Questions about Future Queens, Dowagers and Surviving Spouses


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Let's not forget that Diana and Raine did reconcile somewhat a few years later. Regardless of the issues the children had with Raine, she nursed the Earl in his bad health and stayed with him. It was extremely inappropriate of Diana and her brother to throw Raine out like that-regardless of their reasons. The woman had taken care of their father! Anyway.....

I'm curious about something. When Charles takes the throne, Camilla will become Queen Consort; if Charles predeceases Camilla, what would happen to her title? Can she lose title rank like that? I know she couldn't technically be the Queen Mother, not being the mother of the King. But, wouldn't she still be the Dowager Queen? I don't see how it could possible be right to demote her to Princess after she is Queen.
 
If she is already Queen Consort and then if Charles predeceases her, then she will be Dowager Queen Camilla. If it's the case of her being Princess Consort, as Clarence House asserts, then I believe she would remain HRH Princess Camilla. I am sure, like you, that she will be Queen Consort, then Dowager Queen. Either way, I don't see how she can ever be demoted below HRH. IF Queen Consort/Dowager Queen, then she is HM. If Princess Consort, etc. always HRH but never less than that. Widowhood can never be a case for losing HRH or HM status. Only divorce or renunciation, or for a monarch abdication, I am sure, can be a case for that.
 
Thank you, CasiraghiTrio, for that nice explanation.
I DO hope that Camilla becomes Queen Consort, then Dowager Queen (Not that I want anything to happen to Charles, mind you). I don't care for the HRH The Princess Consort mess. She should be an HM The Queen Consort. I stand on tradition!
 
I think it depends on how long they have been married. After all the Duke of E was only made a Prince of the United Kingdom when he had been 'married into the family' for 11 years.

Nine years and three months. Married November 1947. Created Prince of the UK February 1957.
 
I want to thank everyone for all the valuable and interesting information. The whole topic of the Royal Family and how it functions is absolutely enthralling to me. I am going to need to go back to my favorite used book store and make some additional purchases. THANK YOU ALL AGAIN! :)
 
Where will William and Henry live when Charles becomes King. any ideas

Clarence House is big enough to accomodate both until they marry and have families. William is likely to continue to reside there until he becomes King himself.
 
That is if he becomes King. If Britain became a republic during that time, they'd have to (shock, horror) work for a living and rent somewhere.
 
Well, I don't know how it's worked out but I assume that the Queen would create Camilla a Princess in her own right so she'd become HRH Princess Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall or HRH Princess Camilla, Princess of Wales. I think she'd continue using Clarence House as her office and London residence whilst using Highgrove and Ray Mill as her country pads. And financially, she'd have her own wealth, her money she gets for carrying out engagements and anything Charles has left her in his will.

I doubt The Queen would be inclined to be that generous. She is not the mother of the two heirs and was not given court precedence as a princess, so that's highly unlikely, to say the least.

Camilla is quite wealthy in her own right and Charles created several trusts for her and the Parker-Bowles children before they married, so she is set financially no matter what.

As to whether she would continue to carry out any royal engagements or be an active member of the royal family, that would be up to her.
 
That is if he becomes King. If Britain became a republic during that time, they'd have to (shock, horror) work for a living and rent somewhere.

I doubt Britain will become a republic anytime soon.
 
I doubt The Queen would be inclined to be that generous. She is not the mother of the two heirs and was not given court precedence as a princess, so that's highly unlikely, to say the least.
Ah but we're talking about a death here and there'll need to be some clearly defined role for Camilla as a widow, in which case I can only think of a Marina or Alice type precedent for the Queen to follow.

I doubt Britain will become a republic anytime soon.

Next five years? No. Next 10 years? No. Next 20 years? I should have something rustled up by then. ;)
 
Ah but we're talking about a death here and there'll need to be some clearly defined role for Camilla as a widow, in which case I can only think of a Marina or Alice type precedent for the Queen to follow.



Next five years? No. Next 10 years? No. Next 20 years? I should have something rustled up by then. ;)

If it's 20 years, then more than likely it will fall on Charles' watch, not William's. In which case Charles will have to get a job and work for a living and pay rent as well. 20 years will be around Coronation time, given QEII's family longevity.
 
That is if he becomes King. If Britain became a republic during that time, they'd have to (shock, horror) work for a living and rent somewhere.

