Who is going to be the next Duke of York?

Harry wouldn’t get a second dukedom. Like “The Princess Royal”, you need to be a sovereign’s kid, and in the right place at the right time, i.e at the end of the previous holder’s life. And of course it’s never guaranteed like the Ducky of Cornwall. Duke of York will probably go to Louis, barring something happening to him or his elder siblings, or Louis marrying early and Andy still kicking.

Pretty sure someone like this...

The Dukedom of York goes to the second son of the reigning sovereign. When Andy kicks, his title will be returned to the dukedom basket until such time as William is King. At which time, he gets to decide who gets the York Dukedom.

Another scenario is Andy lobbies his Mum or Charles to allow the Dukedom to pass down through the female line, as Uncle Dickie Montbatten did with the Earldom of Burma. His eldest daughter Patricia inherited the title when he got blown to bits, becoming 2nd Countess of Burma. After she carked it, her eldest son Norton inherited the title, becoming 3rd Earl of Burma.

R3, it traditionally goes to the second son of the sovereign, but it has standard remainder terms (e.g. heirs of the body male). It just so happens that past dukes either ascended to the throne or died without male heirs. If Louis times it right and marries shortly after Andy dies, and has sons, those sons could theoretically retain it for several generations.

However, if he marries at 30ish, Andrew will only be 90ish. And Andrew has very long lived parents, so he probably will still be alive, that fucker.

[quote]but it has standard remainder terms (e.g. heirs of the body male)

I understand that, but there are several precedences of Earldoms descending in the female line, as mentioned the Burma Earldom, also the Erroll Earldom. I wouldn't be surprised if Andy's already having a quiet, albeit belaboured, word in both his Mum's and Charles's ears about bug-eyed Bea inheriting the Dukedom, in that making sure his kids are done out of their share kinda way.

^^^ aren't ^^^

Is he now Earl of Myanmar?

[quote] Another scenario is Andy lobbies his Mum or Charles to allow the Dukedom to pass down through the female line

Cannot be done. The terms of the peerage cannot be altered once the patent has been issued. Not even the Queen can do that. An Act of Parliament would have to be passed and it's highly unlikely that would happen. The daughters of peers have been lobbying for changes for decades now and are ignored.

The Queen could create Andrew Duke of York a second time with the provision the title could go through female descendants. So, when Andrew dies, Beatrice could inherit the the Dukedom of the second creation and the seniority date among dukes would be at the time of the second creation and not the first. This was done for the husband of Princess Louise of Wales, daughter of King Edward VIII. When it became apparent the Duke of Fife and Princess Louise would not have another son (he died) and there were only two daughters to inherit, the Dukedom of Fife was created a second time to allow for the daughters and their male heirs to inherit. When the Duke died, all titles he possessed except for those from the second creation died with him. His eldest daughter inherited the title and when she died it went to her sister's only child. The current Duke of Fife is the grandson of the second daughter of the Duke of Fife and Princess Louise.

Given the current state of affairs, it is highly unlikely Harry would be given the York dukedom. He already has a dukedom and baby Archie hasn't even been acknowledged by any subsidiary titles, so there might not even been a dukedom left for him to inherit.

My guess is that in the course of time, Louis will become the Duke of York.

What about Will’s upcoming double-decker title “Duke of Cornwall and Cambridge”? Not that he’ll use it all that often, as Charles will presumably invest Will as Prince of Wales within a week or two of the start of his reign. It’s fun to think about it though.

Yes, give it to the girls (family) so they are set and not skeevy like their parents.

I'm guessing the York Dukedom might go on a rest break for awhile after Andy bites the dust.

The title is tainted with his pedo allegations.

Harry HAS a Dukedom...he doesn't get to double up.

It is funny that the York Dukedom hasn't stuck to anyone for a very long time...everyone who gets the title either becomes the Monarch and/or only has daughters they can't pass it on to....if Andrew and Fergie had had a boy, he would have inherited the title and potentially locked it down like the Kents and Gloucesters have locked down theirs for the foreseeable future.

Not sure what happens to the Cambridge title once Queen Liz dies, Charles becomes King and William becomes Duke of Cornwall and Prince of Wales. Williams' family immediately drop "Of Cambridge" when he's made Prince of Wales and they all become "of Wales". Maybe it goes back into the "pot" to be given to George when he marries?

As others have stated, dukedom of York historically has gone to second son of sovereign. When Prince Andrew dies lacking male heirs of his body the title will become extinct and merge back to the crown. It likely will remain so until "king" William ascends the throne, who does have two sons. Prince George will become Prince of Wales upon his father inheriting throne, thus leaving Prince Louis to be made duke of York.

A "king" Charles could choose to speed things up by making his second grandson a royal duke, but that would put Prince George at a disadvantage. Prince William becoming prince of Wales also gets the dukedoms of Cornwall and Rothesay. If Prince Louis gets something that leaves Prince George as "just" a prince. Being the eldest son an all that simply would not do, not at all.

Since being created in 15th century there have only been eight dukes of York. There was a gap of 200 years or so between the fifth and sixth creations, and about sixty years between seventh and eighth. So in grand scheme of things don't think the crown is too worried about a gap of ten or whatever years between death of Prince Andrew and waiting for Prince William, Duke of Cambridge to inherit throne.

A more pressing question surrounding a royal dukedom is that of Edinburgh. There is an understanding between HM, Prince Phillip and Prince of Wales that upon demise of first two, the latter will grant his younger brother Prince Edward (lone among Elizabeth's sons who wasn't given a dukedom) the dukedom of Edinburgh. However as monarch "king" Charles would be font of all honors and no one can force him to do anything, especially in matters involving the RF.

Personally don't see reason for bothering at that point. Aside from ordering linens, stationary and other monogrammed items (along with a few other bits) making Prince Edward a duke at that late stag of game doesn't really change things much. The Earl of Wessex has no sons, and his countess seems to have ended her baby making days. Thus the dukedom will simply merge right back with the crown when Prince Edward dies.

I just want to know who will be the Duke, Duke, Duke, Duke of Earl

Lolwut, R13? Does Edward’s son James, Viscount Severn not count?

[quote]daughter of King Edward VIII.

R8 Thanx for the clarification. But you meant daughter of Edward VII. Edward VIII was childless.

R5

Earldom of Mountbatten was a special case.

Leaving aside the (German) family connections between Saxe-Coburg-Gotha (now Windsor) and Battenberg, there was also Louis Mountbatten's record of service to nation (and some say to himself....).

By time of creation Louis Mountbatten already had two daughters who were in their twenties I believe. It would have been seen as somewhat cruel I suppose to make his peerages reminder male exclusively as Mme. Mountbatten's baby making days were surely over at that point. As it turns out First Earl Mountbatten barely lived twenty years after creation, being blown to bits in 1979.

