Questions about Future Queens, Dowagers and Surviving Spouses

[Iain]

Elspeth



I don't think so. I don't think there is any such title as Queen Mother, frankly. It was a one-off personally requested by Queen Elizabeth solely because her daughter was also called Elizabeth; she asked for --- the Queen Mother after HM Queen Elizabeth in order to distinguish herself from her daughter.

.

The title was not created for the Queen mother. Queen Alexandra and Queen Mary both held the title Queen Mother.

 

[florawindsor]

how silly of me. i always think that Queen Mother stands for Queen's mother. LOL.

 

[Frothy]

Queen Alexandra and Queen Mary both held the title Queen Mother.

did they? do you have a link to that?

 

[Georgia]

What will she be called if like the palace said at the time and she is crowned as Princess Consort and not Queen, providing that Charles dies before her?

 

[Elspeth]

I don't think so. I don't think there is any such title as Queen Mother, frankly. It was a one-off personally requested by Queen Elizabeth solely because her daughter was also called Elizabeth; she asked for --- the Queen Mother after HM Queen Elizabeth in order to distinguish herself from her daughter.

In one of Queen Mary's biographies that I read, it said that she was very pleased to find that, after she was widowed, she was a Queen Mother rather than a Queen Dowager. It said that the Queen Mother title involved extra power or authority or perks of some sort, but it didn't go into any details and I haven't been able to find anything out since then.

I suspect the reason that Queen Mary and Queen Alexandra were known by their names, but Queen Elizabeth wasn't, is simply that Queen Elizabeth had the same name as her successor and it would have been confusing if she'd continued to use the same title she'd used when her husband was alive. It's quite possible that if George VI had been married to a Mary rather than an Elizabeth, Queen Mary would have been known as Queen Mother.

 

[Elspeth]

What will she be called if like the palace said at the time and she is crowned as Princess Consort and not Queen, providing that Charles dies before her?

I really doubt she'd be crowned if she wasn't going to take the title of Queen. Far as I know, princes and princesses don't get crowned in monarchies.

However, if she isn't crowned and is known during Charles's reign as Princess Consort and then outlives him, she'd probably be given a title by William, either "Princess Camilla" or "HRH Duchess of something-or-other." If Charles dies before becoming king, there's no reason why she couldn't continue to be Duchess of Cornwall, since there wouldn't be another Duchess of Cornwall until William was king and his eldest son was married.

 

[Iain]

did they? do you have a link to that?

No sorry I don't know of any link but I have seen a book brought out for the silver jubilee of George V and it had a chapter for each year of his reign. At the beginning of year 1925 it says "In this year the Queen Mother died."

 

[Frothy]

Iain but I don't think it was a formal title though. I googled it and couldn't find any reference. And Elspeth I don't believe that being the mother of a monarch confers any extra rank or benefit on a Queen, although as a practical matter, the child who was King/Queen could decide who got the best palace and residence, that might have been what was being referred to.

 

[Frothy]

She would be HRH the Duchess of Cornwall and when William married, HRH the Dowager Duchess of Cornwall. In fact of course she would be HRH the Dowager Princess of wales. This title is sometimes shortened to HRH the Princess Dowager. Henry VIII referred to Katherine of Aragorn that way after "annulling" her marriage because she was the widow of his elder brother who had died as Prince of Wales. (That is he used the title 'Princess Dowager', in those days it was Her Grace not Her Royal Highness. HVIIII was the first King to use Majesty).

 

[branchg]

She would be HRH the Duchess of Cornwall and when William married, HRH the Dowager Duchess of Cornwall. In fact of course she would be HRH the Dowager Princess of wales. This title is sometimes shortened to HRH the Princess Dowager. Henry VIII referred to Katherine of Aragorn that way after "annulling" her marriage because she was the widow of his elder brother who had died as Prince of Wales. (That is he used the title 'Princess Dowager', in those days it was Her Grace not Her Royal Highness. HVIIII was the first King to use Majesty).

There is no precedent for a Dowager Duchess of Cornwall and this is highly unlikely. The duchy is automatically held by the heir to the throne and the Duchess of Cornwall is the title of the wife of the heir to the throne and no one else. If Charles died before ascending the throne, William would automatically become the Duke of Cornwall.

Camilla would no longer be Princess of Wales or Duchess of Cornwall. Technically, she would be HRH Dowager Princess Charles. Depending on many factors, more likely than not, Camilla would be granted a new style and title (i.e. HRH Duchess of Sussex or HRH Countess of Truro) to hold in her own right for her lifetime. Only if she was regarded highly by the public and had been the wife of Charles for a long time would she be granted the right to be known as HRH Princess Camilla as a widow.

