They haven't been "of York" really since they've been married, even though we've seen the palace still refer to them as such. They are Princess Beatrice, Mrs Mapelli Mozzi and Princess Eugenie, Mrs Brooksbank. Separately, they are HRH Princess in their own right as grandchildren of a monarch, children of a monarch's son.
And the only time I have ever seen them referred to as "of York" is in the media.
Didn’t Beatrice and Eugenie stop using the ”of York” part after their weddings ? In the court circular they have been ”Princess Beatrice Mrs Edoardo Mapelli-Mozzi” and ”Princess Eugenie Mrs Jack Brooksbank” since then..
Officially – i.e., according to Buckingham Palace – the York princesses became “HRH Princess Eugenie, Mrs. Jack Brooksbank” and “HRH Princess Beatrice, Mrs. Edoardo Mapelli Mozzi” on marriage, indeed.
However, Princess Eugenie herself continued to use “HRH Princess Eugenie of York” for her charitable work for two years or so after marrying. (And even the Court Circular used it once.) Many examples are documented in this thread:
Technically she is no longer "of York", right? If the press release is accurate, Princess Eugenie remains "of York" as of today, although she may drop it in the future. Dropping the territorial designation on a princess's marriage is not a law, only a precedent from the marriage of Princess...
www.theroyalforums.com
Moreover, the sisters continue to use “Eugenie York” and “Beatrice York” as their professional names to this day (at least before their father’s announcement).
So yes, they have used the York name after marriage, even if it is not “official”.
Regarding the announcement itself: I have not yet had the time to read through the news coverage, but a few points which I am not sure have been addressed in this thread:
1. It seems there were two separate statements:
One on the record from Prince Andrew personally, which defended his character and was rather vague about what were the “title and the honours which have been conferred upon me” that he would “no longer use”.
One from Buckingham Palace but not for attribution, which clarified the practical matters: title meant York dukedom, honours meant knighhood, Sarah, family Christmas etc.
2. I freely admit that English common law, traditionalists, dedicated BRF watchers, and likely Andrew himself regard Duke of York as his highest title.
Nonetheless, probably 99% of the general public consider “Prince” his most elevated title – and he will remain known as “Prince Andrew”. Therefore, the framing of “Andrew gives up his title!” seems to be an oversell.
On the other hand, I agree with those who do not think the fact that he will legally remain a duke matters much. Being a “technical” duke does not really have any practical effects in 2025.
3. There was no
protocolar reason why Sarah, Duchess of York needed to revert to her maiden name as a result of her ex-husband’s change of usage.
Standard practice is that divorced peeresses’ titles are frozen until they remarry: A woman who marries and then divorces a courtesy Earl (and has not remarried) continues to use the courtesy title of Jane, Countess of X even after her ex-husband is promoted to The Duke of Y.
Thus, there must be a reason specific to this particular case why Sarah is giving up her “Duchess of York”. Is she, like Andrew, considered a distraction from the royal family’s work these days, ?
Source:
https://www.thegazette.co.uk/London/issue/50524/page/6909
www.the-independent.com
