creation (1494) - for Prince Henry (future Henry VIII), the younger son of Henry VII
4th creation (1605) - for Prince Charles (future Charles I), the younger son of James I
5th creation (1644) - for Prince James (future James II), the younger son of Charles I
6th creation (1892) - for Prince George (future George V), the younger son of Edward VII
7th creation (1920) - for Prince Albert (future George VI), the younger son of George V
8th creation (1986) - for Prince Andrew, the younger son of Queen Elizabeth II


In between the 5th and 6th creations (between 1685 abd 1892), the title was not created separately but as part of Duke of York and Albany title (which is one title, not two).

There were 3 creations of Duke of York and Albany title:
1st creation (1716) - for Prince Ernest Augustus, the younger brother of George I
2nd creation (1760) - for Prince Edward, the younger brother of George III
3rd creation (1784) - for Prince Frederick, the younger son of George III


After Prince Frederick's death without legitimate issue, the title (Duke of York and Albany) became extant and was available for recreation (both as one title, and as two separate titles - which is what happened).
Whenever you find mention of Prince Frederick as "Duke of York" - only, that is an incorrect reference: he was Duke of York and Albany.


The title "Duke of Albany" is indeed suspended under 1917 Title Depravation Act. It had 7 creations, plus 3 creations as part of the "Duke of York and Albany" title.
The current Heir to the "Dukedom of Albany" is Sebastian Hubertus, Prinz von Sachsen-Coburg und Gotha (the great-grandson of Prince Charles, 2nd Duke of Albany, the last de-facto holder of the title).

[Iluvbertie]

Fine - you win

[Iluvbertie]

Originally Posted by Ella Kay

I wonder if they won't pull a Princess Alexandra, though, and drop the "of York" part if/when they marry. Alexandra was "HRH Princess Alexandra of Kent" before her marriage to The Hon. Angus Ogilvy, but she used "HRH Princess Alexandra, The Hon. Mrs. Ogilvy" after her marriage (later HRH Princess Alexandra, The Hon. Lady Ogilvy). I think the "of Kent" part is still technically a part of her title, but she does not use it.

I still agree that Harry won't get York, though. I'm more inclined to believe that the next Duke of York, should Andrew not have any more children, will perhaps be one of William's sons.

I would expect them to drop the 'of York' which is why I said that there wouldn't be a creation of the York title (if Andrew died) while they girls are unmarried as they would cease to use the 'of York' once married.

As Eugnie is only 18 and probably won't marry for another 10 years and Harry will probably marry in that time, even if Andrew is dead by then (which I doubt as he is only 49 now) York won't go to Harry.

I would expect William, or maybe even William's own son, to be the first to be able to truly regrant York, assuming that the government doesn't go with gender blind inheritance for ALL titles when, and if, it changes the succession to the Crown rules. It seems incongruous to me that a woman an be the monarch but can't inherit a title.

[Marsel]

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie

Fine - you win

Having learnt so much from your posts, I admit feeling slightly privileged to know a little detail that has escaped your attention.

[Warren]

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie

Fine - you win

It's not a competition, it's about sharing what we know or what we research and many of us learning something in the process.

[branchg]

I think much depends on what happens in the future with equal inheritance of titles, succession to the throne and the 1917 Letters Patent. I think it's very likely Charles (or William) will issue new letters patent limiting the style and rank of HRH to the children of The Sovereign, the eldest child of the heir, and their eldest grandchild.

Everyone else would enjoy the style of children of a Duke or whatever style they may enjoy if created Peers. That would mean Beatrice and Eugenie losing their royal styles, and perhaps, the grandchildren of George V enjoying it until their deaths.

[lac2003]

Does anyone know why Queen Victoria didn't give her second son, Alfred, the title Duke of York? Before Edward VII had children Alfred was second in line.

I still like to think that the Albany dukedom will resurface at some point. I know all about the letters patent stuff and the 1917 title renunciation, but let's be honest, acts of parliament can be flexible!

There is an act of parliament that states any man, other than the Prince of Wales, who has "relations" with the Princess of Wales is guilty of treason, and any Princess of Wales who has "relations" with any man other than the Prince of Wales is also guilty of treason. I don't remember Diana or James Hewitt being tried for treason, so all this stuff can be "ignored" when it's convenient.

