Nobility in Britain

[Schnitte]

Thank you all very much for your help. Besides, I would like to give my answers to related questions that incidentally came up:
Liechtenstein is a Principality, and so is Monaco. The only remaining sovereign nation that officially has a Duke as Head of State in Europe is the Grand Duchy of Luxemburg.

And Pjen’s questions:

1. Yes. The law concerning the rules of succession dates back to 1707, IIRC.
2. Formally no, because it has given an oath of loyalty towards Elizabeth II. and her rightful heirs and successors (the same oath is given by the deputies of Canda, Australia and New Zealand parliaments). Practically, the monarch does not have any influence on the governement of the country.
3. Practically no. Formally, the monarch has to give consent to every act of Parliament, but it hasn’t been denied since 1707. Nowadays, after Parliament passes a bill, there is automatically announced that the Royal Assent has been given, without asking the sovereign.
4. I don’t think so.
5. No Catholic person can become King/Queen (because the monarch is head of the Church of England, and Britons used to be afraid that Catholics could regain power over their realm a few centuries ago), and noone married to a Catholic.
6. Yes, of course.
7. Yes, since the 1980s. Elizabeth has voluntarily agreed to pay taxes. See http://www.royal.gov.uk
8. The really valuable things -Buckingham Palace, Crown Jewels etc.- are property of the State, but the monarch has the exclusive right to use it. Other castles (Sandringham, I suppose) are the monarch’s private property, but the public would hardly agree if the monarch decided to sell it, so Lizzie doesn’t have real power over it.
9. There’ll be a new one, according to teh usual accession rules. See Edward and Wallis in 1936, which got Elizabeth’s father on the throne.

[Pjen]

*Originally posted by Schnitte *
**
And Pjen’s questions:

1. Yes. The law concerning the rules of succession dates back to 1707, IIRC.
2. Formally no, because it has given an oath of loyalty towards Elizabeth II. and her rightful heirs and successors (the same oath is given by the deputies of Canda, Australia and New Zealand parliaments). Practically, the monarch does not have any influence on the governement of the country.
3. Practically no. Formally, the monarch has to give consent to every act of Parliament, but it hasn’t been denied since 1707. Nowadays, after Parliament passes a bill, there is automatically announced that the Royal Assent has been given, without asking the sovereign.
4. I don’t think so.
5. No Catholic person can become King/Queen (because the monarch is head of the Church of England, and Britons used to be afraid that Catholics could regain power over their realm a few centuries ago), and noone married to a Catholic.
6. Yes, of course.
7. Yes, since the 1980s. Elizabeth has voluntarily agreed to pay taxes. See http://www.royal.gov.uk
8. The really valuable things -Buckingham Palace, Crown Jewels etc.- are property of the State, but the monarch has the exclusive right to use it. Other castles (Sandringham, I suppose) are the monarch’s private property, but the public would hardly agree if the monarch decided to sell it, so Lizzie doesn’t have real power over it.
9. There’ll be a new one, according to teh usual accession rules. See Edward and Wallis in 1936, which got Elizabeth’s father on the throne. **

1/ What about 1689?
2/ Suppose Parliament passed the Republican Act and the Queen withheld her consent?
3/ Parliament is supreme, so can ignore judicial rules.
4/ I think you are wrong. The Queen does give consent, but if it is witheld, it is then assumed that it has been given.
5/ Not stated anywhere that I know of, but might cause problems for the next few years with the Church of England (that is until we have the first lesbian divorced Archbishop of Canterbury ;))
6/ Only contained within the Law of the land by fiat of parliament- could be overturned by a simple majority in both houses.
7/ Possibly not. It has in the past been held that the sovereign is outside the law whilst he/she is sovereign (this was the excuse for two hundred years of legalized tax evasion that allowed Lizzie to become the rischest woman in Britain- if your family hadn’t had to pay taxes for eight generations, you’d be rich too.) The sovereign cannot be arraigned before a court because all cases are Regina vs. X and the crown cannot sue itself.
8/ If I was able to decline to pay taxes, I would not consider myself **liable]. Anyway, the tax was set at the lowest rate and ignored 200 years of back taxes (see above).
9/ Not stated anywhere that I know of. When James II was forced from the throne, he took none of his wealth. When Edward VIII abdicated, all royal monies went to George VII and he had to be gifted money to live abroad.
10/ That was decided last time (in 1938) for that occasion. However it may have created a precedent. History shows several pre-1689 occurences of odd transfers of the throne.

