BARONETAGE
Last updated 28/09/2018 (4 Oct 2025)
Date	Type	Order	Name	Born	Died	Age
Names of baronets shown in blue have not yet been placed on the Official Roll of the Baronetage.
Dates in italics in the "Born" column indicate that the baronet was baptised on that date; dates in italics in the "Died" column indicate that the baronet was buried on that date.
YARDE-BULLER of Lupton House, Devon
13 Jan 1790	GB	1	Francis Buller	17 Mar 1746	5 Jun 1800	54
5 Jun 1800		2	Francis Buller-Yarde (Buller-Yarde-Buller from 26 Jun 1800) MP for Totnes 1790‑1796	28 Sep 1767	17 Apr 1833	65
17 Apr 1833		3	John Buller Yarde-Buller He was subsequently created Baron Churston in 1858 with which title the baronetcy remains merged	12 Apr 1799	4 Sep 1871	72
YARROW of Homestead, Hindhead, Surrey
29 Jan 1916	UK	1	Alfred Fernandez Yarrow	13 Jan 1842	24 Jan 1932	90
24 Jan 1932		2	Harold Edgar Yarrow	11 Aug 1884	19 Apr 1962	77
19 Apr 1962		3	Eric Grant Yarrow	23 Apr 1920	22 Sep 2018	98
22 Sep 2018		4	Ross William Grant Yarrow	14 Jan 1985
YATE of Buckland, Berks
30 Jul 1622	E	1	Edward Yate		Feb 1645
Feb 1645		2	John Yate		c 1658
c 1658		3	Charles Yate		c 1680
c 1680 to     1690		4	John Yate Extinct on his death		1690
YATE of Madeley Hall, Salop
31 Jan 1921 to     29 Feb 1940	UK	1	Charles Edward Yate MP for Melton 1910‑1924 Extinct on his death	28 Aug 1849	29 Feb 1940	90
YEA of Pyrland, Somerset
18 Jun 1759	GB	1	William Yea		25 Nov 1806
25 Nov 1806		2	William Walter Yea	19 Apr 1784	20 May 1862	78
20 May 1862 to     31 Aug 1864		3	Henry Lacy Yea Extinct on his death	18 Nov 1798	31 Aug 1864	65
YEAMANS of Bristol, Gloucs
12 Jan 1665	E	1	John Yeamans		c 1680
c 1680		2	William Yeamans		c 1685
c 1685		3	John Yeamans		c 1690
c 1690		4	John Yeamans	c 1689	c 1730
c 1730		5	John Yeamans	c 1720	c 1780
c 1780 to     19 Feb 1788		6	Robert Yeamans Extinct on his death	c 1742	19 Feb 1788
YEAMANS of Redland, Gloucs
31 Dec 1666 to     Feb 1687	E	1	Robert Yeamans Extinct on his death		7 Feb 1687
YELVERTON of Rougham, Norfolk
31 May 1620	E	1	William Yelverton	c 1558	30 Oct 1631
30 Oct 1631		2	William Yelverton	c 1590	19 Jul 1648
19 Jul 1648 to     15 Nov 1649		3	William Yelverton Extinct on his death		15 Nov 1649
YELVERTON of Easton Mauduit, Northants
30 Jun 1641	E	1	Christopher Yelverton MP for Newport 1626 and 1628‑1629, and Bossiney 1640‑1648		4 Dec 1654
4 Dec 1654		2	Henry Yelverton MP for Northamptonshire 1660 and Northampton 1664‑1670	6 Jul 1633	3 Oct 1670	37
3 Oct 1670		3	Charles Yelverton He succeeded to the barony of Grey de Ruthyn in 1676 with which title the baronetcy then merged until it became extinct in 1799	21 Aug 1657	17 May 1679	21
YONGE of Culliton, Devon
26 Sep 1661	E	1	John Yonge	2 Oct 1603	26 Aug 1663	59
Aug 1663		2	Walter Yonge MP for Honiton 1659, Lyme Regis 1660 and Dartmouth 1667‑1670	c 1625	21 Nov 1670
21 Nov 1670		3	Walter Yonge MP for Honiton 1679‑1681 and 1690‑1711, and Ashburton 1689‑1690	8 Sep 1653	18 Jul 1731	77
18 Jul 1731		4	William Yonge MP for Honiton 1715‑1754 and Tiverton 1754‑1755; Secretary at War 1735‑1741; PC 1735	c 1693	10 Aug 1755
10 Aug 1755 to     25 Sep 1812		5	George Yonge MP for Honiton 1754‑1761 and 1763‑1796 and Old Sarum 1799‑1801; Secretary at War 1782‑1783 and 1783‑1794; Master of the Mint 1794-1799; Governor of the Cape of Good Hope 1799‑1801; PC 1782 Extinct on his death	1731	25 Sep 1812	81
