Title & Role of a Consort


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

Reina

Serene Highness
Joined
Oct 1, 2004
Messages
1,483
City
Dallas
Country
United States
Ok with seeing all the hoopla around CP Mary and Fred's trip to her native country and how much she is lauded for her fashion sense, I got to thinking about what the role of a royal consort should be. To me it seems as if some consorts, like MAry, are looked to just for their fashion sense. I know that her marrying into the DRF is a fairytale, but it seems to me that she is just a fashion plate. Being a just a fashion plate is just not worth it.

But when I see other royal consorts, such as the late great Queen Mom, CPs Mette-Marit and Letizia, and Queen Sofia, and others, I see the role of a royal consort as very valuable and fulfilling.

Also I am not trying ot put Mary or other consorts down. It is just that there is so much emphasis on materialism and style and not issues that should really count.

What do you guys think?
 
reina i'm sorry to say but this world is obessed with how beautiful you are no matter how much plastic work you've had done, your body-the thinner you are the better and how you dress.
its sad to say that if you are smart no one cares but how u look..now thats a horse of a different color
 
I agree Reina, with privilege must come responsibility.

 
It is ok to be praised for beauty. But the consort should not try to take that so seriously. Like Freedom said with privilege comes responsibilty. So is it the responsibility of the consort to just make sure that she looks fashionable? or is it something else like truly working for causes one believes in-not in a fashionable sense, but in a faithful sense. And also supporting the prince/king.

When I am constantly seeing news on a person's fashion sense and soooo many threads on one's fashion sense it just makes me wonder what exactly is that person's role supposed to be about?
 
What an interesting question Reina! It will be interesting to see what other members have to say -- the comments posted already are quite interesting.

My feelings are that while our society can be heavily focused on physical appearances (how a princess styles her hair, her make up, her jewellery, her shoes, her purses, how she dresses and which designers she wears), the princess herself shouldn't be caught up in this. How a princess looks when she goes out to perform her royal duties is what sells magazines -- but what sells royal families to the citizens who are supporting them through taxes is the work they do and how they represent their countries while at home and abroad.

I think physical looks are over rated anyways. Of all our 5,000+ members I doubt that we could all come to agreement on which of the Crown Princesses is the prettiest or the best dressed. Looks are relative and personal. Some members may find one princess pretty because of her glamour while others may like another princess for her wholesome nature. And of course every country will say that their Crown Princess is the prettiest -- it's natural to have pride in one's royal family.

While I certainly want my royals to look professional when out working, ultimately it matters more the kind of work they are doing and how hard they are working. A princess may dress like she's just stepped off the cover of VOGUE magazine but if she only performs two or three royal duties a month that wouldn't impress me much. Whereas even if a princess looked rather on the plain side (but still professional) but was out doing 20 royal duties a month and representing a variety of causes I would find that much more admirable.

I absolutely agree with Freedom that to whom much is given much is expected. Royal families are bestowed with tremendous status, prestige and luxury -- as well as tremendous obligations and burdens. But the mark of a true royal is someone who rises to the challenge rather than hides in the palace or hides behind good looks and nice clothes.

As a personal example, I have criticized on more than one occasion my loathing of Victoria of Sweden's ponytail and her rather plain style of dressing. But despite the ponytail, the glasses always, and the lack of colour in her wardrobe, I do admire very much how hard Victoria works, how much she sacrifices, and how she seems to strive endlessly to represent Sweden with the utmost professionalism and dedication. I wouldn't trade (and not to be presumptous, but I don't think the Swedes would either) Victoria in a couple of Nathan suits, Prada and Versace gowns for this commitment and dedication.

Letizia is well known for her recycling of her wardrobe, and as much as I grumble about seeing a blue jacket for the umpteenth time I do appreciate all those upteenth occasions she has worn it.

The mark of a good princess isn't by how vast her wardrobe is or how well stocked with designer clothing it is -- but by how much she cares about her country, its citizens and her dedication, commitment and sincerity in carrying on the role of Crown Princess.
 