What I am trying to show that the rules are so complex, pragmatic, confusing and obtuse, that given an appropriate spin, almost anything goes.

[Pjen]

Must Preview. Must Preview. Must Preview.

And BTW will the next monarch (if he gets there) be called Charles the Third. And after him, would a King William (King Billy) be appropriate to Northern Ireland if they are still part of Britain;)

[APB]

[sub]Schnitte asked a number of questions. Those original questions have now been answered. The more irrelevant the subject of a question, the more reason there is to keep to the point.[/sub]

If however you want the subject widened…

1/ Yes. The 1701 Act of Settlement says so. The principle had existed in common law for centuries before then. None of the pre-1701 exceptions affect this.
2/ Yes. Parliament is not required to do what the monarch wants or orders. The legal precendents establishing this date back centuries.
3/ Yes, in the sense that the Crown-in-Parliament is omnicompetent. It would however require a statute. It has never been otherwise.
4/ Yes, she does so all the time. Define the question more precisely.
5/ That remains to be seen. There is no bar in law.
6/ Probably yes. In law there is a bar but my own view is that this would be removed without much fuss if ever the situation arose.
7/ No, but she is obliged to uphold them. This has been the rule since before 1066.
8/ No, see above 7/, but she does pay most of them. This was true even when she didn’t pay income tax. The Queen is not the richest woman in Britain. All the evidence is that her position as monarch has prevented her maximising the potential return on her wealth.
9/ Neither, most of it belongs to the monarch in person. Schnitte has pointed out the major exceptions. However, the liquid assets are held in trust for her by the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Keeper of the Privy Purse, and the PM has the right to advise her on this, as on any other matters.
10/ The successor succeeds. The principle that the monarch can abdicate rests on medieval precedents. Nothing new there then.

So ‘the rules are so complex, pragmatic, confusing and obtuse, that given an appropriate spin, almost anything goes’. Show us a legal system of which this isn’t true.

[Schnitte]

1/ What about 1689?
2/ Suppose Parliament passed the Republican Act and the Queen withheld her consent?
3/ Parliament is supreme, so can ignore judicial rules.
4/ I think you are wrong. The Queen does give consent, but if it is witheld, it is then assumed that it has been given.
5/ Not stated anywhere that I know of, but might cause problems for the next few years with the Church of England (that is until we have the first lesbian divorced Archbishop of Canterbury ;))
6/ Only contained within the Law of the land by fiat of parliament- could be overturned by a simple majority in both houses.
7/ Possibly not. It has in the past been held that the sovereign is outside the law whilst he/she is sovereign (this was the excuse for two hundred years of legalized tax evasion that allowed Lizzie to become the rischest woman in Britain- if your family hadn’t had to pay taxes for eight generations, you’d be rich too.) The sovereign cannot be arraigned before a court because all cases are Regina vs. X and the crown cannot sue itself.
8/ If I was able to decline to pay taxes, I would not consider myself liable. Anyway, the tax was set at the lowest rate and ignored 200 years of back taxes (see above).
9/ Not stated anywhere that I know of. When James II was forced from the throne, he took none of his wealth. When Edward VIII abdicated, all royal monies went to George VII and he had to be gifted money to live abroad.
10/ That was decided last time (in 1938) for that occasion. However it may have created a precedent. History shows several pre-1689 occurences of odd transfers of the throne.

1. The Glorious Revolution did not set the current succession regulations.
2. Nice scenario. Theoretically, if the monarch denied his assent, the bill would fail. But I think if a democrtaically chosen Parliament demanded a republic and the sovereign refused to quit, there would be quite a protest uprising in the population, and the resulting pressure, combined with generous payments for the ex-Royals, would make the Queen agree, although she could theoretically prevent it.
3. In theory, yes, but in practice, the UK, being the cradle of modern democracy, does have separation of legislative/executive and judicative branch.
4. Then Queen has never withheld her consent; no monarch has done so since 1707. And since noone thinks she’ll ever do, one can announce her consent without asking her.
5. Not stated, you’re right. I’ve heard nobody saying this could prevent Charlie from succession.
6. The Parliament can of course amend that law, but why should it? The entire dynasty is Anglican. This could prevent Ernst August of Hanover, who is allegedly #23 or so in the ranking, from becoming King
7. If the Queen started killing people, they would find a way to stop it, believe me.
8. Please forget that old monarchy-exploits-people myth.
9. Check the official website at http://www.royal.gov.uk . There is a nice section about Royal finances.
10. When a new King succeeds, it’s no difference how his predecessor quit. Abdication, death - no difference.

