The ex-Tsar of Bulgaria still lives there. He even was Prime Minister fairly recently.
He does now. He returned after a 50-year exile. The royal family was thrown out of the country when the republic was declared.
The ex-Tsar of Bulgaria still lives there. He even was Prime Minister fairly recently.
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.
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.
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.
How many previous cases are there where ex-monarchs have been allowed to stay in their countries?
The British Empire was successful in quelling the unrest among rebels and withstanding the ravages of time. Alas… These glorious times passed away.
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.
Assuming such a republic cared.
Aren't you forgetting King Simeon's fifty or so years of exile while the communists controlled Bulgaria?The ex-Tsar of Bulgaria still lives there. He even was Prime Minister fairly recently.
HM can't create William duke of Cornwall as this title is reserved for the eldest son of the monarch. If this eldest son dies with issue, the title is reserved for the eldest son of the next monarch - in this case William's son. But she can create William The Prince of Wales as this tile is reserved for the heir apparent, eben if this heir is "just" the direct-line grandson of the monarch.
Camilla could then choose to be known as HRH Camilla, Princess of Wales (as William's wife would be The Princess of Wales then) or HRH The Duchess of Cornwall because till William's son marries (and William is then the monarch), there won't be another Duchess of Cornwall. She could not opt for "The Dowager Princess of Wales" as she is not William's mother. I have no doubt which option she would choose.
Makes me even wonder, if pre-planning for the (not so unlikely) event of Charles' predesceasing his mother had something to do with the "duchess of Cornwall"-thing. If Camilla would be known as "The Princess of Wales" instead of "The Duchess of Cornwall", she would in this case automatically become Camilla, Princess of Wales - the only difference to Diana would be the fact that she still has the HRH, of course.
But I can imagine the horror Charles must have felt on imagining himself as not longer there to protect Camilla and Camilla officially having to use the name Camilla, princess of Wales....
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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"?
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
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
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.
.
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.
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
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.