YORKE of Dublin
13 Apr 1761 to     30 Sep 1776	I	1	William Yorke PC [I] 1753 Extinct on his death For information on the death of this baronet, see the note at the foot of this page	c 1700	30 Sep 1776
YOUNG of London
10 Mar 1628 to     c Mar 1651	E	1	Richard Young MP for Worcester 1621‑1622 and 1624‑1625 Extinct on his death		c Mar 1651
YOUNG of North Dean, Bucks
2 May 1769	GB	1	William Young	1725	8 Apr 1788	62
8 Apr 1788		2	William Young MP for St. Mawes 1784‑1806 and Buckingham 1806‑1807; Governor of Tobago 1807‑1815	30 Nov 1749	10 Jan 1815	65
10 Jan 1815		3	William Lawrence Young	c 1778	3 Nov 1824
3 Nov 1824		4	William Lawrence Young MP for Buckinghamshire 1835‑1842	29 Sep 1806	27 Jun 1842	35
27 Jun 1842		5	William Norris Young He was killed at the Battle of the Alma during the Crimean War	15 Jan 1833	20 Sep 1854	21
20 Sep 1854		6	George John Young He died of cholera before Sebastapol during the Crimean War	1 Mar 1835	22 Oct 1854	19
22 Oct 1854		7	Charles Lawrence Young	31 Oct 1839	12 Sep 1887	47
12 Sep 1887		8	William Lawrence Young	3 Aug 1864	11 Jun 1921	56
11 Jun 1921		9	Charles Alban Young	18 Nov 1865	2 Mar 1944	78
2 Mar 1944		10	William Neil Young	22 Jan 1941
YOUNG of Formosa Place, Berks
24 Nov 1813	UK	1	Samuel Young	23 Feb 1766	14 Dec 1826	60
14 Dec 1826		2	George Young	19 Aug 1797	8 Feb 1848	50
8 Feb 1848		3	George Young	15 Sep 1837	4 Jul 1930	92
4 Jul 1930		4	George Young	25 Oct 1872	26 Sep 1952	79
26 Sep 1952		5	George Peregrine Young	8 Sep 1908	17 Mar 1960	51
17 Mar 1960		6	George Samuel Knatchbull Young, later [2015] Baron Young of Cookham [L]	16 Jul 1941
YOUNG of Bailieborough Castle, co. Cavan
28 Aug 1821	UK	1	William Young		10 Mar 1848
10 Mar 1848		2	John Young, later [1870] 1st Baron Lisgar	31 Aug 1807	6 Oct 1876	69
6 Oct 1876		3	William Muston Need Young	20 Jan 1847	31 Mar 1934	87
31 Mar 1934		4	Cyril Roe Muston Young	21 Aug 1881	15 Jun 1955	73
15 Jun 1955		5	John William Roe Young	28 Jun 1913	5 Apr 1981	67
5 Apr 1981		6	John Kenyon Roe Young	23 Apr 1947
YOUNG of Partick, Glasgow
7 Sep 1945	UK	1	Arthur Stewart Leslie Young MP for Partick 1935‑1950 and Scotstoun 1950	10 Oct 1889	14 Aug 1950	60
14 Aug 1950		2	Alastair Spencer Templeton Young	28 Jun 1918	15 Oct 1963	45
15 Oct 1963		3	Stephen Stewart Templeton Young	24 May 1947
YOUNGER of Auchen Castle, Dumfries
14 Feb 1911	UK		See "Younger-Theriot"
YOUNGER of Leckie, Clackmannan
12 Jul 1911	UK	1	George Younger He was subsequently created Viscount Younger of Leckie in 1923 with which title the baronetcy remains merged	13 Oct 1851	29 Apr 1929	77
YOUNGER of Fountain Bridge, Edinburgh
17 Feb 1964 to     15 Apr 1992	UK	1	William McEwan Younger Extinct on his death	6 Sep 1905	15 Apr 1992	86
YOUNGER-THERIOT of Auchen Castle, Dumfries
14 Feb 1911	UK	1	William Younger MP for Stamford 1895‑1906 and Peebles-shire & Selkirkshire 1910	28 Jun 1862	28 Jul 1937	75
28 Jul 1937		2	William Robert Younger	27 Oct 1888	25 May 1973	84
25 May 1973		3	John William Younger	18 Nov 1920	14 May 2002	81
14 May 2002		4	Julian William Richard Younger	10 Feb 1950	18 Feb 2019	69
18 Feb 2019		5	Andrew William Younger Theriot	14 Jan 1986
YULE of Hugli River, Calcutta, India
30 Jan 1922 to     3 Jul 1928	UK	1	Sir David Yule Extinct on his death For further information on this baronet, see the note at the foot of this page	4 Aug 1858	3 Jul 1928	69