Compared to the handling of an American Presidential Election, British Throne Succession is the simplest thing to choose the boss you can dream of
BTW: What about moving this thread somewhere else - GD?

[ruadh]

*Originally posted by Pjen *
**…would a King William (King Billy) be appropriate to Northern Ireland if they are still part of Britain;) **

[nitpick]

They never have been part of Britain.

[/nitpick]

[Northern_Piper]

3/ Does parliament have the power to over-rule the judiciary?

Yes, it does. First, there is the general sense, where Parliament decides to change the law prospectively. Family law provides numerous examples of this type of change, where the common law governing the family became increasingly out of step with changed social reality (e.g. - status of married women, status of children born out of wedlock, the common law governing matrimonial property and alimony). Parliament has enacted numerous statutory amendments to the law in these areas, thus overruling the judiciary’s interpretation of the common law. This is no different from the relationship between the state courts and the state legislatures in the U.S., and in numerous other common law jurisdictions such as Canada - the common law, crafted by judges, is subordinate to statute law, enacted by the Legislature.

However, from the tone of pjen’s list, I assume the question is whether Parliament can go beyond prospective changes to the law, and actually overturn a specific decision of a court. The answer to that question is “Yes.”

One of the best examples arose following WWII. The British Army was retreating from the Japanese invasion of Burma (around 1942, I believe), and destroyed an oil refinery to prevent it from falling into Japanese hands. After the war, the owner of the refinery sued the British government for compensation. The matter went all the way to the House of Lords (sitting as a court). The House of Lords ruled in favour of the company, and said that the government had to pay compensation: Burmah Oil Co. Ltd. v. Lord Advocate,[1965] A.C. 75 (H.L.).

Parliament promptly overturned the decision of the House of Lords by statute: War Damage Act 1965(U.K.), 1965, c. 18. The Act did two things: it changed the law governing war damages, both prospectively and retrospectively, so that the interpretation that the Lords gave to war damages obligations was no longer good law. And it set aside the judgment in favour of Burmah Oil, providing that in any court case, whether pending or already adjudged, the action was stayed and judgment could not be enforced.

Now, you may not think that Parliament should have this power, but in answer to pjen’s question, there does not appear to be any doubt about it (subject of course to any subsequent treaty obligations arising out the U.K.'s membership in the European Community).

[Northern_Piper]

TomH correctly reminds me:

Originally posted by Northern Piper
… a “duchy” is an actual territorial division ruled by a duke - I don’t know if there still are any duchies in Europe - Leichenstein, maybe?)

In England, there are the Duchy of Lancaster and the Duchy of Cornwall. I’m a bit shaky on the details, but I believe that both belong to the Prince of Wales. He personally receives the revenue from the Duchy of Cornwall whereas the revenue from the Duchy of Lancaster belongs to the State. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is (or was) a Government Minister with a rag-bag or miscellaneous responsibilities.

I’ve done some follow-up poking around.

The Duchy of Cornwall is currently held by the Prince of Wales. The revenues associated with it go to Prince Charles.

The Duchy of Lancaster is held by the Queen in her personal capacity and the revenues belong to her, although the managment of the Duchy’s estates is governed by statute. The Duchy became associated with the Crown during the Wars of the Roses. When Edward IV became King, he made the Duchy part of the possessions of the Crown, essentially taking it over from the defeated Lancastrians. However, when Henry VII became King, he declared that he held the Duchy personally, separate and apart from the property of the Crown.

pjen commented:

Edward VII’s sons were Albert Victor Christian Duke of Clarence (a person of limited intellect and a sexual philanderer) George who became George V and John Alexander who died in infancy. I can’t find out which dukedom if any he held but assume that he was Prince of Wales from the death of his brother, and so, Duke of Cornwall.

Prince Albert Victor, Duke of Clarence, died early in 1892, while Victoria was still alive and Edward was Prince of Wales. Prince George became 2nd in line to the throne, and on May 24, 1892, Victoria created him Duke of York.

