But that article says he will no longer use the title or take advantage of its honours. Not that he’s renouncing and it’s reverting to the crown (which otherwise will happen upon his death). So I need to look around to see if there’s a source that says he is.
In any case with Harry being himself retired from “active” royal house roles, it would not make much sense to give him a second royal dukedom so, yeah, it would likely skip at least one generation.
OK, so it seems he is relinquishing his titles including the Dukedom and the Garter, but reverting York to the Crown would require an act of Parliament?
Andrew could very well be the last Duke of York given it’s association with him. At the very least it won’t be recreated for another 2 or 3 generations. King William certainly isn’t going to be in a rush to bestow it on Prince Louis once his uncle dies.
I don’t see that in the slightest.
Andrew is a scandal and a scoundrel. Lots of other Dukes (of York and elsewhere) down the centuries have been scoundrels. That doesn’t pollute the title unless somehow the Dukeness itself was part of the scandal.
Continuity in how the Dukedom is handled by the royal family is IMO of vastly greater importance. If continuity means King Charles bestows it on somebody else, e.g. Prince Louis, next week, that’s what they should and (probably) will do.
IMO YMMV etc.
One does so hope that they carry out the traditional way of dismissing a Knight of the Garter - the Knight’s crest and banner are ritually dumped in the ditch of Windsor Castle.
Quite, besides, for the mass public he mainly has always been and continues to be “Prince Andrew” anyway. Duke of York is one of the major historic royal ducal titles —it’s not like Duke of Windsor which was made up on the fly specifically for Edward VIII under, um, awkward circumstances.
Continuity doesn’t require this.
The title is traditionally given to the second son of the monarch. It use to be given at or shortly after birth, but since the 19th century the practice is not to confer royal dukedoms until the recipient reaches adulthood, and in modern times this is commonly done when they marry — Andrew was created Duke of York at the time that he married Sarah Ferguson.
The second son of the present monarch already has a ducal title (Sussex) and it’s unlikely that he’ll be granted another. So the issued doesn’t become live until (a) William has acceded to the throne, and (b) his second son, Louis, marries (and (c) William’s vision of the monarch still accomodates the practice of conferring hereditary titles on junior members of the royal family).
If, at that time, Andrew is still alive then the “Duke of York” title won’t be availlable, and the question of whether Louis should be made Duke of York won’t arise. He’ll get some other title.
If, on the other hand, Andrew has died by then then it will be possible to create Louis the Duke of York, and there would be precedent for doing so,
But there is also precedent for the title becoming (for different reasons) embarassing. In 1725 Henry, the second son of the Jacobite pretender James III, was created Duke of York by his father. He used that title, and was widely known by it, until 1766, when on the death of his older brother he himself became the Pretender as Henry IX. During this period the Hanoverian monarchs gave their second sons, whenever the occasion arose, the title of “Duke of York and Albany” because, although they didn’t recognise the legitimacy of the Jacobite “Duke of York” title, they recognised that the brand was effectively tainted by its association with the Jacobite cause.
Though his title made for a nifty parody vis-a-vis Virginia Giuffre:
Oh, the grand old Duke of York
He had twelve million quid
He gave it to someone he never met
For something he never did
:: golf clap ::
Remember also that arguably the most famous Duke of York was the Alpha Jacobite, the man who later became King James II, one of the UK’s most embarrassing kings. It’s not an auspicious title.
I was idlly composing my own version as I scrolled, but your version is better. Mine rhymed kids and vids…
Mildly interesting aside: Koo Stark, who was involved in a relationship with Andrew, is most famous (on the screen, at least) for portraying an under-age girl being courted by three middle age men.
Still, probably more prestigious than the Duke of Earl! 
Hey, I respect constitutional monarchy as a good system of government, but some of the trappings, protocols, and silly titles of British royalty just make me giggle! And Andrew is a total embarrassment.
If you think this family has something embarrassing you should check out the wedding night story of George the Prince of Wales, later George IV and Princess Caroline. Or when George was crowned. She was barred from the ceremony.
Thank you for the comprehensive and knowledgeable explanation.
Andrew is 58 years older than Louis. If Louis marries approaching age 30, Andrew will be approaching 88. So probably about a coin flip whether Duke of York will be available at the relevant time.
Subject to your caveat about how procedures may be modified by then as the whole UK royal experience evolves.
So you’re saying that her life imitates her art? 
It would be interesting to see if it gets to the point where the daughters get titled in their own right upon adulthood/wedding. But it may just as well happen that it becomes seen as unnecessary to confer a hifalutin’ title to either sons or daughters at that point. In the old days if a princess married it was the thing to do to create the husband into a title of the UK if he did not have one already, but Princess Anne chose otherwise and good for her. This is sort of an atavism of an earlier age where everyone in the room had to be a “Lord/Sir/Lady Whozit of Whocares” 
but nowadays people just, like, have proper family names.
One of the oddities about the York title is that the last time it descended directly from father to eldest son was in 1460, when Richard, 3rd Duke of York, died in battle and the title went to his eldest son Edward, who later became Edward IV.
The title has been recreated several times since then, but has either merged with the Crown because the Duke became King, or lapsed because the Duke died without lawful male heirs.
That was going to happen with Edward this time as well, since he does not have a son, lawfully begotten.
Andrew, you mean. They DO all kind of get confusing after a while.
Right, my apologies.
They really should branch out into some of the Scottish kings’ names. About time we had a King Malcolm or King Alexander.
I hope for a King Angus. He may install horns on the Royal Crown.