Questions about future Queens, Dowagers and surviving spouses - Page 4

**Elspeth** · #61 07-12-2005, 01:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by branchg

I think they should change this precedent in the future since, after all, future heirs will be the eldest child of the Sovereign (I guess William IV) without regard to gender. Why shouldn't a female heir be HRH Princess of Wales and Duchess of Cornwall in her own right?

They will? I didn't think they'd changed that law yet.

branchg · #62 07-12-2005, 03:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by selrahc4

If and when Parliament does legislate to change succession rights based on birth order regardless of sex, I think this would be addressed at the same time. There's no pressure to do so right now with the current 1st, 2nd, and 3rd heirs being male, but the time will come.

I would guess the time will come if Prince William marries and has a female child as his firstborn. This would then have to be addressed because if that event occurred while the Queen still reigned, his daughter would not be a Princess of the UK with the style of HRH under the 1917 Letters Patent of George V. That honour is reserved for the eldest son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales, but not a daughter.

Of course, the Queen would probably issue letters patent granting the style and title to her great-grandaughter, but who knows?

Solange · #63 07-12-2005, 05:23 PM

I have a question. Lets say William dies and leaves a widow and children (heirs) behind. But the heir is underage. Does this mean that his widow would become regent or does Harry? Or do they just pass the throne to Harry??

**Elspeth** · #64 07-12-2005, 05:30 PM

If William dies and leaves heirs, they precede Harry in the order of succession. As far as who would become regent, the old precedent was that the next adult in line would (as the old Duke of Gloucester would have for Princess Elizabeth if George VI had died during her childhood) but I think that at some point Prince Philip was named regent designate instead of Princess Margaret for Prince Charles. I don't know if it had to do with wanting a male regent (although I sincerely hope that wasn't the reason!) or with the fact that Philip was also a descendant of Queen Victoria and hence in the line of succession himself or with the notion that a parent would be better than a more distant relative.

branchg · #65 07-13-2005, 02:02 AM

Much would depend on the Government's wishes, of course, but more likely than not, it would be Prince Andrew (as the eldest uncle) or possibly Prince Harry, if he was active in royal duties and not married to someone like Chelsy!

segolen · #66 07-13-2005, 02:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warren

William's widow, as a Queen Consort, would be the "Dowager Queen", just as Queen Mary and Queen Elizabeth were. However, she would most likely be known as "Queen xxx" in general usage.

Queen Mary was still "Queen Mary" after George V died, and Queen Elizabeth was still Queen Elizabeth, although called "Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother" after the death of George VI.

Harry's wife would probably just be referred to as "The Queen".

No, William's wife wouldn't stay as a " Qeen" because she married to the King, without having the bloodline of the Kings. The Queen stays with the " queen " title only if she has the bloodline fron her ancestory:)

**Elspeth** · #67 07-13-2005, 02:43 PM

The Queen Mother was known a Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother (two "Queen's" in that title!) after her husband's death, and she wasn't born royal.

Anna_R · #68 07-13-2005, 04:38 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_Mother

The term Queen Mother is a title often held by the mother of a reigning monarch. Its full meaning is clear from the two words from which it is composed: queen indicates someone who served as Queen consort (i.e. wife of a king), while mother indicates the holder of the title's relationship with the current monarch.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_Dowager

A Queen Dowager or Dowager Queen is a title or status generally held by the widow of a deceased king. Its full meaning is clear from the two words from which it is composed: queen indicates someone who served as queen consort (i.e. wife of a king), while dowager indicates a widow who holds the title from her deceased husband.

libradoll · #69 07-13-2005, 05:35 PM

ok, the more i read, the more confused i get. i have a question. say william dies, has no kids. who then becomes the next king, harry or andrew? harry right??

branchg · #70 07-13-2005, 05:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by libradoll

ok, the more i read, the more confused i get. i have a question. say william dies, has no kids. who then becomes the next king, harry or andrew? harry right??

Prince Harry would be next in the line of succession if that came to pass.

branchg · #71 07-13-2005, 06:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by segolen

No, William's wife wouldn't stay as a " Qeen" because she married to the King, without having the bloodline of the Kings. The Queen stays with the " queen " title only if she has the bloodline fron her ancestory:)

No. Once crowned Queen Consort, you retain the style and title of Her Majesty Queen "Christian Name" for your lifetime.

Queen Mary and Queen Elizabeth were both dowager queens, meaning they were widows of two former Sovereigns. But they took precedence after Her Majesty the Queen, as the Sovereign.

In the case of Queen Elizabeth, she was granted an additional style as Queen Mother with the approval of the Government and the Queen. As such, she was formally "Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mother". It was a unique title to reflect that she was the only dowager queen in British history to see her daughter crowned as Sovereign.