Queen Victoria died January 22, 1901, and Edward VII became King. Prince George, Duke of York, automatically became heir apparent. However, the titles of Duke of Cornwall and Prince of Wales have different rules of succession.

As the surviving son of the King, Prince George also automatically became Duke of Cornwall, according to the terms of the original creation of the title by Edward III.

He did not automatically become Prince of Wales. That title is in the gift of the Crown, and is conferred on the heir apparent by the monarch. Edward VII created Prince George Prince of Wales on November 1, 1901.

George V had five children: King Edward VIII; Albert, Duke of York, later King George VI (upon Edward’s abdication); the Duke of Gloucester; the Duke of Kent; and Mary, Countess of Harewood.

George V and Queen Mary had a fifth son: Prince John, who was epileptic. He died at the age of 14 in 1919, without ever being granted a title.

APB commented:

the dukedom of Clarence is usually given to the eldest son of the Prince of Wales.

Is this really a well-established custom? I’ve only been able to find one Duke of Clarence who was eldest son of the Prince of Wales, and that was Prince Albert Victor. The other Dukes of Clarence that I’ve found references to were:

• Lionel, the first Duke, second son of Edward III;

• Thomas, second son of Henry IV;

• George, third son of Richard, Duke of York and younger brother to Edward IV;

• William, third son of George III, later King William IV.

[Lissa]

I have some questions as well, if ya’ll don’t mind.

What is the proper ettiquette in this modern era for greeting members of the peerage/nobility? Once upon a time, you had to leave your seat for a less comfortable (armless) one if a duchess walked into the room, but those days, I’m sure, are long gone. Does one bow to a duke or duchess? When greeting a prince(ess)? What about the Queen? Do people still have to back out of a room bowing in her presence, or will a firm handshake on the way out suffice? Does any of the exaggerated courtesy that you read about in history still surround the nobility?

[Northern_Piper]

APB, I’ve been thinking some more about the issue of the Duke of Clarence and the sons of the Princes of Wales, and was struck by how few times, since the title of Duke of Clarence was created by Edward III, that the king has had a grandson by his eldest son, the Prince of Wales.

Edward III (d. 1377) did have a grandson by his eldest son - Richard II, son of the Black Prince. However, as far as I can tell, Richard (b. 1367, d. 1400) was never Duke of Clarence. His uncle Lionel held that title until his death in 1368, and I’ve not found any reference to Richard subsequently being created Duke of Clarence. And that was the last time the King had a grandson by his eldest son for 350 years.

Richard II, of course, died without issue.

Henry IV died in 1413, long before his grandson, Henry VI was born in 1421.

Henry V died in 1422, when Henry VI was only six months old.

Henry VI never had a grandson, as his son Edward, Prince of Wales, predeceased him without issue.

Edward IV never had a grandson in his lifetime.

Edward V died without issue in the Tower.

Richard III’s son predeceased him without issue.

Henry VII died in 1509, long before his grandson Edward VI was born in 1537.

Henry VIII never had a grandson.

Edward VI, Mary I and Elizabeth I all died without issue.

James I died in 1625, five years before his grandson, Charles II was born in 1630.

Charles I never had a grandson by his heir, Charles II.

Charles II died without issue.

James II lost the throne shortly after the birth of his son.

William III, Mary II and Anne all died without issue.

Only upon the accession of George I in 1714 did the King have a grandson by his eldest son: Frederick Lewis, son of George II, born 1707. I’ve not been able to find any indication that George I made Frederick Lewis the Duke of Clarence.

George II also had a grandson by his eldest son: Frederick Lewis’s son, George III, born 1738, during the reign of George II. Again, I’ve not found any mention of George III being made Duke of Clarence.

The pattern of a reigning monarch with a grandson by the Prince of Wales then didn’t recur for a century. George III’s son, George IV, never had a son.

William IV died without lawful issue.

Victoria did have a grandson by the Prince of Wales, Prince Albert Victor, who was made Duke of Clarence.

Edward VII also had a grandson by the Prince of Wales, Prince David, later Edward VIII. I’ve not found a reference to him being made Duke of Clarence.

George V never had a grandson by the Prince of Wales.

Edward VIII abdicated without issue.

George VI did not have a son.

Elizbeth II now has a grandson, son of the Prince of Wales, but has not yet given William any titles.

