Questions about British Styles and Titles 1: Ending 2022

[Countessmeout]

I dont see Andrew remarrying and having children at his age.

I do think we will wait to see another Duke of York until George's kids though. But not because of the York girls but for one very practical reason we can't over look. Andrew being alive.

Dukedoms are traditionally given when they marry. Lets say Louis marries at 30-32, thats only thirty years at most. Andrew is only 59. Considering the long lives of both of his parents, he very well could live well over 30 years. Barring some tragedy, Great Uncle Andrew may very well be attending the weddings of William's kids down the line.

I guess they could do what they did with Edward, and give him an earldom until Andrew dies. But that is slightly morbid. With Edward it was done, and doesnt seem morbid, as it is Philip's desire his son to have the title after him. Unless Andrew voices that same desire for Louis, sorry it just seems like waiting for an old man to die so he can have a title. (Okay I know the princess royal title works that way but still).

Then I guess that is where the York girls and their feelings might come into play. Oh your dad is dead, the title now is Louis'. Might be a bit hard.

Makes sense it would remain dormant for kids of George.

 

[Denville]

When Andrew dies, who is the new Duke of York?

Since he has no male heir no one - the title will die out....

 

[Osipi]

Another interesting angle about peerage titles such as The Duke of York is the "creation" factor. Andrew's title has been "created" eight times by a monarch in British history and he is the 1st Duke of York in the eighth creation. If Andrew had/has a son that inherits, he'd be the 2nd Duke of York in the eighth creation.

Its why when you see print referring to Diana's brother, you'll also notice that he's the 9th Earl Spencer. It denotes an unbroken line of inheritance of the title without it reverting to the Crown and being recreated for someone else.

Its fascinating.

 

[alvinking]

Another interesting angle about peerage titles such as The Duke of York is the "creation" factor. Andrew's title has been "created" eight times by a monarch in British history and he is the 1st Duke of York in the eighth creation. If Andrew had/has a son that inherits, he'd be the 2nd Duke of York in the eighth creation.

Its why when you see print referring to Diana's brother, you'll also notice that he's the 9th Earl Spencer. It denotes an unbroken line of inheritance of the title without it reverting to the Crown and being recreated for someone else.

Its fascinating.

Had the Duke of Clarence and Avondale not died, King George V would have remained Duke of York, and the Title would have died out with Princess Elizabeth of York, and Princess Margaret of York, just like Beatrice and Eugenie today

 

[JR76]

Had the Duke of Clarence and Avondale not died, King George V would have remained Duke of York, and the Title would have died out with Princess Elizabeth of York, and Princess Margaret of York, just like Beatrice and Eugenie today

No, the Dukedom of York would still be around and would today be held by the Duke of Gloucester.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Had the Duke of Clarence and Avondale lived then none of the current royals would exists as Albert Victor would have married Queen Mary and not his younger brother.

That means that the current Duke of Gloucester also wouldn't exist.

 

[Denville]

Another interesting angle about peerage titles such as The Duke of York is the "creation" factor. Andrew's title has been "created" eight times by a monarch in British history and he is the 1st Duke of York in the eighth creation. If Andrew had/has a son that inherits, he'd be the 2nd Duke of York in the eighth creation.

Its why when you see print referring to Diana's brother, you'll also notice that he's the 9th Earl Spencer. It denotes an unbroken line of inheritance of the title without it reverting to the Crown and being recreated for someone else.

Its fascinating.

Just that a lot of dukes of York died without male heirs.. and unlike a normal peerage the royal peerages would not go to a nephew but would have to be recreated...

 

[An Ard Ri]

His 2 daughters currently cannot inherit it so it will become extinct upon the current Dukes death.

 

[Mbruno]

Unless the law changes (i.e. Beatrice can inheirt the Dukedom, which I doubt that will happen), I believe the title merges with the Crown so that a future King William can possibly bestow it on his 2nd son, Prince Louis or it lays in wait for a future King George and his sons.

The title doesn't merge into the Crown. It becomes extinct and then it can be recreated for someone else in the future.


The titles of Duke of Edinburgh and Duke of Cambridge on the other hand will probably merge into the Crown.

 

[O-H Anglophile]

When Andrew dies, who is the new Duke of York?

No-one unless Andrew re-marries and has a son. The title remains vacant until another monarch re-creates it in the future.

The last Duke of York also only had two daughters, but he became King since his elder brother abdicated.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke_of_York

 

[Gawin]

The other option is for Her Majesty to actually reissue the Letters Patent to change 'heirs male' to one of 'heirs male, in lieu of heirs male heirs female' - giving preference so sons over daughters or to go with 'heirs of the body' leaving out the term 'male'. Had she been inclined to go that way I suspect she would have done so last year with the Sussex title but as she didn't I don't see her doing it for York.

