Duchy of Cornwall


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Prince Charles's secret veto documents to be released | UK news | The Guardian

Secret documents detailing the use by Prince Charles of his little-known power of veto over government bills must be released, the information commissioner has ruled.

The arrangement has been described as akin to a royal "nuclear deterrent" over government legislation. There is no evidence that the prince has ever exercised the veto.
 
Prince Charles's secret veto documents to be released | UK news | The Guardian

Secret documents detailing the use by Prince Charles of his little-known power of veto over government bills must be released, the information commissioner has ruled.

The arrangement has been described as akin to a royal "nuclear deterrent" over government legislation. There is no evidence that the prince has ever exercised the veto.

For clarity: if the Duke of Cornwall has these rights of consultation and veto, do not all Dukes? Like The Duke of Norfork, for example?
 
For clarity: if the Duke of Cornwall has these rights of consultation and veto, do not all Dukes? Like The Duke of Norfork, for example?


No,the Duchy of Cornwall is a very special institution designed to provide for the financial independence of the heir to the throne. It comes with large land holdings. Other dukedoms do not come with specific landholdings. While the dukes may own large estates they are personal/family holdings that have nothing to do with their titles or even the place they take their titles from.
 
The only similar situation would be the Duchy of Lancaster, I think, and that's held by the crown. There are other dukes who own quite a bit of property, but I believe it's all their personal property and not a separate entity with its own legal powers.
 
No,the Duchy of Cornwall is a very special institution designed to provide for the financial independence of the heir to the throne. It comes with large land holdings. Other dukedoms do not come with specific landholdings. While the dukes may own large estates they are personal/family holdings that have nothing to do with their titles or even the place they take their titles from.

The only similar situation would be the Duchy of Lancaster, I think, and that's held by the crown. There are other dukes who own quite a bit of property, but I believe it's all their personal property and not a separate entity with its own legal powers.

So if its all legal - the way its always been, I would assume the current Queen had these same powers when she was the heir, and her father before her, etc,? - what's the hub-bub about? Why make it an issue now? Does this questioning have context?
 
Tyger said:
So if its all legal - the way its always been, I would assume the current Queen had these same powers when she was the heir, and her father before her, etc,? - what's the hub-bub about? Why make it an issue now? Does this questioning have context?

Presumably has something to do with the notion that Charles was over stepping his boundaries at the time. Nobody bothered to check it was within his rights.
 
So if its all legal - the way its always been, I would assume the current Queen had these same powers when she was the heir, and her father before her, etc,? - what's the hub-bub about? Why make it an issue now? Does this questioning have context?
Neither the current Queen nor her father were ever Dukes of Cornwall, but yes this law has been in place for centuries.
 
Neither the current Queen nor her father were ever Dukes of Cornwall, but yes this law has been in place for centuries.

So then, the Duchy of Lancaster is 'held by the crown'. I assume that the Duchy of Cornwall was the same before the Queen gave it to Charles. Who was the last Duke of Cornwall (and lancaster, for that matter)?

Its interesting that the Queen decided to make Charles independent, not so? The reasons would be the obvious ones, but why do people think the Queen did this for Charles? Would Philip have had something to do with it - understanding that a man (anyone) needs to have their own income and household?
 
Neither the current Queen nor her father were ever Dukes of Cornwall, but yes this law has been in place for centuries.

So then, the Duchy of Lancaster is 'held by the crown'. I assume that the Duchy of Cornwall was the same before the Queen gave it to Charles. Who was the last Duke of Cornwall (and Lancaster, for that matter)?

Its interesting that the Queen decided to make Charles independent, not so? The reasons would be the obvious ones, but why do people think the Queen did this for Charles? Would Philip have had something to do with it - understanding that a man (anyone) needs to have their own income and household?
 
