very costly, as one single robe in the fifth year of Henry II. stood the city of London in upwards of fourscore pounds'. 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. And, for a farther 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 it's payments, though obscure ones, in the book of domesday and in the great pipe-roll of Henry the first. In the reign of Henry the second the manner of collecting it appears to have been well understood, and it forms a distinct head in the antient dialogue of the exchequer 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 all the queen consorts of England till the death of Henry VIII.; though after the accession of the Tudor family the collecting of it seems to have been much neglected: and, there being no queen [223] consorts afterwards till the accession of James I., a period of near sixty years, it's 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 ", that his consort queen Anne (though she claimed it) yet never thought proper to exact it. In 1635, 11 Car. I., 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 petition of his queen, Henrietta Maria, issued out his writ" 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 painful and judicious antiquary, endeavour to excite queen Catherine to revive this antiquated claim. ANOTHER antient perquisite belonging to the queen consort, mentioned by all our old writers; and therefore only worthy 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 vero ita observatur, “quod rex illum habebit integrum propter suum privilegium : “de balena vero sufficit secundum quosdam, si rex inde habuerit caput, et regina caudam." The reason of this whimsical division, as assigned by our ancient records', was to furnish the queen's wardrobe with whalebone. (2) BUT further: though the queen is in all respects a subject, yet, in 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. III.) to compass or imagine the death of [224] 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 the eighth 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, it trespassing too strongly, as well on natural justice, as 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 Hen. VIII. x Bracton, l. 3. c. 3. Britton, c. 17. Flet. l. 1. c. 45 & 46. Pryn. Aur. Reg. 127. (2) The reason is more whimsical than the division, for the whalebone lies entirely in the head. Mr. Christian's note. THE husband of a queen regnant, as prince George of Denmark was to queen Anne, is her 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. 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 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 Cokea tells us was enacted in parliament in 6 Hen. VI., though the statute be not in print. But she though an alien born, shall still be entitled to dower after the king's demise, which no other alien is b. (3) A queen dowager, when married again to a subject, doth not lose her regal dignity, as peeresses dowager do their peerage when they marry commoners. For Catherine, queen dowager of Henry V., though she married a private gentleman, Owen ap Meredith ap Theodore, commonly called Owen Tudor; yet, by the name [225] of Catherine 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 the first, maintained an action of dower (after the death of her second husband) by the name of queen of Navarre c. 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 regarded by the laws. a 2 Inst. 18. See Riley's Plac. Parl.72. c2 Inst, 50. b Co. Litt. 31. For by statute 25 Edw. III. 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 with bastardy: and the eldest daughter of the king is also alone inheritable to the crown, on failure of issue male, and therefore more respected by the laws than any of her younger sisters (4), insomuch that upon this, united with other (foedal) 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 to the crown is usually made prince of Wales and earl of Chester, by special creation and investiture; but being the king's eldest son, he is by inheritance duke of Cornwall without any new creation d. (5) 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 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 antient nobility. Since the revolution and act of settlement, it means the protestant issue of the princess Sophia; now comparatively few in number, but which in process of time may possibly be as largely 48 Rep. 1. Seld. tit. of hon. 2. 5. (4) The author's meaning would have been more clear if the expression were" inheritable alone," instead of " alone inheritable:" all that is intended is that the eldest sister succeeds alone, and that the younger sisters do not take with her in coparcenary; but they succeed in turns after her, if she dies without issue. As to the reason commonly assigned for the distinction made in respect of the eldest daughter of the king, see Vol. IV. p. 81. n. 5. (5) This is a peculiar kind of inheritance, confined indeed to the single instance, and created by act of parliament. The king's eldest son and heir apparent is duke of Cornwall by inheritance, but only for the life of his father; for the death of the king, which casts the crown on him, takes the duchy out of him, and vests it in his eldest son and heir apparent. diffused. The more confined sense includes only those, who are within 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, they fall into the rank of ordinary subjects, and are seldom considered any farther, 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. 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 farther regarded by the antient 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. VIII. c. 10. which enacts, that no person, except the king's children, shall presume to sit or have place at the 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' explains to signify grandson or nepos), or brother's ar 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, 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 interpretation of nephew: and therefore [ 225 * ] when his late majesty king George II. created his grandson e Sec essay on collateral consanguinity, f 4 Inst. 362. in Law-tracts, 4to. Oron. 1771. Tracts, p. 301. |