I think there should be a healthy balance. in my very humble opinion, I think that it's okay for them to dress up and make themselves look presentable and decent, as long as they are fighting for some cause or another as well. As an example, the late Princess Diana was always very particular about how she looked, but that didn't stop her from fighting for causes that were close to her heart. Queen Noor is another example of this, she looks good, but she also does good. I say why not have both beauty and compassion?

While I don't know enough about her to have any opinion of her, I believe CP Mary is involved in charity work. quote from Hello magazine:

"Her trademark style, as well as her graciousness and devotion to charity work, captured the hearts of her countrymen throughout the two-week visit"

a few examples of Mary's work, again quotes from Hello:

"The Princess entertained young cancer patients with a special reading of one of Denmark's favourite fairytales, Hans Christian Andersen's The Ugly Duckling"

" "I'm lucky," she told one hospital worker, who had asked the Tasmanian-born royal what it was like to be a princess, adding, "I have a privileged position to help other people" "

"Dressed in a shimmering white silk suit, Mary hosted a lunch for youngsters in support of the Australian Mental Health Foundation, one of the numerous charity events she attended during her visit"

"Princess Mary, wearing a full-length black V-neck gown with diamante detailing, waltzed with former New South Wales premier Neville Wran at a dinner in aid of the Victor Chang Cardiac Research Institute"


I don't think she focuses just on the way she looks, but like I said I don't know much about her so I'm really not in a position to make an argument one way or another
 
Last edited by a moderator:
In my opinion a royal consort should be someone that is very involved in various aspects of the society that they live in. I prefer royal consorts that can individually bring attention to an issue or cause, but also one that is supporting to the Crown Prince(or -ss). In my opinion the ideal consort is Princess Mathilde of Belgium.

Reina said:
So is it the responsibility of the consort to just make sure that she looks fashionable? or is it something else like truly working for causes one believes in-not in a fashionable sense, but in a faithful sense. And also supporting the prince/king.

When I am constantly seeing news on a person's fashion sense and soooo many threads on one's fashion sense it just makes me wonder what exactly is that person's role supposed to be about?

Personally, I think it is a little bit of both. It is the responsibility of the consort to look appropriate and well groomed as they are public images and well image is everything.In most cases looking well groomed and appropriate usually ends up "being fashionable". It is also important for them get out there promote their countries and work for charitable causes.

Despite the fact that CPss Mary has been photographed for three magazines, in the ten months that Mary has been Crown Princess, she has (with her husband)travel various places abroad promoting Denmark (and HCA), carry out engagements in Denmark, and she has established the charities she has chosen to work with (Mental Health Foundation, Heart Foundation..etc.) Even on her recent trip abroad, similar foundations were incorporated in the trip.

In my opinion she is well on her way to becoming a great consort.

That said,I think everyone is guilty of talking about fashion. If you look in just about every royal house in this forum you will find a thread (or two) about fashion concerning the royal woman.People like talking about the superficial, it is simply human habit.However at the end of the day it is really what you chose to get out of the threads that makes the difference. Will it be that "the royal woman wore a nice coat yesterday" or that " the royal woman attended a memorial service or paid a working visit to one of her charities".
 
I think being fashionable is absolutely necessary, but it should not define the consort. It's just that with some consorts all I hear is what she is wearing. But I did not mean bad when I singled Mary out. It is just with her visit to Australia the only thing I hear is what she is wearing not what she is doing. But yes I hope to hear alot of responses.
 
I think I understand what you mean Reina, you do make an excellent point. While the consorts might very well be working hard, the media seems to focus a lot more on the fashion aspect. But that's the reality of our society, we live in a society that is very much a materialistic one, especially where women are concerned, but men are not immune to it either--that's why we have so many cases of eating disorders--we are, let's face it, a brand name society--and it all stems from our desire to fit in.
 
