Future role of the York sisters | Page 2 | Other Current Members of the British Royal Family | Forum

A A A
Avatar

Please consider registering
guest

sp_LogInOut Log In sp_Registration Register

Register | Lost password?
Advanced Search

— Forum Scope —




— Match —





— Forum Options —





Minimum search word length is 3 characters - maximum search word length is 84 characters

No permission to create posts
sp_Feed Topic RSS sp_TopicIcon
Future role of the York sisters
December 14, 2016
9:54 pm
Avatar
Prof H

Crown Princess
Members

Moderators
Forum Posts: 957
Member Since:
January 2, 2013
sp_UserOnlineSmall Online

Again, IIRC, shortly after Charles and Diana we're married (when she was in the early stages of her first pregnancy and suffering terribly fro morning sickness), didn't HM summon representatives from the press so that they could be chastised for harassing the princess.  When one reporter suggested that if they didn't want pictures of Diana going to the shop to buy wine gums, they should have a servant do it for her.  Whereupon HM snapped that was one of the most presumptuous statements she'd ever heard.

And after Diana's death, there was an agreement between the press and the RF that "the princes" would be left alone except for officially scheduled photoshoots and other opportunities--or those opportunities would go away.

"If I had been born crested not cloven, you would not talk to me thus, sir."  Elizabeth I of England  

December 15, 2017
5:13 pm
Avatar
Gidzmo
Los Angeles, CA

Duchess
Members
Forum Posts: 1018
Member Since:
January 6, 2013
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Susan said
All of the examples of female succession mentioned above concern titles that are non-royal. I doubt that the Duke of York title will ever be given to Beatrice. Since the 15th century, it has usually been given to the second sons of monarchs. I would imagine that for tradition's sake, the title would be reserved for this purpose. It does not appear that this would be the case with the current royal family unless the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge have a second son and Prince Andrew, the current holder of the title, is deceased.    

In such a case (assuming Andrew is deceased), how would Beatrice and Eugenie then be styled if the York title is re-granted elsewhere?

"Men's evil manners we write in brass; their virtues we write in water."

--Griffith, Queen Katherine's servant (from Shakespeare's "Henry VIII")

December 15, 2017
9:00 pm
Avatar
Scott

King
Forum Posts: 556
Member Since:
November 24, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Gidzmo said

In such a case (assuming Andrew is deceased), how would Beatrice and Eugenie then be styled if the York title is re-granted elsewhere?  

One would probably assume they would be married by then, so it wouldn't be an issue.  They would drop the "of York" upon marriage.  

If they were single, not sure how it would be handled, and there really isn't any precedent that I can think of that would apply.  An easy solution would be just dropping the "of York" designation completely.

December 16, 2017
2:25 am
Avatar
Gidzmo
Los Angeles, CA

Duchess
Members
Forum Posts: 1018
Member Since:
January 6, 2013
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Scott said

One would probably assume they would be married by then, so it wouldn't be an issue.  They would drop the "of York" upon marriage.  

If they were single, not sure how it would be handled, and there really isn't any precedent that I can think of that would apply.  An easy solution would be just dropping the "of York" designation completely.  

There is one precedent I can think of: Princesses Helena Victoria (Thora) and Marie Louise, Victoria's granddaughters from her third daughter, Princess Helena.  

When George V renounced the German titles for himself and the British Royals in 1917, that left the two Princesses--who had been born with the Schleswig-Holsten designation as well as "Princesses of the United Kingdom"--with no territorial desgination.

Princess Helena Victoria
Princess Marie Louise

  • 1870–1917Her Highness Princess Helena Victoria of Schleswig-Holstein
  • 1917–1948Her Highness Princess Helena Victoria
  • 1872–1891Her Highness Princess Marie Louise of Schleswig-Holstein
  • 1891–1900Her Highness Princess Aribert of Anhalt
  • 1900–1917Her Highness Princess Marie Louise of Schleswig-Holstein
  • 1917–1956Her Highness Princess Marie Louise

"Men's evil manners we write in brass; their virtues we write in water."

