Talk:Duke of York

Concurrent offices

I thought the future George V, then Duke of York was made Prince of Wales when his father became Edward VII in 1901. Hence the Dukedom of York would have returned to the crown in 1901 not 1910, or was he both POW and DOY during his father's reign? FearÉIREANN 07:05 17 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Titles conferred earlier don't merge with the crown until the person actually takes the crown. a Prince of Wales continues to hold all titles he held before being made Prince of Wales, until he succeeds his father, Thus, during his father's reign, the future George V was Prince of Wales; Duke of Cornwall, Rothesay, and York; Earl of Chester, Carrick, and Inverness; Baron of Renfrew and Killarney, Lord of the Isles, and Prince and Great Steward of Scotland. Or some such. Because Prince of Wales was the highest of his titles, he was known by that, but he was still called Prince of Wales. In the period between his father's accession and his own creation as Prince of Wales (almost a year), he was known as the Duke of Cornwall and York. john 20:15 17 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sure this is correct. George VI didn't get the title until 1920.

I concur, based on numerous academic reserach sources. He was concurrently Duke of Cornwall and York.Mmorrisbsa (talk) 02:05, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Shakespeare use of DoY

I'm not sure I like the references to Shakespeare j, though. Do they serve a useful purpose? Deb 20:24 19 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Well, if one is reading Shakespeare's Richard II, or Henry V, or Henry VI, one might come across the Duke of York as a character, and look him up. I think it's helpful to explain which Duke of York is shown in each play. If you disagree, feel free to remove it. john 21:49 19 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I've been planning on making cast lists for all the history plays, and linking every character to the corresponding historical personage. Thus far I've done Richard II and Richard III. But you're quite right that someone might look up 'Duke of York' rather than the play itself. - Loren

I don't disagree at all, but I was wondering if it's (a) right to restrict the references to Shakespeare as if he were the only dramatist in the world, and (b) misleading in the sense that Shakespeare's plays present a very distorted view of history -- someone reading the article might mistakenly think they can find out more about the Duke of York by reading the play. References from the entry for the play to this article are fine, but I'm not sure about the other way round. Deb 19:49 20 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Someone learning about the historical person would at the very least want to know that other people's perceptions were potentially colored by some famous literary portrayal. Clearly though we ought to explain where truth and fiction diverge. I'd be happy to see other literary references. For example some one ought to go through the Divine Comedy and enter all of Dante's references. Loren

I think I agree with Loren, largely. By the standard that Shakespeare presents a distorted picture, does that mean that we shouldn't mention, say, Shakespeare's Richard III in an account of that king? Considering that almost everyone's perception of Richard III are immensely colored by the play, I don't think that should be done. Yes, the article should make clear the distinction between the actual history and the play, but I don't think it's invalid to link from the individual's article to a famous fictional representation of that character. john 20:32 20 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Not invalid -- it just needs to be done with care. Deb 22:55 20 Jun 2003 (UTC)

The Grand Old DoY

What about "The Grand Old Duke of York", the one who had ten thousand men, and marched them up to the top of the hill and marched them down again for some reason. Which particular Duke of York was that rhyme inspired by? Saul Taylor 10:37, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Might want to check out Grand old Duke of York, refers to Frederick Augustus who attacked the Low Countries in the 1790s. But for still another theory, read Wakefield. Confusing? I know. But, when you're up, you're up... - knoodelhed 16:57, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This Duke of York, was Frederick Augustus (1763-1827), he was George III's second son. Mightberight/wrong 25 October 2005

Duke of York (DOY) vs. Duke of York and Albany (DOYA)

Are these not separate dukedoms? We show DOY as having had 8 creations, and DOYA as having had 3 creations. Even though DOYA is described as a “name change” from DOY, the fact that the creations are separately enumerated seems to suggest that this is not merely a name change but an entirely separate title. I wonder why these are all merged in the one article. JackofOz 02:22, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

It is an entirely separate title, but we generally put "X and Y" titles on the same page as plain "X" titles for simplicity (and because they are often referred to simply by the "X" part anyway). Duke of Buckingham, for instance, also contains information on the titles "Duke of Buckingham and Normanby" and "Duke of Buckingham and Chandos". Proteus (Talk) 10:27, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Heirs