R15

Totally forgot Prince Edward sired a son, my bad.

Stand corrected, at least now the dukedom of Edinburgh has someplace to go after Earl of Sussex, so there you are.....

[quote]at least now the dukedom of Edinburgh has someplace to go after Earl of Sussex,

It's WESSEX!

R17 I don't quite buy your reasoning. When Uncle Dickie got blown to bits, he had grandsons (besides the one that got blown to bits with him) from both Pammie and Patricia who could have inherited the Earldom. I'm trying to remember if the order of succession was already in place or they allowed Patricia to inherit the Earldom because they felt sorry for her that her father and son were blown to bits and Patricia herself was almost blown to bit.

While in theory anything is possible should a sovereign wish it; in practice number of peeresses in their own right historically has been almost nil. At least this applies to English peerage, Scotland is another matter but even then we're speaking mostly of old writ baronies.

About 300 years elapsed between Lady Henrietta being granted the peerage of her father the 1st Duke of Marlborough and events related to earldom of Mountbatten.

Beauty of peerage system is that nature often acts to limit numbers. A peerage dies out when there aren't males of legal issue to inherit; if you start letting females inherit many peerages would never go extinct. Back in days when the Lords pretty much ran things as they saw fit a huge body of persons whose position in government came from birthright and nothing else opens up all sorts of issues. In fact until laws were changed a peeress in her own right did not act upon offices that devolved upon her; rather it was her husband who did so in his wife's name. Thus a "duchess" or "countess" in their own right wouldn't have sat in the Lords, but their husbands instead.

If you start opening up the question of giving royal peerages to girls, it will only feed the loud and growing noise over daughters of non royal peers unable to inherit. Training behind that group will be the children of peers produced by surrogates or adopted (including by gay men in same sex unions) who also cannot inherit.

Peerages inherited by women

Viscount Mountbatten was created Earl Mountbatten of Burma and Baron Romsey on 28 October 1947. His eldest grandson (and only one living at that time) was the infant Norton Louis Philip Knatchbull who was born on 8 October 1947 IIRC.

Normally that would have been sufficient as succession was assured if not via Earl Mountbatten himself, via his daughter by producing a male heir. Thus fact for various reasons HM saw fit (and her government agreed) to a special remainder putting Patrica Mountbatten ahead of her own son.

An exhaustive list of countesses, and baronesses with latter mostly of Scottish writ. Besides duchess of Malbrough, the other that stands out is duchess of Fife, another unique situation.

The reason I mentioned women inheriting titles is that I remembered the Earl of Errol's daughter Diana inheriting his title when he got himself shot dead by a jealous husband in Kenya in 1941. Her son Merlin inherited upon her demise.

Why not get rid of the male only thing, it is the 21st century, and let it pass to Princess Beatrice. I like her, she has lots of spunk.

[quote] What about Will’s upcoming double-decker title “Duke of Cornwall and Cambridge”?

The title of Duke of Cornwall belongs to the male heir to the throne, so it's not like a dukedom that is created. He will be created Prince of Wales and will use that title. I imagine until then he will be known as the Duke of Cambridge and Cornwall just as George V was known as the Duke of York and Cornwall until he was invested as Prince of Wales.

Just to be clear dukedom of Cornwall can only be held by eldest son of a monarch who is also heir apparent.

If (god forbid) Prince Charles predeceases his mother and Prince William becomes prince of Wales, the duke of Clarence would not get dukedom of Cornwall because he is the grandson not son of current monarch.

OTOH had Prince Charles died without leaving legal heirs (sons) then Prince Andrew as next in like would be eligible to dukedom of Cornwall.

Interestingly Prince of Wales title is within the sovereign's power to grant to heir apparent, but not restricted to eldest son.

Princess Victoria's scheming mother the Duchess of Kent fought an uphill battle (and lost every time) to have her daughter declared "princess of Wales" when it became clear she was heir presumptive and that no further issue would stand ahead of her. The king shot back that the title belongs to wife of prince of Wales, and that was an end to the matter.

It is still that way even with changes brought on by marriage equality for Great Britain. A carve out was created so that title of princess of Wales remains exclusively for the female spouse of a prince of Wales. Any potential future husband of a gay P of W will be only known by his own name and whatever titles and styles he holds as of right. Similarly also "queen consort" is reserved for female spouse of a king....

r21 "If you start opening up the question of giving royal peerages to girls,"

Go see Wikipedia's page for the Duke of Lancaster.

Double royal dukes were rather common with arrival of Hanoverians from Germany to the English/British throne.

Prince Arthur, Duke of Connaught and Strathearn (son of Victoria), Prince Frederick, Duke of York and Albany (son of George III), Prince Edward, Duke of Kent and Strathearn (son of George III and father of Queen Victoria),

R29

Does one need to explain differences between the crown royal duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall and peerages?

There doesn't have to be one. I don't think there'll be one until a reigning king or queen has a second son.

In particular: " However, legally the monarch is not the Duke of Lancaster: peerages are in origin held feudally of the sovereign who, as the fount of honour, cannot hold a peerage of him- or herself. "

What you call a peerage is not true at all, but goes with the throne to whoever inherits.

Were duchy of Lancaster truly a peerage as you seem to believe Elizabeth never could have inherited because females cannot do so unless special remainders are issued as part of letters patent created for dukedom, or action taken by Parliament.

[quote] Double royal dukes were rather common with arrival of Hanoverians from Germany to the English/British throne.

The dukedoms were not "doubles". They were single dukedoms created with two names. ie The Duke of Connaught and Strathearn, ONE dukedom, and not the Duke of Connaught and the Duke of Strathearn, two separate dukedoms.

The dukedom of Richmond was created for the bastard son of Charles II. Later, the Duke's cousin, Queen Anne also made him the Duke of Brandon. A descendant and future Duke was created Duke of Gordon by Queen Victoria. (The Duke of Gordon became extinct having no male heirs, but the Duke of Richmond was married the Duke of Gordon's daughter.) So, the Duke of Richmond is also Duke of Brandon, and Duke of Gordon. He is referred to for simplicity sake as the Duke of Richmond, Brandon and Gordon, but they are three different invested dukedoms. Prince Frederick, Duke of York and Albany held a single dukedom, that of York and Albany. He was not the Duke of York and the Duke of Albany.

Thanks to combination of modern sanitation and healthcare coupled with good genes HM has lived a rather long time. As such everyone beneath HM is in a holding pattern, this will last until there is a demise in the crown and heir is called to throne.

