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 plays, 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)

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...

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)

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 ridiculous, and should be removed. 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)

• • I have also removed the paragraph suggesting that Peerage Law be changed and 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)