No decision is involved at all. The moment QEII succeeded to the throne HRH Prince Charles of Edinburgh automatically became HRH The Duke of Cornwall. The Queen did nothing to make him Duke of Cornwall, it is a matter of law that the eldest son of the reigning monarch is Duke of Cornwall. The same goes for being Duke of Lancaster. The moment the monarch succeeds to the throne they are automatically Duke of Lancaster (regardless of gender they are a duke).

The last Duke of Cornwall was HRH Prince Edward, later Edward VIII, later HRH The Duke of Windsor. He ceased to be Duke of Cornwall when he became King and he ceased to be Duke of Lancaster when he abdicated. George VI while never Duke of Cornwall was Duke of Lancaster during his reign.
 
No decision is involved at all. The moment QEII succeeded to the throne HRH Prince Charles of Edinburgh automatically became HRH The Duke of Cornwall. The Queen did nothing to make him Duke of Cornwall, it is a matter of law that the eldest son of the reigning monarch is Duke of Cornwall. The same goes for being Duke of Lancaster. The moment the monarch succeeds to the throne they are automatically Duke of Lancaster (regardless of gender they are a duke).

The last Duke of Cornwall was HRH Prince Edward, later Edward VIII, later HRH The Duke of Windsor. He ceased to be Duke of Cornwall when he became King and he ceased to be Duke of Lancaster when he abdicated. George VI while never Duke of Cornwall was Duke of Lancaster during his reign.

Many thanks, NGalitzine. Very clear. So one would have to go back to the 20's and 30's to find out if the Duke of Cornwall at that time exercised any of his rights as the Duke during the time he was Duke of Cornwall. Interesting - thats' what they should do. If they are going to start questioning things - to be fair - the whole of it should be looked at.

Its the personal animosity, though. If Charles was innocuous - not very bright or accomplished - not a successful businessman - not a man of independent ideas and action - it would all be floated without question. IMO.

Might there be people in the government who fear Charles? I actually have begun to see the newspapers' dissing of him to be an establishment attempt to disempower him. If you look at his work - he has maintained a steady, consistent work life across all these years - and yet the British public seem to have a very skewed view of him. Or has this changed? Something about it all doesn't add up.
 
Last edited:
Both The Queen and Prince Charles have the same rights of veto with regard to any laws that directly affect their holdings as Duke of Lancaster and Duke of Cornwall. I can't find any reference to any monarch or Duke of Cornwall actually exercising this power for centuries. It is more a nice tradition now rather than anything that is actually exercised. I am sure that if Charles had vetoed some legislation then it would have come out by now - the same as if The Queen had vetoed legislation to do with her holdings as Duke of Lancaster.
 
George VI and the present queen both controlled the Duchy of Cornwall, but never while they were heirs presumptive, because the duchy is overseen by the monarch when there is no duke or when the duke is a child.
 
Here is an explanation of the Duchy of Cornwall:

"The duchy was established in 1337 out of the former earldom of Cornwall by Edward III for his son, Edward, Prince of Wales, the "Black Prince", who became the first Duke of Cornwall. The duchy consisted of two parts: the title and honour, and the landed estate that supported it financially.[4] The core of the estate at its foundation was the 17 duchy manors found within the county. The duchy does not share the same boundaries as the county, and much of the estate has always been outside those boundaries. However, the duchy maintains a special relationship with Cornwall, and maintains various rights, such as that of appointing the county's High Sheriff. The extent of the estate has varied as various holdings have been sold and acquired over the years, both within Cornwall and in other counties."

Duchy of Cornwall - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
If I recall correctly (and definitely sketchily), the discussion over Charles' power of veto over any bill that would affect his land (the Duchy of Cornwall) came up when some bill or another (sketchy) was introduced several months ago and was submitted to Charles' office for approval. The question then arose as to why the bill has to be approved, and why does Charles have this veto power. It was then realized that none of the bills submitted to his office had ever been made public, and it went to court to decide whether or not they can be kept private. It's taken all this time for the decision to be made. There is no reason to believe (or disbelieve) that Charles has ever vetoed anything. Nor is there any reason to believe (or disbelieve) that Charles has done anything wrong by not releasing the requests and his responses to the public.
 