Once Prince Charles moves up so will Prince William, Duke of Cambridge and his family. As established dukedom of York won't be free for Prince Louis or anyone else until Prince Andrew dies, again those excellent genes, etc....

There are plenty of other dukedoms associated with royals that are free to grant should a "king" Charles prefer to give his second grandson something sooner rather than later. Prince Andrew is only 60, and given longevity of his parents may live another twenty or more years.

Jesus, OP. For a moment, it sounded like the vile Andrew was gone in some fortunate accident.

Isn't QEII considered The Duke of Normandy?

[quote] but there are several precedences of Earldoms descending in the female line

Most Scottish earldoms and Lordships (equivalent of English barons) of Parliament created prior to 1603 allow for females to inherit. Only one Scottish dukedom may descend through the female line, that of Hamilton.

Many English baronies created before Elizabeth I permitted female inheritance. Within the last 150 years or so, the only peerage creations that included female succession were done so because the newly created peers had only female heirs with little chance of the arrival of a male heir after the peerage was established.

[quote] Isn't QEII considered The Duke of Normandy?

The Dukedom of Normandy was never a peerage. It was a Duchy that technically recognized the King of France as its overlord, but power struggles were common. The Duchy of Normandy was lost to the French by King John of England in the 13th century. So, no, she is not Duke of Normandy.

I’ll let George have it. But his boyfriend needs to stay out of sight.

Who gives a fuck? The only York I care about is a Peppermint Patty.

R39 HM seems to disagree with you.

I live in York, not a fan of Sarah or Beatrice, they've brought shame to York in the Google searches. Rather no one gets it, let's wait for quality.

Aw, Pweshuss, r43

r26, if York is held back for the spare to the throne and Charlotte is Georgie's spare now that primogeniture is gone, why could not Charlotte be the Duchess of York in her entirety? I like that Charlotte could end up Charlotte, Princess Royal, Duchess of York.

Just asking.

[quote]There are plenty of other dukedoms associated with royals

Actually, there aren't that many that reverted to the Crown that are free to hand out. And a few have rather unsavoury associations. I doubt anyone would look favourably upon the Dukedom of Windsor, Connaught or Clarence. And there are several royal Dukedoms in dispute due to their association with the German side of the Royal mob, such as the Dukedoms of Albany and Cumberland and Teviotdale.

Once again the throne is not same as peerage.

Recent changes to the succession effect only just that; they in no way alter fact that despite examples given hereditary peerages are rarely granted to females in their own right. A handful of duchesses, a few countesses and many baronesses (mostly of old Scottish writ) does not change things.

A "king" William might bestow his daughter with "princess royal" providing it is free to be used, but shouldn't bet egg money on a peerage.

There has been a push to limit creation of dukedoms. The last non-royal duke was created in late 1800's. Churchill was offered to be made a duke twice, but turn down each offer.

Poor Prince Edward has to wait for both his parents to die, and then hope his brother holds up his end of bargain to get dukedom of Edinburgh.

One strike against giving females peerages, especially the exalted dukedoms, is that under normal circumstances children derive status from their father. This to some extent still applies to wives as well.

So you create a female duke in her own right, and she marries what? A dead commoner or even any other peer is automatically beneath her. As things stand where possible daughters of dukes tended to marry princes or at least eldest sons of other dukes.

When you examine closely examples above of a female being granted a peerage in her own right, other than inheritances via old writs things usually involve an absence or problem with heirs. That is a newly created or other peer doesn't have legal heirs. Mountbatten did have a wee grandson living when his earldom was created, but for reasons not exactly clear his daughters were placed ahead of the boy.

[Quote]A "king" William might bestow his daughter with "princess royal" providing it is free to be used,

Once Princess Anne and Charles die, doesn't it pass to Charlotte unencumbered? She is the only one in line to receive it. A King William needs to bestow her with a title she was entitled to from birth?

R44 obviously joking, who would live in that boring city! The politicians have rejected it as their second base.

[quote]Who is going to be the next Duke of York?

It is an honor just to be nominated.

R48

There is nothing automatic about the title of princess royal. Monarch can bestow it upon his or her eldest daughter (traditionally who gets the title), or not as it pleases HM.

Prince Charles living only factors into things as the gift normally is given to daughters of monarch, the Prince of Wales having only the two boys.....

Long as Princess Anne lives however the title is not available for anyone else.

Philip is Duke of Edinburgh, does that make the queen also Duchess of Edinburgh? Like a subsidiary title?

in the unlikely scenario where Charles agrees to a Fife type new creation, I wonder if Beatrice would be a Royal Duchess or if she would be an actual Peeress? Like, an HRH by virtue of her birth but technically Her Grace as a Peeress in her own right, with her precedence behind the other duchesses but ahead of marchionesses since hers would be the newest creation.

Yes, after Andrew the title of this royal dukedom goes back to the Crown.

It is not conceivable that HM, Charles or William would hand the title to Beatrice. The point would be that it would thus go to the descendants (if any) of her husband. Don't pretend that paternal descent isn't still a prime consideration outside the monarch.

Mucking with descent with non-royal titles is different, but even there no dukedom outside HM's holdings have ever headed in this direction.

R52, yes, but the queen does not style herself with the title for obvious reasons.

Louis will get the title, as it has gone to the second son of the current House for several generations.

The Queen is also Duke of Lancaster, and Lord of The Isle of Man too. Then she’s also queen of all her countries independently, so at her funeral when they recite them all it will be very impressive. Queen of Bermuda, Queen of New Zealand, Queen of etc etc

Even when a monarch is a Queen regnant, she does not use the title of Duchess. For one thing title almost universally implies (with few exceptions) a woman who is married to a duke, not a peeress in her own right.

Royal dukedoms in the United Kingdom

Now non-royal dukedoms. Who knew so many were still about....

List of extinct dukedoms that need some work; obviously Cambridge, York, and some others have since been granted again and are thus active.

In case some are wondering it isn't just keeping a lid on number of heridary peers (especially the more exalted ranks of dukes and earls) that is behind so few being granted outside RF; but there is an expectation of holder being able to keep up a lifestyle associated with his new rank.

When Queen Victoria's son and grandson began handing out peerages to bankers, brewers, and others who made fortunes in business or industry it shook up the said ages old peerage system. Previously one had to have been in or done some service to a monarch (and or in some cases it was the wife), to receive a peerage. Now things were opened up to people with merely money. That was important because you need buckets of it to keep up all those country houses and estates that are associated with peers of the realm.

These new peers had it over on the older in that they had tons of money, while the latter often were broke or near. Gradually then later a flood of marriages happened as old families married heiresses from new money who brought with them huge dowries.

