The Sons of York

I'm trying to establish the exact status of the Duke of York's four
surviving sons before the Duke's death at Wakefield.
Edward is described as Earl of March, and Edmund as Earl of Rutland,
but some sources claim that these titles had no official creation and
should therefore no be listed as proper titles.
Just what made a made a person officially an Earl? Was the fact that
both were minors make the titles unofficial? Did the title have to
be officially endorsed by Parliament, in which case both are highly
dubious?
Was Rutland's title a new creation, or was it considered to be
inherited, as a previous Duke of York had held it (but not Rutland's
father).
Would lands have been attached to these titles, as it seems to me
unlikely that the Duke would have split up his inheritance, and the
younger sons would be expected to gain estates by marriage (as George
and Richard did later, together with forfeited estates).
Could Edward have expected (assuming he didn't become King) to
inherit the lot, or is it likely that the Duke would have shared his
titles out among his sons, with perhaps the Earldoms of Cambridge and
Ulster awarded to George and Richard?
Of course those of Clarence and Gloucester were awarded to the
younger brothers after Towton, but these were titles fitting for the
King's brothers, not for the sons or brothers of a mere Duke.

try here
http://www.hereditarytitles.com/search/search_dbase.asp

roslyn

theblackprussian <theblackprussian@...> wrote:
I'm trying to establish the exact status of the Duke of York's four
surviving sons before the Duke's death at Wakefield.
Edward is described as Earl of March, and Edmund as Earl of Rutland,
but some sources claim that these titles had no official creation and
should therefore no be listed as proper titles.
Just what made a made a person officially an Earl? Was the fact that
both were minors make the titles unofficial? Did the title have to
be officially endorsed by Parliament, in which case both are highly
dubious?
Was Rutland's title a new creation, or was it considered to be
inherited, as a previous Duke of York had held it (but not Rutland's
father).
Would lands have been attached to these titles, as it seems to me
unlikely that the Duke would have split up his inheritance, and the
younger sons would be expected to gain estates by marriage (as George
and Richard did later, together with forfeited estates).
Could Edward have expected (assuming he didn't become King) to
inherit the lot, or is it likely that the Duke would have shared his
titles out among his sons, with perhaps the Earldoms of Cambridge and
Ulster awarded to George and Richard?
Of course those of Clarence and Gloucester were awarded to the
younger brothers after Towton, but these were titles fitting for the
King's brothers, not for the sons or brothers of a mere Duke.






---------------------------------
All new Yahoo! Mail -
---------------------------------
Get a sneak peak at messages with a handy reading pane.

--- In , "theblackprussian"
<theblackprussian@...> wrote:
>
> I'm trying to establish the exact status of the Duke of York's four
> surviving sons before the Duke's death at Wakefield.
> Edward is described as Earl of March, and Edmund as Earl of
Rutland,
> but some sources claim that these titles had no official creation
and
> should therefore no be listed as proper titles.
> Just what made a made a person officially an Earl? Was the fact
that
> both were minors make the titles unofficial? Did the title have to
> be officially endorsed by Parliament, in which case both are highly
> dubious?
> Was Rutland's title a new creation, or was it considered to be
> inherited, as a previous Duke of York had held it (but not
Rutland's
> father).
> Would lands have been attached to these titles, as it seems to me
> unlikely that the Duke would have split up his inheritance, and the
> younger sons would be expected to gain estates by marriage (as
George
> and Richard did later, together with forfeited estates).
> Could Edward have expected (assuming he didn't become King) to
> inherit the lot, or is it likely that the Duke would have shared
his
> titles out among his sons, with perhaps the Earldoms of Cambridge
and
> Ulster awarded to George and Richard?
> Of course those of Clarence and Gloucester were awarded to the
> younger brothers after Towton, but these were titles fitting for
the
> King's brothers, not for the sons or brothers of a mere Duke.
>
Going into the battle of Wakefield, the Duke must have held his title
after Cambridge's attainder was reversed. The March earldom was from
York's mother, a courtesy title and Rutland must have been one as
well.
Of course, York and his elder sons were attainted after the battle,
only for one of them to become King in a matter of months and
automatically reverse it. If George and Richard were not there, they
were not implicitly attainted and could still inherit through their
mother, as George's son and daughter later did.