Does this title automatically merge with the crown upon the death of its holder? I've noticed from the list that it has never passed into a second generation. George III's son Frederick had no children; George V became king; George VI became king; and Prince Andrew only has daughters. Is this a non-hereditary title, or is it just "cursed" in that none of its holders ever passed it on? Morhange 01:57, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

It's "cursed" (supposedly). And of course the current Duke has no sons, so it's going to happen again. Proteus (Talk) 08:02, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Unless he remarries and has sons. He's still a young man. JackofOz 08:07, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Or they change the law and allow Beatrice to inherit it as Duchess. TheUnknown285 (talk) 19:04, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

On the "cursed" thing, it depends which way you look at it... certainly it hasn't been good for the Hanovers especially... but also many times in the past, the Dukes of York have gone on to become kings and even a saint. Edward IV, Henry VIII, Charles I and James II certainly, for better or worse have gone on to infamy after holding this title and are now in a sense immortals (again for better or worse). - Yorkshirian (talk) 22:57, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

A shorter answer to the question "Does this title automatically merge ... ?" is "No". And the question's underlying premise that the title has never passed to a second generation is wrong. It just hasn't done so since the Wars of the Roses. The title is created with inheritance by male heirs of the body, like almost any other noble title, and there is no special provision that it revert to the Crown for a future grant to some other younger son of a Monarch. This is something that has happened only by chance, not by design. 64.131.188.104 (talk) 21:48, 20 April 2008 (UTC) Christopher L. Simpson

All dukes of York are dukes in England ?

Hi, i've recently created the peerage categories on the french wiki. I have a dispute with an other user about a categorization, which leads to this affirmation :

« All dukes of York are dukes in England ». Right or wrong ?

This user has created a new category : "Duke in England", and has sub-categorize "duke of York" (<- category) inside. DoY title was created in the GB an UK peerages too, so i tend to say it's wrong. This user says it's incorrect to sub-categorize "DoY" in "dukes in the peerage of England" "..of GB" and "..of the UK". Can you give me your point of view ? (i need specialists :) )
You can answer me there : fr:Discussion Utilisateur:PurpleHaze, i'll reply here. Thanks! --PurpleHz 16:19, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

You're quite right - the Dukedom of York has been awarded in the Peerages of England, Great Britain, and the United Kingdom. Here on EN, we have, Category:British royal titles > Category:Dukes of York, but also Category:British royal titles > Category:English royal titles > Category:Dukes of York - hope this helps – DBD does... 00:16, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Not really ! :D What would you think about sub-categorizing Dukes of York only in a new category: Category:Dukes in England ?

This leads to my question in the title. --PurpleHz 13:04, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

It's already in Category:Dukes in the Peerage of England, along with other royal Dukes categories – DBD does... 19:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Hummm! It's seems like there is a big misunderstanding. I know it's under Category:Dukes in the Peerage of England. But it's also under Category:Dukes in the Peerage of the United Kingdom. All DoY were not made under UK's peerage.

And i'm not talking about peerage, i'm talking about territory. The question is : Is it correct to associate DoY with England even if the title was created in UK's peerage ? York is not a duchy, it's a dukedom, and it's not associated with any territory in England as far i know. I had a talk with Proteus, and i'm satisfied with his answer. --PurpleHz 21:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. The Dukedom of York has never been associated with any territory. The title was originally created to emphasise the strategic significance of the City of York, which was the most important City in the North of England (indeed as a strategic bridgehead in the north of the island of Great Britain it has held this significance from Roman and Viking times). When the title was created the Peerage in place was that of the Peerage of England. This ceased to exist in 1707 with the Act of Union with Scotland, creating the new country of Great Britain (the separate sovereign countries of England and Scotland, with their separate Peerage systems, ceased to exist as sovereign states). Again the Peerage of Great Britain was terminated with the Act of Union in 1801 to create the new country of the United Kingdom. So the title of Duke of York existed in the English Peerage, the Great British Peerage, and the current United Kingdom Peerage. Only if Scotland votes to separate from the Union will the Peerage of England emerge once again (as the Act of Union of 1801 will be dissolved if the Scottish people vote for independence in any future referendum).Ds1994 (talk) 17:29, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Next Duke Of York

The assertion is made that Prince Henry of Wales would be the most likely candidate for the dukedom, given that Andrew has no male heirs to inherit the title, nor produces any male heirs. Assuming Andrew lives to be 80, he would live until 2040. In 2040, Henry would already be 56 years old, and presumably already made a duke. Assuming there is no tragedy, the Dukedom of York will still be in use when the time comes for conferring a dukedom on Henry.Mmorrisbsa (talk) 02:13, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but...

