THE KING’S PLACE

Timaru Herald, Volume CXLIII, Issue 20672, 10 March 1937, Page 7

THE KING’S PLACE

INHERITED RIGHTS CONSTITUTION EXPLAINED On the death of a King the new Sovereign is proclaimed. “The High Lnd Mighty Prince is now, by the death of our late Sovereign of happy memory, becoume our only lawful and rightful liege lord (says) George the Fifth, by the Grace of God, of Great Britain, Ireland, and the British Dominions beyond the Seas, King, Defender of the Faith, Emperor of India,” writes Sir John Marriott in the “Daily Mail.” Three points here demand attention and they are all of recent origin. The first addition to the Royal titles was made in 1876 when, under an Act of Parliament, initiated by Disraeli. Queen Victoria assumed the title of Empress of India. The Act was bitterly denounced at the time as “a characteristic bit of melodrama performed by a political charlatan.” I have still in my possession a pamphlet of the day, “A Blot on the Queen’s Head,” but Disraeli had more imagination, and much more foresight, than his critics. British India had passed from John Company to the Crown in 1858. The Royal Titles Act was the flitting and appropriate sequel to that transference of authority. Beyond the Seas The King, then, Is Emperor of India. He is also King of the British Dominions Beyond the Seas. This title is assumed under the general power conferred by the Royal Titles Act of 1901, which authorised the Crown to make such additions to the existing style as seemed fit. Of all the developments in the later years of Queen Victoria’s reign the most significant was the movement towards the closer union of the overseas parts of the Empire. Consequently King Edward VII signalised his accession by an appropriate addition. The form ultimately adopted was “and of the British Dominions Beyond the Seas.” But an alternative suggestion is, curiously enough, recalled by the inscription on our coinage. Britt: Omn: Rex stands for “King of all the Britains” rejected in 1901 in favour of the simpler addition. One other change in the title was made as recently as 1927. under the Royal and Parliamentary Titles Act of that year. The old style “King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland,” was held to be no longer appropriate. It was, indeed, most unhappily, a misnomer. Since 1922 there had no longer been a United Kingdom: the Union was dissolved. The present style was accordingly substituted.

The Act of 1927 was the first (since the Kings of this realm abrogated the title of King of France) which apparently circumscribed the immediate jurisdiction of the Crown. The Act of 1876 "enabled” her Majesty “to make an addition to a Royal Style and Titles.” The Act of 1901 likewise authorised an addition “in recognition of his Majesty’s Dominions beyond the Seas.” So matters remain. The King bears another title: but it is not “royal.” He is Duke of Lancaster—a title which carries with it a large revenue. His eldest son is bom Duke of Cornwall, and as Duke enjoys a princely income. Bus apart from private resources (which may or may not exist) the King’s revenue depends on an Act of Parliament which it is customary to pass at the beginning of each new reign and which must be passed within six months of the death of the previous Sovereign. The history of the Royal revenue can be briefly summarised. In early days no distinction was drawn between the King and the State —betwee “royal” revenue and “national” revenue. Down to the seventeenth century the King bore the whole charge of government and administration. A Modern Atmosphere With the accession of the Tudors we get into a modern atmosphere. Henry VII was a first-rate man of business and accumulated a huge fortune, which was quickly dissipated by his gay and extravagant successor.

Parliamentary grants and "benevolences” were needed to sustain the monarch and carry out his policy. Queen Elizabeth was more careful, not to say (as her enemies said) parsimonious in the extreme. But the critical change came with the accession of the Stuarts.

It is curious to reflect that but for the discovery of America, and the consequent increase in the production of the precious metals, we might never have heard of the “Puritan” Revolution. But so it was. The value of ironey rapidly fell: the expenses of the Crown and the Government rapidly increased. The Stuart kings necessarily went to Parliament for supplies; Parliament would only make them on conditions; the conditions were distasteful to the Crown, and revolution ensued. The silver mines had produced it. After the Restoration, the House of Commons successfully maintained its exclusive right to determine “as to the method, measure, and time of every tax,” but it was only after the Revolution in 1688 that a clear distinction began to be drawn between the expenses of the Crown and the expenditure of the State. Under successive Sovereigns the distinction became more and more precise. The Civil List, as it came to be called, was gradually relieved of all charges which were properly national or parliamentary, but was, at the same time, greatly diminished in amount. Civil List Changes Queen Victoria on her accession completed the process and received a Civil List of £385,000 a year. This was raised on the accession of Edward VII to £470,000, but the increment was more than compensated by the increased revenue from Crown lands. When Queen Victoria surrendered the latter revenue it amounted to only £245,000 a year. The nation now receives from that same source a net revenue of more than £1,300,000 a year. We have therefore, made an exceedingly good bargain with the Crown. It costs the nation nothing. The Civil List, fixed on the accession of the present King at only £433,000, represents barely a third of the present value of the “lands” surrendered by his recent predecessors on the Throne. But that is not all. The King does not draw all the revenue appropriated to the Crown under the Civil List Act of this year.

His income as Duke of Lancaster is, of course, unaffected by Act of Parliament and amounts (net) to some £90,000 a year. Moreover, so long as King Edward VIII remains unmarried he was not to receive £40,000 a year which under the Civil List would come to him on marriage. He also with characteristic generosity agreed to pay an additional £25,000 a year to the Heir Pi'esumptive out of the revenues of the Duchy of Cornwall so long as they continued to suffice, and to relieve the State of a portion of payments to the Privy Purse, out of the same source.

On abdication, if a King has private property and a private income, he, of course, like any other citizen, Retains them. But what ’happens to the Duchy of Cornwall and to the Duchy of Lancaster? The Duchy of Lancaster has been, since the fourteenth century, an appanage of the Crown, and the estates and jurisdiction attaching thereto descend with the Crown. Abdication Involves their surrender. Revenues a Birthright Cornwall was created a Duchy by Edward 111 for the benefit of his eldest son. To tthe eldest son of the Sovereign its revenues belong as a birthright. Lacking a son, they are vested in the Sovereign; but plainly a Sovereign from whom they could not be divorced. It is the duty of Parliament to make suitable provision for him. But it is under no legal obligation to do so: it would be an act of grace. So much for the King’s revenues. It may be well here to restate the precise title of the Sovereigns of the House of Windsor. This rests on statute. By the Zxct of Settlement (1700-1701) the Crown, failing heirs to William 111 and the Princess Anne, was settled on the heirs of the body of

Sophia, daughter of Elizabeth Queen of Bohemia (who was a daughter of James I) and widow of the Elector of Hanover. There were no heirs to William 111 or Queen Anne, and the Crown, therefore, passed on the death of the latter to George I, the son of the Electress Sophia. From him the House of Windsor descends, and on the Act of Settlement the title of the King rests. One thing only could have debarred his succession, or could, after his accession, vacate the Throne and absolve the people from their allegiance: that is profession of the Roman faith. Should he abjure it in fay our of Roman Catholicism the Crown would automatically pass to the next heir—being a Protestant—precisely as if a demise of the Crown had occurred. A formal abdication operates in exactly the same way as decease, though it may be desirable to pass a statute, declaratory or otherwise, to regulate the sucession. That statute, of course, requires the assent of the new King. Were an abdication conditional a statute would be not merely desirable but imperative. Especially would this be necessary if abdication involved any financial provision for the departing King.