Questions about future Queens, Dowagers and surviving spouses

[Lalla Meriem]

Originally Posted by 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.

Large portions of Queen Mary's estate including many of the jewels she aquired during her life are now part of the Crown Collection and could not be inherited by anyone.

If I recall correctly Prince Michael indicated that his Faberge that was sold was inherited from his mother. The also still have a rather nice collection of Faberge. I have no idea if the remaining pieces were from Princess Marina or Queen Mary.

In 2004 Caroline de Guitaut published book The Definative Guide to Faberge in the Royal Collection which lists the Faberge that has been owned or collected by the RF which would probably have more information if anyone has it.

[BeatrixFan]

I think the assumption is that a republic would go the way of Russia and take away everything the Crown owned and throw the Royals out of the country. But I don't see that happening. If we did become a republic, I assume that the RF would be entitled to keep their private estates but that in itself could cause controversy. Do they really need Sandringham and Balmoral? And who really paid for them when the money they used to buy them in the first place came from the people? It all gets very complex.

[Elspeth]

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.

This is what happened when the Duke of Clarence and Avondale predeceased his father without having children. The second son, the future George V, became Duke of Cornwall and York when Edward VII became King.

[CasiraghiTrio]

Originally Posted by Elspeth

This is what happened when the Duke of Clarence and Avondale predeceased his father without having children. The second son, the future George V, became Duke of Cornwall and York when Edward VII became King.

And also the same for young Prince Edward also known as David. He became Duke of Cornwall in 1910 when his father became George V and then was invested as Prince of Wales in the next year. But the investiture isn't necessary. Queen Victoria and Edward VII both just made their sons Prince of Wales.... by announcement, right?
This is where I am confused. Why did the Queen have to announce Charles was Duke of Cornwall? Wasn't he automatically Duke of Cornwall on her Accession? Also, was he automatically Duke of Rothesay in Scotland?

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by CasiraghiTrio

Why did the Queen have to announce Charles was Duke of Cornwall? Wasn't he automatically Duke of Cornwall on her Accession? Also, was he automatically Duke of Rothesay in Scotland?

He was automatically Duke of Rothesey, Earl of Carrick, Lord of the Isle's and Prince and Great Steward of Scotland, in Scotland, as the Heir Apparent!
The title Duke of Cornwall is also his by right, as the eldest son of the monarch.

[spain55]

If Charles predeceases HM, then Prince Harry's children would not be entitled to the style and title of HRH Prince/Princess as they would only be great-grandchildren of the monarch since Charles would never be King. Do you think HM would issue Letters Patent allowing them the use of HRH Prince/Prince, which they would have been entitled to had Charles ascended the throne? Also, it's interesting to note that any children born to Wiliam and Harry (save the eldest son of William) will not be entitled to the use of HRH Prince/Princess until and if Charles ascends.

[Elspeth]

Originally Posted by Lalla Meriem

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

What could the European Court do if they refused to acknowledge the ruling and pulled out of the EU?

[Elspeth]

Originally Posted by Charlotte1

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.

I think it had something to do with the fact that during and just after the war, Britain was in a very shaky financial state, unemployment was high, there were massive debts, and the government was dealing with an upsurge in socialist sentiment. Even though Marina was poor by comparison with the other royals, she was unimaginably rich compared with most of the British people, who were living in very difficult times (rationing didn't stop till nearly 10 years after the end of the war), and it'd have looked bad for a royal even as popular as Princess Marina to be asking the government for money when the royal family was so wealthy.

There must be a way to pay widows from the Civil List because Princess Alice Duchess of Gloucester received Civil List income after her husband died. And of course the Queen Mother was getting money from the Civil List right up till her death. Maybe the provisions of the Civil List were unshakeably fixed at the time of George VI's accession and couldn't be changed until the next reign, but it sounds somewhat more like an exercise in public relations than anything else.

[Elspeth]

Originally Posted by 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.

I've heard people claim this before, and I'm not sure about the reasoning behind it. A coronation doesn't render a monarch incapable of abdicating. Being crowned and then marrying would have got round the problem where the Archbishop might have refused to perform the coronation (OK, I suppose "would have refused" is more likely with Archbishop Lang), but, even supposing that a CofE clergyman could have been found who would have married the King to a divorcee, why would the fact that he'd already been crowned protect him from intolerable pressure by his various governments?