Much would depend on the Prime Minister's advice to the Queen, and William's feelings on the matter as well.

 

[sara1981]

There is no precedent for a Dowager Duchess of Cornwall and this is highly unlikely. The duchy is automatically held by the heir to the throne and the Duchess of Cornwall is the title of the wife of the heir to the throne and no one else. If Charles died before ascending the throne, William would automatically become the Duke of Cornwall.

Camilla would no longer be Princess of Wales or Duchess of Cornwall. Technically, she would be HRH Dowager Princess Charles. Depending on many factors, more likely than not, Camilla would be granted a new style and title (i.e. HRH Duchess of Sussex or HRH Countess of Truro) to hold in her own right for her lifetime. Only if she was regarded highly by the public and had been the wife of Charles for a long time would she be granted the right to be known as HRH Princess Camilla as a widow.

Much would depend on the Prime Minister's advice to the Queen, and William's feelings on the matter as well.

i would agree with you!

Camilla cant become Princess of Wales nor become Queen of England because more reminded low-profiles of favourites Princess Diana very much! but Camilla cant replace as POW (Princess of Wales) many people wanted to kept reminded of Princess Diana very much! but i dont wanted Camilla become Queen of England nor Princess of Wales because Diana took it in 1981 when Diana got married in 1981 with Prince Charles for 300 years.But Camilla will known as Princess of Consort that it!

Sara Boyce

 

[Elspeth]

Sara, Camilla is ALREADY Princess of Wales. She just isn't using the title.

As far as what she'll be called when Prince Charles becomes king, we'll have to wait and see. I have a feeling that if it's several years before it happens, she'll become queen when he becomes king.

 

[dianafan]

I hope that queen Elisabeth continues it still long if queen and that them prince charles not be king if king and that prince William directly takes over it after the death of queen elisabeth, william become a good king, are certainly I of! hopefely find he a good queen and can he happy become! more fortunately than its mother!

 

[Elspeth]

I think it's rather unfair to expect William to take over being king while still young, before he's had a chance to raise a family, just because people don't like Charles. The Queen had to step into the job while she and her family were young, and it seems as though her children have suffered somewhat as a result. I find it surprising that people, in their desire to punish Charles, would wish this sort of responsibility on William. The Queen is already nearly 80; even if she does live for another 15 or 20 years, Charles will be doing more and more of the work associated with the monarchy as his mother gets older.

 

[selrahc4]

If Charles died before ascending the throne, William would automatically become the Duke of Cornwall.

I'm not sure that this is correct. I believe the Duke of Cornwall has to be both the heir to the throne and the eldest son of the sovereign.

 

[branchg]

I'm not sure that this is correct. I believe the Duke of Cornwall has to be both the heir to the throne and the eldest son of the sovereign.

You are correct as the duchy is chartered as a crown estate to provide income to the eldest surviving son of the regining monarch, who in practice is heir to the throne. However, it is likely that if such a tragic event occurred, the Queen would seek approval from the Prime Minister and Parliament to grant the duchy to William since he would be heir to the throne, rather than Prince Andrew automatically assuming the duchy's income and title.

In any case, the point is Camilla would no longer be Duchess of Cornwall in the event of Charles passing on before becoming King. She would have to be granted a new style and title by the Queen as a widow.

 

[selrahc4]

You are correct as the duchy is chartered as a crown estate to provide income to the eldest surviving son of the regining monarch, who in practice is heir to the throne. However, it is likely that if such a tragic event occurred, the Queen would seek approval from the Prime Minister and Parliament to grant the duchy to William since he would be heir to the throne, rather than Prince Andrew automatically assuming the duchy's income and title.

In this scenariio Andrew would not be Duke of Cornwall, because he would not be heir to the throne. The key is to be both heir and son.

For example, the future King George III was grandson and heir of King George II. He was never Duke of Cornwall, nor was there any Duke of Cornwall during the time he was heir. He was made Prince of Wales, however.

 

[branchg]

In this scenariio Andrew would not be Duke of Cornwall, because he would not be heir to the throne. The key is to be both heir and son.

For example, the future King George III was grandson and heir of King George II. He was never Duke of Cornwall, nor was there any Duke of Cornwall during the time he was heir. He was made Prince of Wales, however.