	Sir William Yorke, 1st and only baronet
	The London Chronicle of 5 October 1776:-
	The death of Sir William Yorke, late Lord Chief Justice of Ireland, was owing to a mistake of his servant. Sir William was grievously afflicted with the stone [probably kidney stones], and in a very severe fit he used to take a certain quantity of drops of laudanum. On Monday evening last he called for his usual remedy, during the most racking pains of his distemper; the drops could not be found. The servant was dispatched to his apothecary at Brentford, but instead of laudanum drops he asked for laudanum; a quantity was sent, with special charge not to give Sir William more than 24 drops. The fellow forgetting the caution, gave the bottle into his master's hand, who in his agony drank up the whole contents of the bottle, and expired in less than an hour after.
	Sir David Yule, 1st and only baronet
	In legal proceedings after his death, Yule was described as "the wealthiest man in India and probably in the British Empire." Because of his wealth, his estate was extremely large, and therefore extremely attractive to the revenue authorities, which sought to claim the duty on the estate. In this they were opposed by his widow. The question turned on where Sir David's place of domicile was found to be - India, England or Scotland, where he was born.
	The case was heard by Mr. Justice Rowlatt in November 1930. The following, edited, report appeared in The Times on 14 November 1930:-
	His Lordship gave judgment for the Crown on the claim to duty on the estate of the late Sir David Yule, Bt., who died on Jul 3, 1928. The question involved was whether Sir David Yule had acquired a domicile in India and, if so, whether he had abandoned it and acquired a domicile of choice in England or had revived his Scottish domicile of origin.
	Mr. Justice Rowlatt, in giving judgment, said that the case was one in which he had heard, and properly heard, a great deal of detailed evidence, but the result could be put under broad heads. The case was one in which it was necessary to be careful lest one "failed to see the wood for the trees."
	In one or two respects, but only in one or two, the case was unique. The great success of Sir David Yule, the enormous fortune which he had made, might have been unique, as might his character in its strength and ability. The other respect in which the case was unique was the degree to which Sir David Yule managed to penetrate the division which normally kept Europeans in India from close domestic and social intimacy with Indian families. In other respects the story was one of a very successful Anglo-Indian merchant of British blood making his fortune in India, which was not very different from other lives of the same sort.
	The Crown started with the Scottish domicile of origin, and the question was whether it had been proved by the respondents that the testator exchanged it for a domicile in India. The onus of proving that was a very considerable one and had to be discharged with clearness.
	One approached a case of that kind keeping clearly in view that it was one of an Englishman said to have obtained a domicile in a hot Oriental country. There was no reason in law why he should not do so, but it was less usual in fact than the acquisition of a new domicile in a temperate climate such as Canada.