[ysbel]

I believe the Civil List goes to the monarch and the heir, right? So the group of widows that it would affect now is considerably smaller than before.

[CasiraghiTrio]

Originally Posted by ysbel

I believe the Civil List goes to the monarch and the heir, right? So the group of widows that it would affect now is considerably smaller than before.

I thought the Civil List money was only distributed to the Monarch, who then distributes it to his/her family excepting the Heir Apparent, who has the Duchy of Cornwall. If there is only an Heir Presumptive, as in the case of Princess Elizabeth, she receives a Civil List pension. This may be wrong, so if I am to stand corrected, so be it.

[Lalla Meriem]

Originally Posted by Elspeth

What could the European Court do if they refused to acknowledge the ruling and pulled out of the EU?

I think that is less likely to happen than even removing the monarchy.

[Lalla Meriem]

Originally Posted by CasiraghiTrio

Queen Victoria and Edward VII both just made their sons Prince of Wales.... by announcement, right?
This is where I am confused. Why did the Queen have to announce Charles was Duke of Cornwall? Wasn't he automatically Duke of Cornwall on her Accession? Also, was he automatically Duke of Rothesay in Scotland?

Queen Victoria would have issued Letters Patent or a Royal Warrant to confer the Wales title as it has no automatic succession. I can check the London Gazette later today to see which.

She didn't have to announce that he was Duke of Cornwall. He became Duke of Cornwall the moment she became Queen. She didn't need to confer it upon him or make a statement. The monarch cannot confer the Cornwall title the succession to the title is based on historical Charter and never needs to be conferred upon anyone.

Yes, Charles also automatically became Duke of Rothesay, et al, when he became heir apparant to the throne of Scotland upon the ascension of his mother. However, one can be Duke of Rothesay without ever being Prince of Wales or Duke of Cornwall.

The Wales, Cornwall and Rothesay titles are each independant of the other. They are generally held by the same person but you can be one without the other two, ect... a person is always created Prince of Wales nothing is automatic about it.

Cornwall and it's attached peerages are automatically inherited by the eldest son of the incoming monarch upon acension provided that son is also heir. It is never inherited by a women or grand child.

Rothesay is governed by a seperate Scottish Act. It is also inherited automatically by the eldest son or heir apparant of the new monarch. However, in the event that the Duke of Rothesay were to die before the King/Queen his eldest son would automatically inherit the title upon his death.

In other words, if Charles were to die today (God forbid) William would automatically become the Duke of Rothesay, et al, in Scotland but he could never become Duke of Cornwall and The Queen would have to create him Prince of Wales but she wouldn't be required to.

[Lalla Meriem]

Originally Posted by CasiraghiTrio

I thought the Civil List money was only distributed to the Monarch, who then distributes it to his/her family excepting the Heir Apparent, who has the Duchy of Cornwall. If there is only an Heir Presumptive, as in the case of Princess Elizabeth, she receives a Civil List pension. This may be wrong, so if I am to stand corrected, so be it.

The Queen doesn't distribute any Civil List money. She uses her Privy Purse funds which come from the Ducy of Lancaster to pay for other members of the Royal Family. Civil List funds may only be used by The Queen and Prince Phillip and for the Queen Mother during her lifetime.

The Civil List funds are used to pay staff, up keep the Royal Household, state visits, engagements, ect...I imagine it doesn't go very far given the number of staff who require salary and pensions and the cost of fulfilling her duties as Queen.

The civil list totals 7,900,000 pounds per year until 2010. The Queen is very frugal. She has created a reserve by not spending all the funds that is carried over annually for several years now. She really is making good use of the money and saving when she can.

If you look at all the figures the British Monarchy his actually a very good deal. The tax payers actually pay very little for the operation of the monarchy less than .50 per person anually (I think its actually like .39 cents). When you look at the real numbers argument for getting rid of it based on money alone seems ridiculous. They generate more tourist revenues than that annually.

[ysbel]

OK then for most of the Royal widows, except for the widow of a King, the Civil List is not really relevant, is it?

[CasiraghiTrio]

Originally Posted by Lalla Meriem