Questions about Future Queens, Dowagers and Surviving Spouses

[Elspeth]

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.

 

[wbenson]

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.

Assuming such a republic cared.

 

[Jo of Palatine]

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.

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....

I'd have opted for the Duchess-title as well, considering this.

 

[Jo of Palatine]

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.

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.

 

[Jo of Palatine]

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

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.

 

[Jo of Palatine]

The British Empire was successful in quelling the unrest among rebels and withstanding the ravages of time. Alas… These glorious times passed away.

LOL. Quite the way to describe rather unhappy and bloody times...

 

[Elspeth]

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.

 

[Lalla Meriem]

Assuming such a republic cared.

It wouldn't matter. They would still have to escape the European Court if they took the property.

 

[Warren]

The ex-Tsar of Bulgaria still lives there. He even was Prime Minister fairly recently.

Aren't you forgetting King Simeon's fifty or so years of exile while the communists controlled Bulgaria?

 

[Lalla Meriem]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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....

If she were using the Wales title she would be styled as a Dowager unless another arrangment was made for her similar to Marina and Alice.

 

[Lalla Meriem]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?

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]

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]

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.

 

[CasiraghiTrio]

I don't think funds were low for George VI at all. In fact, they were astonishingly high. He was able to amass quite a stockpile fortune on account of the war, something to do with interest rates being high. I don't know why because I'm stupid about economics but for some reason the war made interest rates high so income was very high, but materials were also in high demand, going off to the front lines, which meant people had tons of money but nothing to spend it on! So the royal family were able to amass a massive stash.

All the same, it's possible George VI couldn't get Princess Marina on the Civil List because at the time, as now I guess, Parliament was pretty suspicious of minor royals. Did Prince George leave the Coppins property to Princess Marina? About KP, I've seen the "aunt heap" reference actually as the "ant heap". Also I've seen it called the "royal ghetto". Seriously, though, it's much lovlier on the outside than St James or BP.

 

[Lalla Meriem]

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

She couldn't have sold all of it off because Prince Michael inherited many pieces of Faberge from her which he, in turn, has had to sell off to pay debts and maintain his standard of living. Princess Michael has also had to sell many of the diamonds she inherited from her father and, apparently, even removed some of the stones from the Kent jewelry that Prince Michael inherited and sold those, as well.

King George (Bertie) wasn't fabulously weatlhy. An incoming King's wealth has always been largely from either inheritance (which George used to pay of his brother) or from their earnings as Duke of Cornwall. King George wasn't the Duke of Cornwall. The Duke of Windsor's personal fortune came from his years as Duke of Cornwall. King George would have started to aquire the earnings from the Duchy of Lancaster after his ascension which would have added up quickly.

The Duke of Windsor only associated with members of his family who treated his wife fairly well. The Duchess controlled David and his pocket book and she wouldn't have let a penny go until she died.

 

[Duke of Thora]

The mess of the title 'Princess Consort' is also a global legal nightmare. Every commonwealth country where Charles would be King would have to pass immediate legislation validating this lesser title, by which time not only would the accession council have taken place, but the Garter King of Arms would have pronounced the formal assumption. At that moment, Camilla automatically becomes queen, and there is nothing that can be done about it. The same would have been true for Wallis Simpson. If David had held his nerve, been crowned, and then married Wallis, nothing in the world could have stopped her being Queen Wallis. The British government certainly precipitated the Abdication crisis because it knew this was the legal position. The same stands as Charles and Camilla are already married.

 

[Duke of Thora]

I suppose it all boils down to the idea of what is fabulously wealthy. Maybe Marina didn't immediately deacquisition all the family Faberge, but Michael was also a grandson of Queen Mary, who only died on 1953. She had a sensational collection, especially of parasol handles. The full trove of 'goodies' that were acquired from the Romanov cousins will never probably be known, but we do have good evidence that Mary was a little slippery with her accounts, according to affadavits filed by both GD Olga and Xenia, who were adamant they never received the full amount for the sale of Minnies jewels. It is unlikely that Q. Mary did not make provision for all her grandchildren. I have copy of english Country Life from the 1960 enumerating Duchess's Marina's Faberge sale, and many of the animal pieces were knocked down at Christies for little more the one hundred pounds. Michael and Marie Christine have always lived in debt, and Pcs Alexandra has hardly ever been looked upon as 'extravagant.

 

[Lalla Meriem]

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.

The Duchy of Cornwall is not a subsidiary title of anything and has nothing to do with one also being the Prince of Wales. One is created Prince of Wales. However, the inheritance of the Duchy of Cornwall is always automatic and is governed by Charter. One can be the Duke of Cornwall without ever being Prince of Wales and vice versa. Charles became The Duke of Cornwall in 1952 but didn't become Prince of Wales until 1958 (his actual investiture was more than a decade later).

There is no reversion with the Duchy of Lancaster. The title Duke of Lancaster is always occupied. The moment the Queen dies Charles will become King and The Duke of Lancaster and William will become the Duke of Cornwall and Duke of Rothesay, et al, he will not, however, become Prince of Wales until Charles bestowes the title on him.

The Scottish titles Duke of Rothesay, including those of , Earl Carrick, Baron of Renfrew, Lord of the Isles and Prince and Great Steward of Scotland are also automatcially inherited by the eldest son of the Monarch and have nothing what-so-ever to do with one being the Prince of Wales.

The Dukedoms of Cornwall and Rothesay and their attached titles are not subsidiary titles of 'Prince of Wales' or any other title. If you doubt this you can check the Charter of 1421.

William could not become Duke of Cornwall if his father were to die before the Queen. He would, however, as the next heir apparant automatically become Duke of Rothesay, et al, under the Act of 1469.