The Duke of York

[William H.S. Leeson]

From the Daily Mail, but still worth noting:

Veterans demand Queen strips Prince Andrew of his military honours | Daily Mail Online

All I can say is:  good.  If Andrew did indeed engage in unlawful actions, he should be tried for them.

[dpth...@gmail.com]

it seems the claims will be adjudicated this year  https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-59871514

[bx...@yahoo.com]

Is there any possibility of him losing his titles altogether?  Has that ever happened before?

Thanks.

Brooke

[William H.S. Leeson]

Here is a link to an updated story on the BBC:   Prince Andrew loses military titles and use of HRH - BBC News

[malcolm davies]

Brooke,

             A peerage is an incorporeal heriditament ie property and can only be deprived by act of parliament eg Titles Deprivation Act of 1917.Formerly persons who committed treason of felony suffered attainder which you will see happened many times particularly during the Plantagenet era and later in relation to the Jacobite rebellions.Many attainders were subsequently reversed and attainder was abolished in the 19C.

So the short answer to your question is no.

  It is important to remember that the claim brought against the Duke is a civil one and,if successful,can only lead to an award of damages.

  The Duke's lawyers had good grounds on which to bring their motion (which was the Court had no jurisdiction because the plaintiff was not resident or domiciled in the US and that the claim had been released in the settlement with Epstein.

  Frequently these motions are brought at first instance,lost and an appeal takes place(often successfully).I would expect the Duke's lawyers to appeal the judgment on the motion at least to a Federal Court(it is in a State Court at the moment).

[William H.S. Leeson]

Brooke:

As to the possibility of Her Majesty, whom God save, depriving her son of his dukedom, I am inclined to say no, but, of course, that entirely depends upon the extent of the Queen's displeasure.  As it is, being deprived of use of "His Royal Highness" is a huge slap in the face, and a shame that the Duke of York will bear for the rest of his days.  Among the most recent precedents for a Prince being deposed was Ernest Augustus Christian of Hanover, Earl of Armagh, and son of Ernest Augustus Wilhelm, 3d Duke of Cumberland and Teviotdale, who was deposed as a Prince of the United Kingdom on 28 March 1919 by the Titles Deprivation Act 1917, as Malcolm said above.  Although the titles were deprived, the Dukedoms of Cumberland and Teviotdale and Albany have surviving male claimants who could petition for their restoration if they so chose.

That said, the style of Royal Highness is different from the title of Prince, and it is my understanding that only his style is affected, which leads me to wonder if the original letters patent would be altered.  It is a shame that this will cast a cloud over Her Majesty's 70th regnal year, which starts on 6 February.

The last hereditary titles to be deprived were the Dukedoms of Cumberland and Teviotdale (of which Ernst Augustus Prinz of Hanover is 6th de jure Duke), and Albany (of which Carl-Eduard Prinz von Sachsen-Coburg und Gotha is 6th de jure Duke), and the Viscountcy of Taaffe (which fell extinct upon the death of Richard, 13th de jure Viscount, in 1967).

As it is, I can't speculate if this will go further (it's not often that one sees the Queen displeased), but the current Duke of York's reputation is forever damaged.  I wouldn't be surprised if the dukedom, to which Prince Louis would one day be entitled, skipped a generation, depending on how damaging the fallout from this is.

On Thursday, January 13, 2022 at 3:08:36 PM UTC-5 bx...@yahoo.com wrote:

[bx...@yahoo.com]

Thank you, Malcolm and William, for your posts.

William, for what you are saying, it sounds like the use of York for a possible dukedom down the line, appears to mirror what happened with Clarence.  I guess only time will tell.

Thanks again to the both of you.

Brooke

[William H.S. Leeson]

York usually seems to be granted to the second son of the sovereign, so Louis would naturally be next up for it, of course after the current Duke dies and his father becomes King, so that's probably at least 20 years down the road, just as his elder brother would be Duke of Cornwall and his sister Princess Royal.

[bx...@yahoo.com]

The Dukedom of Clarence and Avondale was last created in 1890.