Both The Queen and Prince Charles have the same rights of veto with regard to any laws that directly affect their holdings as Duke of Lancaster and Duke of Cornwall. I can't find any reference to any monarch or Duke of Cornwall actually exercising this power for centuries. It is more a nice tradition now rather than anything that is actually exercised. I am sure that if Charles had vetoed some legislation then it would have come out by now - the same as if The Queen had vetoed legislation to do with her holdings as Duke of Lancaster.

The Queen is not known to have vetoed any legislation relating to her Duke of Lancaster holdings, but she is documented as having vetoed the abolition of the 1772 Royal Marriage Act. Its abolition was recommended in 1956 by the Conservative Lord Chancellor (the highest legal authority in England and Wales at the time) on the grounds that the 1772 Act was "totally anachronistic". The Queen refused her minister's advice instead allowing the Act to be amended so that she retained the power to forbid the marriage of any member of her family who was under 25 without having to consult anyone else. The exercise of this veto was revealed in January 2003 (the year after the deaths of Princess Margaret and the Queen Mother) when the National Archives released the documents into the public domain. [NB Prince Charles was 23 when he first met Camilla in the early summer of 1972.]
 
Secret royal veto powers over new laws to be exposed

Prince Charles: public duty v private power

Alright, the main point is this:
A judgment issued last week by the deputy information commissioner, Graham Smith, means the Cabinet Office has until 25 September to release the confidential internal manual. It details how the consent of "The Crown and The Duchy of Cornwall" is obtained before bills are passed into law and what criteria ministers apply before asking the royals to amend draft laws. If it fails to do so it could face high court action.
 
Last edited:
Succession to the Crown Act 2013

If equal primogenture is enacted in the UK is it fair to say that new Letters Patent would be established conferring the title of a British prince or princess to the following persons:

1) The children of the Sovereign
2) The grandchildren of the Sovereign whose son or daughter is Heir to the Throne
3) The eldest living child of the eldest child of The Prince or Princess of Wales

The third one I'm not to sure as to whether a female heiress apparent would be created The Princess of Wales.
 
Children of the sovereign already receive the title, Prince or Princess. Look at Anne, Edward, Charles and Andrew.
 
The idea of creating a female heir "Princess of Wales" in her own right was discussed when The Queen turned 18. George VI declined to consider it, stating the title was for the wife of The Prince of Wales and pointing out a female heir would still take the style and title of her husband upon marriage.

As far as issuing Letters Patent to replace the 1917 criteria, I think The Queen will hold off, leaving that to her successor. If Catherine has a girl as her first-born and the new succession law has passed, The Queen can simply issue Letters Patent conferring royal rank to the child.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The idea of creating a female heir "Princess of Wales" in her own right was discussed when The Queen turned 18. George VI declined to consider it, stating the title was for the wife of The Prince of Wales and pointing out a female heir would still take the style and title of her husband upon marriage.

It's a bit different though as nowadays after the change of the succession laws a girl would be heiress apparent and not, like Elizabeth was, heiress presumptive. Plus a woman with a peerage in her own right not necessarily takes on her husband's style and title but keep hers if it is the higher one. Think Countess Mountbatten, who did not use on the style and title of Lady Brabourne after her father's death. There is no higher peerage than that of the Prince of Wales (well, maybe the Duke of Lancaster and Normandy as thes is the souverain's dukedoms - Normany because of the Channel Islands).
 
Well, at the time, there was no question The Princess Elizabeth was going to be the future Sovereign, given the age of The Queen Mother. Otherwise, the question would never have been discussed if there was any chance of a son being born to displace her in the line of succession.

It could certainly be done if a future Sovereign chose to allow it. But the real question is whether an heiress will automatically become The Duchess of Cornwall as the eldest child and heir of The Sovereign, along with automatic access to the Duchy's income.
 