Well I am not pointing to the media. They have a clear duty to cover what sells. I am pointing out the consorts and what their role is-how they have expressed this.
 
Alexandria said:
As a personal example, I have criticized on more than one occasion my loathing of Victoria of Sweden's ponytail and her rather plain style of dressing. But despite the ponytail, the glasses always, and the lack of colour in her wardrobe, I do admire very much how hard Victoria works, how much she sacrifices, and how she seems to strive endlessly to represent Sweden with the utmost professionalism and dedication. I wouldn't trade (and not to be presumptous, but I don't think the Swedes would either) Victoria in a couple of Nathan suits, Prada and Versace gowns for this commitment and dedication..

Hear Hear. Well said. Take the example of Mette-Marit. She has been criticized by members and the press for her fashion but lots of people, myself included, admire her for her hard work and her dedication to her charities, her duties and her role as Crown Princess and future queen of Norway. It is better to be admired for what you do than for what you look like.
 
I agree about MM. SHe did an excellent job in Malawi. In regards to Maxima I think thhat she uses her intelligence from her business background alot, which I admire. I think she does a good job.
 
Yes, in Malawi. Very impressive. Business-like or professional and empathic as well. Good qualities for a royal to have.
 
Reina said:
Well I am not pointing to the media. They have a clear duty to cover what sells. I am pointing out the consorts and what their role is-how they have expressed this.

oh okay, I see what you are saying now, thanx for clarifying
 
This doesn't really fit in the thread, but I thought that it might be worth saying that a few years ago, Prince Albert of Monaco was asked who was the best princess in the world. (Or a question similiar) To the great surprise fo the interviewer Albert didn't answer Diana, instead he spoke of another women. He noted that she endlessly works for charities, and gets really hands on. That she had been involved with AIDS and landmines long before Diana had and works tireless for causes that are not popular in the public arena. He noted that she was a remarkable women who just happened to be royal.
The sad thing is I don't remember the royal mentioned, or it was a royal that is relatively low key. So although she is a remarkable royal and worthy of our praise, we don't even know her name - and the fact that she doesn't have several spin doctors at her call says she doesn't need our 'support' to be who she is.
In a recent article about ending the British monarchy the main reason was that Britain doesn't need more celebrities. They argued that the royals was just Britain's attempt to glamourous itself and keep up with Hollywood and yes, the following of fashion trends, and going to premier evenings was cited as the fall of 'regality' in the British monarchy.
 
Last edited:
i think the job of a royal consort is to :
look your best at all times
provide an heir or two for your husband
do charity work
but i have a question-is there a princesses that has more than two children? because is the olden days they seem to have at least six kids but not now.
 
Sure! It must be as hard (or maybe harder) to be a male consort. Besides there will be plenty of male consorts b/c there will be three (maybe more) female monarchs.
 
Oh yeah! I was talking about Catherine-Amalia, Ingrid Alexander, and Elisabeth. Yeah I guess the consorts of teh current three female monarchs can be analyzed as well.
 
The consort has dress nice but it should be more about what she does being involuved in charity work while also suporting her husband in his future role as
head of state plus supplying a couple of heirs to the throne.
 
I think a consort should not only be another public figure that does charity work and represents the state but also someone who is there for the monarch themselves when they need some support during what can be a very difficult job
 
A royal consort should have a knowledge and understanding of social conditions in her (his) country.
It is wonderful to have charities in which to partake of. :king::queen4:
 
Looking back over the last century, it's interesting to note that some consorts stand out, revealing perhaps what makes a good consort - and what doesn't!

UK - Although most would think of the Elizabeth, I'm not sure how much of that is due to what happened before (in the abdication crisis) and after (as Queen Mum) she was Queen consort. Certainly her steely character was of great support to her husband during the war. Queen Mary was probably equally as important during George V's reign.

Romania - Queen Marie: glamorous and artistic, charismatic yet profoundly dedicated to serving her country and a real player in the politics of the post-WWI era.

Belgium: Astrid a beautiful young mother tragically killed.

