Esq. Somerset Herald; in Chancery-lane, by C. G. Young, Esq. York Herald; in Wood-street, (on the spot where the cross formerly stood,) by W. A. Blount, Esq. Chester Herald; and lastly, at the Royal Exchange, by Mr. J. Pulman, Portcullis Pursuivant.

After the ceremony, the Duke of Norfolk and Sir William Woods had an audience of the Queen.

A few words on the subject of the state costume worn by her Majesty will not here be out of place. The Queen never wears any robes officially, but on her visit to Parliament, when she wears red; and at the Coronation,* when she will go to the Abbey in crimson, and there be invested with purple.

Her Majesty, as Sovereign of the Order of the Garter, wears the riband, (over the left shoulder,) badge, and stars of the order,the two latter set in diamonds, and an armlet with the motto of the Order on her left arm. On these occasions her Majesty gene

rally wears on her head a splendid circlet of diamonds.†

* Full particulars, not only of the costume worn by the Sovereign at the Coronation, but of that solemn ceremonial generally, will be found in the Section of this work which is devoted entirely to that subject.

The reader who has had occasionally the good fortune to see her Majesty, may consider these particulars uncalled for. But the book is written, if not "for all time," at least for all people; and there still exist those who have no idea of the Sovereign ever being with head uncrowned, or hand unsceptred. Witness that country-gentleman, who, going to the theatre on an occasion of George the Fourth visiting it, would not believe the King was the King, because he had not his kingly crown upon his head; and who, when his disbelief upon this point was somewhat shaken, was confirmed in the accuracy of his former judgment upon ascertaining that the Lion and the Unicorn did not hang down on each side of him, for he felt positive, and nothing could persuade him to the contrary, that the King of England had never had any other arms but those. This is stated to have been a fact; if so, it adds another to the many cases in which " Le vrai n'est pas le vraisemblable."

The following is the style in which her Majesty is to be addressed by letter. But, generally speaking, it is more in accordance with official etiquette to address her Majesty through the head of the department to which such communication may refer.

The Queen-Consort, as wife of the reigning King, is, by virtue of her marriage, participant of divers prerogatives.

In the first place, 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 separate existence so long as the marriage continues. For the Queen-Consort is of ability to purchase lands and to convey them, to make leases and to grant copyholds, and do other acts of ownership, without the concurrence of her lord; which no other woman can do: a privilege as old as the Saxon era. She is also capable of taking a grant from the King; may sue and be sued alone; have a separate property in goods as well as lands, and a right to dispose of them by will in short, in all legal proceedings is looked upon as a "feme sole,” and not as a "feme covert," —as a single, and not as a married woman.* The Queen-Consort has also many exemptions and minute pre

*Blackstone, Book i. cap. 4.

rogatives for instance, she pays no toll; nor is she liable to any amercement in any court. But in general, unless where the law has expressly 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.

The Queen-Consort of England has also 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.

The original revenue of our ancient Queens-Consort seems to have consisted of 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, and which were frequently appropriated to particular purposes; as, to buy wool for her Majesty's use,—to purchase oil for her lamps, or to furnish her attire from head to foot; 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.*

She has a further addition to her income in that ancient perquisite called Queen-gold,† or Aurum Regina, of the payment of which there are traces in Domesday Book, and in the great Pipe Roll of the thirty-first of Henry the First; and which, it is sup

Blackstone, Book 1. cap. 4.

✦ "The Queen-gold, or Aurum Reginæ, is a royal revenue belonging to every Queen-Consort during her marriage with the King, and due from every person who hath made a voluntary offering or fine to the King, amounting to ten marks or upwards, for or in consideration of any privileges, grants, licences, pardons, or other matter of royal favour conferred upon him by the King; and it is due in the proportion of onetenth 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."--Blackstone, Book 1. cap. 4.

F

posed, was originally granted in consequence of those matters of grace and favour, out of which it arose, being frequently obtained from the crown by the powerful intercession of the Queen.

No attempt, however, has been made to enforce this claim since Charles I, at the petition of his Queen, Henrietta Maria, issued out his writ for levying it, but afterwards purchased it of his consort for ten thousand pounds; finding it, perhaps, too trifling and troublesome to levy. Prynne in vain endeavoured, by his learned treatise on the subject, to excite Katherine to revive this antiquated claim.

Prynne's book, which was published in 1668, was written in consequence of Coke having, in his Institutes, "overmuch clipped this gold coin, and mistaken or misapplied some records concerning it."

Another ancient perquisite belonging to the Queen-Consort, mentioned by all our old writers, is, that on the taking of a whale on the coasts, which is a royal fish, it shall be divided between the King and the Queen; the head only being the King's property, the tail of it the Queen's. The reason of this whimsical division being, as assigned by our ancient records, that the Queen's wardrobe might be furnished with whalebone.

But though the Queen-Consort 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 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.

The Queens-Consort have been graced with "all the royal makings" of a Queen from a very early period. Before the Conquest they were anointed and crowned, and sate with the Kings in seats of state. The time when these honours were first allowed to them is uncertain; the earliest positive evidence of that fact being the ritual assigned to the age of Ethelred II, who was elected in

978.

The coronation of the Queen-Consort has been pronounced to be "as an acknowledgment of the right of succession in her issue," and "as a recognition of her constitutional character, as essential as that of the monarch himself."*"Of these doctrines, however," says Mr. Taylor, "a sufficient refutation may be derived from the following obvious considerations:-1st, That the observance or omission of this coronation never was or could be held to influence the right of inheritance of the legitimate issue of a royal sovereign. 2ndly, The coronation of the King is essential, inasmuch as it is a political act; in that of the Queen, however, no such character can be discovered no consent is asked from the people as to the person to be crowned; no conditions are required from her,† no oath is administered, no homage or allegiance is offered. The Queen's coronation, though performed at the same place, and usually on the same day, with that of the sovereign, is a subsequent and distinct solemnity; it proceeds from the King,‡ and is granted to his consort for the honour of the kingly office.

* "Some Inquiry into the Constitutional Character of the Queen-Consort." London. 8vo. "Edinburgh Review" for September 1814; and Taylor's "Glory of Regality," pp. 49 and 307.

See the ancient form, in a pamphlet entitled "A Collection out of the Book called Liber Regalis, remaining in the Treasury of the Church of Westminster, touching the Coronation of the King and Queen together." London, 1661. This tract was reprinted in 1821.

It may be remembered that, in the case of the late Queen Caroline, Lord Londonderry declared in the House of Commons, in reply to a question from Mr. Monck upon this subject, that neither himself, nor any other of the King's ministers, were prepared to advise any act of the Crown by which the Queen should be included; and the Queen, hav ing then laid before the Privy Council her claim to a participation in the ceremony of the coronation, was heard by her Attorney and Solicitor General before the Privy Council assembled at Whitehall for the purpose when, after hearing the arguments on each side, which occupied some days, the Council informed the King they had come to an unanimous opinion against the claim; which decision was communicated in due form to her Majesty.

F 2

: