And, first, she is a public person, exempt and distinct from the king: and not, like other married women, so closely connected as to have lost all legal or Her separate and distinct rights. separate existence so long as the marriage continues. For a queen consort is of ability to purchase lands, and to convey them, to make leases, to grant copyholds, and do other acts of ownership without the concurrence of her lord: which no other married woman can do(b); a privilege as old as the Saxon era(c). She is also capable of taking a grant [ *257] from the king, and in this particular she agrees with the Augusta, or piissima regina conjux divi imperatoris of the Roman laws; who, according to Justinian(d), was equally capable of making a grant to, and receiving one from, the emperor. The queen of England has separate courts and officers distinct from the king's, not only in matters of ceremony, but even of law; and her attorney and solicitor-general are entitled to a place within the bar of his majesty's courts, together with the king's counsel (e). She may likewise sue and be sued alone, without joining her husband. She may also have a separate property in goods as well as lands, and has a right to dispose of them by will(f). In short, she is in all legal proceedings looked upon as a feme sole, and not as a feme covert; as a single, not as a married woman (g). For which the reason given by sir Edward Coke is this: because the wisdom of the common law would not have the king (whose continual care and study is for the public, and circa ardua regni) to be troubled and disquieted on account of his wife's domestic affairs; and therefore it vests in the queen a power of transacting her own concerns, without the intervention of the king, as if she was an unmarried woman. The queen consort has also many exemptions, and minute prerogatives. For instance: she pays no toll(h); nor is she liable to any amercement in any court(i). But in general, unless where the law has expressly Her exemptions. declared her exempted, she is upon the same footing with other subjects; being to all intents and purposes the king's subject, and not his equal; in like manner as, in the imperial law, "Augusta legibus soluta non est "(k). [*258] *The queen enjoys also some pecuniary advantages, which in early times formed for her a distinct revenue: as, in the first place, she is entitled to an ancient perquisite called queen-gold, or aurum Her revenue. regina; which is a royal revenue, belonging to every queen consort during her marriage with the king, and due from every person who has made a voluntary offering or fine to the king amounting to ten marks or upwards, for and in consideration of any privileges, grants, licences, pardons, or other matter of royal favour conferred upon him by the king: it is due in the proportion of one-tenth part more, over and above the entire offering or fine made to the king; and becomes an actual debt of record to the queen's majesty by the mere recording of the fine(7). As, if a hundred marks of silver be given to the king for liberty to take in mortmain, or to have a fair, market, (b) 4 Rep. 23. (c) Seld. Jan. Angl. 1. 42. (d) Cod. 5, 16, 26. (e) Seld. Tit. Hon. 1, 6, 7. (f) This is expressly declared by 39 & 40 Geo. 3, c. 88, ss. 8, 9. If she neglect to dispose of them they go to the king her husband. Wood's Inst. p. 22. See also the 2 Geo. 3, c. 1; 15 Geo. 3, c. 33; 47 Geo. 3, sess. 2, c. 45. (g) Finch. L. 86; Co. Litt. 133. (h) Co. Litt. 133. (7) Pryn. Aur. Reg. 2. park, chase, or free-warren: there the queen is entitled to ten marks in silver, or (what was formerly an equivalent denomination) to one mark in gold, by the name of queen-gold, or aurum reginæ (m). But no such payment is due for any aids or subsidies granted to the king in parliament or convocation; nor for fines imposed by courts on offenders, against their will; nor for voluntary presents to the king, without any consideration moving from him to the subject; nor for any sale or contract whereby the present revenues or possessions of the crown are granted away or diminished(n). The original revenue of our ancient queens, before and soon after the Conquest, seems to have consisted in certain reservations or rents out of the demesne lands of the crown, which were expressly appropriated to her majesty, distinct from the king. It is frequent in domesday book, after specifying the rent due to the crown, to add likewise the quantity of gold or other *renders reserved to the queen(0). These were frequently appropri[* 259] ated to particular purposes: to buy wool for her majesty's use(p), to purchase oil for her lamps(7), or to furnish her attire from head to foot(r), which was frequently very costly, as one single robe in the fifth year of Henry II. stood the city of London in upwards of fourscore pounds(s). A practice somewhat similar to that of the eastern countries, where whole cities and provinces were specifically assigned to purchase particular parts of the queen's apparel(t). And, for a further addition to her income, this duty of queen-gold is supposed to have been originally granted; those matters of grace and favour, out of which it arose, being frequently obtained from the crown by the powerful intercession of the queen. There are traces of its payment, though obscure ones, in the book of domesday and in the great pipe-roll of Henry I.