I don't understand how some people want England to become a republic.
And what would happen to all the palaces and jewels.
 
Oh please, if government hinged on palaces and jewels, Imelda Marcos would be world dictator by now. The Palaces simply become museums and the Royal Family keep their jewels to wear to birthdays and the like when they fancy re-living old times. Simple.
 
Well imo England will still be a monarchy during and after William's reign.
 
Bear in mind that when you talk of England you're talking of one part of the union and with the Scots on the road to independance now, England will have to decide whether it keeps the Crown or not and I don't see it retaining it.
 
Yup. One wonders what would happen to the surviving spouse of a former Royal of a constituent country in the Union? For example, if England got rid of the RF and Scotland kept the monarchy, would the whole RF relocate to Balmoral and Holyrood, surviving spouses and all? A former Queen in one and a Queen in another I suppose.
 
I think if Britain became a republic, the senior royals would be expected to move out of the country. The new order wouldn't want the ex-King around as a focus for people unhappy with things.

However, in the event that Britain stays a monarchy and the senior royals die in the order expected (ie, the Queen predeceases Charles and Camilla, and Charles dies before his sons), both William and Harry will need somewhere to live separate from their father if they get married in his lifetime; if they get married during the Queen's lifetime there'll be even fewer choices for them. I doubt Charles would give up Highgrove unless he was able to take over the running of Windsor; if he's King when William marries, it's possible that William will get Highgrove. Since Highgrove is owned by the Duchy of Cornwall, I assume that'd rule out Harry as the next occupant.

The Royal Lodge would be one obvious place for one of the King's sons, but that would depend on Andrew finding somewhere else to live, which is unlikely. And given its association with the Duke of Windsor, I doubt that Fort Belvedere will be turned back into a royal residence any time soon.
 
The new order wouldn't want the ex-King around as a focus for people unhappy with things.
The European Court of Human Rights would never wear that. I think in that situation, it'd be a case of allowing them one private residence such as Sandringham and then leaving them to get on with it. Those over 60 wouldn't get the state pension though as they've never paid for any stamps. The younger ones would be entitled to Job Seeker's Allowance until they found full time work but it depends on how the money is dished out when the Republic comes. I imagine any Royal widows over the age of 60 would be treated with kid gloves.
 
The European Court of Human Rights would never wear that.

How many previous cases are there where ex-monarchs have been allowed to stay in their countries?

Maybe if William is deposed and Camilla is still alive, she'd be allowed to stay on at Raymill House or Highgrove, but I doubt that Mr and Mrs William Mountbatten-Windsor would be welcome.
 
Oh if Britain deposes the monarchy, William and Harry both and their wives would find a nice couple of game estates in Africa and live quite contendedly.
With the money they inherit from Diana and god knows what from Charles, the Queen Mother, and whoever else, they will be fine no matter what happens. :)
 
If Britain became a republic, especially within the next few decades, then it still will most likely have been impossible to convince all 10 provinces of Canada to sign on to any such thing. Tiny Prince Edward Island (pop 135,000) has the right to block any move to change the monarchy, even if all of the rest of Canada agrees, as do all other provinces. They can all move into Rideau Hall.

Even if all 16 states became republics, the family would still most likely be able to take care of itself (at least the central members) without going into the workforce for a couple of generations.
 
How many previous cases are there where ex-monarchs have been allowed to stay in their countries?

The ex-Tsar of Bulgaria still lives there. He even was Prime Minister fairly recently.
 
Joining this discussion, I would like to note the following. The course of history indicated that different parts of the UK, especially Scotland and Northern Ireland, attempted to overthrow the British rule. The British Empire was successful in quelling the unrest among rebels and withstanding the ravages of time. Alas… These glorious times passed away. The current times have prompted the members of the Commonwealth to examine the partnership through the prism of economic pragmatism. This may spur certain countries and the parts of the UK to demand sovereignty.
At the same time, I strongly believe that the British monarchy is highly unlikely to be abolished any time soon. However, if it does happen, the British Royal family will be forced to exile the country. They may be given some of their estates to reside in.
As for financial situation Duchess of Cornwall as a royal widow, it might be safely presumed that Prince Charles has taken care of her and possibly her children, especially his so-pro-organic godson. After all, Prince of Wales has got financial means to fund his organic whims.
 