[malcolm davies]

As I read the media reports,the Duke of York has not been deprived of the style of HRH(there are legal issues as to whether he can be) but rather has agreed not to use the style for the time being(similar to the Duke of Sussex and the Wessex children).

Since writing the above sentence I have checked the press release from the Palace which says:

"With The Queen's approval and agreement, The Duke of York’s military affiliations and Royal patronages have been returned to The Queen.

The Duke of York will continue not to undertake any public duties and is defending this case as a private citizen."

[William H.S. Leeson]

The Dukedom of Clarence is always possible, but the title hasn't seen much use.  As well, one of the Dukedom of Albany's subsidiary titles is Earl of Clarence, which would be held de jure by Carl-Eduard's son if he had one (he has two daughters).  The heir presumptive of the deprived dukedom would be his brother Ferdinand-Christian, who does have a son.

[malcolm davies]

I don't know why Prince Edward was not given a dukedom and what the status of the alleged promise to make him Duke of Edinburgh is unclear.I would suggest that a solution might be to make him Duke of Wessex and for Prince Louis to be given the title of Duke of Edinburgh in due course.

Its not the first time there has been a reluctance to use the title of York-Queen Victoria refused to make Prince Alfred a duke with that title because of her view of her uncle's reputation.Prince Alfred was created Duke of Edinburgh instead in 1866.That was 39 years after the death of the Duke of York.

In any event,it is likely that Prince Andrew will still be alive when Prince Louis marries.

As to Clarence there is a certain superstition about using it as the Dukes of the 1st,2nd,3rd and 5th creations all died before the age of 34,2 of them violently.Only the 4th creation lived a normal life expectation.He of course was William IV.It is however the most senior title after Cornwall & Lancaster.

[Windemere]

Are you certain that Carl-Eduard and Ferdinand-Christian ( of Saxe Coburg and Gotha) are the actual de jure heirs to the discontinued Duke of Albany title ?  According to the Genealogics website, they have an older half-brother Hubertus ( born 1961 ), from their father's first marriage, whom it would seem would be the senior heir to that title. According to the Genealogics website, Hubertus also has a son, Sebastian ( born 1994).

[William H.S. Leeson]

Windemere:  What I wrote is based off what I found on thepeerage.com.  On a quick glance, I see that you are right about the elder half-brother, which, if he were in line, would take precedence over what I wrote.  I had honestly thought that the male line of Albany had died out, but, in any event, it looks as though the Albany line will continue for some time, even if the descendants never seek to claim the dukedom.

[Windemere]

Thank you for your reply, William.

[William H.S. Leeson]

Thank you for yours.

[Chuck]

The title did die out. There is no heir to the Albany dukedom.  None of the three sons of the second duke received permission from the monarch to contract marriage. I don't think any of them asked. They were subject to the Royal Marriages Act and consequently the five marriages (three of them with issue) they contracted were invalid under British law. The title became extinct on 23 January 1998 upon the death of Friedrich Josias, Prince of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha.

[marquess]

I doubt that the dukedom is extinct based upon the Royal Marriages Act, for the simple reason, that it governs the approval of marriages on the basis of succession to the Crown and doesn't invalidate marriages for all other intents and purposes. The dukedom though a royally created one, as far as I am aware is subject to the normal rules of succession (barring the 1917 act that suspended its official recognition.) The validity of a marriage even when conducted abroad is still valid when it comes to rights of succession to a peerage and it is not within the jurisdiction of the monarch to say otherwise. Perhaps Malcolm will weigh in on this and give us his legal opinion?

[William H.S. Leeson]

Thanks for the clarification, Chuck!  I was unaware that the 2d Duke's children were in violation of the Royal Marriages Act;  if that is indeed the case, then their offspring would, of course, be considered illegitimate, and ineligible to claim the dukedom, deprived or not.  It would also explain why I thought that Albany had gone extinct (it's been quite some time since I've looked closely at those two dukedoms, as it is all a bit moot, being deprived).

[rich...@googlemail.com]

Surely, on basic peerage custom, Prince Andrew’s Dukedom of York will go into abeyance between his two daughters. The title has only been able to be recreated so many times because previous holders from the future Edward IV have become King (five times following Edward) or have died without any children.