	Domicile was a difficult conception, but the question might roughly be put in the form: "Did this man become a settler in the country, or was he only a sojourner there?" The case fell to be considered with regard to one or two periods. The respondents contended that he had acquired an Indian domicile by 1900, when he came home and got married, and that he could not be said subsequently to have abandoned it; or, it was said that the whole period up to his death supported the contention of Indian domicile. But whatever period was taken, it was necessary to look at acts done afterwards as evidence of the intention of acts done before that period. So if one looked to 1900 as the material date, one could not shut out acts done afterwards.
	Sir David Yule had two uncles who were prosperous Indian merchants, and it was under their auspices, and especially under the auspices of Mr. George Yule, that he went out to Calcutta at the age of 17. Mr. George Yule threw himself very much into Indian life and had great sympathy with Indian aims, and probably impressed upon his young nephew the importance of not holding himself aloof but of getting to know not only those with whom he must do business, but the people of the country. He was very properly imbued with those views, and he did succeed in putting himself on level terms with the Indians.
	He (his Lordship) had a little difficulty in seeing how far that bore on the question of domicile. Did it amount to more than that he had made very close friends in the country? The allegation that he did not affect European society was hardly borne out, for Lady Yule had stated that when she went out after her marriage, though they did not entertain much, Europeans occasionally dined with them. It did not appear that he was averse from Europeans; he simply was not a social man. It was not suggested in any way that he departed from the habits of an Englishman, which were valued rather highly, and became Orientalized in outlook or habits. No doubt, whether in his house at Garden Reach [a suburb of Calcutta], or in his flat over the offices in Clive-row, he lived the life of an ordinary Englishman.
	He stuck to business with enormous tenacity, and did not take a holiday, except once in 25 years - that was what it amounted to. When he did come home in 1900 his prospects were all in India and, if India had been wiped out, there would have been very little left for him. That was all very true: he had then not much interest outside India. But had he become a settler there? One must look at what followed. Did he put aside the idea of marrying his cousin and what it might lead to? Was it likely that at 42 he would come to the clear decision of being a Calcutta man and nothing else? He (his Lordship) could not have come to that conclusion even if the testator had died in 1900.
	But, in fact, he married, and the sticking close to his desk in Calcutta came to an end. He was still the unexampled worker, the untiring man of business, but from that time more at home than in India.
	When the case was opened he (his Lordship) was not sure whether there was not going to be some colour of this sort: that Mrs. Yule, as she then was, having gone to India, found it very dull and came home without even trying; and that he, being wrapped up in his business and finding that his wife would not share his life, had more or less cast her off.
	Neither of those ideas seemed to him to be in the least true. His wife came home because she was desperately ill, and it was quite impossible for her to stay in India. On the other hand, it would be most unjust to Sir David Yule's memory to suggest that because of his business in India he in any way ignored his wife and daughter. His duties as husband and father were perfectly properly kept up. All those 25 years he had a house in England and an office in London, and nearly always a fishing in Scotland. In Calcutta he had, of course, also a flat over his office.
	From the moment of his arrival home in 1902 he was a director of the Mercantile Bank of India. It was because he was an Indian magnate that he was asked to join the board, but the fact remained that he had a big London business life, and it was difficult to see how, in the latter part of his life, it could be argued that he was not more predominantly English than Indian.
	Of more importance than the fact that the testator struck out his address at Hanstead House from his draft will was the fact that he was de facto in possession of Hanstead House and was rated and registered as a voter in respect of it. The declaration of domicile in the will was of more importance, but he doubted whether Sir David Yule understood what domicile meant. The fortunate ones who did so were few. He only meant that his centre of gravity, as it were, was in India. All his life he had looked with great interest and affection on India, regarding himself, perhaps, as a creature of India, but circumstances were too strong for him. He had a wife and daughter in England, and came to visit them whenever he could, and he had business interests in England. Whatever dreams he might have had of ultimately acquiring a house in Calcutta and persuading his wife and daughter to go and live there could not outweigh the actual facts.
	The onus on the respondents had not been discharged, and he must declare that Sir David Yule died domiciled in the United Kingdom, because he had never lost his domicile of origin. That amounted to judgment for the Crown …
	Lady Yule appealed this decision, but her appeal was dismissed in March 1931.

	Copyright © 2003-2018 Leigh Rayment
	Copyright © 2020-2025 Helen Belcher OBE