R58 The Queen IS married to a Duke, hence “Duchess of Edinburgh”. In the period between their marriage and her accession, they were referred to socially as “The Edinburghs” - many memoirs and diaries of the time (e.g. Chips Channon’s) refer to them as such.

What of it?

One was speaking about a queen who is also monarch (which HM is now), not prior to her ascension.

Socially yes, The Princess Elizabeth, Duchess of Edinburgh may have been referred to by second title only or the couple as "the Edinburghs". There was no need for this other than perhaps social custom and or efforts by young Elizabeth to sooth often easily ruffled feathers of Phillip.

The Princess Elizabeth was daughter of one king and grand-daughter of another; she was a royal princess and could have simply continued using that title which is higher than her husband's. Prince Phillip was made to give up his Greek and Danish titles and honors but got the dukedom and a few other peerages upon his marriage as consolation. It wouldn't be until 1957 when HM made her husband a royal prince (again) that he was returned to equal status.

What's all this Montbatten-Windsor nonsense?

It is amoeba talk r64.

Yet another attempt to sooth ruffled feathers of Phillip Mountbatten while thwarting efforts by the scheming and conniving Dickie Mountbattan.

"Philip’s uncle Dickie Mountbatten greeted the news clumsily. “The House of Mountbatten now reigns,” he announced. Elizabeth’s grandmother heard rumors of the declaration and teamed up with Churchill to persuade Elizabeth to keep the name House of Windsor, lest she risk backlash from the people against her German husband. Elizabeth agreed, and Philip balked. “I am the only man in the country not allowed to give his name to his children,” he complained to friends. “I’m nothing but a bloody amoeba.” "

I don't believe for a moment that Uncle Dickie got blown to bits by the IRA. I still firmly believe that the Queen Mum, beyond the twist with Dickie's incessant meddling and foisting his rellies where they weren't wanted, arranged it all. I'll bet the champagne corks gleefully popped when word reached her about Dickie's death.

Very long story short, they do say House of Battenberg never quite forgave nor forgot being busted down the ranks from royalty to the peerage when George V did a bit of housekeeping in 1917. That event resulted not just in renaming HM's nearly wholly German family from Saxe-Coburg Gotha to "Windsor", but a wholesale clearing out of Germany royal titles styles and honors.

To put it rather bluntly Prince Louis Battenberg (now Louis Mountbatten) is said to have plotted and schemed to get his nephew (Prince Phillip) in place to win the affections of The Princess Elizabeth. A marriage would make any heirs "Mountbatten" in theory since children derive their status from the father. Queen Victoria's children are "Saxe-Coburg-Gotha" after their father Prince Albert .

Sadly for Louis Mountbatten Queen Mary got wind of the scheme and mounted an attack. HM compromised by not changing RF dynastic name per se, however when a surname is called for "Mountbatten-Windsor" is used.

Whole confusing mess explained in link below.

You'll notice Prince Harry used "Mountbatten-Windsor" when use of a surname is or was legally required. As did Prince William and rest of HM's family.

I believe if HM's line dies out, is removed or otherwise vanishes from the scene, and heirs from one of her uncles assumes throne, then "Windsor" returns as RF surname.

Important to remember until rather recently historically royal families neither used nor really had surnames. Queen Marie-Antoinette did herself no favors at her trial at first refusing to acknowledge "Widow Capet", then responding when questioned that "when has no other name one must use that of one's country". Far as the French queen was concerned she was Marie-Antoinette of France and Navarre.

Mountbatten-Windsor dies with Philip.

No it does not...

All male line descendants of HM will have Mountbatten-Windsor; this means and includes male children of Prince William, Duke of Cambridge and Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex along with James, Viscount Severn (James Alexander Philip Theo Mountbatten-Windsor), son of Prince Edward, Earl of Wessex . This will continue along male line long as those mentioned have heirs born of their legally wed spouses.

Prince Harry's last name will not suddenly revert to "Windsor" upon his father's death; none of them will.

The Windsor line is made up of descendants of George V (HM's uncles and cousins).

Of course a "king" Charles or William is perfectly free to revert things back to Windsor, but don't see that happening.

[quote] Once Princess Anne and Charles die, doesn't it pass to Charlotte unencumbered? She is the only one in line to receive it. A King William needs to bestow her with a title she was entitled to from birth?

No, he has to bestow it as monarch.

When Mary, Princess Royal and Countess of Harewood (George VI's only sister) died in 1965, Princess Anne could potentially have been the title then as the only daughter of a reigning monarch. But it is a title that is considered an honor, so it was not given to Anne until 22 years later, and then in recognition of the service she had given to the Crown and the UK. At the time, Anne was 37 years old.

Now, William could give the title to Charlotte when he is monarch as soon as Anne dies: Queen Victoria gave the title to her eldest daughter Princess Vicky (later the empress of Prussia) as soon as she was born. But it is the monarch's title to bestow, just like the title of Prince of Wales.

The current Royal Dukes of Kent and Gloucester are grandsons of George V. These dukedoms lose royal, HRH status upon the deaths of their current holders, the Princes George and Henry respectively, as their heirs are more than 2 generations distant from the sovereign.

If the queen dies before Charles, William will automatically become at the moment of her death the Duke of Cornwall and the Duke of Rothesay, as well as the remain still the Duke of Cambridge. Eventually Charles will make him Prince of Wales, but that will not happen automatically.

When William becomes king in turn, George will in turn automatically become Duke of Cornwall and Duke of Rothesay; but Cambridge will be absorbed back into the system, to await being bestowed again onto another king's son someday.

If Charles and William follow tradition, both George and Louis will be given dukedoms upon their marriages. The Dukedom of York is supposed to go to a king's second son, so if it is free (i.e. if Andrew is dead by then) it would be given to Louis upon marriage. If George marries before Charles dies (at which point he would become Duke of Cornwall, as explained above), he could be given another available royal dukedom--there are still a couple that can be bestowed (such as those of Clarence and of Albany), or the monarch could make up a whole new royal dukedom from scratch (like, let's say, the Dukedom of Mercia, or the Dukedom of London).

[quote]there are still a couple that can be bestowed (such as those of Clarence and of Albany

Albany and its subsidiary Clarence) were suspended by the Titles Deprivation Act of 1917 due to the German taint of the titles. No one's ever petitioned the Crown for revival of the titles. I doubt they would be on offer as there are living heir presumptives to the title. Plus the fact that last Duke of Albany, Charles Edward, was a proud Nazi.

Charles Edward has been dead for almost 60 years. The titles were attainted during WWI, but even if living heirs petitioned for formal recognition it is hard to visualise the Crown affirming foreign princes in UK dukedoms in 2020. The heir is Ernst August, Prince of Hanover, Princess Caroline of Monaco's husband.

