Questions about future Queens, Dowagers and surviving spouses

[Lalla Meriem]

Originally Posted by Jo of Palatine

Don't forget that the Crown estate would revert back to the former monarch - which would make him (I don't see anyone throwing QEII from her throne) one of the richest men in the world. If the new republic would want to keep the Crown estate, they'd have to fulfill their obligations from the contract between Crown and parliament of the exchange of Crown Estate for civil list und use plus upkeep of Royal palaces for the RF. So either the ex-monarch is extremely rich in his own right or the state continues to take care of him as he was used to. No way out of that without changing the complete laws of inheritance and possession in the Uk - and I can't see this happening.

I doubt this would ever happen. The rent earned by the London property alone owned by the Crown Estate is worth more than 700 million pounds annually this does not include the additional rents paid to the Estate or the value of it's other extensive holdings of art, jewels, and property. This far exceeds the amount paid to the Queen in the Civil List. No new government would shaft themselves out of such a vast fortune. The Crown Estate is held by the monarch on behalf of the people. The Crown Estate is considered to be the heritage of the people.

[Lalla Meriem]

Originally Posted by Elspeth

Most of the time, this involves royals being allowed back in the country years after the republic was set up, when the population has got used to the republican government and the government is sure that the royals aren't a threat. As I said in my last post, King Simeon was allowed back to Bulgaria after 50 years in exile. If Charles was knocked off the throne, the prospect of being allowed back when he was 120 would be cold comfort. Even William would be an old man under those circumstances. The senior branches of the royal families, at the time the republics were set up, were almost never allowed to stay.

Most of the French and German royals were never asked to leave the country nor would the new governments have ever considered it. Most former royals remain in their countries and still preform for the people and are very popular.

If the monarchy were to end they couldn't exile them. The European Court of Human Rights would never allow it.

[Lalla Meriem]

Originally Posted by Jo of Palatine

Many! Just think France or Germany. Or the Balcan states after the end of the communist regimes. Italy now. Greece is a possibility for Constantine now. Grand Duchess Maria is welcome in Russia... Exile for ex-Royals is definately out.

Don't forget Portugal.

[Jo of Palatine]

Originally Posted by Elspeth

Most of the time, this involves royals being allowed back in the country years after the republic was set up, when the population has got used to the republican government and the government is sure that the royals aren't a threat. As I said in my last post, King Simeon was allowed back to Bulgaria after 50 years in exile. If Charles was knocked off the throne, the prospect of being allowed back when he was 120 would be cold comfort. Even William would be an old man under those circumstances. The senior branches of the royal families, at the time the republics were set up, were almost never allowed to stay.

Agreed, but this was pre-European Union. I doubt that changing the form of organization of the member state is going to jeopardize the rights of citizens, even those with Royal blood.

[Jo of Palatine]

Originally Posted by Lalla Meriem

The Charter that governs the Duchy of Cornwall stipulates that the title is reserved for the eldest son who is also heir. The monarch doesn't confer the title it passes automatically to an eldest son who is also heir. If the eldest son died before the monarch and didn't have a child of his own then title would automatically pass to the second son of the same monarch. It would not be reserved for the eldest son of the next monarch. The only way it would be reserved for the child of the next monarch would be if their were only daughters left or if the deceased Duke of Cornwall had children.

One must be both the eldest son of the monarch and heir to the throne at the same time to hold the title. If there is an eldest living son of a monarch who is also 1st in line to the throne then he automatically holds the title.

You're right of course but we were talking the case at hand which is an eldest son who cannot die childless as he already has his heir and a spare.

[Jo of Palatine]

Originally Posted by Lalla Meriem

She could not continue to be known as HRH The Duchess of Cornwall. She would have to opt for the style for a widow irreguardless if someone else held the title or not.

I doubt that she would use the Wales title in her widowhood as she did not use it during her marriage. However, she would most certainly be entitled to be styled as HRH The Dowager Princess of Wales even as the step mother of William. To be a Dowager the current holder of the title must be a direct decendant of your deceased husband. It does not matter if the new Prince of Wales, Duke of Westminster, or other title holder is your stepson. All that matters is that he/she is the child of your late husband. If a brother, nephew or cousin inherits the title then the widow is not premitted to be styled as a dowager.