Actually, only Parliament can alter Letters Patent creating a peerage title once the LP have been issued. That's why the the Queen didn't simply change the Duke of Edinburgh's LP in order to allow Edward to become Duke once Philip dies. She couldn't.

For example, in 1702 Queen Anne created John Churchill Duke of Marlborough, with succession limited to the heirs male of his body. Churchill's only son died in 1703 and, in order to prevent the title from becoming extinct, it was necessary for Parliament to pass an act allowing Churchill's daughters to succeed him. Queen Anne couldn't make that change herself.

 

[Duke of Leaside]

... Note that Eugenie has become HRH Princess Eugenie OF YORK, Mrs Jack Brooksbank and I would expect Beatrice to do the same thing - keep the 'of York' as part of her name and title. ...

I'm curious as to your source for "HRH Princess Eugenie OF YORK, Mrs. Jack Brooksbank".

I've seen various things in the court circular and elsewhere but never have I seen the "of York" along with the "Mrs. Jack Brooksbank".

Since they were married the court circular as variously listed her as "HRH Princess Eugenie of York", "HRH Princess Eugenie" and on May 29, "HRH Princess Eugenie, Mrs. Jack Brooksbank". The one on May 29 would match how Princess Alexandra has been styled since her marriage although Princess Alexandra's titled changed slightly when her husband received a knighthood.

 

[Spheno]

Actually, only Parliament can alter Letters Patent creating a peerage title once the LP have been issued. That's why the the Queen didn't simply change the Duke of Edinburgh's LP in order to allow Edward to become Duke once Philip dies. She couldn't.

For example, in 1702 Queen Anne created John Churchill Duke of Marlborough, with succession limited to the heirs male of his body. Churchill's only son died in 1703 and, in order to prevent the title from becoming extinct, it was necessary for Parliament to pass an act allowing Churchill's daughters to succeed him. Queen Anne couldn't make that change herself.

see Dukes of Fife
It's bad scenario for Philip's title, but it's a possibility for Andrew's title.

 

[Denville]

see Dukes of Fife
It's bad scenario for Philip's title, but it's a possibility for Andrew's title.

But the successon can't be changed Unless Parliament does it. Anyway, the RF would probaby be pleased as many titles are now "going out" of the RF, Kent Gloucester etc... because there are heirs.. and the title wont revert to the Crown. And York is a historic dukedom, so they might be pleased to keep it in place for a future second son..

 

[Gawin]

see Dukes of Fife
It's bad scenario for Philip's title, but it's a possibility for Andrew's title.

Thanks for pointing this out. So the Queen can't change the LP but she can issue new ones just as Queen Victoria did for the Duke of Fife.

I suspect that's what Ilvubertie meant by "actually reissue the Letters Patent."

I stand corrected and apologize to Ilvubertie.

 

[Denville]

Thanks for pointing this out. So the Queen can't change the LP but she can issue new ones just as Queen Victoria did for the Duke of Fife.

I suspect that's what Ilvubertie meant by "actually reissue the Letters Patent."

I stand corrected and apologize to Ilvubertie.

But the Dukedom of Fife was a new title.. so the queen could set it up how she wished..

 

[Gawin]

But the Dukedom of Fife was a new title.. so the queen could set it up how she wished..

So does that mean QE couldn't issue new LP for Philip's title (Edinburgh) since she didn't issue the first ones? Or is it the fact that the first LP made Alexander Duff Duke of Fife and Marquess of Macduff while the second made him Duke of Fife and Earl of Macduff? I'm confused....

 

[Countessmeout]

Thanks for pointing this out. So the Queen can't change the LP but she can issue new ones just as Queen Victoria did for the Duke of Fife.

I suspect that's what Ilvubertie meant by "actually reissue the Letters Patent."

I stand corrected and apologize to Ilvubertie.

Fife is not a good example.

Fife was originally a peerage only in Ireland (despite its Scottish name). When Victoria issued the new LP, she created a peerage of the same name, but within the peerage of the UK.

York already exists in the peerage of the UK. I don't think its posible to have two Dukes of York in the peerage of the UK.

Now if they wanted to have Beatrice inherit a title from her father they create a variation of his title. There are Dukes and Earls with the same designation (though usually they are subsidiary titles). York is too historical of a title, I dont see it being altered to Earl of York for Beatrice and her line. But Andrew does have subsidiary titles. Arguably the queen could take his Earl of Inverness title for instance and make Andrew also Baron of Inverness and make that title inheritable by a daughter. So while all his other titles became extinct, and open for another general of royal sons, Beatrice would be Baroness of Inverness.