R76 Ernst August (Mr. Princess Caroline of Monaco) is the heir apparent to the suspended Dukedom of Cumberland and Teviotdale. The Nazi Duke had male issue, who, in turn, have had male issue. There must be one or more extant heirs to the Albany Dukedom. Glad I don't have to figure out who.

We will see how long the tribute to the Mountbatten racist lasts after Charles.

King William could reaffirm the House of Windsor.

But Charles has no lingering regent attachment to his manipulative Uncle and racist father. Charles could do it as a part of his own coronation.

R78 Charles was quite fond of his Uncle Dickie, who was a father figure to him. Because his own father was never around and was a complete fuckwit when he was. I highly doubt Charles will remove Mountbatten from the surname.

R77

That would be Andreas, Prince of Saxe-Cobug and Gotha

His Highness Prince Hubertus, The Hereditary Prince of Saxe-Coburg und Gotha, heir of Prince Andreas. His Highness is another European prince married to an American woman.

More:

Meet the family:

Princess Kelly comes from an American military (naval) family.

It wouldn't surprise me if Charles and William stop making royal dukes.

What, you have something against Louis?

He would be the only one eligible in the current future.

There's really nothing left for "king" Charles to give. Thanks (yet again) to his long lived mother, both Prince of Wales sons have dukedoms already. Only decision to be made after both HM and Prince Phillip's time is carrying out his half of the bargain; giving dukedom of Edinburgh to Prince Edward, Earl of Wessex.

Dukedoms for Prince Louis can wait until he's married or later on, there isn't a rush just as with Prince Edward. Eldest son of Prince William gets Prince of Wales, Duke of Cornwall, etc.. so he's alright.

Meant by R87 is that a "king" William can look after Prince Louis, which is as it should be, nothing says everything has to come from grand-papa.

Andreas and his son are fuggos.

I usually find German men to be quite handsome, but I do believe I've found the ugly ones, right here.

When, unless or until Princes George and Louis have sons, after the latter there aren't anymore Mountbatten-Windsor male heirs to worry about. That is besides Prince Edward.

Given strong odds Prince Charles will have a short time on the throne before Prince William is called, Prince Louis likely will cop the prince of Wales lot far sooner than Prince George marries or otherwise triggers his father to bestow upon him a dukedom. If decision is made to wait for York to free up it could be twenty, thirty or more years.

Now what if the new heirs are gay?

Nothing "happens".

If Prince George is gay he can still marry a man; just his spouse won't be anything else than what he is; not a "princess of Wales" or certainly not a "prince of Wales". Nor would such a spouse have courtesy titles as would a female wife.

Prince Louis same thing; only whoever he married would be just whatever he stood up in, no courtesy titles.

Adopted or surrogate children of a peer (royal or commoner) since are not legal heirs of a peer's body begotten of a lawfully wedded wife also don't get courtesy titles or any of the other status that normally would have devolved upon them from their father.

Prince William seems very broad minded, and along with his duchess very LGBT friendly (they had several at their wedding IIRC). Thus as monarch if any of his own children or grandchildren were gay and married, could see possibility of offering at least male spouses something. Much like Queen Victoria rose up a few commoners who married into her family.

[QUOTE] Much like Queen Victoria rose up a few commoners who married into her family.

I don’t think Peers of The Realm are technically commoners. In fact, I believe peers fancy themselves superior to royalty.

No snark here at all ...... you guys amaze me with your knowledge of all things royal. It is so fucking complex to me.

[quote] Albany and its subsidiary Clarence) were suspended by the Titles Deprivation Act of 1917 due to the German taint of the titles.

The earldom of Clarence , which you are correct is one of the subsidiary titles of the Duke of Albany, was suspended in 1917; but the dukedom of Clarence and Avondale, which is an entirely different title than Earl of Clarence, was not. The dukedom of Clarence has been empty since 1892 due to the death of the last holder, the eldest son of the Prince of Wales (later Edward VII), Albert Victor. (Albert Victor was made Duke of Clarence and Avondale in 1890 when his cousin Charles Edward already held the titles of Duke of Albany and Earl of Clarence, which shows the earldom of Clarence and the dukedom of Clarence are completely separate titles.)

Clarence was one of the two most recent empty dukedoms available when Harry married Meghan and was given a dukedom; the other one was Sussex, which he was in fact given instead. It has been suspected by some royal watchers that the royal family might deem it unlikely since the first Duke of Clarence from its third creation, George Plantagenet, was murdered likely on the orders of his brother Richard III, and Albert Victor was for some suspected of being Jack the Ripper, and of being mixed up in the Cleveland Street scandal involving male prostitutes. But Albert Victor was almost certainly not Jack the Ripper, and if they deemed every duke who was ever mixed up with a homosexuality scandal as "unlucky" they'd have to deem about half of them as such (starting with the Queen's uncles the Duke of Windsor and the Duke of Kent). Moreover, it is not as likely as some royal watchers think that the Windsors (and Windsor-Mountbattens) are that superstitious.

If there is no other available royal dukedom that opens up beforehand (such as York might if Andrew dies) to give to Louis when he marries, and Charles and William continue the practice of giving royal dukedoms to those in the direct line of succession at marriage, he will almost certainly be made HRH the Prince Louis, Duke of Clarence.

R95 I was commenting on your original post back up there at R74 vis-a-vis "Clarence and Albany". As noted, the Dukedom of Albany was suspended and as you noted, the heir apparent is the rather florid Prince Andreas.

The Royal family may or may not be superstitious, but they are sticklers for tradition. "Tainted" dukedoms such as Clarence and Windsor no doubt are greatly disadvised by those will long memories. The name John hasn't shown up in the Royal family due to the chronic illness and untimely death of Prince John, George V's youngest son.

Perhaps given enough distance and time, when a Dukedom is offered to Louis, he might even say "I'll have the Windsor dukedom, thank you very much".

Another reason the Clarence Dukedom is "tainted" is that Prince Albert Victor died of pneumonia on the eve of his wedding to Mary of Teck. Who, in that whelp, one brother is much like another kind of way, went on to marry Eddy's next-in-the-queue brother George and become Queen Mary.

The Royals do seem to shy away from anything related to death or scandal.

Well, in part the reason Prince John hasn't shown up much is that there was only one King John and he was king over eight hundred years ago. Similarly there's been no Prince Stephen in hundreds of years either, even though there was once a King Stephen.

I just don't agree the Windsors are that superstitious (whether you want to call it "having long memories" or whatever). If they were, Prince Charles would not have been given his first name, since the first King Charles was executed, and the second King Charles had no legitimate sons. And no Windsor was more scandalous in modern times than Edward VIII, the Duke of Windsor (known to his family as David); and yet Elizabeth II named her youngest son Edward, and Princess Margaret named her only son David.

John hasn't shown up in generations in the multiplicity of names the royals visit on their offspring. Again, probably because of the "taint" of the name due to George V's youngest son.

But then look how often the name Louis has been bestowed on generations of Montbatten-Windsors, despite the enmity between Uncle Dickie and certain members of the Royal family.

^^^ upon, not on ^^^

Not H. R. Puffinstuff?

[quote] But then look how often the name Louis has been bestowed on generations of Montbatten-Windsors, despite the enmity between Uncle Dickie and certain members of the Royal family.

And also despite the violent assassination of Louis "Uncle Dickie" Mountbatten, which would argue against r97's point "The Royals do seem to shy away from anything related to death" in their naming.

R10 When William becomes Duke of Cornwall, the Cambridge Dukedom should go to George. Then when William becomes King, the title reverts to the Crown, unless George has a child. Maybe all these arcane titles should become second creations so that males or females can inherit. It always amuses me that the Queen, who was quite happy to accept all the titles that went with being Sovereign, and who had a precarious existence as the Heiress Presumptive, didn’t move Heaven and Earth to change the system. She apparently had to be convinced that the latest Succession Act was a step in the right direction. Doesn’t seem to fit with the reinvented, popular image of the dear old Queen. At least the first Elizabeth had the gumption to call herself a Prince.

[quote] At least the first Elizabeth had the gumption to call herself a Prince.

Mary! You sure zinged HER!

R102 For certain Royals, Uncle Dickie's demise wasn't assassination. It was an extraction from up their ass.

Don't believe there is any "taint" against John because of last named prince's unfortunate fate.

Albert was only common because Victoria pushed for all her male grandchildren to have it as part of their names out of memory of her late beloved husband.

Top royal names for male children of British RF over past 200 years are:

MOST COMMON ROYAL MALE NAMES

Albert, 12 royals with this name

George, 10

Charles, 8

Edward, 7

Christian, 5

Frederick, 5

Louis, 5

Arthur, 5

William, 4

Henry, 4

Alexander, 4

John, 3

Philip, 3

Douglas, 2

Ernest, 2

Patrick, 2

Friederike, 2

Auguste, 2

Francis, 2

Andrew, 2

David, 2

Augustus, 2

Antony, 2

As with commoner royal infants also tend to be christened with names of their godparents. Victoria originally had just that name alone in large part because the king (who had no great love for princess Victoria's mother, dss of Kent) almost really couldn't be bothered.

HM arrived late to the ceremony (which had to be held up until his arrival), and when priest recited Victoria's name he stopped and paused feeling certain a royal infant should have more than one name. King finally shot out; "give her the name of her godfather (Tsar Alexander I), but it must precede that of the mother" Thus Alexandra Victoria was the princess's name; though virtually no one used the first. Soon as Victoria became queen she dropped Alexandra and that was that.

The other thing of course is royal children (especially heirs presumptive) normally get names of patron saints for a particular realm, and or previous great rulers of same.

R93 You’re correct in that Peers of the Realm are not Commoners - because they are Peers. Prince Philip was technically ‘superior’ to then Commoner, Princess Elizabeth on their wedding day, because she did not have a Peerage title. Of course, she has spent the last 68 years exacting sweet revenge, but one would think she could have pulled some strings to make Anne the equal of those rather vapid brothers of hers. Many of the uneducated froth at the mouth when you try to explain the intricacies of the British System of Nobility to them. Coming from a couple of generations who could call each other ‘Kween’ at a whim, and think that being a Princess is the pinnacle of all earthly achievements, it’s an uphill battle.

But for Prince Charles it was a disaster, because he loved Uncle Dickie so much. So both William and Harry each gave "Louis" as one of the names of a son because they knew how much their father loved him.

R96 Churchill was offered the title Duke of London, which demonstrates that entirely new titles may be created as needed. There are also extinct royal dukedoms which could be revived for Louis or whomever else, Duke of Ross comes to mind.

Ginger's son is Archie Harrison Mountbatten-Windsor.

Wills gave both of his sons the name Louis.

R93

Some peers such as Spencer family, yes do consider they have more *English* royal blood than the Hanoverian family that currently sit on throne. But never the less in terms of royalty it comes down to one isn't or is not; period.

Lady Diana Spencer and Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon were commoners. Kate Middleton and the Markle woman are common, commoners; they have no connections what so ever.

By definition a peer is someone risen up (but not totally equal) to royalty. Peers and barons serve their monarch, but aren't themselves royal. Indeed certain royal houses have specific rules forbidding morganatic marriages of any sort, and that includes peers. Imperial, royal and even serene families are fine, with basic definition being those from reigning, deposed or mediatised monarchies.

Neither the Bourbon nor Napoleon families have reigned in ages, but they all are still fair game far as royal marriage market is concerned. Same goes for all the long deposed German houses.

It really wasn't until arrival of the Hanoverians that BRF began to focus strictly upon equal marriages (German royal and noble families were big on blood line purity) . Henry VIII only married two royal princesses for instance. George I and his heirs would have none of this; thus began a long parade of German (often penniless) brides and grooms marrying into BRF. Queen Victoria finally put an end to this, but only for a younger daughter, Princess Louise.

R103

Yes, she did, and for that matter so did Mary, Queen of Scots.

You have to take into context idea of a woman ruling England or Scotland (and a few other places) in their own right was simply an alien concept. The ruling of nations was a business of kings, not women. Henry VIII was driven to having a male heir in part because England had never been ruled by a woman, and HM was damned if it was going to start on his watch. Never the less that is exactly what happened not once but twice.

Mary, Queen of Scots like her mother had no end of problems in Scotland because of their sex. Had Mary been a lad instead of a lass her fate would have been far different. Am not being Captain Obvious here; but Mary's step-brother would never have gotten far with his plots and schemes if this were the case.

It also had to do in ways things were written, laws and so much else reflected fact it was a man's world. The select club that was royal rulers at the time was made up nearly universally of men.

R106, Friederike and Auguste are female names. German ones, that is.

Friederike = "Frederica" (as Friederike is the female version of Friedrich)

Auguste = Augusta

[quote]Queen Victoria finally put an end to this, but only for a younger daughter, Princess Louise.

Put an end to it? Or simply ran out of suitable royal houses to foist her kids and grandkids on.

R114

Not really as both royal houses of Denmark and Prussia were interested in Princess Louise.

Long story short as wont fate of youngest daughters in many families Victoria wanted to keep Princess Louise around basically as her drudge. Not nearly bad as Charlotte Vail, but not much better either.

Thus the idea of Louise marrying a foreign price and leaving Britain wasn't up QV's street; but what to do???

QV suggest to her daughter to look among high ranking members of British aristocracy, and Princess Louise did finding John, Marquess of Lorne. Then all heck broke loose. Hahaha.

Both within immediate and extended BRF not to mention many royal houses of Europe (in particular Germany) news of Princess Louise marrying a commoner caused shock if not revulsion.

Louise wasn't Queen Victoria's drudge. It was the next-in-queue and youngest daughter Beatrice who became her mother's dogsbody.

Bea fell in love with her niece's brother-in-law Prince Henry of Battenberg. Queen Victoria didn't want to lose her dogsbody and put off approving the match for a year, finally consenting with the proviso that the couple live with her so that Bea could continue her dogsbody roll. The marriage was brief, as Henry died of malaria while on campaign in Africa. Bea then resumed the roll her mum had assigned her, dogsbody, for the rest of her mum's life.

R116

Thank you for correction; knew one of QV's youngest daughters got stuck being her mother's dogsbody.

r106, Alexandrina. He mother called her Drina.

Fans of Brideshead Revisited will recall while on his deathbed Lord Marchmain recounts his life and how his aunt always called Brideshead the "new" house. He further goes on about the family history and how it will affect future; the "new honors will die first"; referring to undoubtedly neither Brideshead nor Sebastian providing an heir, so the peerages will die out. But the barony is of an old writ and thus Julia will inherit which makes Lord Marchmain happy as he's already made over the estate to Lady Julia (who intends on marrying Charles Ryder). Lord Marchmain also delights in the idea of Lady Julia and Charles heirs will carry on the barony.

Of course Lady Julia doesn't marry Charles Ryder so that was that.....

Lord Mountbatten (allegedly) was a pedo perv.

When the Baroness Decies, Elizabeth de la Poer Beresford, was being interviewed by the FBI about another topic, she raised concerns about Lord Mountbatten.

quote:

Per the Sunday Times:

The file reads: "She states that in these circles Lord Louis Mountbatten and his wife are considered persons of extremely low morals.

"She stated that Lord Louis Mountbatten was known to be a homosexual with a perversion for young boys.

"In Lady Decies' opinion he is an unfit man to direct any sort of military operations because of this condition. She stated further that his wife Lady Mountbatten was considered equally erratic.'

The interview was signed "EE Conroy", head of the New York field office, who wrote that she "appears to have no special motive in making the above statements."

Lownie's book also includes an interview with Anthony Daly, work worked as a rent boy for London's rich and famous during the 1970s. Daly claims that "Mountbatten had something of a fetish for uniforms — handsome young men in military uniforms (with high boots) and beautiful boys in school uniform."

/end quote:

There were a number of Prince Johns in the medieval period - England came within a whisker of King John II, when Henry VI was an infant and highly at risk, since the next heir was Henry V's brother John, Duke of Bedford. There was no taint - the name just dropped out of royal naming. Generally royal names were/are chosen for positive reasons (names of paternal and maternal grandparents, high status godparents, strong dynastic associations etc. There is a bit more leeway with younger sons, and once one unexpectedly becomes king, the name jumps up the ranking. There could easily have been runs of English Kings Otto, Arthur (a near miss twice with Arthur of Brittany and Henry VII's eldest son) and Alfonso (if Edward I's son Alfonso (named after his maternal grandfather, Queen Eleanor of Castile's father) had survived, there probably wouldn't have been any Edward II-VIIIs).

"Mountbatten threw his wife into the sea!".

(Her Grace, Wallis, Duchess of Windsor, badmouthing Uncle Dickie for burying his wife a at sea.)

a Mountbatten was no better than she should be; and had a thing for BBC counting Jawaharlal Nehru, prime minister of India, and Grenadian jazz singer Leslie Hutchinson.

It was a Mountbatten's affair with Leslie Hutchinson that caused a huge scandal.

Wagging tongues were saying a Mountbatten having a torrid affair with African American actor and singer Paul Robeson, story soon was in the papers. Needless to say Buckingham Palace was not amused, and the Mountbattens were given marching orders to sort themselves out.

a sued and got her name cleared (somewhat) only because people got hold of the wrong black man, it wasn't Paul Robeson at all but Leslie "Hutch" Hutchinson... Someone one had to be made to pay and it was (sadly) Mr. Hutchinson.

Royal court and society slammed doors in Hutch's face and he was cut everywhere; no one was allowed to know him ever again. One night the Mountbattens came upon their old friend on a London street (outside of a nightclub IIRC), and they too cut him quite coldly. Lord Beverbrook made sure Hutch's name never appeared again in his newspapers, the king saw to it Leslie Hutchinson was struck from royal command performances....

When Leslie Hutchinson died virtually broke in 1969 Lord Mountbatten did step up and pay funeral expenses.

This a Mountbatten/Leslie Hutchinson story was loosely picked up in Downton Abbey where Lady Mary steps in to end an affair between Lady Rose Aldridge and the African-American singer/performer Jack Ross.

Many may not know Leslie Hutchinson, but am sure many know the song he made famous; "These Foolish Things..."

" a deserved a good time. She was married to Dickie".

Queen Victoria wanted “new blood” in the family, that’s the official story. But the marquess was extremely wealthy, Victoria knew her daughter was going to live a sumptuous life.

That was an interesting read about Queen Victoria’s daughter, Princess Louise. The province of Alberta is named after her, as is Lake Louise. Her husband after being a governor-general of Canada became an MP upon returning to England. She had liberal views, supported the suffragettes, home rule for Ireland. Whether these views were known outside of the palace, I don’t know.

Thanks to those who have written some very insightful posts. A few questions:

1. Is there a finite number of royal dukedoms for a monarch to dole out to their sons? I understand there are a few dormant dukedoms that can be resuscitated, but if they distribute those, and still need more for extra sons, can the monarch make up new royal dukedoms? Could they created a Duke of Oxford, or Duke of Brighton?

2. Can George or Louis become Duke of Cambridge after their father ascends to the throne or dies?

3. Will the dukedoms of Gloucester and Kent be considered royal for all eternity? Even as they move further and further from the throne?

R129

1) There is no limit on the creation of peers, royal or otherwise. It's not a good look nowadays to be ennobling people left and right, but the sovereign can do as they please in that regard.

2) Technically, it would go to George. But practically, it will just merge into the Crown, and possibly be recreated in the future, maybe for Louis or one of George's sons or grandsons.

