Talk:Duke of York

Concurrent offices

I thought the future George V, then Duke of York was made Prince of Wales when his father became Edward VII in 1901. Hence the Dukedom of York would have returned to the crown in 1901 not 1910, or was he both POW and DOY during his father's reign? FearÉIREANN 07:05 17 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Titles conferred earlier don't merge with the crown until the person actually takes the crown. a Prince of Wales continues to hold all titles he held before being made Prince of Wales, until he succeeds his father, Thus, during his father's reign, the future George V was Prince of Wales; Duke of Cornwall, Rothesay, and York; Earl of Chester, Carrick, and Inverness; Baron of Renfrew and Killarney, Lord of the Isles, and Prince and Great Steward of Scotland. Or some such. Because Prince of Wales was the highest of his titles, he was known by that, but he was still called Prince of Wales. In the period between his father's accession and his own creation as Prince of Wales (almost a year), he was known as the Duke of Cornwall and York. john 20:15 17 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sure this is correct. George VI didn't get the title until 1920.

Shakespeare use of DoY

I'm not sure I like the references to Shakespeare plays, though. Do they serve a useful purpose? Deb 20:24 19 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Well, if one is reading Shakespeare's Richard II, or Henry V, or Henry VI, one might come across the Duke of York as a character, and look him up. I think it's helpful to explain which Duke of York is shown in each play. If you disagree, feel free to remove it. john 21:49 19 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I've been planning on making cast lists for all the history plays, and linking every character to the corresponding historical personage. Thus far I've done Richard II and Richard III. But you're quite right that someone might look up 'Duke of York' rather than the play itself. - Loren

I don't disagree at all, but I was wondering if it's (a) right to restrict the references to Shakespeare as if he were the only dramatist in the world, and (b) misleading in the sense that Shakespeare's plays present a very distorted view of history -- someone reading the article might mistakenly think they can find out more about the Duke of York by reading the play. References from the entry for the play to this article are fine, but I'm not sure about the other way round. Deb 19:49 20 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Someone learning about the historical person would at the very least want to know that other people's perceptions were potentially colored by some famous literary portrayal. Clearly though we ought to explain where truth and fiction diverge. I'd be happy to see other literary references. For example some one ought to go through the Divine Comedy and enter all of Dante's references. Loren

I think I agree with Loren, largely. By the standard that Shakespeare presents a distorted picture, does that mean that we shouldn't mention, say, Shakespeare's Richard III in an account of that king? Considering that almost everyone's perception of Richard III are immensely colored by the play, I don't think that should be done. Yes, the article should make clear the distinction between the actual history and the play, but I don't think it's invalid to link from the individual's article to a famous fictional representation of that character. john 20:32 20 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Not invalid -- it just needs to be done with care. Deb 22:55 20 Jun 2003 (UTC)

The Grand Old DoY

What about "The Grand Old Duke of York", the one who had ten thousand men, and marched them up to the top of the hill and marched them down again for some reason. Which particular Duke of York was that rhyme inspired by? Saul Taylor 10:37, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Might want to check out Grand old Duke of York, refers to Frederick Augustus who attacked the Low Countries in the 1790s. But for still another theory, read Wakefield. Confusing? I know. But, when you're up, you're up... - knoodelhed 16:57, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)