One thing to remember with titles is that it hasn't been the 'done thing' to re-create a title while anyone is still alive who used that title so York should be out as long as not only Andrew, but Sarah, Beatrice and Eugenie are still alive.
I remember the reports that the late Queen Mum and The Princess Margaret were asked if they objected to Andrew getting York but as they had higher titles they didn't object. Although Beatrice and Eugenie have dropped the 'of York' they are still Princesses 'of York'.
King George III did not share Queen Elizabeth II’s opinion that it wasn’t the “done thing”. He recreated the Dukedom of Cumberland for his son Ernest Augustus while his sister-in-law Anne was still using the title Duchess of Cumberland. Considering George III had banned Anne from court, I doubt he asked for her permission.
No other monarchs had an opportunity to recreate a royal dukedom while anyone was still alive who used that title, so we do not know whether they would have done it if they'd had the chance.
(remember to that Cumberland and Albany are still not available as their are heirs male of those titles who could petition to have them reinstated).
Not for Albany. The
Royal Marriages Act of 1772 made the 2nd Duke of Albany’s grandchildren illegitimate under British law. Illegitimate children cannot inherit peerages.
As male-line descendants of King George II, the Duke of Albany’s children were required to obtain the British monarchs’ permission to marry under the Royal Marriages Act, or else their marriages would not be legal (in Britain):
no descendant of the body of his late Majesty King George the Second, male or female (other than the issue of princesses who have married, or may hereafter marry, into foreign families), shall be capable of contracting matrimony without the previous consent of his Majesty, his heirs or successors, [...] and that every marriage, or matrimonial contract, of any such descendant, without such consent first had and obtained, shall be null and void to all intents and purposes whatsoever'.
None of them asked the British monarchs’ permission to marry (their family was alienated from the British royal family as they had been on opposing sides of World War I), so their marriages were indeed “null and void to all intents and purposes whatsoever” as far as the UK was concerned, making their children illegitimate in British law.
(There is a small chance that the
Succession to the Crown Act 2013 legitimated them retroactively, but that is a whole other discussion.)
Charles has indicated he wants a smaller royal family so he needs to act on that - certainly not increase the number eligible for royal status but reduce it further. His 'working royals' idea of only a few is working wonders for young people who have no one in their generation i.e. those in their teens, twenties or thirties undertaking royal duties with only 2 under 50 and only 4 under 70 the royal family is fast aging itself out of relevance.
Continued the age discussion in
The Future of the British Monarchy 2: Sep 2022 -.