That is if he becomes King. If Britain became a republic during that time, they'd have to (shock, horror) work for a living and rent somewhere.


Why would they need to rent anywhere? The Queen privately owns both Balmoral Castle and Sandringham Estate. Neither of these are part of the Crown Estate and are her private property. Her father actually purchased Sandringham from his brother The Duke of Windsor, who had inherited it, after his abdication.

Both the Queen and The Prince of Wales have rather large private estates entirely outside of the realm of the state and Crown Properties that they are allowed to use.
 
Both the Queen and The Prince of Wales have rather large private estates entirely outside of the realm of the state and Crown Properties that they are allowed to use.

I know it's true for the Queen, but not sure about the Prince of Wales. His assets are tied up in the Duchy of Cornwall, aren't they?
If Britain becomes a republic, the Duchy of Cornwall reverts to Parliament, or no?
 
I think if Britain became a republic, the senior royals would be expected to move out of the country. The new order wouldn't want the ex-King around as a focus for people unhappy with things.

However, in the event that Britain stays a monarchy and the senior royals die in the order expected (ie, the Queen predeceases Charles and Camilla, and Charles dies before his sons), both William and Harry will need somewhere to live separate from their father if they get married in his lifetime; if they get married during the Queen's lifetime there'll be even fewer choices for them. I doubt Charles would give up Highgrove unless he was able to take over the running of Windsor; if he's King when William marries, it's possible that William will get Highgrove. Since Highgrove is owned by the Duchy of Cornwall, I assume that'd rule out Harry as the next occupant.

The Royal Lodge would be one obvious place for one of the King's sons, but that would depend on Andrew finding somewhere else to live, which is unlikely. And given its association with the Duke of Windsor, I doubt that Fort Belvedere will be turned back into a royal residence any time soon.

The Crown Properites are VERY extensive. There are numerous estates that either William or Harry could live at, many of them stupendously grand.

However, one would expect that Charles would follow the example of his Mother who purchased either a home or paid for renevations to an estate that belonged to the Crown Property Service (Bagshot Park for Edward and Sophie) for each of her children to live in. The Queen purchased Anne's estate, she paid for the land and building of Sunninghill Park, and paid for the renevations to Bagshot Park for which Edward was given a VERY long lease to. Highgrove was purchased by Charles via his Duchy holdings.

William and Harry have each inherited enough money from their Mother to purchase their own home and live well without ever working. Additionally, they each are beneficiaries of trusts established by their grand mother The Queen, their grandfather The Earl Spencer, and by Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother.

If England were to become a republic it would be an extremely messy divorce. The line between what is the Queen's property and what is Crown Property is very blurred in many cases. In many cases, the Crown has taken property, jewelry and posessions that were purchased, inherited (either from other British royals or from foreign royal familes) or gifted to numerous members of the royal family in the past.
 
I know it's true for the Queen, but not sure about the Prince of Wales. His assets are tied up in the Duchy of Cornwall, aren't they?
If Britain becomes a republic, the Duchy of Cornwall reverts to Parliament, or no?


Charles is The Duke of Cornwall and has enjoyed a rather large income (in excess of 10 million pounds) from it each year which he pays taxes on. That income is his and would not revert to the government - not legally, anyway. His stewardship has lead the Duchy to become far more profitable that it ever has been. The Queen also recieves income from the Duchy of Lancaster as she is The Duke (not Duchess) of Lancaster.

The Duchy of Cornwall is by Charter of 1421 held by the Sovereign's eldest son and heir and is not inherited by his children if the holder dies before he inherits the throne. If the heir was a grand child of the monarch or a women they would not be hold the title.

The charter that governs the transmission of the Duchy has no provisions for inheritance by any other method than as the eldest son of the Sovereign. If the monarchy would cease during the Queen's life I doubt that Charles would cease to be the Duke of Cornwall. Without amendment to the Charter he could only cease to be the Duke of Cornwall by his own death or inheritance of the throne, by my reading of the charter.