--Griffith, Queen Katherine's servant (from Shakespeare's "Henry VIII")

December 16, 2017
8:36 am
Avatar
Scott

King
Forum Posts: 556
Member Since:
November 24, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Gidzmo said

There is one precedent I can think of: Princesses Helena Victoria (Thora) and Marie Louise, Victoria's granddaughters from her third daughter, Princess Helena.  
When George V renounced the German titles for himself and the British Royals in 1917, that left the two Princesses--who had been born with the Schleswig-Holsten designation as well as "Princesses of the United Kingdom"--with no territorial desgination.  

Not really the same thing.  Beatrice and Eugenie would still be Princesses of the United Kingdom.  Helena Victoria and Marie Louise were not.

Helena Victoria and Marie Louise lost their German princely titles when they were relinquished, as did their father.  

And technically, they had no other titles to fall back on - they were NEVER Princesses of the United Kingdom.  While all the other relatives were losing all royal status and many given peerages, Helena Victoria and Marie Louise were the exception.  They simply became HH Princess.... of nowhere. 

December 17, 2017
2:53 am
Avatar
Gidzmo
Los Angeles, CA

Duchess
Members
Forum Posts: 1018
Member Since:
January 6, 2013
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Scott said

Gidzmo said
There is one precedent I can think of: Princesses Helena Victoria (Thora) and Marie Louise, Victoria's granddaughters from her third daughter, Princess Helena.  
When George V renounced the German titles for himself and the British Royals in 1917, that left the two Princesses--who had been born with the Schleswig-Holsten designation as well as "Princesses of the United Kingdom"--with no territorial desgination.  

Not really the same thing.  Beatrice and Eugenie would still be Princesses of the United Kingdom.  Helena Victoria and Marie Louise were not.

Helena Victoria and Marie Louise lost their German princely titles when they were relinquished, as did their father.  

And technically, they had no other titles to fall back on - they were NEVER Princesses of the United Kingdom.  While all the other relatives were losing all royal status and many given peerages, Helena Victoria and Marie Louise were the exception.  They simply became HH Princess.... of nowhere.   

Prince Christian died in October 1917, so he didn't lose anything. George V did not make the wholesale changes to the family titles till December 1917.

But could not have Victoria declared her granddaughters as HRH of the UK?

"Men's evil manners we write in brass; their virtues we write in water."

--Griffith, Queen Katherine's servant (from Shakespeare's "Henry VIII")

December 17, 2017
8:02 am
Avatar
Susan
New Jersey, USA

Queen
Forum Posts: 1364
Member Since:
November 24, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Gidzmo said

Scott said

Gidzmo said
There is one precedent I can think of: Princesses Helena Victoria (Thora) and Marie Louise, Victoria's granddaughters from her third daughter, Princess Helena.  
When George V renounced the German titles for himself and the British Royals in 1917, that left the two Princesses--who had been born with the Schleswig-Holsten designation as well as "Princesses of the United Kingdom"--with no territorial desgination.  

Not really the same thing.  Beatrice and Eugenie would still be Princesses of the United Kingdom.  Helena Victoria and Marie Louise were not.

Helena Victoria and Marie Louise lost their German princely titles when they were relinquished, as did their father.  

And technically, they had no other titles to fall back on - they were NEVER Princesses of the United Kingdom.  While all the other relatives were losing all royal status and many given peerages, Helena Victoria and Marie Louise were the exception.  They simply became HH Princess.... of nowhere.   

Prince Christian died in October 1917, so he didn't lose anything. George V did not make the wholesale changes to the family titles till December 1917. 

Prince Christian was alive on July 17, 1917, when King George V issued a proclamation making Windsor the name of the royal house and ordering his family members to relinquish German titles and dignities.  A discussion of the topic and a list of those affected can be seen at Unofficial Royalty: July 17, 1917: The Birth of the House of Windsor. On that date, Christian, like his daughters, became His Highness Prince Christian, with no territorial designation. 

Family members who received peerages did not receive them until a later date but German styles and territorial designations were gone on July 17, 1917.

Documents relating to British Royal Arms, Styles, and Titles can be seen at http://www.heraldica.org/topic.....styles.htm

The website above has a wealth of other information.  See http://www.heraldica.org/topics/britain/

Gidzmo wrote: But could not have Victoria declared her granddaughters as HRH of the UK? 