The replies to this will be interesting to say the least.

[branchg]

The Dukedom of Albany is extant, but suspended, under the Titles Deprivation Act and the Coburgs retain the right, as do the Hanovers with regard to The Dukedom of Cumberland & Teviotdale, to repetition the Crown for restoration of their Peerages.

It would require another Act of Parliament to take this right away from them, specifically legislation stating the dukedoms are forfeited for bearing arms against the Crown and are to be considered extinct. Otherwise, Ernst-August of Hanover and Hubertus of Saxe-Coburg would have to formally renounce their rights, which again, would have to be confirmed by Parliament.

[branchg]

Originally Posted by lac2003

Does anyone know why Queen Victoria didn't give her second son, Alfred, the title Duke of York? Before Edward VII had children Alfred was second in line.

Queen Victoria didn't create Prince Alfred a Duke until 1866 when he was 22 years old, at which point, his elder brother, Edward, Prince of Wales, already had two sons, Prince Edward Victor, born in 1864, and Prince George, born in 1865, knocking Alfred to fourth in the succession.

Instead, she created her grandson, Prince George of Wales, Duke of York in 1892 a year after the death of Prince Eddy put him second-in-line to the throne. In 1893, he married HSH Princess May of Teck, originally set to marry Prince Eddy, and she became HRH The Duchess of York. In 1901, Queen Victoria died and they were styled TRH The Duke and Duchess of Cornwall & York until George was created Prince of Wales and Earl of Chester later in the year.

[Iluvbertie]

Originally Posted by branchg

Queen Victoria didn't create Prince Alfred a Duke until 1866 when he was 22 years old, at which point, his elder brother, Edward, Prince of Wales, already had two sons, Prince Edward Victor, born in 1864, and Prince George, born in 1865, knocking Alfred to fourth in the succession.

Edward VII's first child was Prince Albert Victor not Edward Victor. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_...e_and_Avondale

I have read that Victoria wanted to distance herself from her Hanoverian uncles and so didn't use York or Clarence for her sons and even avoided Kent (her own father's title) for any of her sons or grandsons. Kent doesn't get recreated until George V gave it to his fourth son over 100 years after the previous holder had died.

[Jacknch]

Given time, I think the Duke of Clarence title will be used.

[branchg]

I don't know if Victoria really wanted to avoid the Hanoverian dukedoms. She created Clarence again as an Earldom for Prince Leopold when he was created Duke of Albany, then created it with Avondale as a Dukedom for Prince Eddy.

The last Duke of Clarence was her predecessor, William IV, who fathered illegitimate children like most of her uncles did and married common law wives without permission from George III.

[Iluvbertie]

Originally Posted by branchg

I don't know if Victoria really wanted to avoid the Hanoverian dukedoms. She created Clarence again as an Earldom for Prince Leopold when he was created Duke of Albany, then created it with Avondale as a Dukedom for Prince Eddy.

The last Duke of Clarence was her predecessor, William IV, who fathered illegitimate children like most of her uncles did and married common law wives without permission from George III.

However she does wait until 1881 before using any of the titles associated with her uncles.

She could have been using them 20 years earlier.

[Royal Fan]

I Wonder if Sussex or Cambridge Will ever be given again or the Depravation Act overturned or the 1999 H.O.L. Act?

[wbenson]

The House of Lords Act isn't going anywhere. If anything, it will probably be strengthened to totally remove hereditary peers.

[MichaelG]

When the current Dukes of Kent and Gloucester die, their titles will revert to the crown(minus the lesser titles; eg Baron Downpatrick, Earl of Ulster, which have been given to the sons of the current dukes.They will revert upon the deaths of those holders) William and Harry's wives might be known as P'cess William and P'cess Henry until Kent and Gloucester become available. In that way the "pool" of royal Dukes is not widened and criticism is avoided.

[Ella Kay]

I don't think those titles will revert at all, MichaelG. The Earl of St. Andrews will become the Duke of Kent (as will his son, Lord Downpatrick, after him) and the Earl of Ulster will become the Duke of Gloucester (and his son, Lord Culloden, after him). They won't be royal dukes with HRHs, but they will inherit the dukedoms.