The English rules on granting an inheriting Dukedoms are really non-trivial.
See, for example, the Duke of York. Usually (but not always) granted to the second oldest son of the Monarch. It’s currently in its eighth creation (Prince Andrew).
If Andrew had any sons, none of them would get the title. It could be assigned to Henry next and if William has no other sons, it would be vacant after that. (As it is, Andrew only has daughters who will inherit none of his titles.)
Phillip was named Duke of Edinburgh because he was marrying the King’s daughter. His 3rd son Edward is expected to get the title, but not thru inheritance (he’s out of order), but by the title being declared vacant and re-awarded.
William was named Duke of Cambridge just to give the heir of the heir a nice sounding title. It’d been vacant for over a hundred years.
The Duke of Gloucester comes and goes but looks solid for the foreseeable future.
The Titles Deprivation Act 1917 technically removed the titles from the incumbents, who had been on the wrong side in the Great War. However, the act provided that successors who had not “adhered to His Majesty’s enemies” would be allowed to petition for restoration of the titles. To date, neither the Cumberland nor Albany heirs has so petitioned.
(It’s not clear that there IS an Albany heir. Under the Royal Marriages Act 1772, the male-line Albany heirs were supposed to ask the British monarch for consent to marry, and after 1917 they didn’t bother. Therefore, their marriages may not have been legal under British law, and their heirs not lawfully begotten, so the title died out for lack of a legitimate heir. This has not been tested in court, however, and likely won’t be until and unless somebody petitions for restoration. The Cumberland heirs, meanwhile, have scrupulously asked for and obtained consent in each generation.)
The most common reason for dormant peerages is abeyance, where the title has not yet vested in anybody. In England, this happens to some ancient titles that could be inherited by females, because English law traditionally did not give preference to an elder sister over a younger (in contrast to elder sons inheriting before younger brothers). If a peer died leaving several daughters but no sons, and his title was one that could be inherited by females, the sisters were equal co-heirs; since a title can’t be shared or divided, it went into abeyance until only one sister had living heirs.
There are a very few truly dormant titles where it cannot be proven that the title is extinct, but nobody has come forth with proof that they are the heir either. For example, the 20th Earl of Oxford died in 1703; he left no sons, brothers, or other close male relatives, but the de Vere family had held the title since 1141, and good records simply don’t exist for the earlier generations, so it is entirely possible there are living male-line descendants of the first earl.
This happens rather often. It’s most noticeable for Kingships. When Queen Elizabeth I died, next-in-line was already the King of Scots. And, in a sense, he was just claiming what “should” have already been his: his 16-gt grandfather, King Malcolm III, married the granddaughter and Heiress of King Edmund of Wessex and all England – the same descent that made James King of Scots also made him genealogical heir of Alfred the Great’s throne!
Not that often. There are multiple instances in British history where both an Earl and his father were beheaded, but the Earldom was still passed along to the descendant. They may have been temporarily unearled, but the unheading was permanent.
This is generally true for Earls and higher ranks, I think, but Barons and Baronets are often created with a provision that the heirs of a brother or cousin get the the title if the first title-holder’s heirs go extinct.
Actually, any son of Andrew would indeed inherit the York title. The letters patent granted the title to Andrew AND “the heirs male of his body lawfully begotten.” This is the same language used for the last several dukes of York; it’s merely a quirk of history that each duke has either died without a son or become king, thus merging the title into the Crown.
Henry won’t be Duke of York because he will be given a dukedom when he marries, and that is reasonably likely to happen during his uncle’s lifetime. If Andrew dies without a son and the letters patent are not reissued to allow Beatrice to inherit, the title will become extinct and hence available for re-grant to perhaps a son of William or of George.
(The title of Duke of Fife was originally granted to the son-in-law of Edward VII and his heirs male, but the letters patent were reissued in 1900 to allow the duke’s daughters to inherit, it having become obvious there was unlikely to be a son. The present Duke of Fife is the great-grandson of Princess Louise, Duchess of Fife, through her younger daughter Lady Maud.)
Edinburgh won’t become vacant; it will merge into the Crown when Charles inherits both the throne and Edinburgh. At that point, it would be available for re-grant, but it is theoretically possible that might not happen for many years. (If Charles dies before his father, but the queen outlives Philip, then William will become Duke of Cambridge and Edinburgh, and Edward will have to wait until William becomes king.)
This is what I was going to say. There’s no special rule for the Duke of York.
This is what I was going to say. The idea that the title of Duke of Edinburgh is destined for Prince Edward would represent very bad planning on the part of the royal family.