Another issue is that Andrew is eleven years younger than Charles. Chances are, Andrew will outlive Charles. So, it's unlikely the title Duke of York will even be available to Charles during his reign and that William, not Charles will be the next monarch to award the title and would name HIS second son. In other words, the next Duke of York probably isn't born yet. TheUnknown285 (talk) 23:27, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Heh, to save confusion and pointless conversation, may I paraphrase a sentence of yours? So, it's likely that the title will not even be available ... and that William.... —Tamfang (talk) 09:01, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Someone can be Duke of more than one place. Prince Charles, for example, is Duke of Rothesay and Duke of Cornwall.47.139.46.127 (talk) 23:30, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

The newer practice seems to be to create cadet princes firstly as earls, and only in their middle years, make them dukes. Edward of Wessex is destined to become a duke in his fifties or later. Harry may well receive an earldom when his marriage is imminent, with a promise to become duke when about in his retirement age :) This has the advantage of allowing the wife of Harry only a lowly title, in case their marriage does like almost any others' marriage.... only if the wife continues undivorced to 1240s or so, she will be duchess :) 82.181.239.182 (talk) 00:39, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

As of 2019, Harry is already a Duke.47.139.46.127 (talk) 23:30, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

• • I don't agree with the assertion that cadet Princes may be made earls first, and dukes later. The only example of this so far is Prince Edward, but this was done purely because it was thought there was a sufficient number of Royal dukes already living (the Duke of Edinburgh, the Duke of Cornwall, the Duke of York, the Duke of Gloucester, and the Duke of Kent). It was felt that five living Royal dukes were more than enough, given the desired move by the Prime Minister of the time to make the Royal family more 'up to date' and in tune with 21st Century realities. For all we know, the maximum number of Royal dukes at any one time may be five - so that when the present Duke of Edinburgh dies it will be permitted that the youngest son of the sovereign will receive the title (there is another reason for this: the Royal family wishes to preserve a high profile in Scotland, particularly with the growing movement of nationalism and separatism in that country). However with Prince Henry I think this policy will be put to one side. The only brother of the future sovereign and currently the third in line to the throne will not be made an earl. He will be made a Duke, possibly Cambridge or Sussex, and I don't think he himself would accept anything less. Ds1994 (talk) 13:38, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

What I heard was that Edward took an earldom because he prefers a lower profile; though this doesn't fit well with the plan that he eventually gets Edinburgh. — I got curious and counted royal dukes since 1714 (using List of dukedoms in the peerages of the British Isles); the peak was eight, between 1801 and 1820: Cornwall, Gloucester & Edinburgh, York & Albany, Clarence & St Andrews, Cumberland & Teviotdale, Kent & Strathearn, Cambridge, Sussex. —Tamfang (talk) 03:45, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

The speculation at the end of this article is silly. Given the age of all parties involved, and the apparent longevity of the present royals, some future second son of Prince William of Wales would likely take this title about the year 2050... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.222.22.179 (talk) 01:08, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

• • I agree with this. The speculation as to whether Prince Henry will be made Duke of York is a bit ridiculous. Most likely he will be conferred with another Royal dukedom, such as Cambridge or Sussex, well before the current Duke of York dies. And as suggested, the dukedom of York will be given to the second son (if any) of Prince William of Wales (or if this is not the case it will be reserved by the Crown for future use). I have amended the relevant paragraph in the article to reflect this.Ds1994 (talk) 22:10, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Dsl1994 is right about one thing -- Henry became Duke of Sussex while the current Duke of York was alive. But that doesn't mean he won't be Duke of York also. His father (Prince Charles) is Duke of two places.47.139.46.127 (talk) 23:30, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Someone has completely changed my wording to suggest 'if Prince Andrew outlives King Charles' etc This is totally ridiculous as Prince Andrew is nearly twelve years younger than his elder brother, so this scenario is likely anyway! Can I be bothered to change this nonesense? No. Ds1994 (talk) 18:18, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Charles's first wife, Diana, was about the same age as Prince Andrew. Being younger doesn't guarantee against being first to die.47.139.46.127 (talk) 23:30, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

