Royal Dukes, Royal Duchies and Royal Ducal Titles 1: Ending 2022

[Iluvbertie]

Does anyone really think that the Queen would ever consider changing the rules so that the York title would pass to either of Andrew's daughters? There was talk of quietly removing their HRH's at some point in the future, so I think the York title will pass from Andrew to whoever is 2nd in line to the throne when Andrew dies.

It won't be that simple.

If Andrew lives for another 40 years it is possible that even William's second child will have married and have their own title by then.

It may very well be that it will be William's heir who gets to recreate the York title, if they so wish.

The Queen, though may decide to change the LPs (or Charles or William could) to allow the York title to pass to Beatrice.

 

[wbenson]

The Queen, though may decide to change the LPs (or Charles or William could) to allow the York title to pass to Beatrice.

She doesn't possess the power to change the LPs. She could, as branchg mentions above, regrant the title with a special remainder so that one Dukedom of York would go extinct and one would go to Beatrice, but she can't alter the current title.

 

[lac2003]

Has any Duke of York title passed to a daughter of a duke? I think there's more of a chance of Anne becoming Queen that Beatrice becoming Duchess of York!!

 

[Ella Kay]

No, it has never passed to a daughter.

 

[Marsel]

The Duke of York title has had 8 creations: in 6 cases, the title eventually merged with the Crown (when the holders succeeded to the Throne), in 1 case, the holder died without issues (Prince Richard - one of the Princes in the Tower), and the current holder, Prince Andrew, doesn't have a male Heir.
The title never passed in female line.

Under current law, the 8th creation will indeed become extinct on Andrew’s death (unless he acquires legitimate male heirs before that). Since the title has always been closely associated with the second son of the Sovereign, it is more than likely that Prince Harry will eventually be created The Duke of York (or, if Andrew lives to a very old age and William is King by the time, William's second son could be created The Duke of York).

In theory, the title can be created for Princess Beatrice, especially if the proposed changes in the Succession laws are made (equal primogeniture); however, in order to make the title hereditary (so that Beatrice's children could inherit it), an act of the Parliament would be required because of the current male-only succession rules to the peerage.


I agree it is highly unlikely the title will be re-created for Beatrice: the most probable scenario is that the title would be re-created for the 9th time for Prince Harry.


The Dukedom of York is historically a very important title: it is one of the 6 original titles/dukedoms created in the early 14th century (the others are Dukedoms of Cornwall, Lancaster, Gloucester and Clarence). Currently, only the Dukedom of Clarence is vacant / extant (the Queen is Duke of Lancaster, Prince Charles is Duke of Cornwall, Prince Richard is Duke of Gloucester and Prince Andrew is Duke of York). Whatever the title's future is, it is hardly going to become extant and there'll always be a Duke of York around.

 

[Zonk]

I concur with the consensus that the York Dukedom will eventually fold back into the Crown.

Princess Beatrice (for reasons given by Skydragon) will not get the title. If and when she marries, I wager (unless its foreign royalty or the British artistocracy) she will be Princess Beatrice, Mrs. Jones (like her aunt before her).

The York Dukedom will most likely (IMO) not revert to Prince Harry if and when Charles becomes King. Since for most of us (not that we will live forever) associate it with Andrew. Again, just my opinon.....no special reason or anything like that.

Harry will get Sussex or something along those lines. And William will use it York for his son. And Clarence has a negative vibes too me. The last Duke of Clarence was Prince Albert Victor.

 

[Marsel]

I have to disagree with you, Zonk.

Any title is closely associated with its current bearer. I, for one, simply cannot imagine ever calling William the Prince of Wales, even though he will clearly be created one during his father’s Reign: the title is so closely associated with Prince Charles, it is hard to think of anyone but him as Prince of Wales.
Same goes for the “Princess Royal”: can you imagine anyone but Princess Anne having the title?

Nevertheless, Dukedom of York is such an important title that it is highly unlikely to remain extant for any significant period of time. And unless Prince Andrew lives to a very long age, the title is almost certain to be recreated for Prince Harry.

 

[Iluvbertie]

The Duke of York title has had 8 creations: in 6 cases, the title eventually merged with the Crown (when the holders succeeded to the Throne), in 1 case, the holder died without issues (Prince Richard - one of the Princes in the Tower), and the current holder, Prince Andrew, doesn't have a male Heir.
The title never passed in female line.



I agree it is highly unlikely the title will be re-created for Beatrice: the most probable scenario is that the title would be re-created for the 9th time for Prince Harry.


The Dukedom of York is historically a very important title: it is one of the 6 original titles/dukedoms created in the early 14th century (the others are Dukedoms of Cornwall, Lancaster, Gloucester and Clarence). Currently, only the Dukedom of Clarence is vacant / extant (the Queen is Duke of Lancaster, Prince Charles is Duke of Cornwall, Prince Richard is Duke of Gloucester and Prince Andrew is Duke of York). Whatever the title's future is, it is hardly going to become extant and there'll always be a Duke of York around.

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

From the death of Frederick in 1827 until 1892, when George V was created Duke of York, there was on Duke of York - over 60 years. In fact there have been quite lengthy times without a Duke of York - with the longest between Henry VIII's accession until James I and VI created his own second son Duke of York - 96 years.

It seems that there is often a gap if someone has been associated with the title for some time (George V only used Duke of York for 9 years as he became Duke of Cornwall in early 1901 and then Prince of Wales) so there was a period of over 20 years where the title was not being the primary one used or being used at all before George V used it for his own second son.

I don't think Harry will get York at all.

Andrew is in good health and isn't likely to die in the next 5 to 10 years in which time Harry will probably get his own Dukedom.

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.

For anyone interested in the various holders of the Duke of York title Duke of York - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Since Richard, Duke of York, disappeared from the Tower the title has either merged with the Crown or the holder has died without legitimate male issue. Andrew is actually the only holder since that time who looks like dying with legitimate issue and not inheriting the crown - the others who had children became King.

 

[Marsel]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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_Albert_Victor,_Duke_of_Clarence_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]

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.

 

[Lumutqueen]

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.

Yes thats what I always thought.
Can however the titles be taken away from the Duke of Kent, Duke of Gloucester and Prince Michael of Kent?

 

[Ella Kay]

I don't think so. And Prince Michael of Kent's title is his title from birth. He's the Duke of Kent's younger brother, so he didn't inherit any titles from their father when he died.

Titles aren't generally removed from people except in extreme situations (as when some dukes were deprived of their titles because they sided with Germany in WWI). And titles generally also only revert to the crown when there are no legitimate heirs left to inherit them.