[malcolm davies]

Marquess,

                   I regret to say that Chuck is correct.The Royal Marriages Act applies to males and females who are direct descendants of George II.There is a specific exemption for descendants of females marrying into foreign families,so the act is clearly intended to apply to descendants whose domicile is foreign, unless they are descendants of females.

  Of course,before that question is reached there has to be a petition to the Council for the title to be restored.That will necessarily involve an inquiry as to whether the marriages were valid under English law.However,assuming the Council are minded to recommend the restoration of the title,they would likely also recommend an amendment to the Royal Marriages Act to allow that to happen.I have little doubt that such an amendment would be passed,particularly if the amendment is limited to those whose domicile is foreign.

  Note-domicile does not mean residence.It has a specific meaning-there are domiciles of birth(not necessarily the place of birth) and domiciles of choice.Prince Harry has a domicile of birth in the UK.It is doubtful whether he has yet acquired a domicile of choice in the US.)

Rich,as to your post,Prince Andrew’s dukedom was created with a limitation to heirs male of the body,so,there being no such heirs(at least at the moment),the title will become extinct on his death.For a title to go into abeyance,it must be created to X and his heirs.Even then,there is a real question as to whether such a limitation creates a valid peerage,other than for Baronies:see Gadd Peerage Law 1985 at pp69-70

[LoopyCrown3]

The Royal Marriages Act 1772 was repealed by the Succession to the Crown Act 2013. Royal Marriages are now covered by this section of the Succession to the Crown Act 2013 which mentions how void marriages under the Royal Marriages Act 1772 will be treated.

Consent of Sovereign required to certain Royal Marriages
(1)A person who (when the person marries) is one of the 6 persons next in the line of succession to the Crown must obtain the consent of Her Majesty before marrying.

(2)Where any such consent has been obtained, it must be—
(a)signified under the Great Seal of the United Kingdom,
(b)declared in Council, and
(c)recorded in the books of the Privy Council.

(3)The effect of a person's failure to comply with subsection (1) is that the person and the person's descendants from the marriage are disqualified from succeeding to the Crown.

(4)The Royal Marriages Act 1772 (which provides that, subject to certain exceptions, a descendant of King George II may marry only with the consent of the Sovereign) is repealed.

(5)A void marriage under that Act is to be treated as never having been void if—
(a)neither party to the marriage was one of the 6 persons next in the line of succession to the Crown at the time of the marriage,
(b)no consent was sought under section 1 of that Act, or notice given under section 2 of that Act, in respect of the marriage,
(c)in all the circumstances it was reasonable for the person concerned not to have been aware at the time of the marriage that the Act applied to it, and
(d)no person acted, before the coming into force of this section, on the basis that the marriage was void.

(6)Subsection (5) applies for all purposes except those relating to the succession to the Crown.

[Peter FitzGerald]

I agree with Malcolm on the legal issue. Indeed, there is a concrete example showing that the RMA does not apply only to succession to the Crown: in 1793, Prince Augustus Frederick, Duke of Sussex, married Lady Augusta Murray in Rome, without seeking consent under the RMA. Despite the fact that the marriage had been conducted apparently lawfully in a foreign state, it was treated as void under British law, and the Duke's son by that marriage, Sir Augustus d'Este, was treated as illegitimate and barred from succession to the Dukedom and other titles.

For completeness, the Succession to the Crown Act 2013 repealed the RMA and provided for certain marriages deemed void under the RMA to be retroactively treated as no longer void. However, one of the conditions for such de-voiding is that "in all the circumstances it was reasonable for the person concerned not to have been aware at the time of the marriage that the Act applied to it" (s.3(5)(c)). I don't see how it could possibly be argued that the Saxe-Coburgs, male-line descendants of Queen Victoria, could possibly have been unaware that the RMA applied to them, particularly given that the Hanovers - more distantly descended from a British sovereign - continued to seek and be granted permission to marry (hence the different position applying to the Dukedom of Cumberland and Teviotdale).