(Just a note that Queen Victoria died in 1901.) The sovereign does have the power to create someone HRH Prince/Princess just as Queen Elizabeth II issued a Letters Patent stating that all children of Prince William would be HRH Prince/Princess.  King George V's November 1917 Letters Patent stated that the eldest living son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales would be HRH Prince.  Creating someone HRH Prince/Princess is rarely done.

Susan

Eleanor of Aquitaine, by the wrath of God, Queen of the English

December 17, 2017
8:34 am
Avatar
Scott

King
Forum Posts: 556
Member Since:
November 24, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Gidzmo said

But could not have Victoria declared her granddaughters as HRH of the UK?  

Considering that she'd died 16 years earlier, probably not. Laugh

December 18, 2017
7:33 pm
Avatar
Prof H

Crown Princess
Members

Moderators
Forum Posts: 957
Member Since:
January 2, 2013
sp_UserOnlineSmall Online

WOuldn't the precedent for the York sisters be that of Princess Alexandra of Kent?

Isn't she known as HRH Princess Alexandra, Mrs. Angus Oglivie?  

Didn't Princess Mary, the last Princess Royal, use her husband's title?

Marie Louis and Helena Victoria were anomalies.  Helena Victoria had never married so could not use her spouse's name.  In the 1917 switch of royal names she was famously HH Princess Helena Victoria (of Nothing), just HH Princess Helena Victoria. Her sister Marie Louise considered herself still married to Aribert of Anahalt although his father had declared the marriage invalid.  She received many other offers of marriage but always considered herself married in the eyes of God, the original ceremony having taken place in the Anglican Church which did not recognize divorce.  Since Airibert did not, could nt, would not consummate the marriage, she probably could have been eligible for an annulment but chose not to pursue it.  As the daughters of an English princess who were born in England, Marie Louise and Helena Victoria were in an odd position.  They were probably happy to be what their cousin George made them.  They were certainly welcomed at all royal engagements and events.The photograph of Helen Victoria yanking the wiggly page boy Prince Richard of Kent back in line at Princess Elizabeth's wedding is delightful.

 

Everyone should take time to read Marie Louise's Memories of Six Reigns.  One thinks of her as a poor plain deserted spinster (or poor plain abandoned wife).  Her father-in-law's action freed her to travel the world and lead one of the more exciting lives of any British princess. (She does have an annoying habit of referring to her relatives as "poor dear" or "poor little" so-and-so but that's forgivable given the wonderful detail she provides about the lives of Victoria and her descendants.

 

I doubt Beatrice and Eugenie will end up the same since times have changes.

"If I had been born crested not cloven, you would not talk to me thus, sir."  Elizabeth I of England  

December 18, 2017
8:45 pm
Avatar
Susan
New Jersey, USA

Queen
Forum Posts: 1364
Member Since:
November 24, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Prof H wrote: 

1) Wouldn't the precedent for the York sisters be that of Princess Alexandra of Kent?

2) Isn't she known as HRH Princess Alexandra, Mrs. Angus Oglivie?  

3) Didn't Princess Mary, the last Princess Royal, use her husband's title?

1) Yes, that is what Scott said earlier in this thread: " They would drop the "of York" upon marriage."

2) She is styled Her Royal Highness Princess Alexandra, The Honourable Lady Ogilvy

3) She was styled Her Royal Highness The Princess Royal, Countess of Harewood

Susan

Eleanor of Aquitaine, by the wrath of God, Queen of the English

December 19, 2017
5:37 pm
Avatar
Gidzmo
Los Angeles, CA

Duchess
Members
Forum Posts: 1018
Member Since:
January 6, 2013
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Susan said

Prof H wrote: 

1) Wouldn't the precedent for the York sisters be that of Princess Alexandra of Kent?

2) Isn't she known as HRH Princess Alexandra, Mrs. Angus Oglivie?  

3) Didn't Princess Mary, the last Princess Royal, use her husband's title?

1) Yes, that is what Scott said earlier in this thread: " They would drop the "of York" upon marriage."