(u). In the reign of Henry II. the manner of collecting it appears to have been well understood, and it forms a distinct head in the ancient dialogue of the exchequer(x), written in the time of that prince, and usually attributed to Gervase of Tilbury. From that time downwards it was regularly claimed and *enjoyed by [* 260] all the queen consorts of England till the death of Henry VIII.; though from the accession of the Tudor family the collecting of it seems to have been much neglected: and, there being no queen consorts afterwards till the accession of James I., its very nature and quantity became then a matter of doubt: and, being referred by the king to the chief justices and chief baron, their report of it was so very unfavourable(y), that his consort queen Anne (though she claimed it) yet never thought proper to exact it. In 1635, 11 Car. 1, a time fertile of expedients for raising money upon dormant precedents in our old records (of which ship-money was a fatal instance), the king, at the (m) 12 Rep. 21; 4 Inst. 358. () Pryn. Aur. Reg. 6; Madox. Exch. 242. (9) Bedefordscire Maner. Lestone redd. per annym xxii lib. &c., ad opus reginæ ii uncias auri. Herefordscire. In Lene, &c. consuetud. ut propositus manerii veniente domina sud (regina) in maner, præsentaret ei xvii oras denar. ut esset ipsa lato animo. Pryn. Append. to Aur. Reg. 2, 3. (P) Causa coadunandi lanam reginæ. Domesd, ibid. (q) Civitas Lundon. Pro oleo ad lampad. regina. Mag. rot. pip. temp. Hen. II., ibid. () Vicecomes Berkescire, xvi 1. pro cappá regina. Mag. rot. pip. 19; 22 Hen. II., ibid. Civitas Lund. cordubanario regina xx 8. Mag. rot. 2 Hen. II.; Madox. Exch. 419. (8) Pro robá ad opus reginæ quater xx l. & vi 8. viii d. Mag. rot. 5 Hen. II. (t) Solere aiunt barbaros reges Persarum ac Syrorum - uxoribus civitates attribuere, hoc modo; hæc civitas mulieri redimiculum præbeat, hæc in collum, hæc in crines, &c. Cic. in. Verrem. lib. 3, cap. 33. (u) See Madox. Disceptat. epistolar. 74; Pryn. Aur. Reg. Append. 5. (x) Lib. 2, c. 26. (y) Mr. Prynne, with some appearance of reason, insinuates that their researches were very superficial. Aur. Reg. 125. petition of his queen, Henrietta Maria, issued out his writ(z) for levying it: but afterwards purchased it of his consort at the price of ten thousand pounds; finding it, perhaps, too trifling and troublesome to levy. And when afterwards, at the Restoration, by the abolition of the military tenures, and the fines that were consequent upon them, the little that legally remained of this revenue was reduced to almost nothing at all, in vain did Mr. Prynne, by a treatise which does honour to his abilities as a painstaking and judicious writer, endeavour to excite queen Catherine to revive this antiquated claim. Another ancient perquisite belonging to the queen consort, mentioned by our old writers (a), and on that account only worth notice, is this: that on the taking of a whale on the coasts, which is a royal fish, it shall be divided between the king and queen; the head only being the king's property, and the tail of it the queen's. "De sturgione observetur, quod rex illum habebit integrum: de balená vero sufficit, si rex habeat caput, et regina caudam”(b). *But further: though the queen is in all respects a subject, yet, in [* 261] point of the security of her life and person, she is put on the same footing with the king. It is equally treason (by the statute 25 Edw. 3) to compass or imagine the death of our lady the king's companion, as of the king himself and to violate,. or defile the queen consort, amounts to the same high crime; as well in the person committing the fact, as in the queen herself, if consenting. A law of Henry VIII.