Yes, this is very true. However, I wonder what would happen as this situation has never arisen in modern times? The original grant to the Black Prince back in 1337 stated the duchy was a gift from the Sovereign to his eldest son. What takes precedence? Prince Andrew since he would be the next surviving eldest son after Charles or Prince William as the heir to the throne?

I would guess it would still be within the Sovereign's perogative, with advice from the Prime Minister, to grant the duchy to William if the Queen so desired. The duchy, along with Lancaster, remain the only two crown estates still remaining under the direct control of the Sovereign, rather than surrendered to Parliament.

Ironically, it was good old King George III who agreed to surrender the Crown Estates to Parliament during his reign in return for a Civil List providing him with an income. Not a very good deal for his successors since the Crown Estate generates far more income to Parliament than today's cost of the monarchy!

 

[Elspeth]

Apparently after the accession of George VI (or maybe after Princess Elizabeth turned 18 - I'm forgetting details now) there were some suggestions that he name Princess Elizabeth Princess of Wales and Duchess of Cornwall in her own right and let her use the income from the Duchy of Cornwall as she would have if she'd been a boy, and the king flat-out refused, saying that the titles didn't exist for a girl in her own right etc etc.

I'm not sure where her money came from after she was old enough to be given a grant from the government and then when the grant was increased on her marriage and before she became Queen. But I do hope that if the money didn't come from the Duchy (which apparently it didn't), the king didn't expect her to be given all that money as well as keeping the Duchy income intact up to the time Prince Charles started using it. Britain was in dire financial straits in the early postwar period, and I think that if the king was standing firm on a point of protocol, and especially if he was expecting to use protocol to extract more money from the goverment for the royal family, it was an appalling thing to be doing. I hope that somehow things were arranged so that the country didn't lose out while the Duchy funds sat there multiplying from 1936 to 1952, but I don't have a lot of confidence that that's what happened.

 

[branchg]

Yes, you are right about that. I think the question came up shortly after the announcement of Elizabeth's marriage to Philip. I believe the suggestion from some quarters was that Elizabeth should be created Princess of Wales in her own right as the heir to the throne, rather than granting her a style and title through Philip. I don't think the Duchy of Cornwall came into play as the King always cried poverty from having to pay his brother, the Duke of Windsor, a significant amount of money as part of the Abdication agreement (aka "I'm keeping the monies from Lancaster and Cornwall without paying any taxes since I need it").

In any case, I believe it was agreed that Princess Elizabeth should not be Princess of Wales in her own right as this reflected the wife of a Prince of Wales and the King obviously wasn't willing to make a precedent by granting it that way. Which was kind of silly, but again, all within the perogative of the Sovereign as the fount of honour.

As it turned out, the King probably did need all the money he received from the two crown duchies to maintain and support his extended family. As we know, much later, the Queen was forced to begin paying income tax on her private income, most of which comes from her earnings on the Lancaster duchy.

 

[selrahc4]

Ironically, it was good old King George III who agreed to surrender the Crown Estates to Parliament during his reign in return for a Civil List providing him with an income. Not a very good deal for his successors since the Crown Estate generates far more income to Parliament than today's cost of the monarchy!

One thing that is overlooked sometimes in this argument is that he gave up the responsibility for all civil government expenses too, which were being covered by the Crown Estate. Part of the reason, I believe, that he made the arrangement was that the estate revenues weren't enough to cover those expenses.

 

[Elspeth]

I don't think the Duchy of Cornwall came into play as the King always cried poverty from having to pay his brother, the Duke of Windsor, a significant amount of money as part of the Abdication agreement (aka "I'm keeping the monies from Lancaster and Cornwall without paying any taxes since I need it").

Well, my understanding was (and I wish I remembered which book I'd read it in) that someone in the government suggested that Princess Elizabeth be paid from the Duchy of Cornwall rather than have that money just sit there since she was female and not male (since a prince in her position would have been paid from that source), and the king objected. Which meant that the government had to find the money to pay her, while the Duchy funds just sat there unused and the country was being run into the ground financially after the war, with many people facing genuine hardship.

This wouldn't have affected the king's financial situation because they were talking about the Duchy of Cornwall, which was the traditional source of income for the heir, not any of the sources of funds that the king used.

 

[branchg]

Well, my understanding was (and I wish I remembered which book I'd read it in) that someone in the government suggested that Princess Elizabeth be paid from the Duchy of Cornwall rather than have that money just sit there since she was female and not male (since a prince in her position would have been paid from that source), and the king objected. Which meant that the government had to find the money to pay her, while the Duchy funds just sat there unused and the country was being run into the ground financially after the war, with many people facing genuine hardship.