• • I have also removed the paragraph suggesting that Peerage Law be changed (or a special remainder be granted) so that the eldest daughter may inherit the dukedom of York from Prince Andrew. This is extremely unlikely to happen, as the title is the most senior Royal dukedom after the Duke of Lancaster (always held by the Sovereign) and the Duke of Cornwall (always held by the eldest son of the sovereign - if there is no son, or only a daughter, it is held also by the sovereign). Basically the title Duke of York would never be allowed to leave the Royal Family.Ds1994 (talk) 17:18, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

The Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall are collections of property that always exist, but they do not imply the existence of a Duke. The monarch cannot be his/her own vassal. —Tamfang (talk) 04:38, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

• • Not so. The Sovereign is always Duke of Lancaster and the title is permanently associated with the Crown in a subsidiary capacity by Charter. King George V re-approved the ongoing use of the title so I don't think we should argue with His Late Majesty? The 'Duke of Cornwall' is very much a Dukedom as well as a Duchy as the male Heir to the Throne is automatically Duke of Cornwall from birth and is referred to as 'HRH The Duke of Cornwall'. The Dukedom and Duchy of Cornwall also possesses special 'Palatine' powers that are separate from the Crown. Indeed a Test Case in the English Courts determined and confirmed that both the County of Cornwall and the Duchy of Cornwall have special Palatine powers that gives them a unique constitutional position within the United Kingdom.

Ds1994 (talk) 20:13, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the heir-apparent is duke of Cornwall. When there is no such person, the Duchy endures but without a duke. If the sovereign were then duke of Cornwall, then he or she would be deprived of that dignity upon the birth of a male child, which would be contrary to established principles of peerage law. (There was, if I remember right, a case where a Scottish[?] peerage was intended by the terms of its patent to transfer automatically from its holder to another person in certain circumstances, and this was held to be illegal.) —Tamfang (talk) 21:49, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Baron Buckhurst; I was likely also thinking of Earl of Selkirk. —Tamfang (talk) 22:15, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Baron Killarney

Baron Killarney redirects to here. Should there not be some mention of the title somewhere in the article (if there is some connection between the titles), or should Baron Killarney not be deleted (if there is not)? 83.70.251.202 (talk) 14:54, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Jacobites

I changed were to are in 'To the Jacobites, they were Kings James III, Charles III, and Henry IX, respectively'; since I for one am a jacobite, believe it or not. Jacobitism may not be relevant to those who dismiss it, but it still exists. Claverhouse (talk) 13:17, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

To whoever first wrote that sentence, the tense was governed by whether they (James, Charles, Henry) still exist, not whether you do. —Tamfang (talk) 06:05, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

what does the "of" mean?

Does it mean that the Duke is from York or that he's York's Duke? I'm asking because in some different languages there's a different between the two forms and I wan't to be accurate. Thanks. 15:48, 24 January 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.172.110.99 (talk)

The second. It's the same meaning of "of" that's in, for example, President of the United States and King of England, if that helps. Proteus (Talk) 19:00, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

The next Duke of York

Wait a sec, it's assumed that if Andrew dies without legitimate son to follow, the title will be given to his nephew Henry. If this situation occurs when his nephew William is King? wouldn't William bestow the title on his own second son (if he has one)? GoodDay (talk) 04:35, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

The sovereign can assign to anyone he or she chooses (wouldn't need to be a Royal technically). Hot Stop (c) 15:28, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Anyone or any male? Could William give it to his daughter? For that matter, could either the current Queen or Prince Charles (if he outlives both her and Prince Andrew) issue letters patent making it possible for Prince Andrew's daughter to inherit it when her father dies?47.139.46.127 (talk) 23:42, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

I suppose it would be possible for the monarch to issue letters patent to change the male entail to any heir of Andrew's body. But I doubt it will happen; notice the change in the primogeniture laws only applies to those born after the law went on the books - otherwise widespread chaos would have ensued - so it's likely the same rule will be applied with royal dukedoms. Charles is less likely to alter this than Her Majesty as his goal is to downsize the immediate royal family.