I guess that's changeable as well, in fact could well be that is has to be changed as the duchy is meant to support the heir apparent - was there ever an heir apparent who did not receive the income form the Duchy?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I guess that's changeable as well, in fact could well be that is has to be changed as the duchy is meant to support the heir apparent - was there ever an heir apparent who did not receive the income form the Duchy?

If there is no Duke of Cornwall (an eldest son and heir), the income from the Duchy accrues to The Sovereign. When The Princess Elizabeth began carrying out public duties, it was agreed part of The Duchy's income would be used to cover her expenses as heiress presumptive.

I assume this decision is one within The Sovereign's perogative, but legally the Duchy belongs to The Duke of Cornwall alone, so I'm not sure if the decision is one that requires consent from the Government.
 
...was there ever an heir apparent who did not receive the income form the Duchy?
George III.

He was heir apparent to his grandfather George II after the death of his own father (who had been Prince of Wales, Duke of Cornwall and Duke of Edinburgh). George III inherited the Edinburgh title directly from his father and then his grandfather created him Prince of Wales but he was never Duke of Cornwall and he was reliant on his grandfather, and parliament, for an income until his own accession.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
That's interesting since The Sovereign still controlled the Crown Estate during George II's reign, although I think he was nearly broke from trying to support the Government, which is why his successor, George III, surrendered the revenues in return for the Civil List from Parliament.
 
Parliament still voted some allowances to the young George to give him the independence he would automatically have received from the Duchy. The Duchy creation says that the income goes to The Crown (and after the Glorious Revolution that meant the government) if there is no Duke. George II also gave him some extra income as well but he didn't have the same amount as his father had (and inflation was also reducing what it was worth anyway).
 
If there is no Duke of Cornwall (an eldest son and heir), the income from the Duchy accrues to The Sovereign. When The Princess Elizabeth began carrying out public duties, it was agreed part of The Duchy's income would be used to cover her expenses as heiress presumptive.

I assume this decision is one within The Sovereign's perogative, but legally the Duchy belongs to The Duke of Cornwall alone, so I'm not sure if the decision is one that requires consent from the Government.

But what would happen if Letters patent for the Cornwall title is not changed in the following scenario. William and Catherine have as first child a daughter and as second a son. The son would become Duke of cornwall as oldest son of the monarch. But what happen when his sister becomes monarch and has a son as oldest child. Who would then be the Duke of Cornwall? The oldest son of the present or of the deceased monarch. Actully o think it should be the son of the present monarch but then they would have to take it away from his uncle.
 
If Equal Primogeniture is passed, but the Letters Patent for the Cornwall stand as is, then the son will never be Duke of Cornwall. The Letters Patent stipulate that the Duke of Cornwall be the eldest son of the monarch AND the heir apparent. With Equal Primogeniture, a first-born daughter would be the heir apparent.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
As Excalibur pointed out, the Duke of Cornwall can only be the eldest son of the Monarch who is also Heir Apparent to the Throne.

Assuming William's son is born during his reign and Equal Primogeniture is not passed, then he will indeed become Duke of Cornwall, regardless of an existence of an elder sister. If, at some point, Equal Primogeniture is adopted, then the boy will automatically cease to be Heir Apparent to the Throne and, as a consequence, the Duke of Cornwall. The title will then be vacant (since, as things are now, females cannot be Dukes/Duchesses of Cornwall in their own right) but, in all probability, the Heiress Apparent will receive income from the Duchy to cover her official expenses.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The Sovereign Grant Act passed by Parliament in 2011 includes a provision in which the income from the Duchy of Cornwall will be paid to the heir apparent automatically.

That means if Charles died before The Queen, even though William could not become The Duke of Cornwall, he would be paid the income from the Duchy. The same thing would apply if the future heir is female.
 
Back
Top Bottom