Is Queen Victoria the possessor of this title? It would appear so. Sir
N. Harris Nicolas, in his _Synopsis of the Peerage_, speaking of the
dukedom, says:
"1399. Henry Plantagenet, son and heir, ascended the throne 29th
Sept. 1399; when this title, with all his other honours, became
merged in the crown, in which it has ever since remained vested."
Your correspondent may be referred to _Blackstone_ (Introd. §4.), where
is a very interesting account of the Palatinate and Duchy of Lancaster.
We are there told that on his succession to the crown, Henry IV. was too
prudent to suffer his Duchy of Lancaster to be united to the crown, and
therefore he procured an act of parliament ordaining that this duchy and
his other hereditary estates--
"Should remain to him and his heirs for ever, and should remain,
descend, be administered, and governed in like manner as if he had
never attained the regal dignity."
In the first of Edward IV., Henry VI. was attainted, and the Duchy of
Lancaster declared forfeited to the crown. At the same time an act was
passed to continue the county palatine, and to make the same part of the
duchy; and to vest the whole in King Edward IV. and his heirs, _kings of
England_, for ever. Blackstone then mentions that in the first Henry
VII. an act was passed vesting the Duchy of Lancaster in that king and
his heirs; and in a note examines the question whether the duchy vested
in the natural or political person of the king. He then says:
"It seems to have been understood very early after the statute of
Henry VII., that the Duchy of Lancaster was by no means thereby
made a separate inheritance from the royal patrimony, since it
descended, with the crown, to the half-blood in the instances of
Queens Mary and Elizabeth; which it could not have done as the
estate of a mere Duke of Lancaster in the common course of legal
descent."
If, in saying that William III. never created himself Duke of Lancaster,
your correspondent means that he caused no patent to issue granting
himself that dignity, he is, I doubt not, correct. But if, after the
above quotations, any doubt could remain on the subject, possibly the
following extract from the act 1 Will. & Mar. sess. 2. cap. 2. ("An Act
declaring the Rights and Liberties of the Subject, and settling the
Succession of the Crown") will sufficiently dispel it:--
"And the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons seriously
considering, &c., do hereby recognise, acknowledge, and declare,
that King James II. having abdicated the Government, and their
Majesties having accepted the Crown and Royal dignity as
aforesaid, their said Majesties did become, were, and are, and of
right ought to be, by the laws of this realm, our sovereign liege
lord and lady the King and Queen of England, France, and Ireland,
and the dominions thereunto belonging, in and to whose princely
persons the Royal state, crown, and dignity of the said realms,
with all _honours_, _styles_, _titles_, regalities, prerogatives,
powers, jurisdictions, and authorities to the same belonging and
appertaining, are most rightfully and entirely invested and
incorporated, united and annexed."
In conclusion, will you allow me to ask some correspondent to set forth
at length the titles of our Sovereign Lady the Queen? In confessing that
I do not know, I fancy that I state the case as regards the majority of
the lieges of her Majesty. Indeed, a tale sometime ago went "the round
of the papers," to the effect that the "Duke of Rothsay" was one day
announced to his Royal Highness Prince Albert. The prince, who was not
aware of the existence of such a personage, at length ordered him to be
admitted, and was not a little astonished at beholding his eldest son!
This, though doubtless the coinage of some ingenious but hungry
penny-a-liner, pre-supposes so large an amount of general ignorance on
the subject, that I hope some well-informed individual will, through
your columns, enlighten the world on the point.