For the kids who don’t inherit “the” title, titles seem to peter out over the generations. So they may have had a monarch as an ancestor but in a few generations they’re an “Honorable.” Take a look at this: http://www.britroyals.com/images/windsortree.gif
Maybe legally. But not really. Because the Queen has made her plan for that title quite clear — even announcing it when Edward married. Do you really think that Charles wouldn’t follow his dead, revered mother’s stated wish?
Man’s going to want the good will of the people at that moment — especially if he’s decided he wants Camilla to be Queen and not Princess Consort (as previously announced) as there are already rumors to that effect.
Interesting etymological note: this was the original meaning of the term deduction. There was a specific list of charges which could be used to remove a Duke’s title. An official investigation was required and it had to find that the Duke had violated one of the specified charges. It was from this procedure that the term deduction became more general and came to mean any investigation of evidence which leads to a conclusion.
One should note that England had no dukes between the Norman conquest in 1066 and the reign of Edward III who created the first English ducal title for his eldest son in 1337 ( Duke of Cornwall ). Edward III was a major generator of English titles which had been dwindling in earlier generations through dynastic failure and/or confiscation.
Prior to the Norman conquest the earls had functionally been the equivalent of continental dukes ( and were so called in Latin documents ), with very broad multi-county jurisdictions and substantial military obligations. William I de-fanged the title, reducing them to the level of a continental count with formal ties ( sometimes coinciding with landed interests, sometimes not ) to only a single county. Why? Well in addition to enhancing royal power, William was already Duke of Normandy on the continent with a number of counts under him. And his native duchy was as central to his realm as England was.
By the time of Edward III this confusion was less of a concern ( the English kings at that point not having held Normandy since 1204, though they still clung to Gascony ) and a ducal title was just another way of adding a layer of prestige with no significant additional defined responsibilities. Like such titles everywhere ( but even faster in England ) they had increasingly ceased to be particularly functional and had instead become largely honorific.
But I suspect most nobles that can legally claim an actual title aren’t in ignorance of it. Generally speaking nobility are rather fond of clinging to such things.
In general, titles are getting very devalued these days, and are sometimes being voluntarily refused within the British Royal Family. Peter and Zara Phillips, for instance, have no noble titles, in spite of their grandmother being the Queen, and their mother being styled “Princess Royal”. From the wiki article on Peter:
It seems that the family is not handing out titles to children far down in the line of succession on the grounds that they don’t want to saddle anybody that far from the throne with royal duties. I believe Peter Phillips is currently number 13, and dropping fast.
To be precise it was decided by the Prime Minister of the day (presumably Harold Wilson) that new hereditary titles were no longer appropriate. Life peerages were brought in by the (Conservative) Macmillan government as a means of bringing in new people to the House of Lords (the upper house of Parliament). Margaret Thatcher decided to recommend some hereditary titles for people she thought deserved particular honour, but somehow managed to give them to a bachelor and someone without children.
Nowadays, some peerages are awarded primarily as honours for achievement, and others as “working” peers primarily intended to deal with the legislative business in the Lords (most of the hereditary peers were removed at the last reform).
And yes, most of the Dukedoms given to sons of a reigning monarch did die out for lack of heirs, even the massive numbers of sons of George III and Queen Victoria. I think some of Charles II’s titles for his illegitimate children may still be in existence, but if memory serves, the next two that still survive are from the younger sons of George V.
Only the eldest son of a duke inherits the title (the heir-apparent also get’s to use one of his father’s lesser titles as a courtesy). A younger son of a duke is styled “Lord ForenameSurname”, and his children have no tiles at all. Likewise the daughter of a duke is styled “Lady ForenameSurname”, and her children have no titles.
On the Continent things can work very differently; for example for most German titles every son inherited his father’s title and could pass it on to his children in turn (even daughters inherit the feminine form of the title, but they can’t pass it on).
But that scenario would make no difference whatsoever to the timing of the grant to Prince Edward - it would still mean that the Edinburgh dukedom will merge with the crown and thus become available for Prince Edward once both the Queen and Prince Philip are dead.
Even if every English, Scottish, Irish, and British dukedom ever granted was still extant and each one was held by a separate individual (so silliness like eight separate Dukes of York, two separate Dukes of Fife descended from the one original duke, etc.), there would only be around 160 dukes.
Or he could have just ignored the fact, couldn’t he?
I mean, it sounds like the benefits of having a title are pretty minimal. No money or power. You get the right to be formally addressed in various ways (I bet your friends and family still call you Bob or whatever) and maybe it guarantees you an invitation to Coronations or Royal Weddings. Anything else?
