The Royal Forums Coat of Arms

Go Back   The Royal Forums > Reigning Houses > British Royals

Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #321  
Old 05-15-2010, 11:02 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,491
Sorry but this post seems a bit confusing.

George V's older brother died nearly a decade before either of them could become Duke of Cornwall.
Albert Victor - Duke of Clarence and Avondale died in January 1892. In May that same year George V was created Duke of York.

In January 1901 George was still Duke of York and then Queen Victoria died. He then became Duke of Cornwall and for the majority of 1901 was known as Duke of Cornwall and York. It was using these two combined titles that he opened the first Australian Parliament in Melbourne on May 9th that year (we had become a Federation on 1st January 1901 - the first day of the 20th Century seen as an auspicious day on which to begin a new country but the first Parliament wasn't opened until May. In 1927 (again on the 9th May) of course the new Duke York, with his Duchess, opened the new Parliament House, leaving their baby girl, HRH Princess Elizabeth in London. That Princess Elizabeth, as Queen Elizabeth II opened the new Parliament House on the 9th May 1988. Maybe 9th May should be a public holiday here rather than 26th January???

You are right, of course, that if William is given a Dukedom on getting married e.g. Cambridge he will keep that title when his father becomes King so he would be known as the Duke of Cornwall and Cambridge, until created Prince of Wales (assuming that he is ever created PoW which is a topic for another discussion, I think.)
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #322  
Old 05-16-2010, 12:01 AM
wbenson's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: -, United States
Posts: 2,236
How right you are.
__________________

__________________
TRF rules and FAQ
Reply With Quote
  #323  
Old 06-08-2010, 10:23 AM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Philadelphia, United States
Posts: 10
Prince Henry, Next Duke of York?

Ever since Henry VII united the rival houses of Lancaster and York through his marriage to the Yorkist heiress, the title of Duke of York has been a royal prerogative. As such, it was first held by the future King Henry VIII before his ascension as Prince of Wales after the death of Prince Arthur, his older brother. By tradition, the title has been accorded to the second son of the reigning monarch. Thus, it is currently held by Prince Andrew.

My question is that assuming that Prince Andrew predeceases his nephew, Prince Henry of Wales, and assuming nothing unexpected happens such as Prince Henry becoming heir apparent, will the title Duke of York be automatically accorded to Prince Henry as the second son of the current heir apparent (or quite possibly king by that time)? If so, would Sarah Ferguson, the current Duchess of York, lose the title (if still alive) upon the death of her former husband or can there be two Duchesses of York (assuming Prince Henry is married by then)?

Thanks for the information.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #324  
Old 06-08-2010, 01:50 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 3,888
It is my understanding that Sarah will have the style of Duchess of York until she passes away unless she remarries. Even if she remarried, then divorced, she could then resume the style of Duchess of York.

If Prince Henry became the Duke of York, his wife would be THE Duchess of York which is a title. Duchess of York as a style is a courtesy that denotes she was at one time the Duchess of York. Same with Diana, Princess of Wales. Should William marry Kate and be created the Prince of Wales when Charles becomes king, Kate would be THE Princess of Wales.

Hope I got it right.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #325  
Old 06-08-2010, 02:51 PM
Lumutqueen's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Carlton, York, United Kingdom
Posts: 17,124
I'm sure if that happened, Sarah would give up her style to avoid confusion. I don't believe that if she remarries then divorces, she can resume the title.
I wonder if she would give up the style, if Andrew remarried.
And don't forget that The Princess Of Wales, is now officially Camilla, she just chooses not to use the title because it was related so strongly to Diana.
__________________
We Will Remember Them.
Reply With Quote
  #326  
Old 06-08-2010, 04:38 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,491
Quote:
Originally Posted by D.Schneider View Post
By tradition, the York title has been accorded to the second son of the reigning monarch.
It is not automatic - Queen Victoria gave her second son Duke of Edinburgh. It also wouldn't happen if Harry already has a dukedom - being the second son he won't get two dukedoms. Andrew is only 50 and could easily live another 30 years or more (both his parents are well over 80 so another 35 - 40 years is possible). By then Harry will be in his mid-50s and in all likelihood his brother will be King with his own second son possibly reaching marriagble age.

I don't think, in the normal course of events, that Harry will be Duke of York but that that title will be used by William for his second son (assuming he has one). Of course it would become a mute point if Andrew remarried and had a son as that son would inherit the title.

As for Sarah - she can continue to be known as Sarah, Duchess of York until she dies or remarried regardless of how many others people Andrew marries. She will always be entitled to that - like any other divorced wife of a peer.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #327  
Old 06-08-2010, 04:49 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 3,888
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumutqueen View Post
I wonder if she would give up the style, if Andrew remarried.
Seeing as how important doors open for Sarah using the Duchess of York style, I think she would continue to use it even though Andrew's new wife would be The Duchess of York. Sarah would continue with the style much like the ex-wives any other peer.