2) She is styled Her Royal Highness Princess Alexandra, The Honourable Lady Ogilvy

3) She was styled Her Royal Highness The Princess Royal, Countess of Harewood  

Alexandra's current style and title (as of 1988): HRH Princess Alexandra, The Honourable Lady Ogilvy.  Her late husband was knighted in 1988.

25 December 1936 – 24 April 1963: Her Royal Highness Princess Alexandra of Kent

24 April 1963 – 31 December 1988: Her Royal Highness Princess Alexandra, The Honourable Mrs Angus Ogilvy

31 December 1988 – present: Her Royal Highness Princess Alexandra, The Honourable Lady Ogilvy

"Men's evil manners we write in brass; their virtues we write in water."

--Griffith, Queen Katherine's servant (from Shakespeare's "Henry VIII")

December 19, 2017
7:23 pm
Avatar
Scott

King
Forum Posts: 556
Member Since:
November 24, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Susan said

Prof H wrote: 

1) Wouldn't the precedent for the York sisters be that of Princess Alexandra of Kent?

2) Isn't she known as HRH Princess Alexandra, Mrs. Angus Oglivie?  

3) Didn't Princess Mary, the last Princess Royal, use her husband's title?

1) Yes, that is what Scott said earlier in this thread: " They would drop the "of York" upon marriage."

2) She is styled Her Royal Highness Princess Alexandra, The Honourable Lady Ogilvy

3) She was styled Her Royal Highness The Princess Royal, Countess of Harewood  

Yes, that would be the precedent for how they would be styled upon marriage.  But the original question is how they would be styled were their father to die and the York dukedom re-granted to someone else.

In that situation, there really is no precedent that I can find.  Looking back through all the Royal dukedoms, I don't see any instance of surviving unmarried daughters anywhere. 

Based on that, my assumption - as stated earlier - is that they would probably drop the 'of York' designation and simply be known as Princess Beatrice and Princess Eugenie of the United Kingdom (a title they currently hold, which has nothing to do with their father's peerage).

December 20, 2017
11:30 pm
Avatar
Gidzmo
Los Angeles, CA

Duchess
Members
Forum Posts: 1018
Member Since:
January 6, 2013
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Scott said

Yes, that would be the precedent for how they would be styled upon marriage.  But the original question is how they would be styled were their father to die and the York dukedom re-granted to someone else.

In that situation, there really is no precedent that I can find.  Looking back through all the Royal dukedoms, I don't see any instance of surviving unmarried daughters anywhere. 

Based on that, my assumption - as stated earlier - is that they would probably drop the 'of York' designation and simply be known as Princess Beatrice and Princess Eugenie of the United Kingdom (a title they currently hold, which has nothing to do with their father's peerage).  

Well, if Andrew should predecease his daughters, then that would create a new something for the Royal Family.  If Charles is King at that time, Harry (as the second son) would most likely be granted the York title (as a new creation).

"Men's evil manners we write in brass; their virtues we write in water."

--Griffith, Queen Katherine's servant (from Shakespeare's "Henry VIII")

December 21, 2017
7:33 am
Avatar
Scott

King
Forum Posts: 556
Member Since:
November 24, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Gidzmo said

Well, if Andrew should predecease his daughters, then that would create a new something for the Royal Family.  If Charles is King at that time, Harry (as the second son) would most likely be granted the York title (as a new creation).  

Anything is possible, but I doubt it would be re-granted that quickly.  I imagine it will be another generation before we see the York title again - perhaps William's children.

December 21, 2017
7:09 pm
Avatar
Prof H

Crown Princess
Members

Moderators
Forum Posts: 957
Member Since:
January 2, 2013
sp_UserOnlineSmall Online

It is unlikely to happen-as I've stated before-Andrew and Sarah being the happiest non-married couple around-but if they divorced, and Andrew remarried to someone much younger and fathered a son, the title Duke of York would for one of the first times in its history continue beyond its original holder.

 

f I were a male in the RF , the second born son of the monarch, I might ask my parents not to bestow that particular title on me if I were a traditional male who wanted to be succeeded by a son.

