Four of the five previous dukes of Clarence died young (Lionel, Thomas, George and Albert Victor) so that may have created the impression it was an unlucky title. The only 'dark' association lies probably with George, the third holder, who was imprisoned for treason and executed in secret). On the other hand William, the fourth holder, lived to become king as William IV so the ill-luck associated with the title is not complete. It may be worth reviving it again.
Aside from the early deaths of the title holders you list, what I was also thinking of was the reputed murder of that Duke of Clarence who was brother to Richard III. I didn't check if he's on your name list there. Also what I was thinking of when I said "dark", and probably a story no one can substantiate, was the son of Q. Victoria reputed to have suffered from porphyria and rumored to be the actual "Jack the Ripper" during his bouts of porphyria.
475
Message Thread | This response ↓
« Back to index