I do, however, disagree with Malcolm on the prospect of an amendment to the RMA (or perhaps the SCA) being passed to allow succession to the Dukedom of Albany. In my view, the chances of Parliament passing a statute allowing the succession to titles by foreign nationals whose ancestors were deprived of them for bearing arms against the UK in the First World War are effectively zero. (Indeed, many of the Saxe-Coburgs went on to bear arms against the UK in the Second World War as well, and the deprived former 2nd Duke was a Nazi politician and an Obergruppenführer in the SA.) It would be political suicide for anyone even to propose that. Indeed, the more likely scenario in my view (although still quite unlikely) is that Parliament amends the Titles Deprivation Act to make deprivation permanent, thereby rendering a number of traditional royal titles (in particular Cumberland, Albany and Clarence) incontrovertibly available for regrant.

[Windemere]

Thanks for the previous information.

In the 1950s, Charles Farrand set forth what's known as the Farrand Exemption. He apparently argued that in a strict interpretation of the Royal Marriages Act, Queen Victoria was a British princess who'd married into a foreign family, and so all her descendants would be exempt from the Royal Marriages Act. Since then, Queen Alexandra ( Edward VII's consort)  and Queen Mary (George V's consort) are also descended from British princesses who'd married into foreign families. The Farrand Exemption was discussed on this forum many years ago, without any definite conclusions reached about its validity.

Upon closer reading of 'The Peerage' and 'Genealogics.org'  websites, the date of Friedrich-Christian's marriage to his wife appears as May 1999 on both sites. However, on both websites, the date of their son Nicolaus' birth is given as Oct. 1987. If these dates are accurate, then it's likely than Nicolaus might not be eligible for the Albany title, even if it were restored. 

[malcolm davies]

Peter,

          I think you have conflated my opinion on the prospects of the RMA being amended with the prospects of a petition under the TDA being successful- they are two different things.

  I also disagree with you about the conduct of the 2nd Duke in terms of its relevance to the petition if it were to be made- the issue is not so much what happened in the past but the present and whether to continue the deprivation would be unjust to the potential heir.

  The real obstacle,in my view,is that the potential heir has no close connection with the UK that warrants the title being restored.Of course that may change-he or his descendants may marry citizens of the UK or return to live in the UK.So I don’t see any petition being successful,especially in the post Brexit era.
  Loopy,yes the RMA has been repealed but prospectively not retrospectively so marriages that contravened it’s provisions prior to repeal are still invalid.

[LoopyCrown3]

The Succession to the Crown Act 2013 states a marriage voided under the Royal Marriages Act 1772 would not be voided if all the following where met in Subsection (5)

(a)neither party to the marriage was one of the 6 persons next in the line of succession to the Crown at the time of the marriage,
(b)no consent was sought under section 1 of that Act, or notice given under section 2 of that Act, in respect of the marriage,
(c)in all the circumstances it was reasonable for the person concerned not to have been aware at the time of the marriage that the Act applied to it, and
(d)no person acted, before the coming into force of this section, on the basis that the marriage was void.

It then goes on to say that Subsection (5) applies for all purposes except those relating to the succession to the Crown. So if a marriage met all the conditions it would be valid for all purposes except those relating to the succession to the Crown.  

[malcolm davies]

Loopy,

          Subsection 5(c) is the issue.

[LoopyCrown3]

I know in the case of the Dukedom of Albany it is. But you said the act was not retrospective which is, if you meet all of  subsection (5). But it will still count as void when relating to the succession to the Crown.

[malcolm davies]

Loopy,

           subsection 5 is a provision that provides relief from a declaration that a marriage is invalid.It will be interpreted generously,that is to say that a Court would be more easily persuaded as to the validity of the marriage,rather than find it was invalid.However,the starting point,under the Succession to the Crown Act,is that a marriage without consent prior to the Act is invalid.

Why the Act was passed in that form,I don’t know.It would have been preferable in my view to have said that a marriage which was valid for the domicile of the person in the line of succession was valid for all purposes.The exclusion of a person from the succession,is in my view,something which should be dealt with separately and not by this means.