Since Prince William's daughter Princess Charlotte is the next heir after Prince George, the idea of giving her the dukedom is an interesting question. The title has traditionally been given to the 2nd son, i.e., "the spare," or the next heir, but since the changes in the law that would be Charlotte and not Louis. I suspect Charlotte will be the first Duchess of York in her own right. Cheers. History Lunatic (talk) 09:21, 1 August 2019 (UTC)History Lunatic

When the first holder of a peerage reaches old age with no sons, there is precedent for giving him a second peerage of the same style with a special remainder to his daughters (or other kin). I'm not aware of any royal examples, though. —Tamfang (talk) 22:27, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

The Next Duke of York at present the Duke of York has no heirs who can inherit the title if this remains the case when the present Duke of York dies. The title of Duke of York is traditionally given to the second eldest son of the current monarch. In relation to Princess Charlotte is suspect there is another royal title she will get most probably Princess Royal which is the title traditionally given to the sovereigns eldest daughter. King4852 (talk) 19:39, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

But the current monarch is Charles III, not William. Isn’t Charles’ second son, Harry, the most likely next Duke of York then? 2A02:A03F:60EA:1F00:9409:78DF:E907:854E (talk) 01:20, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Queen Victoria, for some reason, gave the York title not to her own second son but to that of the Prince of Wales (future George V), separating it from Albany for the first time since the Stuart succession. Her successors resumed the tradition. —Tamfang (talk) 20:23, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Arithmetic

The title has been created eleven times, eight as "Duke of York", before the Act of Union of 1801, three times in the peerage of Great Britain as the "Duke of York and Albany" and another three times in the peerage of the United Kingdom.

Er, 8 + 3 + 3 ≠ 11. Am I missing something here? Should the "eleven" simply be modified to "fourteen"? Perhaps the meaning is that for three of those times it was the Duke of York and Albany, not the Duke of York. But I would think that the former encompasses the latter and should be counted accordingly. --Saforrest (talk) 22:48, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Concur, changed. I'm not sure if the confusion here is due to the tortured wording, or a misunderstanding of "number of creations", rather "number dukes". (Five creations and eight dukes, then three DoY&A, each a separate creation, then another three DoY, similarly.) 84.203.35.239 (talk) 01:52, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

"Curse"

I have just deleted the following paragraph: "Since 1461, when the great-grandson of the first duke became King Edward IV, not one of the ten subsequent holders of the title has ever passed it on: they either died without male heirs or became King themselves. This has fuelled the rumour that there is a curse on the title."

Firstly, the link does not work so the rumour has no source. Regardless, the thing is nonsense. The Dukedom of York since the accession of the Tudors has not been a standard, hereditary dukedom, passing down the line in the usual fashion, but instead a courtesy title given to the second sons of monarchs. For a second son of a monarch to pass the title on essentially requires the first son of that monarch to die before his father and for the second son to himself have two sons. That this has not happened is not a curse. Marplesmustgo (talk) 15:37, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Please provide a source for your assertion that the peerage title Duke of York is awarded as a courtesy title? Certainly as far as the current Duke of York is concerned, the title is a substantive peerage which allowed Prince Andrew to sit in the House of Lords from 1986-1999. It is also clear from the letters patent of this creation that the title may succeed in the male line 'lawfully begotten'. I would be very surprised if this was not the case for previous creations as well. It is just the title has not been passed to the next generation since the 15th Century, simply because the holders have either inherited the Crown themselves, or they have not left male heirs. However, I do agree with the removal of the reference that the title is 'cursed' - we need a substantive source for this in order to include it.Ds1994 (talk) 15:15, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Duke of York. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130218134301/http://www.thedukeofyork.org:80/Home/AbouttheDuke/Background.aspx to http://www.thedukeofyork.org/Home/AbouttheDuke/Background.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:33, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Extinct Dukedoms

I was searching for English Dukedoms and found a page with categories. One of the categories is "Extinct Dukedoms." When I clicked on this link, I saw the Duke of York was listed as extinct. It is well-known that the Duke of York title has existed for over a thousand years and is still commonly conferred upon the British monarch's second son. I am not familiar with modifying Wikipedia pages, but I think someone who has the necessary knowledge to remove the Duke of York from the category of Extinct Dukedoms. Thank you.

