Talk:Duke of York

message: 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)
thread_title: Concurrent offices

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Duke of York (DOY) vs. Duke of York and Albany (DOYA)

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Unless he remarries and has sons.  He's still a young man.  JackofOz 08:07, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Or they change the law and allow Beatrice to inherit it as Duchess. TheUnknown285 (talk) 19:04, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Heirs 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Baron Killarney 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Jacobites 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  what does the "of" mean? 

message: :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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Arithmetic 

message: 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.Duke of York"
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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  "Curse" 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  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 ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:33, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:16, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  George Plantagenet, 1st Duke of Clarence - Duke of York in 1470/1? 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
* 
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:38, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion 

message: 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)
replies: text: They were given the title Duke of York and Albany, which has a separate article. Favonian (talk) 20:28, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Dukes missing from table