(c) made it treason also for any woman, who was not a virgin, to marry the king without informing him thereof: but this law was soon after repealed(d), it trespassing too strongly, as well on natural justice, as on female modesty. If, however, the queen be accused of any species of treason, she shall (whether consort or dowager) be tried by the peers of parliament, as queen Ann Boleyn was in 28 Henry 8. the queen. The husband of a queen regnant, as prince George of Denmark was to queen Anne, or as the late prince consort(e) was to her majesty queen Victoria, is her The husband of subject; and may be guilty of high treason against her: but, in the instance of conjugal infidelity, he is not subjected to the same penal restrictions. For which the reason seems to be, that if a queen consort is unfaithful to the royal bed, this may debase or bastardize the heirs to the crown; but no such danger can be consequent on the infidelity of the husband to a queen regnant. Queen dowager. A queen dowager is the widow of the king, and as such enjoys most of the privileges belonging to her as queen consort. But it is not high treason to conspire her death, or to violate her chastity, for the same reason as was before alleged, because the succession to the [* 262] crown is not thereby endangered. Yet still, pro dignitate regali, no man can marry a queen dowager without special licence from the king, on pain of forfeiting his lands and goods. This sir Edward Coke(f) tells us was enacted in parliament in 6 Hen. 6, though the statute be not in print(g). But (2) 19 Rym. Fœd. 721. ised into this realm, without the restrictions (a) Bracton, 1. 3, c. 3; Britton, c. 17; Flet. provided by 1 Geo. 1, st. 2, c. 4, subject only 1. 1, cc. 45 & 46. to the condition of taking the oaths of allegiance and supremacy. (b) See Pryn. Aur. Reg. 127. (c) Stat. 33 Hen. 8, c. 21. (d) By the 1 Edw. 6, c. 12, which abrogated all treasons created since 25 Edw. 3. (e) See 3 & 4 Vict. cc. 1 & 2, by which his late royal highness prince Albert was natural (f) 2 Inst. 18. See Riley's Plac. Parl. 672. (g) What gave rise to this statute (if it ever were in fact an act of the legislature) was the marriage of Catherine mother of Henry VI. to Owen Tudor, a private Welsh gentleman. she, though an alien born, shall still be entitled to dower after the king's demise, as no other alien is(h). A queen dowager, when married again to a subject, loses not her regal dignity, as peeresses dowager do their peerage when they marry commoners. For Catharine, queen dowager of Henry V., though she married a private gentleman, Owen ap Meridith ap Theodore, commonly called Owen Tudor: yet, by the name of Catharine queen of England, maintained an action against the bishop of Carlisle. And so, the queen dowager of Navarre marrying with Edmond earl of Lancaster, brother to king Edward I., maintained an action of dower (after the death of her second husband) by the name of queen of Navarre(i). cess of Wales, and princess royal. The prince of Wales or heir apparent to the crown, and also his royal consort, and the princess royal, or eldest daughter of the king, are likewise peculiarly Prince and prin- regarded by the laws. For, by statute 25 Edw. 3, to compass or conspire the death of the former, or to violate the chastity of either of the latter, are as much high treason as to conspire the death of the king, or violate the chastity of the queen. And this upon the same reason as was before given; because the prince of Wales is next in succession to the crown, and to violate his *wife might taint the blood royal [ *263] with bastardy; and the eldest daughter of the king is sole heiress to the crown, on failure of issue male, and therefore more respected by the laws than any of her younger sisters; insomuch that upon this, united with other (feudal) principles, while our military tenures were in force, the king might levy an aid for marrying his eldest daughter, and her only. The heir apparent(k) to the crown is usually made prince of Wales and earl of Chester, by special creation and investiture; and if born after his father's accession to the throne he is by inheritance, peculiar in its nature(), duke of Cornwall. In Co. Litt. 133, Lord Coke refers to this act (k) When the first prince of Wales was created, it was upon Edward, the second son of Edward I., and not upon his eldest son Alphonso, that the new title was conferred; but Alphonso dying without issue, the prince of Wales became heir apparent to the crown, and thenceforth the title has never been conferred on any but the eldest sons and eldest daughters of the monarch. Mary and Elizabeth were created princesses of Wales by their father Henry VIII., each being at the time (the latter after the illegitimation of Mary) heiress presumptive to the crown. () In Clayton v. Attorney-General, 1 Coop. R. (temp. Lord Cottenham), 125-6, Lord Brougham observes as follows:-The duchy of Cornwall was created by Edward III. for the Black Prince in the eleventh year of his reign, by a charter made in parliament, and having the force of a statute, as was solemnly adjudged in the Prince's case, 8 Rep. 1. The species of succession is of a singular nature. The duchy vests in the king's eldest son and heir apparent of the crown at the instant of his birth, and without gift or creation; it vests in him, too, according to the sounder opinion, as if he were of full age at his