"If I had been born crested not cloven, you would not talk to me thus, sir."  Elizabeth I of England  

December 22, 2017
2:12 am
Avatar
Jeremy

Duke
Members
Forum Posts: 88
Member Since:
May 30, 2013
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

If the York title were regranted, and Andrew's daughters hadn't married, they would be styled exactly the same as now. There would be no reason to change.

December 22, 2017
2:20 am
Avatar
Jeremy

Duke
Members
Forum Posts: 88
Member Since:
May 30, 2013
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Gidzmo said

Well, if Andrew should predecease his daughters, then that would create a new something for the Royal Family.  If Charles is King at that time, Harry (as the second son) would most likely be granted the York title (as a new creation).  

He almost certainly wouldn't. Harry is likely to get his own title when he marries next year. If he does, he wouldn't then be given an extra title just because his uncle died.

December 23, 2017
1:18 am
Avatar
Gidzmo
Los Angeles, CA

Duchess
Members
Forum Posts: 1018
Member Since:
January 6, 2013
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Jeremy said
If the York title were regranted, and Andrew's daughters hadn't married, they would be styled exactly the same as now. There would be no reason to change.  

Except that, if Harry had the title and Andrew's daughters still carried "of York" in theirs, it could very well be confusing.

Imagine this (with Charles as King)
Harry and Meghan, The Duke and Duchess of York (2018 creation)
Eldest son: Prince X of York (courtesy title pending)
Daughter: Princess Y of York

But also Beatrice and Eugenie, Princesses of York (1986 creation).

I thought that, with Andrew's death, the 1986 creation would lapse for lack of a legitimate male heir.

"Men's evil manners we write in brass; their virtues we write in water."

--Griffith, Queen Katherine's servant (from Shakespeare's "Henry VIII")

December 27, 2017
3:27 am
Avatar
Jeremy

Duke
Members
Forum Posts: 88
Member Since:
May 30, 2013
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

What would be confusing about this? In any case, there is no realistic possibility at all of Prince Harry being created Duke of York.

December 27, 2017
2:27 pm
Avatar
LauraS3514

Lady in Waiting/Squire
Members
Forum Posts: 83
Member Since:
January 2, 2013
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Given the longevity of the current House of Windsor, the most likely candidate for the next Duke of York is Prince George's eldest son when he marries in the lifetime of his father The Prince of Wales and grandfather The King - presuming of course that that future son is the eldest child so the title stays in the family. Or maybe George's eldest child will be Duchess of York in her own right.  Either way, I most likely won't be around to find out if I'm correct. Wink  There is also the slight possibility that George himself could become Duke of York if his great-uncle is no longer around when he marries...

December 27, 2017
7:11 pm
Avatar
Susan
New Jersey, USA

Queen
Forum Posts: 1364
Member Since:
November 24, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

After the Wars of the Roses, Duke of York has traditionally been the title of the second son of the monarch.  That's why Prince Andrew was given the title.  The previous two Dukes of York happened to be second sons who became Kings - George V and George VI.  Queen Victoria and George II chose not to use the title for their second sons.  All other second sons of monarchs since the end of the Wars of the Roses have been the Duke of York.  (See below.)

If William and Catherine have a second son, William is king, and Prince Andrew is deceased when that son receives a peerage (usually at the time of his wedding), he may be the next Duke of York.

A little history of the title - The title Duke of York was first created for Edward of Langley, the fourth (surviving) son of Edward III and the founder of the House of York.  His eldest son Edward of Norwich became Duke of York upon his father's death. Edward of Norwich had no children and upon his death at the Battle of Agincourt, his brother Richard of Conisburgh should have inherited the title but Richard was attainted and executed for treason.  Henry V allowed the son of Richard of Conisburgh to inherit the title Duke of York ten years later.  This son is known as Richard Plantagenet, Duke of York, leader of the York faction during the Wars of the Roses and the father of the Yorkist kings Edward IV and Richard III.  After Richard Plantagenet, Duke of York was killed at the Battle of Wakefield, his eldest son Edward (the future Edward IV) inherited the title.  Edward IV was the first king to give the title to his second son.