Both the Duchy of Cornwall and the Duchy of Lancaster are governed by very different rules than any "mere" peerage. The Duchy of Lancaster is the personal property of the Queen and is inherited seperately from other Crown possessions. The Ducy of Lancaster, which is the Queen's private property, is valued in excess of 300 million pounds. I doubt any decendant of Queen Elizabeth II would need to rent a flat if the country were to become a republic. The Privy Purse funds are all derived from profits from The Duchy of Lancaster which are used to pay for the offical functions of numerous Royals (the Kents, et al).

The Duchy of Cornwall and The Duchy of Lancaster are not typical peerages nor are they Crown Property. They are actual landed estates the only true landed estates that still exist in England. Each is a "county palatine" and are uniquely held and maintained.

The personal wealth of each British monarch since 1399 has been largely the product of their status as The Duke of Lancaster (in addition to inherited wealth from those who were foreign royals). Many items purchased by monarchs using their personal wealth have been siezed and are now part of the Crown Properties (which includes artwork, stamps, jewels, land, ect...)

It's not like they can issue a law that strips them of all their money and property. We can't forget that the European Court recently ordered Greece to compensate King Konstantinos for property that they siezed following the fall of the monarchy there. The case that could arise in from the UK becoming a repuplic without reaching a settlement with the royal family could be massive. So, massive that it could bankrupt the new government. The Bavarian Royals still benefit from the settlement their family recieved when the Kingdom of Bavaria ceased to exist. A similar arragement would be in the best interest of any respectable nation that wouldn't take the route similar to that of Iran or China.

Additionally, I seriously doubt that they would be asked or forced to leave the country. I would imagine that it would be similar to how things worked in any of the 28 former monarchies that make up Germany. The families remain they are wealthy, respected, still hold many assests from their days as reigning families, work real jobs and still, generally, preform "royal" duties such as charity engagements.
 
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.

In the case of Charles predeceasing Camilla if still Prince of Wales, I bet HM would let her continue using Clarence House for her office but she would likely be all the time at Ray Mill, her own private haven no doubt. Highgrove is the property of the Duchy of Cornwall, right? If HM made William Duke of Cornwall in the case of Charles predeceasing HM, I guess Highgrove would automatically be of use to William.


If Charles were to predecease his mother Prince William could not become the Duke of Cornwall. One may only become the Duke of Cornwall if you are both the eldest son (not grandson) of the monarch and heir to the throne. You may be the eldest son without being heir and you can be heir without being the eldest son. The title would remain vacant until William became King and had is own son. That is how the charter that regulates the transmission has worked since 1421. I doubt that the Queen would alter it.

The Queen currently pays the rent (more than 100,000 pounds per year) for the Kensington Palace apartment of Prince Michael out of respect for the fact that they have always preformed numerous charity, offical and public functions which they have to pay for themselves.

Charles is exceptionally wealthy. I am certain that he has a will that will provide for his wife and children in the event of his own death. Camilla will never want for anything if Charles dies.

There is nothing that would prevent William, Harry or Camilla from using the Duchy Home Farm (Highgrove) in the event that Charles should die before his mother. The Duchy would continue to run and be managed the same as it is now.

I suspect that Camilla would become known as HRH Princess Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall in the tradition established by the Queen on behalf of widowed royal wives during her reign. However, this is not and cannot be construed as creating them princesses in their own right. Neither, Marina or Alice was created a princess of the United Kingdom of Great Britian and Northern Ireland in their own right. The Queen merely allowed them to be known as such. Camilla could also use the traditional form for a Dowager Duchess if no such arrangement was made for her.

There are plenty of apartments in Windsor, Buckingham, St. James....ect that William or Harry could live in. There is no need to evict the Kent's from KP or Prince Andrew from Royal Lodge. Not to mention, the extinsive holdings of the Crown, The Duchy of Lancaster and the Duchy of Cornwall. There are litearlly thousands of dwellings (many extremely posh) owned by each of the aforementioned entities.
 
The European Court of Human Rights would never wear that. I think in that situation, it'd be a case of allowing them one private residence such as Sandringham and then leaving them to get on with it. Those over 60 wouldn't get the state pension though as they've never paid for any stamps. The younger ones would be entitled to Job Seeker's Allowance until they found full time work but it depends on how the money is dished out when the Republic comes. I imagine any Royal widows over the age of 60 would be treated with kid gloves.


Sandringham is already a private residence. The Queen owns both Sandrigham and Balmoral outright a new republic would have no say over how these properties are delt with.
 
Back
Top Bottom