Well, no, that is not the case about teachers, and anyway, it’s the other way round in this case, isn’t it? I mean, this Miss/Ms/Mrs. Crawford, dammit - I can see now why to call her Crawfie:) - was being called “Mrs” when unmarried, rather than “Miss” when married". It seems more akin to that old-time thing of the cook, married or not, being known as “Mrs Bridges”* or whatever. A mark of respect, sort of thing, (in case anyone not married could not be counted as actually human. :rolleyes: )
yes, yes, long ago television reference there. Oops. Feeling old.
Just a nit, but neither George V nor VI was heir when made Duke of York. The Duchy of Cornwall is the one that the heir has borne recently (along with Rothesay, I think).
York seems to go to the second-in-line.
That was more or less my point, sir, in discussing the “recycling” of the Royal Duchies. I believe you’re right that York, if not presently occupied, customarily goes to the second son of the monarch. My point was that George Frederick Ernest Albert von Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, second son of the Prince of Wales, became his father’s heir and Duke of York when his older brother died in 1892, Prince of Wales on his father’s accession to the throne in 1901, and then himself acceded to the throne as George V in 1910. His second son, Albert Frederick Arthur George of Windsor, was created Duke of York in 1920 and held that title until the abdication of his brother Edward VIII on December 12, 1936, at which point he became George VI. In both cases the title Duke of York reverted to the crown, to be revived for Prince Andrew toward the end of the century.