AFAIK the widow of the last holder of a tile may keep her married title till the next holder has a wife to claim it. The Dowager style is reserved for the mother of the next holder of a title, Raine Spencer eg never was "The Dowager Lady Spencer" because the next earl was not her son.

But in reality that's only on formal documents, not in practical use in society. In society people normally know about which "Duchess of X" or "Lady Y" they are talking, of the widow of the late lord or of the wife of the current. Only when both ladies attend an official function, there is a need for distinction. But in Royal circles, these functions appear more often, of course.

Edit: interestingly enough Burke's Peerage has nothing to say about the relation of the next holder of the title and the widow of his predecessor...
GLOSSARY - BURKE'S GUIDE TO BRITISH TITLES

An exerpt: "dowager: theoretically any widow possessed of a dower, or life interest in part of her deceased husband's property, but by extension and in modern practice the widow of (1) a baron; (2) a baronet; (3) a duke; (4) an earl; (5) a marquess or (6) a viscount. If the new holder of the title has not married and there are no other widows of previous title holders in the family, the widow's style of address does not change from what it was when her husband was alive."

Just found this about divorced as well as widowed wifes and thought of Sarah Ferguson... (from: Courtesy title.)

A divorced peeress's right to the title and dignities of peerage does not end if she subsequently marries a commoner she may retain by the title by courtesy. [1]

It is customary for women with higher titles from one marriage to retain them even on subsequent remarriage. As Lord Macnaughten put it in the case of Earl Cowley v Countess Cowley [1901] AC 450: "...everybody knows that it is a very common practice for peeresses (not being peeresses in their own right)
after marrying commoners to retain the title lost by such marriage. It is not a matter of right. It is merely a matter of courtesy, and allowed by the usages of society." The divorce court, in the above case, granted the earl an injunction preventing his wife from using his title; however this was overturned by the Court of Appeal, whose decision was confirmed by the House of Lords, on the grounds that ordinary courts of law lacked any jurisdiction in matters of honour.

The same practice was followed by widows who remarried. A prominent example was Catherine Parr, the last wife of Henry VIII, who continued to be
known as Queen even after her marriage to Lord Seymour of Sudeley (and, indeed, she disputed precedence with the wife of her brother-in-law the Duke of Somerset on this basis).

This usage died out later in the twentieth century, and women who remarry now ordinarily take a new married name and do not retain their former title. However, they may choose to continue use of the courtesy title per Cowley v. Cowley.

[Lalla Meriem]

Originally Posted by Jo of Palatine

AFAIK the widow of the last holder of a tile may keep her married title till the next holder has a wife to claim it. The Dowager style is reserved for the mother of the next holder of a title, Raine Spencer eg never was "The Dowager Lady Spencer" because the next earl was not her son.

But in reality that's only on formal documents, not in practical use in society. In society people normally know about which "Duchess of X" or "Lady Y" they are talking, of the widow of the late lord or of the wife of the current. Only when both ladies attend an official function, there is a need for distinction. But in Royal circles, these functions appear more often, of course.

Edit: interestingly enough Burke's Peerage has nothing to say about the relation of the next holder of the title and the widow of his predecessor...
GLOSSARY - BURKE'S GUIDE TO BRITISH TITLES

An exerpt: "dowager: theoretically any widow possessed of a dower, or life interest in part of her deceased husband's property, but by extension and in modern practice the widow of (1) a baron; (2) a baronet; (3) a duke; (4) an earl; (5) a marquess or (6) a viscount. If the new holder of the title has not married and there are no other widows of previous title holders in the family, the widow's style of address does not change from what it was when her husband was alive."

Debrett's and Black's both list the specifications that allow one to be styled as a dowager. Both specifically state that the new holder must be the direct decendant of her late husband. I believe Burke's does also say this in the actual book form.

Dowager Peeresses

Raine, Countess Spencer was perfectly within her rights to style herself as the Dowager Countess Spencer until she remarried. She is styled as Raine, Countess Spencer now following her widowhood, remarriage and divorce.

I highly doubt that Camilla would continue to style herself as HRH The Duchess of Cornwall if she were to be widowed. Each widow in the family's offical title has changed after her widowhood. Even Princess Alexandra's is style differently during her single years, marriage and then her widowhood.

Additionally, The Duchy of Cornwall is not a typical peerage. The title would return to the Crown i.e. The Queen while it is not occupied.