I don't see it happening. If they did, they would have to consider the same thing with Louise (making a special title for Beatrice to inherit but denying Edward's eldest child the right to inherit). But that would be the only really likely posibility to do so.

Now when Edward is made Duke of Edinburgh, they could for once show they are becoming more modern, and make it heirs general. James could inherit Wessex, and his sister Edinburgh. But sadly again think its wishful thinking.


Both Edinburgh and Inverness would be fitting. There are a number of Scottish peerages which do allow for female inheritance. Lady Saltoun, often a guest at royal weddings as she is a relation, is a prime example.

 

[Gawin]

Fife is not a good example.

Fife was originally a peerage only in Ireland (despite its Scottish name). When Victoria issued the new LP, she created a peerage of the same name, but within the peerage of the UK.

It existed as an earldom within the peerage of Ireland. In 1885 Queen Victoria made Alexander Duff, the then 5th Earl Fife (Irish peerage), Earl of Fife in the UK peerage. In 1889 (on his marriage to her granddaughter Princess Louise) she created him Duke of Fife and Marquess of Macduff (UK peerage) with remainder to heirs male of his body. She created him Duke of Fife (UK peerage) a second time, in 1900, but with the subsidiary title Earl of Macduff and allowing his daughters to succeed him in default of sons.

York already exists in the peerage of the UK. I don't think its posible to have two Dukes of York in the peerage of the UK.

But as I pointed out above there were two Dukes of Fife in the peerage of the UK. Only the subsidiary titles were different.

 

[Durham]

There have been other seemingly stranger creations. For instance the Earldom of Wilton was created for Thomas Egerton. He had one daughter (an only child) who was married to the Marquess of Westminster. The earldom was created with remainder to the second and younger sons successively of his daughter. His eldest grandson of course inheriting the marquisate from his father.

I guess peerages can be created to fit any scenario.

 

[Gawin]

It's my understanding the Earldom of Selkirk has an unusual remainder as well with the result that in 1886 the 8th Earl was succeeded by his older brother.

 

[CyrilVladisla]

The title Duke of Exeter was last created in 1444. The title was forfeited in 1461.
Can the title Duke of Exeter be created again?

 

[Countessmeout]

The title Duke of Exeter was last created in 1444. The title was forfeited in 1461.
Can the title Duke of Exeter be created again?

Yes a forefeited title can be re-created. Happened numerous times to Exeter. Other titles like Gloucester as well.


The issue may lay in that there is a Marquess of Exeter.

Though there are some titles that share the same name, they are usually a subsidiary of the other, or started out as such. It would be a bit odd to name Louis lets say Duke of Exeter when he married, when the Marquess of Exeter is held by the Burghley family.

 

[Somebody]

It's my understanding the Earldom of Selkirk has an unusual remainder as well with the result that in 1886 the 8th Earl was succeeded by his older brother.

Thanks for this interesting tidbit. I looked it up and it's still rather interesting. It even resulted in a court case in the nineties (see Wikipedia).

 

[sophie25]

I don't think anyone already an HRH will be stripped of their position but I firmly believe that neither Louise, James, Archie or any eventual future siblings of his will be neither HRH nor prince/ss

To be honest it would not surprise me at all if B and E are stripped of their titles when Charles is King but I think they would be downgraded to the title of 'Lady' instead of holding no title at all. To be honest I think their existing titles just make things complicated for them as they have the HRH but there is no place for them as working royals.

 

[Gawin]

You make a good point - the HRH complicates things for Beatrice and Eugenie - but if Charles does take it away I hope it's done with their freely given consent (no pressure).

 

[muriel]

You make a good point - the HRH complicates things for Beatrice and Eugenie - but if Charles does take it away I hope it's done with their freely given consent (no pressure).

I can't see HRHs being revoked. Instead, they may be encouraged to not use the titles over time.

 

[Osipi]

I imagine that if Charles issues letters patent amending just who is entitled to the HRH honorific, it will be effective from that date forward and not retroactive. Just gradually slimming down who holds the HRH should it be the King and his heir and family. the only person in question would be a daughter if Harry and Meghan have one before Charles is king. They may even go the way they have with Archie.

When we think about it, its only Beatrice and Eugenie that most like would still be HRH and both of them cannot pass it down as things stand right now.

 

[muriel]

When we think about it, its only Beatrice and Eugenie that most like would still be HRH and both of them cannot pass it down as things stand right now.

That is correct, it is only B&E.

 

[Mbruno]

Beatrice and Eugenie will be HRHs for life. That is a given and pretty harmless as they won’t pass their title neither to their husbands nor to their children.

Going forward, however, I expect the HRH to be restricted to children of the monarch, or of the heir apparent , or of the eldest child of the heir apparent meaning that neither Harry’s nor Louis’ children will be HRHs themselves.