So, since the title of Duke of Clarence was created in the late 14th century, I believe that there have only been six cases where the reigning monarch had a grandson from the Prince of Wales; Richard II, Prince Frederick Lewis, George III, Prince Victor Albert; Prince David, and Prince William. To the best of my research, in only one case was that grandson made Duke of Clarence. If I’ve made a mistake somewhere, please let me know.

[APB]

Northern Piper, you’re right, althought the assumption has always been that the precedent of the last Duke of Clarence would restrict any future grants to that purpose.

*Originally posted by Lissa *
**Does one bow to a duke or duchess? When greeting a prince(ess)? What about the Queen? Do people still have to back out of a room bowing in her presence, or will a firm handshake on the way out suffice? Does any of the exaggerated courtesy that you read about in history still surround the nobility? **

No, although there is nothing to stop you if you want to.

[MrDeath]

*Originally posted by Pjen *
And BTW will the next monarch (if he gets there) be called Charles the Third.

Not necessarily. The given name of the most recent queen
prior to Elizabeth was Alexandrina, and of the most recent king, Albert (Frederick Arthur George). Upon accession, the Monarch-designate gets to choose the name by which they will be known (don’t nitpick my grammar, I’m using the Royal “they” ;)). We could have a Charles III, a Philip, an Arthur, a George VII, or even a King Bob if he wanted. (The last one might have a problem in Parliament though.)

[Floater]

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by MrDeath *
**

… or even a King Bob if he wanted. **

What about King Kong?

[Steve_Wright]

There was a rumour a little while back that Prince Charles was unhappy about “Charles III” (because of “associations with decapitation”), and would be mmore likely to go with “George VII”. Of course, the only cite I can think of for this is Have I Got News For You?, so maybe a pinch or two of salt is in order…

[Gyrate]

*Originally posted by MrDeath *
**

*Originally posted by Pjen *
And BTW will the next monarch (if he gets there) be called Charles the Third.

Not necessarily. The given name of the most recent queen
prior to Elizabeth was Alexandrina, and of the most recent king, Albert (Frederick Arthur George). Upon accession, the Monarch-designate gets to choose the name by which they will be known (don’t nitpick my grammar, I’m using the Royal “they” ;)). We could have a Charles III, a Philip, an Arthur, a George VII, or even a King Bob if he wanted. (The last one might have a problem in Parliament though.) **

To be realistic, Charles is not so stupid as to dub himself Arthur (or Arthur II); he’s a pretty low profile kind of guy and even to be the first King Philip might be too flashy for him. From most accounts he’ll either go for Charles III or (from recent rumor) George VII.

(Mind you, after watching him dance to Destiny’s Child at yesterday’s Party in the Park concert, you never know what he’ll do…)

The real question is what will happen if he goes ahead and marries Camilla Parker-Bowles, as seems increasingly likely. Public opinion seems to be moving towards grudging acceptance of the idea provided she gets no official royal title or duties (making her Mrs. Windsor, I suppose). In such a likelihood, Princess Anne would probably take on official Consort duties.

My wife insists that the title of Duke of Clarence has a tinge of ill luck associated with it, and has not been awarded since young Albert held the title. I defer to her greater wisdom.

And, to clarify ruadh’s point, Great Britain comprises England, Scotland and Wales; the United Kingdom comprises those three plus N. Ireland. Just don’t ask me about the Channel Islands.

[Northern_Piper]

There was a rumour a little while back that Prince Charles was unhappy about “Charles III” (because of “associations with decapitation”), and would be mmore likely to go with “George VII”.

I’d heard that he was also uneasy about the reputation for philandering associated with the second king of that name, in light of the Diana-Charles-Camilla triangle.

By the way, where is “Clarence” anyway? All of the other customary royal duke titles are geographic - where’s Clarence? (I did a search on Britannica and came up empty.)

[MrDeath]

I just got a mental image of the current Prince of Wales, riding in the carriage on the way back from Westminster Abbey after his coronation, and quietly singing to himself:

“I’m 'Enery the Ninth, I am, 'Enery the Ninth I am I am. . . .”

[Steve_Wright]

*Originally posted by Northern Piper *
**

By the way, where is “Clarence” anyway? All of the other customary royal duke titles are geographic - where’s Clarence? (I did a search on Britannica and came up empty.) **

Apparently, it’s derived from Clare, in Suffolk.

[APB]

http://www.clare-uk.com/about/location.html