Josefine · #72 09-28-2005, 03:48 AM

can she asked to be called just princess

Aussie Princess · #73 09-28-2005, 05:43 AM

I remember reading that the current Queens father didn't give her the title of Princess of Wales because that was only a title for a Prince of Wales wife, but how come he made her Duchess of Edinburgh? Can a woman be a Duchess of in her own right, but not a Princess of? Wasn't her title Princess Elizabeth, Duchess of Edinburgh?I feel so dumb asking this.....:o

Charlotte1 · #74 09-28-2005, 05:53 AM

On his wedding day King George VI made Philip Mountbatten the Duke of Edinbourgh ( Philip had given up his right to the Greek throne and no longer was a prince) As he was the Duke of Edinbourgh his wife (Princess Elizabeth) became the Duchess of Edinbourgh. Elizabeth wasn't a duchess of Edinbourgh in her own right but through her husband. QEII made Philip a prince of Great Britain & Northern Ireland in 1958 to acknowledge his service to the crown. Up until then he was Philip, Duke of Edinbourgh, after 1958 he became Prince Philip, D of E

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aussie Princess

I remember reading that the current Queens father didn't give her the title of Princess of Wales because that was only a title for a Prince of Wales wife, but how come he made her Duchess of Edinburgh? Can a woman be a Duchess of in her own right, but not a Princess of? Wasn't her title Princess Elizabeth, Duchess of Edinburgh?I feel so dumb asking this.....:o

branchg · #75 09-28-2005, 09:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aussie Princess

I remember reading that the current Queens father didn't give her the title of Princess of Wales because that was only a title for a Prince of Wales wife, but how come he made her Duchess of Edinburgh? Can a woman be a Duchess of in her own right, but not a Princess of? Wasn't her title Princess Elizabeth, Duchess of Edinburgh?I feel so dumb asking this.....:o

Any female child of the Sovereign or the Sovereign's sons is automatically entitled under current Letters Patent to be a princess of the UK with the dignity of Royal Highness. The Sovereign, as fount of honour, may also grant additional titles including a dukedom to a female as well.

Elizabeth was Duchess of Edinburgh as the wife of Prince Philip, not in her own right. Similarly, Princess Margaret was also Countess of Snowden as the wife of the Earl of Snowden.

ysbel · #76 09-28-2005, 09:47 AM

I think the Queen Mother is only a British title, right? When Queen Ingrid of Denmark died, the British and American papers referred to her as the Queen Mother of Denmark but the Danish press didn't.

Mapple · #77 09-28-2005, 03:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ysbel

I think the Queen Mother is only a British title, right? When Queen Ingrid of Denmark died, the British and American papers referred to her as the Queen Mother of Denmark but the Danish press didn't.

That's a bit unclear... The widows of Edward VII and George V, AFAIK, did not style themselves as such, being referred as Queen Alexandra and Queen Mary instead.

kpusa1981 · #78 09-28-2005, 08:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by branchg

Well, they also made it sound like that Camilla would not be HRH The Princess of Wales, but Duchess of Cornwall when marrying Prince Charles. When MP's questioned whether the marriage would be morganatic, it was only then made clear by the PM and the Prince that she WOULD be Princess of Wales automatically, but had chosen to be known as Duchess of Cornwall instead (obviously with the Queen's approval).

It was made clear upon further questioning of Parliament that Camilla WOULD NOT be HRH Princess Consort without legislation being introduced to allow her to do so. The Lord Chancellor stated legally Camilla would be Queen Consort when Charles ascended the throne, however, the matter of legislation may have to be considered when the time came if she wished to be Princess Consort instead.

Right now, Camilla is HRH The Princess of Wales, but permitted by the Sovereign to be known as HRH The Duchess of Cornwall instead. Without legislation, she will be Queen Camilla if Charles ascends the throne. Will a future Government allow Charles, as King, to issue a royal warrant granting Camilla the style and title of HRH the Princess Consort when in law she is already Queen Consort? This is highly unlikely and without precedent constitutionally.

Everyone in the current Government knows Camilla will be Queen Consort. They're just hoping the matter will be a non-issue by the time Charles ascends the throne. I also think there is consensus that the Queen may be the last of the true monarchs of the UK, and by the time a King Charles III ascends, the crown will be reduced even further to a mere symbol of the past, with an elected head of state.

What does the law actually say?
When the 1936 written it just for if the non-royal was divorced?
Is Charles technically a Divorcee or a Widower?

branchg · #79 09-28-2005, 09:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kpusa1981

What does the law actually say?
When the 1936 written it just for if the non-royal was divorced?
Is Charles technically a Divorcee or a Widower?

In law, there is nothing stopping a Sovereign from marrying a divorcee. However, because the Crown is Head of the Church of England and Defender of the Faith, it was difficult for Edward VIII to secure the Government's approval of his proposed marriage to Wallis Simpson in 1936. The Church opposed divorce without question and Wallis had been married and divorced twice with both husbands alive, which was completely unacceptable at the time.

Technically, the King could have married Wallis and made her Queen Consort without anyone's approval, but Baldwin made clear the Government would resign if Edward refused to accept the Cabinet's advice. This would have created a constitutional crisis in which the Crown would have to become an independent political force to secure support for the marriage. To Edward's credit, he refused to consider it and abdicated instead.

Charles was very fortunate that times have changed. The Archbishop of Canterbury was willing to support a marriage, mainly because Diana's death meant technically Charles was now a widower despite the divorce. The public seemed willing to accept a remarriage and it was time to bite the bullet.