[Lalla Meriem]

Originally Posted by Jo of Palatine

Just found this about divorced as well as widowed wifes and thought of Sarah Ferguson... (from: Courtesy title.)

A divorced peeress's right to the title and dignities of peerage does not end if she subsequently marries a commoner she may retain by the title by courtesy. [1]

It is customary for women with higher titles from one marriage to retain them even on subsequent remarriage. As Lord Macnaughten put it in the case of Earl Cowley v Countess Cowley [1901] AC 450: "...everybody knows that it is a very common practice for peeresses (not being peeresses in their own right)
after marrying commoners to retain the title lost by such marriage. It is not a matter of right. It is merely a matter of courtesy, and allowed by the usages of society." The divorce court, in the above case, granted the earl an injunction preventing his wife from using his title; however this was overturned by the Court of Appeal, whose decision was confirmed by the House of Lords, on the grounds that ordinary courts of law lacked any jurisdiction in matters of honour.

The same practice was followed by widows who remarried. A prominent example was Catherine Parr, the last wife of Henry VIII, who continued to be
known as Queen even after her marriage to Lord Seymour of Sudeley (and, indeed, she disputed precedence with the wife of her brother-in-law the Duke of Somerset on this basis).

This usage died out later in the twentieth century, and women who remarry now ordinarily take a new married name and do not retain their former title. However, they may choose to continue use of the courtesy title per Cowley v. Cowley.

Having written a large portion of the article that was taken from I am fully aware of how a widow and divorce are styled. BTW, Wikipedia is possibly the worst place to find accurate information concerning titles and styles.

[Jo of Palatine]

Originally Posted by Lalla Meriem

Debrett's and Black's both list the specifications that allow one to be styled as a dowager. Both specifically state that the new holder must be the direct decendant of her late husband. I believe Burke's does also say this in the actual book form.

Dowager Peeresses

The quote in the article of Debrett's does not state this definately.
As for Black's: we have today the 22nd revised edition and the quote was from the 5th edition. Is it still state of the art? And why is this information not to be found at Burke's online if it is an important part of the specifications?

The article you pointed to does sound well-researched, but apart of it I couldn't trace this information but found several sources who disputes it (Wiki being only one of them). The term used there is that the Dowager needs to be an "ancestor" of the new holder of the title - can somebody being a "step-ancestor"?

[Lalla Meriem]

Originally Posted by Jo of Palatine

The quote in the article of Debrett's does not state this definately.

It seemed pretty definative to me.

As for Black's: we have today the 22nd revised edition and the quote was from the 5th edition. Is it still state of the art? And why is this information not to be found at Burke's online if it is an important part of the specifications?

Still state of the art? Yes, the correct usage of Dowager as a style has not changed. I doubt that it has ever changed. It's certainly never changed dramatically. Most women in modern years have chosen not to even use it and prefer the form of an ex-wife of a peer. The article cites the 5th edition because it is quite old and is based on historical precendents.

I have no idea why it isn't in the online edition of Burke's. I prefer Debrett's to Burke's. I prefer to do most of my research in books not online.

The article you pointed to does sound well-researched, but apart of it I couldn't trace this information but found several sources who disputes it (Wiki being only one of them). The term used there is that the Dowager needs to be an "ancestor" of the new holder of the title - can somebody being a "step-ancestor"?

The article is well researched. I would never trust Wikipedia I've seen to many editors remove factual information and replace it with inaccurate inforamtion perpetuated by the media. I trust Debrett's, Black's and other respected publications. I wrote part of that article for wikipedia, specifically portions about widows, divorces and courtesy titles.

You only listed one article that disputes it, and as a contributor to that article I can tell you affirmatively that it should not be a first or even last stop for information.

The status as Dowager has nothing to do with her relationship with the current title holder. It is based on her husband's relationship to that title holder. If the title is inherited by his brother then she's not a dowager if it is inherited by his son or grandson then she may style herself as dowager unless their is already Dowager (senior widow).

[Jo of Palatine]

Originally Posted by Lalla Meriem

Debrett's and Black's both list the specifications that allow one to be styled as a dowager. Both specifically state that the new holder must be the direct decendant of her late husband. I believe Burke's does also say this in the actual book form.

Dowager Peeresses

The quote in the article of Debrett's does not state this definately.
As for Black's: we have today the 22nd revised edition and the quote was from the 5th edition. Is it still state of the art? And why is this information not to be found at Burke's online if it is an important part of the specifications?