I do agree that by the time the title of Duke of York becomes available, both William and Harry will be well established in dukedoms of their own.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #328  
Old 06-08-2010, 04:52 PM
Lumutqueen's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Carlton, York, United Kingdom
Posts: 17,124
I think that if Andrew or her children asked her to drop the style if anyone else were ever to hold the actual title, she would.
__________________
We Will Remember Them.
Reply With Quote
  #329  
Old 06-08-2010, 05:55 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 3,888
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumutqueen View Post
I think that if Andrew or her children asked her to drop the style if anyone else were ever to hold the actual title, she word.
I think she would too if asked to. Andrew, her daughters and the BRF seem important to her no matter what goofs she's made.

Back to William and Harry...
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #330  
Old 06-08-2010, 07:12 PM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Philadelphia, United States
Posts: 10
Bertie:

Thanks much for your input. Yes, I had forgotten about Queen Victoria giving her second son the title Duke of Edinburgh. I shall have to do some research to see if I can find an explanation for that.

It has always been my understanding that the Dukedom of York is the highest ranking peerage not held by the reigning monarch himself or herself. I believe that would be the Dukedom of Lancaster which is held by the reigning monarch. (And by the way, Queen Elizabeth is the Duke of Lancaster and not the Duchess of Lancaster as one might expect. I don’t know the origin of and the reason for ignoring gender in this instance.)

What you note about the probable logistics of the situation, given the relative ages of Prince Andrew and Prince Henry, makes sense to me. Yes, I suppose by the time Prince Andrew passes away (hopefully a long time from now!) Prince Henry would have been given another dukedom by then and wouldn’t be given a second one. So your conjecture that if Prince William has a second son, he would most likely be the next Duke of York and not Prince Henry seems likely to me. I think you are entirely right about that unless Prince Andrew passes away in an untimely fashion.

The one thing I believe you are wrong about is that even if Prince Andrew had a son at present, the hypothetical heir would not inherit the title as it is not inheritable. It reverts to the crown when Andrew passes away. If that were not the case, how is it still in the royal family today? No previous Duke of York since Henry Tudor had a son, grandson, etc.? I’m almost certain about that. However, if you are entirely certain of your assertion, please let me know.

Thanks again and to all who answered my post. I’m appreciative.

By way of P.S., whatever dukedom Prince Henry is eventually given, I hope they stay away from Clarence! That’s been historically a hard luck title, and with Harry’s renown pluck and bravado, such would most decidedly be tempting fate!
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #331  
Old 06-08-2010, 07:38 PM
Commoner
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Quad Cities, United States
Posts: 46
The previous Duke of York was the Queen's father, who became George VI. I believe the DOY before him also ascended to the throne.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #332  
Old 06-08-2010, 07:59 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,491
The LPs creating Andrew as Duke of York stipulate - like any others - that it is inheritable by 'heirs male of the body'. In the past the Kent and Gloucester titles have been royal titles and yet the next holder of both of those titles will not be royal and so they will pass out of the royal sphere in the sense of the holders not being HRH.

The previous Dukes of York since Henry VIII have all either become King, only had daughters or died without legitimate issue -
Henry VIII (Henry VII's second son) became king so it merged with the Crown;
Charles I (James I's second son) became King so it merged with the Crown; James II (Charles I's second son Charles II's younger brother) became King so it merged with the Crown;
Prince Ernst Augustus (younger brother of George I - note - not the second son of a monarch as his mother was never Queen) never married;
Prince Edward (second son of the Prince of Wales and younger brother of George III - this Prince of Wales never became King as he predeceased his father) - never married;
The Prince Frederick - (second son of George III) - died without issue
The Prince George (second son of Edward VII - although created by his grandmother Queen Victoria) - became king so it merged with the Crown
The Prince Albert (second son of George V) - became King so it merged with the Crown.

Any Duke of York who has had children has become King interestingly enough - Henry VIII, Charles I, James II, George V and George VI. The others have had no children at all.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #333  
Old 06-09-2010, 06:00 PM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Philadelphia, United States
Posts: 10
Bertie:

Wow! That’s incredible! Thank you so much for going to the trouble of researching and posting that note. I can see what a tremendous asset you must be around these environs.

I guess just because I was familiar with no Duke of York since the unfortunate father of Edward IV outside the royal family that I just assumed that Henry VII decided to make it a title always held by the royal family by way of emphasizing that his children were the legitimate heirs to the Yorkist claim, thus (hopefully, from his viewpoint) forever ending the dynastic wars.

What are the odds of what you just reported here? No Duke of York—in all this time!—has managed to extend his line save those that became kings as you pointed out.