Dukes of York after the Wars of the Roses - since the end of the Wars of the Roses, the title Duke of York has never been passed on to the second generation.  Five Dukes of York became Kings and the title then merged with the Crown. Two had no children and one has no sons.

  • Richard, Duke of York, second son of Edward IV (one of the Princes in the Tower, no children)
  • Henry VIII, second son of Henry VII (Henry VIII's elder brother died)
  • Charles I, second son of James I (Charles I's elder brother died)
  • James II, second son of Charles I (elder brother Charles II had no legitimate children
  • Frederick, Duke of York and Albany, second son of George III (no children)
  • George V, second son of Edward VII (elder brother died)
  • George VI, second son of George V (elder brother abdicated)
  • Andrew, Duke of York, second son of Elizabeth II (no sons)

Susan

Eleanor of Aquitaine, by the wrath of God, Queen of the English

December 27, 2017
10:19 pm
Avatar
Gidzmo
Los Angeles, CA

Duchess
Members
Forum Posts: 1018
Member Since:
January 6, 2013
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Susan said
After the Wars of the Roses, Duke of York has traditionally been the title of the second son of the monarch.  That's why Prince Andrew was given the title.  The previous two Dukes of York happened to be second sons who became Kings - George V and George VI.  Queen Victoria and George II chose not to use the title for their second sons.  All other second sons of monarchs since the end of the Wars of the Roses have been the Duke of York.  (See below.)

If William and Catherine have a second son, William is king, and Prince Andrew is deceased when that son receives a peerage (usually at the time of his wedding), he may be the next Duke of York.

A little history of the title - The title Duke of York was first created for Edward of Langley, the fourth (surviving) son of Edward III and the founder of the House of York.  His eldest son Edward of Norwich became Duke of York upon his father's death. Edward of Norwich had no children and upon his death at the Battle of Agincourt, his brother Richard of Conisburgh should have inherited the title but Richard was attainted and executed for treason.  Henry V allowed the son of Richard of Conisburgh to inherit the title Duke of York ten years later.  This son is known as Richard Plantagenet, Duke of York, leader of the York faction during the Wars of the Roses and the father of the Yorkist kings Edward IV and Richard III.  After Richard Plantagenet, Duke of York was killed at the Battle of Wakefield, his eldest son Edward (the future Edward IV) inherited the title.  Edward IV was the first king to give the title to his second son.

Dukes of York after the Wars of the Roses - since the end of the Wars of the Roses, the title Duke of York has never been passed on to the second generation.  Five Dukes of York became Kings and the title then merged with the Crown. Two had no children and one has no sons.

*Richard, Duke of York, second son of Edward IV (one of the Princes in the Tower, no children)
*Henry VIII, second son of Henry VII (Henry VIII's elder brother died)
*Charles I, second son of James I (Charles I's elder brother died)
*James II, second son of Charles I (elder brother Charles II had no legitimate children)
*Frederick, Duke of York and Albany, second son of George III (no children)
*George V, second son of Edward VII (elder brother died)
*George VI, second son of George V (elder brother abdicated)
*Andrew, Duke of York, second son of Elizabeth II (no sons)

 

Not much happening with the York title--merged with the Crown or no son to carry the title.

Unless Andrew remarries, it looks like the titles will be extinct with Andrew's passing--unless HM regrants it to Beatrice.  

"Men's evil manners we write in brass; their virtues we write in water."

--Griffith, Queen Katherine's servant (from Shakespeare's "Henry VIII")

No permission to create posts
Forum Timezone: America/Chicago

Most Users Ever Online: 100

Currently Online: Prof H
12 Guest(s)

Currently Browsing this Page:
1 Guest(s)

Top Posters:

Member Stats:

Guest Posters: 0

Members: 4880

Moderators: 1

Admins: 3

Forum Stats:

Groups: 18

Forums: 52

Topics: 1198

Posts: 7511

Newest Members:

RobertBix, BeverlyTaind, edeawuduwieg, ohterujarh, Bryceunacy, adamnk1, ukaqizwiudagi, idanqasax, ufucipafol, usoxmaoxow

Moderators: Prof H: 957

Administrators: Emperor: 33, Scott: 556, Susan: 1364