This wouldn't have affected the king's financial situation because they were talking about the Duchy of Cornwall, which was the traditional source of income for the heir, not any of the sources of funds that the king used.

Actually, in the absence of a current Duke of Cornwall, all of the monies generated by the duchy automatically accrue to the Crown. So in the case of Elizabeth, her father would have received the income from the duchy.

 

[Elspeth]

In that case, I hope he reimbursed the government by the amount of the money that was granted to Princess Elizabeth in the Civil List. Otherwise he would have been guilty of petty greed at a time of great national hardship.

I was looking back at some other posts - you said there was no precedent for a Dowager Duchess of Cornwall. That doesn't mean there couldn't be a first time. There's no precedent for the wife of a Prince of Wales to be known as Duchess of Cornwall, but everybody* seems to be managing fine. Princess Augusta was still the Princess of Wales when her son became George III; Camilla would be known as Dowager Princess of Wales just like Augusta was, if she'd taken the Princess of Wales title when she married Charles. Since she took another of his titles, I assume the same rules would apply and she'd be the Dowager Duchess of Cornwall.

Whether the Queen would create Prince William Duke of Cornwall in the meantime or just let him stay "Prince William of Wales" is a matter of conjecture. It'd be interesting to know, but let's hope we never have to find out.

Does anybody know what titles George III and Richard II held before succeeding their grandfathers? That might give a clue about what would be done.


*OK, not precisely everybody; I'm aware there are some partisans of Diana who are calling her something completely different...

 

[selrahc4]

Actually, in the absence of a current Duke of Cornwall, all of the monies generated by the duchy automatically accrue to the Crown. So in the case of Elizabeth, her father would have received the income from the duchy.

I've read that the revenues accrue to the Treasury (the government).

Also, although like Elspeth I can't remember where I read it right now, I vaguely recall that George VI did receive a small portion of this income during Princess Elizabeth's minority for her support.

 

[branchg]

I've read that the revenues accrue to the Treasury (the government).

Also, although like Elspeth I can't remember where I read it right now, I vaguely recall that George VI did receive a small portion of this income during Princess Elizabeth's minority for her support.

Are you sure about that? I thought Lancaster and Cornwall were the only two crown duchies still considered to be personal income of the Sovereign, with the remaining Crown Estates "surrendered" to the Treasury at the start of each new reign.

 

[branchg]

Here is the answer from the Prince of Wales' website:

The Duchy of Cornwall is one of the largest and oldest landed estates in Britain. It was created in 1337 by Edward III for his son, Prince Edward (The Black Prince). A charter ruled that each future Duke of Cornwall would be the eldest surviving son of the monarch - and the Heir to The Throne.
Since the 14th century the Duchy's main purpose has been to provide an income, independent of the Monarch, for the heir apparent. That income covers the cost of the public and private life of the current Duke, The Prince of Wales. Neither he nor his sons receive an allowance from the Civil List. When there is no male heir, the Duchy reverts to the Monarch, and its income to the Exchequer.
​

 

[selrahc4]

Here is the answer from the Prince of Wales' website:


and its income to the Exchequer.

​

Thanks, branchg, that's what I meant. So, the income does go to the government.

 

[branchg]

Thanks, branchg, that's what I meant. So, the income does go to the government.

Apparently so, which explains why King George VI used a portion of the duchy's income to support Elizabeth's household with the approval of the Government. It's also clear that the Duke must be a male heir to the throne, so Elizabeth could not be granted the dukedom as a female heir.

I think they should change this precedent in the future since, after all, future heirs will be the eldest child of the Sovereign (I guess William IV) without regard to gender. Why shouldn't a female heir be HRH Princess of Wales and Duchess of Cornwall in her own right?

 

[selrahc4]

Apparently so, which explains why King George VI used a portion of the duchy's income to support Elizabeth's household with the approval of the Government. It's also clear that the Duke must be a male heir to the throne, so Elizabeth could not be granted the dukedom as a female heir.

I think they should change this precedent in the future since, after all, future heirs will be the eldest child of the Sovereign (I guess William IV) without regard to gender. Why shouldn't a female heir be HRH Princess of Wales and Duchess of Cornwall in her own right?

If and when Parliament does legislate to change succession rights based on birth order regardless of sex, I think this would be addressed at the same time. There's no pressure to do so right now with the current 1st, 2nd, and 3rd heirs being male, but the time will come.