3) Those dukedoms are not formally considered royal, although they have been used historically for such a purpose. The dukedoms are just hereditary, which means that it can be inherited by the eldest sons, etc. The people (Prince Edward & Richard) themselves have royal styles "His Royal Highness...", and once those people die, the style goes with them, especially as the dukedom will be generations removed from the last monarch.

Peppermint Pattie.

[quote]1. Is there a finite number of royal dukedoms for a monarch to dole out to their sons? I understand there are a few dormant dukedoms that can be resuscitated, but if they distribute those, and still need more for extra sons, can the monarch make up new royal dukedoms? Could they created a Duke of Oxford, or Duke of Brighton?

The monarch can make as many royal dukedoms as he wants, since he/she is the fount of all titles, but they only seem to go to monarch's sons. The only person alive right now who is likely eventually to be made a royal duke when he marries is Prince Louis (the exception would be Prince George is he is not yet Duke of Cornwall--which he will become automatically once the Queen and Chalres are dead-- when he marries.)

It would be extremely unlikely either boy would be made Duke of Oxford--there is already a primary title of Earl of Oxford in the peerage, so it would be confusing to have both one man referred to as the Duke of Oxford and another as the Earl of Oxford. Duke of Brighton would be a more likely title, although usually dukedoms are named either for shires and regions or for cathedral towns, and though Brighton is one of the largest cities in the UK without an attached major peerage, it's not a cathedral town. If a new dukedom would be created for Louis with a town's name in it, it would be more likely it would be for a cathedral town without an extant major peerage yet attached to it: Truro, for example, or Wells, or Peterborough.

But its likeliest of all he would be given an extinct dukedom that merged with the crown, like the dukedoms of his uncles and great-uncles before him. If he is not made Duke of Clarence, he could be made Duke of Hereford, for example--that's a dukedom that merged with the crown back in the 14th century and has never been recreated since.

R130 and R132 Thanks!

Who's going to be the next Duke of New York, now that Isaac Hayes is gone?

I for one will be happy when the Kents and Gloucester’s are retired and off the royal scene. They’re such a throwback to a stuffier time, and why should Charles III feel the need to perpetuate the service of his mother’s cousins?

They pretty much are off the scene, R135. They turn out for Remembrance Day, Trooping the Colour and family events, and that's about it.

The same will happen to the Dukedom of York, if Louis is granted it, and if his male children have male children. That male would be the first non-royal Duke of York...ever, I think.

I for one will be happy when Charles III clears out that fucking balcony for the Trooping and whatnot. Nobody is interested in seeing the Kents and Gloucester children, spouses, and grandchildren and nobody cares about Princess Margaret’s descendants either. Charles needs to reign all that in and continue with his program of focusing on his own family.

R138, Agreed, with an exception for the Chatto brothers. I want to see them in as many places, conditions, and positions as possible.

It's hard to read so much misinformation without responding, but frankly I don't know where to begin.

One point: When Charles ascends the throne, William will become Duke of Cornwall and Cambridge, just as the future George V became Duke of Cornwall and York when his father became king as Edward VII. Most likely, William will be made Prince of Wales by his father. At that time, the dukedom of Cambridge will still be William's, although he won't typically use the title. It won't be available for him to grant to someone else until William comes into the crown.

When Princess Elizabeth married Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, she was most certainly not a commoner. She was the daughter of the king and therefore a member of the royal family. She was thereafter known as Princess Elizabeth, Duchess of Edinburgh, because it is traditional for women to take their husband's title, just as her aunt was known as Princess Mary, Countess of Harewood, although Mary was a Princess and her husband only an earl.

The Dukedom of York is usually given to the monarch's second son, but not invariably. For example, Queen Victoria made her second son Duke of Edinburgh. She gave the title Duke of York to her eldest son's second son, the future George V.

The Dukedoms of Cumberland and of Albany are not available because the heirs to those dukedoms have been given the right to petition for their restoration.

The monarch can create any title he or she wishes.

One should bear in mind that these are traditions, not laws, and can be changed by the monarch. One can imagine that William might grant his daughter Charlotte a royal dukedom when he comes the throne. It's not traditional in Great Britain to do so, but the royal family sometimes change their practices over time.

George could be George of Cornwall and Cambridge. There’s a precedent George V was George of Cornwall and York for a while.

[quote] It's hard to read so much misinformation without responding, but frankly I don't know where to begin.

Mary!

Pointing out that Brighton could be considered to have been taken. Baron Olivier of Brighton was created a life peer in 1970.

No, if you are Baron XX OF Brighton, then Brighton is not considered taken.

Gay George should be made Duke of Brighton.

I love that it's officially DL canon that seven-year-old Prince George will grow up to be gay 😂

R95, George Plantagenet wasn't "murdered" by Richard III. He was executed, and by his own choice decided he wanted to be drowned in Malmsey wine. He was an erratic, insane, scheming POS, and he committed treason against the crown, plotting with France to overthrow his brother. He was aided in his scheme by his Uncle/Cousin Warwick. The Title Duke of Clarence, was held in disrepute ever since.

The Duke of Lancaster goes all the way back to John of Gaunt.

Also, Louis Mountbatten wasn't Earl of Burma. He was Earl Mountbatten of Burma. There are several titles that have been created in that format. His descendants who hold the title whose surname is not Mountbatten, will still be titled Earl Mountbatten of Burma (or, in the case of his eldest daughter, Countess Mountbatten of Burma).

The Dukes of Kent and Gloucester are/were both "working royals"....they represent the Crown at events and they're on the royal dole. Their children are not. Those are currently Royal Dukedoms but once the next generation inherits them, they become "regular" dukedoms. Royal Dukes exist up through grandchildren of a monarch but not great grandchildren.

The duchy of Lancaster and its huge estates predates John of Gaunt. He got the title by marrying the heiress of the array of lands and titles inherited by or granted to her father Henry of Grosmont , who was earl of Lancaster (among a clutch of other earldoms). He was himself a royal cousin (descended from Henry II)) and a leading general of Edward III, who made him into the first duke of Lancaster.

fun fact: the female sovereign is always referred to as Duke, not Duchess, of Lancaster. And it doesn’t appear that a male sovereigns consort shares the honor, as the Duchess of Lancaster title wasn’t read at the funeral of Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother.

[quote] fun fact: the female sovereign is always referred to as Duke, not Duchess, of Lancaster.

In terms of royal paperwork, yes; but not always in terms of actual practice. Queen Victoria would stay in hotels in Europe and the UK under the name "the Duchess of Lancaster" instead of as her name as the queen when she wanted to keep a low profile.

[quote] The Title Duke of Clarence, was held in disrepute ever since.

That's not true. Were that truly the case, it wouldn't have been given to the future William IV, nor to Prince Albert Victor, who was fully expected to inherit the throne.