Thanks again, Bertie, and I hope you share my sentiment that Prince Henry never be accorded the title of Duke of Clarence! I know it’s silly to be superstitious. I prefer to position my presentiment as being one always wary of irony instead! I’ve always liked Harry ever since he was a kid. Just from the little I saw of him (through media) and read of him he impressed me as having been a real boy’s boy: None dare call him a royal wimp! I just don’t want to see him, as I said, temp fate! (Er, I guess I should hope he never reads this note for fear he will lobby his grandmother or father for the title!)
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #334  
Old 06-10-2010, 07:33 PM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Philadelphia, United States
Posts: 10
I'm sure this has been asked before, but I'm new here. Why isn't Prince Edward a duke instead of "just" an earl?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #335  
Old 06-10-2010, 08:52 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,491
Quote:
Originally Posted by D.Schneider View Post
Good question. I'm sure this has been asked before, but I'm new here. Why isn't Prince Edward a duke instead of "just" an earl?
It was announced on the day of his wedding that in time, if possible, he will be created Duke of Edinburgh. This can't happen until both his parents are dead and there are scenarios where he won't be able to get it at all and where he could inherit it directly from his father. See below

The future of the Duke of Edinburgh title
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #336  
Old 06-11-2010, 12:08 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,491
The same ones that stopped past second and younger sons from getting Dukedoms until marriage - tradition. e.g. Charles became Duke of Cornwall et. al. on 6th February 1952 but Andrew didn't get a Dukedom until 1986 and Edward still hasn't gotten one.

George V didn't give Dukedoms to his younger sons until marriage whereas Edward VIII became The Duke of Cornwall in 1910 but George VI not until 1923.
Edward VII was a Duke at birth (as was George IV) but their younger brothers were adults.

Since Victorian times it has come with marriage rather than at any other time. Harry is the same as Andrew and Geoge VI and Alfred - the second son and will simply have to wait.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #337  
Old 06-30-2010, 11:03 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,491
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duchessmary View Post
I seriously doubt if he'll ever marry again. He's got his heirs, who needs it?

He doesn't have a son to inherit his title though does he? His daughters can't continue the 'York' line only a son can so there is a reason - not pressing perhaps but still there.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #338  
Old 07-01-2010, 05:36 PM
Baron Saalfeld's Avatar
Newbie
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Dallas, United States
Posts: 4
In the British Monarchy, the title Duke of York is given to the second son of the sovereign and thus it is not hereditary to their heirs. It is unlikely this will change in the near future.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #339  
Old 07-01-2010, 07:06 PM
Zonk's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere in, United States
Posts: 10,196
Actually, it is hereditary to their heirs.

As Iluvbertie has pointed out (great job), it looks like it that all of the men who have who have held the title have died without heirs, or have become Kings of England and thus the titled merged in the crown.

It will be interesting to see how it plays out with Andrew and Harry.
__________________
.

Reply With Quote
  #340  
Old 07-01-2010, 07:22 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,491
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baron Saalfeld View Post
In the British Monarchy, the title Duke of York is given to the second son of the sovereign and thus it is not hereditary to their heirs. It is unlikely this will change in the near future.

The summary of the LPs creating Andrew Duke of York says the following:

For granting unto H.R.H. the Prince Andrew, C.V.O. and the heirs male of his body lawfully begotten the dignities of Baron Killyleagh, Earl of Inverness and Duke of York. (C.U.H.&G.S. -- Proclamations, Letters Patent and Warrants)

This makes it absolutely clear that if Andrew has a legitimate son that son will inherit the Dukedom of York title.

It just seems that it always goes to the second son (it doesn't actually with at least one second son not getting it - Queen Victoria's and one King giving it to his younger brother - George I). The reason that it has always been available is simply the fact that every Duke of York who has had a son (actually a child) has become King and the others haven't had legitimate children. Consequently the title has always merged with the crown and thus seems to have not had the normal LPs.

Note that until this current generation much the same thing has happened with the titles Duke of Gloucester and Duke of Kent with previous holders not passing the title to son but the current creations will pass out of 'royal' hands when the current holders die.

Should the law also change to allow for gender blind succession to titles then Beatrice would inherit her father's title (that would take an Act of Parliament and may not even be on the agenda but we can't, in these days of equality, rule out that possibility).
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
dukedom, royal dukes, styles and titles


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Royal Titles Zina Royal Family of Brunei 23 01-10-2014 01:11 PM
Royal, Princely and Comital Titles MAfan Royal Families of Italy 31 11-26-2011 04:30 AM
Moroccan Royal Names and Titles bjanka66 Royal Family of Morocco 61 07-05-2011 07:21 PM
Royal Titles Through the Generations IslandDweller Royal House of Norway 13 02-24-2008 09:26 AM




Additional Links
Popular Tags
abdication birth charlene chris o'neill crown prince felipe crown prince frederik crown prince haakon crown princess letizia crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit current events engagement fashion genealogy grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri habsburg hohenzollern infanta elena infanta leonor infanta sofia jewellery jordan king abdullah ii king carl xvi gustav king constantine ii king felipe king felipe vi king harald king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander luxembourg nobility olympics ottoman pom president komorowski prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince felipe prince floris prince maurits prince pieter-christiaan princess aimee princess anita princess astrid princess beatrix princess charlene princess claire princess letizia princess marilene princess mary princess mary fashion princess of asturias queen anne-marie queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen rania queen silvia queen sofia royal royal fashion russia sofia hellqvist spain state visit wedding



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:52 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2014
Jelsoft Enterprises

Royal News Delivered to your Email!

You can get the latest Royal News right in your inbox.

unsusbcribe at anytime with one click

Close [X]