Originally Posted by Lalla Meriem

Debrett's and Black's both list the specifications that allow one to be styled as a dowager. Both specifically state that the new holder must be the direct decendant of her late husband. I believe Burke's does also say this in the actual book form.

Dowager Peeresses

The quote in the article of Debrett's does not state this definately.
As for Black's: we have today the 22nd revised edition and the quote was from the 5th edition. Is it still state of the art? And why is this information not to be found at Burke's online if it is an important part of the specifications?

Went on to checking further and found several cases (documented by various guides to the peerage) where the widowed stepmother of the next holder of the title is named "The Dowager...". Eg. The Dowager Lady Sutherland", born Judith Tichbourne, third wife of Sir Charles Spencer, 3rd Earl of Sunderland, whose son from the second marriage, a step-spn of Judith, became the next earl.

[Charlotte1]

Originally Posted by CasiraghiTrio

It can't have been too hard for Churchill to work something out for Princess Marina, can it? She carried out a full load of engagements, right? In the case of Prince and Princess Michael, it's another matter because Prince Michael has a private sector job, right? And Princess Michael writes her history books, so.... given they don't do engagements anymore, I guess they're just taking up space at KP. #10 KP is a big L-shaped house and can be used for something else, like a residence for William or Harry when they marry.
.

Marina found herself in financial difficulties because once her husband died his income from the Civil List stopped. There was no provision for it to be paid to his widow. Money from his will had been placed in trust for his children. Can't remember the exact details as to why Marina at the time couldn't be placed on the Civil List but it had something to do with the fact that George VI didn't have much money as he had been forced to buy back Sandringham and Balmoral from his brother ( Duke of Windsor) as both properties were inherited by him. At the time the royal funds were quite low and the government didn't want this to be made public. Marina was left to fend for herself, she did threaten Churchill that unless she received some money she would be forced to take her children and live in Greece with her mother. Even so Marina remained short of money and was forced to sell paintings and antiques Prince George, Duke of Kent had furnished their home with. She also sold jewels to pay for her children's school fees. Marina was finally given a pension in the 1950's 11 years after her husband died, it was quite a modest pension at that.
Prince Michael of Kent continued to live in his mother's appartment in KP, he's not obligated to carry out official engagement and neither is the princess but they do carry some out. The Queen reimburses them for their expenses when they do carry out engagements on her behalf. Michael has patronages and honourary appointments to the military.

KP was in the past the place for elderly royal relatives to live, it was known as 'the aunt heap' as at one time there were quite a few elderly princesses living there. Now it seems it's being converted into exhibition, storage and office space. Diana's old appartments are now offices, Princess Margaret's are exhibition space.

[Duke of Thora]

Marina didn't just have to beg for maoney, she had to have a 'firesale' of all their fabulous faberge for a pittance. She was reduced to living on the Duke's war service pension, which considering both David and bertie were fabulusly wealthy says a lot about Christian charity in that family

[Lalla Meriem]

Originally Posted by Jo of Palatine

Went on to checking further and found several cases (documented by various guides to the peerage) where the widowed stepmother of the next holder of the title is named "The Dowager...". Eg. The Dowager Lady Sutherland", born Judith Tichbourne, third wife of Sir Charles Spencer, 3rd Earl of Sunderland, whose son from the second marriage, a step-spn of Judith, became the next earl.

This is what I have been saying all along. I know that a widow who is the step mother of the new title holder is a dowager you were saying that it must be her child not merely a step child.

I'm sure one could find numerous Dowager X of X where the Dowager is the step mother of the current X of X.

{Personal comment deleted - Elspeth}

[Duke of Thora]

The Duchy of Cornwall does not revert to the Crown. That 'reversion' duchy is by attainder The Duchy of Lancaster which always embodies in the person of the monarch. The Queen is the current Duke of Lancaster. The Duchy of Cornwall, like its Scots counterpart the Duchy of Rothesay, are the two subsidiary titles that attain to the Prince of wales, like Earl Carrick, Baron Renfrew and Lord of the Isles. If in her lifetime, if Charles were to pass away, on William's accession to the title Prince of Wales, Camilla would be Dowager Duchess of Cornwall and Dowager Princess of Wales. Camilla is by law Princess of Wales, but simply does not use that title because of public anxiety vis a vis Diana. If anyone disbelieves this I suggest you check with Debretts.