Starsmark (talk) 05:22, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

The article is categorised under "Extinct dukedoms in the Peerage of England" and "Dukedoms in the Peerage of the United Kingdom". The current 'incarnation' of the title is in the Peerage of the United Kingdom, not in the Peerage of England. Richard of Shrewsbury, Duke of York was one of those who held the title in the peerage of England, and it became extinct at his death. It is therefore categorised under "Extinct dukedoms *in the Peerage of England*". Hope this helps.Alekksandr (talk) 21:53, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, the title has gone extinct in the Peerage of the United Kingdom too. Several times, actually. Surtsicna (talk) 22:00, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

NB the distinction between: -

1. A peerage becoming extinct, when the holder dies without male heirs, as the younger Prince in the Tower did in 1483.

2. A peerage merging in the crown, when the holder becomes monarch, as occurred in December 1936, when the then Duke of York became George VI.

The dukedom of York has been created three times since the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland came into existence in 1801, and none of those creations became extinct.

1. 1892 - merged in the crown in 1910 when the holder became George V.

2. 1920 - merged in the crown in 1936 when the holder became George VI.

3. 1986 - extant.

Duke of York and Albany was created three times in the peerage of Great Britain, became extinct each time, and is categorised under "Extinct dukedoms in the Peerage of Great Britain".Alekksandr (talk) 20:01, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

• Thank You

Thank you, Alekksandr, for your explanation; however, I still don't understand it. My fault really, as I find the Peerage of both England and the United Kingdom extremely confusing.

Starsmark (talk) 05:07, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

1. From the Middle Ages, England, Scotland and Ireland were three separate countries, each with its own peerage - i.e. the Peerage of England, the Peerage of Scotland and the Peerage of Ireland.

2. The current Duke of Norfolk holds a title created in 1483, when England was a separate kingdom, so it is in the Peerage of England.

3. The current Duke of Hamilton holds a title created in 1643, when Scotland was a separate kingdom, so it is in the peerage of Scotland.

4. The current Duke of Leinster holds a title created in 1766, when Ireland was a separate kingdom, so it is in the peerage of Ireland.

5. In 1707, the Kingdom of England and the Kingdom of Scotland were "United into One Kingdom by the Name of Great Britain".

6. The current Duke of Manchester holds a title created in 1719, when the United Kingdom of Great Britain existed, so it is in the peerage of Great Britain.

7. In 1801, the Kingdom of Great Britain and the Kingdom of Ireland were united to create the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland

8. The current Duke of Wellington holds a title created in 1814, when the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland existed, so it is in the peerage of the United Kingdom.

Hope this helps.Alekksandr (talk) 20:15, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

• Thank You, once again, Alekksandr for your efforts on my behalf.

I remain confused as to the title of Duke of York. I do not understand how the title can be extinct when it is presently in use. HRH Prince Andrew is the current Duke of York, as it is tradition to style the monarch's second son. Perhaps my confusion is due to not distinguishing between royalty and the aristocracy. If this is indeed the point of my confusion, then this would also explain why the title "Duke of Windsor" is not listed as being extinct.

Starsmark (talk) 03:06, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

A dukedom became extinct a long time ago. The title is now in use for another dukedom that was created later and has the same title. The dinosaurs would still be extinct even if another animal that is alive today was also named "dinosaur", because it would not be the same animal.47.139.46.127 (talk) 23:48, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

1. Duke of Windsor *is* categorised under "Extinct dukedoms in the Peerage of the United Kingdom" and is shown as extinct in List_of_dukedoms_in_the_peerages_of_Britain_and_Ireland#Dukedoms_in_the_Peerage_of_the_United_Kingdom.2C_1801_to_present

2. The reason why titles with the same name can be both extinct and extant is because they are in different peerages. The dukedoms of York which were created in the *peerage of England pre-1707* all ceased to exist, whether because the holder died without heirs (eg Prince in the Tower) or because the holder became king (eg James II). The dukedom of York which exists/is extant at present was created in 1986, in the *peerage of the United Kingdom post-1801*.

3. These principles apply whether or not a peerage was created for a member of the royal family. Alekksandr (talk) 18:41, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Duke of York. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080319081521/http://www.ukdukes.co.uk/the_dukes/the_duke_of_york/ to http://www.ukdukes.co.uk/the_dukes/the_duke_of_york/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:16, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

George Plantagenet, 1st Duke of Clarence - Duke of York in 1470/1?