Monaco: Grace - beautiful, glamorous and charismatic, very active in charitable work and perhaps the archtypal fairytale princess.

On the negative side, Alexandra of Russia and Frederica of Greece are perhaps the two most villified consorts of the C20th: aloof, interfering and anti-democratic.

Prince Claus is probably the most successful male consort of the last century.
 
I think the Duke of Edinburgh has been a brilliant consort to HMQ. Over 60 years at the job
 
IMO the role of a consort depends greatly on being a man or a woman... I think that for a woman the role may be more demaning: constant scrutinity, While for a male consort is all about not be too much in the shadow.... I also think a male consort appeals far less than a woman...(press point) but Prince Philip is the epitome of a royal consort IMO. Prince Daniel of Sweden has done good so far, even though he will need more charisma once Victoria ascends... my 2 cents anyway
 
Titles and styles of monarch's spouses

This is a thread to expand upon the discussion currently in the Royal House of Denmark regarding Prince Henrik and his wish to be King or King Consort.

This discussion has touched on other centuries, other countries, equality, and past, current & future monarchs and their spouses. It is especially relevant as many countries have changed the rules regarding female heirs and there will be many Queens in Europe.
 
The solution is fairly simple.
Make the titles of the bearer of the Crown and the Heir functional and gender neutral.
That means: only for the person who bears the Crown or who is the Heir.
All others are a Prince (Princess) of the Royal House.

United Kingdom

The Queen and Prince Philip
The King and Princess Philippa

The Princess of Wales and Prince George
The Prince of Wales and Princess Georgiana


Belgium

La Reine et le prince Louis
Le Roi
et la princesse Louise

La Duchesse de Brabant et le prince Léopold
Le Duc de Brabant et la princesse Léopoldine


Luxembourg

Die Großherzogin und Prinz Wilhelm
Der Großherzog und Prinzessin Wilhelmine

Die Erbgroßherzogin und Prinz Alexander
Der Erbgroßherzog und Prinzessin Alexandrine


Monaco

La Princesse souveraine et le prince Stéphane
Le Prince souverain et la princesse Stéphanie

La Princesse héritière et le prince Charles
Le Prince héritier et la princesse Charlotte



The Netherlands

De Koningin en prins Frederik
De Koning en prinses Frederika

De Prinses van Oranje en prins Willem
De Prins van Oranje en prinses Wilhelmina


Spain

La Reina y el infante Don Juan
El Rey
y la infanta Doña Juana

La Princesa de Asturias y el infante Don Fernando
El Príncipe de Asturias
y la infanta Doña Fernanda

(* = infante/infanta by grace or otherwise príncipe/princesa)


Etc. Etc. This systematic is logic, is crisp and is clear.
Such a system means there can only be one person with the title of King (or Queen).
And there can only be one person who exclusively is known with the title for the Heir.
 
Last edited:
I think it would take some getting used to, as everyone is used to a king's spouse being called Queen....but I was actually thinking this is probably much more likely to evolve as you have described. If indeed, when Prince Charles becomes king his wife is known/addressed as Princess Consort as has been said, rather than Queen Camilla, this sets some precedent.

I suppose if the word consort was emphasized in all documents, announcements etc, Queen Consort and King Consort would be an option but that has issues.

I know people were concerned about differentiating between a Prince Consort or Princess Consort and other assorted Prince and Princesses. Do you have thoughts about this?
 
Last edited:
I completely understand the conversation and think having uniformity over all nations is great thinking HOWEVER it does also create other issues - obviously (certainly at the current time as well) it would mean that in the UK it would give Camilla a lesser title than she is automatically entitled to at the moment - and that would be yet another round of controversy.

A very difficult issue I think to find something worldwide that works fairly and equally and look forward (maybe with a little trepidation) to the continuing discussions ☺
 
Frankly, I see no reason for any nation to change its traditions because of a hissy fit by a crabby old man.
 
Back
Top Bottom