birth, and as if minority could no more be predicated of him than of the sovereign himself. Lord Coke, indeed, has said that only the first-born son takes the duchy, and that on his decease without issue the second or other son cannot succeed. But this has been refuted by Lord Hardwicke in Lomax v. Holmden, 1 Ves. Sen. 295, referring to the fact of Henry VIII. being duke of Cornwall after the death of his brother prince Arthur; and to Charles I. (then prince Charles) having the duchy after prince Henry's death. Yet still the shifting of the title is of a very peculiar nature. For if the crown devolves upon the duke of Cornwall having no son, there ceases to be a duke, and then the duclry is in the crown. But at any moment a son may be born; his birth divests the duchy; and the duke then holds it subject to the double contingency of his own and his father's death. See also Seld. Tit. Hon. 2, 5. "The duchy of Cornwall," says Lord Abinger (Jewison v. Dyson, 9 M. & W. 588), “is indeed a very peculiar tenure. It only exists when there is the eldest son of a king born after he becomes reigning king. He alone can enjoy it, and the moment he becomes king it ceases and is absorbed in the crown." [* 264] Younger sons *The rest of the royal family may be considered in two different lights, according to the different senses in which the term "royal family" is used. The larger sense includes all those who are by and daughters. any possibility inheritable to the crown. Such, before the Revolution, were all the descendants of William the Conqueror; who had branched into an amazing extent, by intermarriages with the ancient nobility. Since the Revolution and Act of Settlement, it means the protestant issue of the princess Sophia; which in process of time may possibly be as largely diffused. The more confined sense includes only those, who are in a certain degree of propinquity to the reigning prince, and to whom therefore the law pays an extraordinary regard and respect: but, after that degree is past, the relations of the sovereign fall into the rank of ordinary subjects, and are seldom considered any further, unless called to the succession upon failure of the nearer lines. For, though collateral consanguinity is regarded indefinitely, with respect to inheritance or succession, yet it is, and can only be regarded, within some certain limits, in any other respect, by the natural constitution of things and the dictates of positive law(m). The younger sons and daughters of the king, and other branches of the royal family, who are not in the immediate line of succession, were therefore little further regarded by the ancient law, than to give them, to a certain degree, precedence before all peers and public officers, as well ecclesiastical as temporal. This is done by the statute 31 Hen. 8, c. 10, which enacts, that no person, except the king's children, shall presume to sit or have *place at the [* 265] side of the cloth of estate in the parliament chamber; and that certain great officers therein named shall have precedence above all dukes, except only such as shall happen to be the king's son, brother, uncle, nephew (which sir Edward Coke(n) explains to signify grandson or nepos), or brother's or sister's son. Therefore, after these degrees are past, peers or others of the blood royal are entitled to no place or precedence except what belongs to them by their personal rank or dignity. Which made sir Edward Walker complain (0), that by the hasty creation of prince Rupert to be duke of Cumberland, and of the earl of Lennox to be duke of that name, previous to the creation of king Charles's second son, James, to be duke of York, it might happen that their grandsons would have precedence of the grandsons of the duke of York. Indeed, under the description of the king's children, his grandsons are held to be included, without having recourse to sir Edward Coke's intepretation of nephew and therefore when his late majesty king George II. created his grandson Edward, the second son of Frederick prince of Wales deceased, duke of York, and referred it to the house of lords to settle his place and precedence, they certified (p) that he ought to have place next to the then duke of Cumberland, the king's youngest son; and that he might have a seat on the left hand of the cloth of estate. But when, on the accession of king George III., those royal personages ceased to take place as children, and ranked only as the brother and uncle of the king, they also left their seats on the side of the cloth of estate: so that when the duke of Gloucester, his then majesty's second brother, took his seat in the house of peers(9), Grandsons. (m) See Blackstone's Essay on Collateral Consanguinity, Law Tracts, 4to. Oxon. 1771, pp. 151, et seq. (n) 4 Inst. 362. (0) Tracts, p. 301. (p) Lords' Journ. 24 Apr. 1760. |