In the article on Richard Neville, 16th Earl of Warwick it states that his son in law (and Edward IV's younger brother) the Duke of Clarence 'was awarded the Duchy of York' by Parliament in 1470 after Henry VI's restoration following Edward's attainder which removed his claim to the title. Assuming this claim to be correct, technically would this not mean that Clarence was either the de jure 5th Duke of York of the first creation (in sucession to his brother), or the first Duke of a new creation for a period in 1470-71 until his defection back to Edward IV (and Edward's eventual restoration as King of England)? If so should the article be amended to reflect this? Dunarc (talk) 20:44, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

So between 26 November 1470 and 3 April 1471 ? Technically, yes Edouard2 (talk) 20:40, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Prince Andrew August 2014 (cropped).jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:38, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Dukes missing from table

The table part of the article omits two successive Dukes who were separately created in the 18th century, Prince Edward brother of George III and Prince Frederick, second son of George III, said to have been the 'Grand Old Duke' of the nursery rhyme. I understand they would have been the real sixth and seventh creations, the future George V would have been the eighth and the present Duke of the tenth creation. Am I right? I do note they are mentioned without picture or detailed life dates and family details in the introductory section History.Cloptonson (talk) 13:03, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

They were given the title Duke of York and Albany, which has a separate article. Favonian (talk) 20:28, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Update needed

PA given up titles as of 2 hours ago 83.151.207.175 (talk) 20:47, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

In his statement Andrew said, "I will therefore no longer use my title or the honours which have been conferred upon me." However, the title can only be removed by Act of Parliament - without that he remains legally the Duke. Source:

[1] It's comparable to Queen Camilla during her time as Duchess of Cornwall - legally she was Princess of Wales, but she didn't use the title. The wiki article on the Princess of Wales reflected that situation: [ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Princess_of_Wales&oldid=1100622349 ] 143.58.134.247 (talk) 21:22, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Still Duke of York

Doesn't the Titles Deprivation Act need to be enacted, before Andrew is no longer Duke of York? GoodDay (talk) GoodDay (talk) 05:38, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

No. He's been struck from the rolls via Royal warrant. Here is the Roll of the Peerage as of yesterday. York isn't listed. Wellington Bay (talk) 10:07, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

it says here that removal from the roll doesn't extinguish the peerage (he's just not allowed to be addressed as Duke of York anymore) https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-10370/ , so officially he is still Duke of York Jedi Master Bra'tac (talk) 11:25, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

You are correct. The Roll of the Peerage is a reasonably new invention (2004) to deal with the fact that hereditary peers would no longer generally receive a writ of summons to sit in Parliament. The Dukedom is not legally extinct but Andrew cannot use the title and cannot legally be recognised as a peer in official documents. LeComte1789 (talk) 12:14, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

what's the correct status for the info box? Is it "vacant" or is Andrew Duke of York solely on a technicality? Jedi Master Bra'tac (talk) 12:54, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

The correct status is extant but not used. The title can only be removed if a parliamentary writ is pursued. Being struck from the roll has never been enacted before but it is understood that this simply means he cannot use the title anymore, not that he has lost it as only an act of parliament can do that, à la Prince Ernst Augustus. AnemoiZZ (talk) 13:10, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

A Royal Warrant can be used to make a peerage existent , if it could not then an act of Parliament would have been needed.

Sky News among other news outlets is counting the Royal Warrant as the same as an Act of Parliament. Maurice Oly (talk) 15:06, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

This is so inane that it doesn't warrant a response... AnemoiZZ (talk) 15:08, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

The House of Commons Library page has been updated on this matter, however it is still saying that an Act of Parliament is required.

Going to put a link

here so it can always be referenced in this talk section. Maurice Oly (talk) 18:04, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

The Edinburgh Gazette says the following regarding the Dukedom of York

"Warrants Under the Royal Sign Manual

THE KING has been pleased by Warrant under His Royal Sign Manual dated 30 October 2025 to direct His Secretary of State to cause the Duke of York to be removed from the Roll of the Peerage with immediate effect."

What does everybody think of this regarding the status of Dukedom of York.

https://www.thegazette.co.uk/notice/4992116 Maurice Oly (talk) 17:43, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Further the BBC is reporting that the Dukedom has been removed by Royal Warrant.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvgmkm8516ko Maurice Oly (talk) 19:23, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

The parliamentary page on the topic was last updated on 20 October. Let's see if the next update revises that claim or if legislation is still required. Given that use of the royal warrant in this way is an innovation, the legal interpretations may be in flux. Wellington Bay (talk) 14:46, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

I agree. But I don't think the right way to go about this is to have a rail enthusiast dicatate a decision of constitutional law because they're anti-monarchy. AnemoiZZ (talk) 14:50, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

I was using a source thank you very much, and Royal Warrants can do quite a lot of things.

This is however the first time a Royal Warrant has been used this way.

I will back down a say we wait to see what is said parliament next week, my guess is we will hear something next week. Maurice Oly (talk) 15:19, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

The only thing that would make the title extinct would be an act of parliament. Simply, what you have said about the warrant is false. The warrant has simply removed the dukedom from the roll. It has not extinguished this peerage. This is clear if you read the text of the document. If the crown pursues a parliamentary act, which is incredibly unlikely, then it is fair to say that the title is extinct. Until then, the dukedom still exists in spite of how much you personally might not want it to. You cannot let personal views cloud your judgment on what is a fact. AnemoiZZ (talk) 15:22, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

First, @AnemoiZZ, there's no need for this kind of sniping over people's interests or perceived political views, thank you. On the content point, though, I do agree that it seems Andrew is still technically Duke of York, even if he can't be addressed as "Duke" or get any other perks of the job. The Independent says "Although the dukedom could be abolished through an Act of Parliament, it is understood that the King did not wish to take up parliamentary time or prevent MPs from focusing on urgent national issues. He preferred to do what he could within his own royal prerogative. ... The formal removal of the Duke of York from the peerage roll will ensure the title can no longer be used officially. Removal from the roll, however, does not extinguish the peerage itself, and this would require an Act of Parliament, according to House of Commons Library research." -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 15:24, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

You are exactly correct. I apologise for the civility but you should know of this rubes behaviour in private messages... AnemoiZZ (talk) 15:25, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

My bad. My Anger get the better of me at times. Maurice Oly (talk) 15:31, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

So what do we do? If he's no longer Duke of York, that means there can be a ninth creation, in his lifetime. GoodDay (talk) 19:47, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

The only option that makes sense it to leave it as is unless parliament debate about actually dissolving the titles. AnemoiZZ (talk) 19:52, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

The House of Commons Library currently says "Halsbury’s Laws of Englandstates that no peer "can be deprived of peerage except by or under the authority of an Act of Parliament"."

So I would says as of now there can

be no 9th creation. Maurice Oly (talk) 20:22, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

There will be no 9th creation of the title until the present Duke of York dies and the title merges back into the Crown. The current position is that all three peerage titles including Duke of York have been removed from the Roll of the Peerage, which means the titles cannot formally be used, but they are still extant. Also, taking into account the precedent set by the Titles Deprivation Act 1917, the titles including the Duke of York cannot be recreated as the titles in that Act were put into a form of suspension, with the proviso that the heirs of those titles can still petition the Sovereign for their 're-activation'. The only possible way for a 9th creation is either the passing of the current person holding the title, or another Act of Parliament which specifically states that the title has become extinct and has merged back into the Crown. Since there is no precedent for this, it would appear highly unlikely this will happen. So the current position of the article is correct: the title Duke of York and the other two junior titles are still extant, but they are not formally currently used.Ds1994 (talk) 21:39, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

An excellent summary. Thank you. LeComte1789 (talk) 21:44, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

The clarity about where we have got to is not helped by most hereditary peers (including Andrew) having been removed from the House of Lords in 1999. If it were not for that, he would still I believe be entitled to attend and vote, although it has always been rare for royal dukes to do that.

As the consensus here seems to be that Andrew is still duke of York, I've changed the infobox to reflect this. I've also updated the third paragraph of the lead using similar wording to that used in Andrew's own article.

Doesn't this also apply to the articles of Earl of Inverness and Baron Killyleagh? Peter Ormond 💬 07:22, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Yes, the Roll of the Peerage exists to compensate for the fact that you can no longer tell whether someone is a peer by whether they're in the Lords. Except there's nothing strictly requiring that every peer be on the Roll, which is why Charles is allowed to strike Andrew without extinguishing the title. At least that's my understanding.

Incidentally, I can't find the last time a royal voted in the Lords, but I think it would be beyond living memory; Edward, Prince of Wales, was dissuaded from voting for the Representation of the People Act in 1884, as even back then that was already too controversial for a royal to do. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 07:44, 17 November 2025 (UTC)