Questions about British Styles and Titles 1: Ending 2022

[Ish]

Hey everyone! I'm not sure if this has been brought up in the Cambridge baby threads (I'm a little behind in reading those) but I'm watching the documentary about Edward and Mary: The Forgotten Tudors, and the host (I think it's David... something or other) is talking about how Mary and then Elizabeth were proclaimed Princesses of Wales. Last I checked folks on here were saying that granting the title of Princess of Wales to a female heir had never been done before. Is the host just dramatizing, or were these princesses actually given those titles?

Neither is listed in Wikipedia's list of Princes of Wales or Princesses of Wales (the later of which states that the is a courtesy title for the consort of the Prince of Wales). I believe I've read that at one point during the reign of Henry VIII (presumably before his first divorce) Mary was given many of the privileges of Prince of Wales without being given the title, so it stands to reason that she was treated as such without being such.

Regardless, though, as the birth of Edward proves, neither was the heir apparent at any point in their life. As the children of the monarch they were at best the heir presumptive and could be (and were) displaced by the birth of the monarch's legitimate male heir - and at one point, I believe, there was even talk of displacing Mary in favour of her illegitimate male half-brother. Later in their lives they were each the heir presumptive of the monarch, their sibling, and could be displaced by the birth of a legitimate child (regardless of gender). None of the children of Henry had children themselves, thus each of his legitimate children became monarch in succession.

 

[Tiggersk8]

Hey everyone! I'm not sure if this has been brought up in the Cambridge baby threads (I'm a little behind in reading those) but I'm watching the documentary about Edward and Mary: The Forgotten Tudors, and the host (I think it's David... something or other) is talking about how Mary and then Elizabeth were proclaimed Princesses of Wales. Last I checked folks on here were saying that granting the title of Princess of Wales to a female heir had never been done before. Is the host just dramatizing, or were these princesses actually given those titles?

First off, this is another production by Dr David Starkey and I keep meaning to watch it over at YouTube, but haven't done as of yet. Too many things to do and too little time in the day. Anyway...

AFAIK and from what I've read over the years, Mary was indeed created Princess of Wales and was sent to Ludlow Castle in Wales, w/a household in keeping w/her Station and Rank. When Henry divorced Katherine of Aragorn and also declared Mary as illegitimate and a bastard unfit to any Rights of Succession to the Throne, the title was also taken from her.

To my knowledge, while Elizabeth was proclaimed as a Princess and Heiress to the Throne until her Mother's fall from Grace, she never was granted the title Princess of Wales. Now it could have happened and we just don't know about it, but considering after she was born Anne and Henry were still confident of having a son and wanting to leave that title open for lack of a better term, I doubt it.

Now that's how I've read in various books over the years, but I could also be wrong and I'm sure someone on here will come and correct me if that's the case. After all, we're all here to learn, right?

 

[Iluvbertie]

You asked a question, it was answered and in great detail by one member here Which had to have taken up quite a bit of her time to do so considering how indepth she answered your question. You then proceed to treat us in a very arrogant manner, act like you had been ignored completely and/or you got the wrong answer, which you were not treated as nor received the wrong answer to your question.

You then proceed to tell us you've contacted "the experts" w/your question and look at that!!! You pretty much got the same answer as was given you here by at least four different people. Since it's "Debrett's" and therefore the experts, I guess that trumps whatever you were told here. I honestly can't believe you went to all of that trouble and for what? The only reason I can think is to rub our faces in "just how wrong we were", only those who answered your question didn't tell you anything different from what you were told by Debrett's, so...

Why didn't you do that in the first place?

BTW...I've checked the thread for Iluvbertie's posts and from the one I did see going back through the last three pages, there was nothing in it that matches up w/what you say you were told by him/her. That means she/he sent you a Private Message. Posting what another member has told you in the form of a PM out in the open on the board for all to see, unless she/he gave you permission to do so and I doubt it, is not cool and quite rude to boot.

Which leads me to this...

You come on here, basically treat us as an arrogant rude clique who need educating from "the experts" on the subject at hand since you felt you didn't get what you wanted and then have the outright nerve to start calling others on the thread calling you out for your behaviour as rude, arrogant and in need of an attitude adjustment?

Pot calling kettle black much?

Very well said.

I have no record of contacting this person via PM - and I have my PMs back to last June but may have written something like this on another thread or somewhere else.

I found this posters response rude and then condescending and so they are now on my mental 'ignore' list - in other words I will simply skip everything they say, not reply to anything they post etc.

 

[PrincePatrick]

Thanks. I just wonder why he would say, "And Elizabeth was proclaimed Princess of Wales... Now there were two Queens, and two Princesses of Wales." I guess it is just the dweebish British royal historian equivalent of literary hyperbole.

Hmm, the more I look, the more I find websites that say Mary was actually invested as Princess of Wales. I wonder what the original source is for all of these claims. I'm sure there's a simmering debate amongst historians as to the reliability of whatever source has led people to list her as a Princess of Wales. Was it based on some clergyman's diary entry, and mentioned nowhere else? Has she been erased from the line of Princes (and potentially Princess) of Wales because her tenure was so short? Surely someone on this forum has some solid info on this matter.

 

[Artemisia]

Hey everyone! I'm not sure if this has been brought up in the Cambridge baby threads (I'm a little behind in reading those) but I'm watching the documentary about Edward and Mary: The Forgotten Tudors, and the host (I think it's David... something or other) is talking about how Mary and then Elizabeth were proclaimed Princesses of Wales. Last I checked folks on here were saying that granting the title of Princess of Wales to a female heir had never been done before. Is the host just dramatizing, or were these princesses actually given those titles?

Neither Lady Mary (future Mary I) nor Lady Elizabeth (future Elizabeth I) or Princess Elizabeth (future Elizabeth II) were ever Princesses of Wales. It is not an automatic title and the Sovereign has to grant it to the heir apparent to the throne. None of them were Heiresses Apparent (all were heiresses presumptive) and none was ever created the Princess of Wales.

In Mary's case, she had been heiress presumptive to the Throne for many years and when it became apparent Catherine of Aragon would not have any further children, some people (Henry VIII included) started referring to her as The Princess of Wales. However, the title was never officially hers.

At no point was Lady Elizabeth called the Princess of Wales; there was always a strong chance Henry VIII and Anne Boleyn would have a son, or Henry would marry again and have a son with his next wife, as did indeed happen.

Princess Elizabeth was likewise never created The Princess of Wales. Admittedly, when it became apparent George VI and Queen Elizabeth (The Queen Mother) would have no further children, some senior politicians suggested the Princess - as heiress apparent to the throne in all but name - could be granted the title. However, George VI is said to have been opposed to the idea, maintaining that the Princess of Wales has always been the wife of the Prince of Wales, and there was never a woman who held the title in her own right.


This said, there is actually no reason at all why a woman couldn't be created The Princess of Wales in her own right. Some titles of the Heir Apparent require the holder to be male: for instance, the title The Duke of Cornwall can only be held by the Heir Apparent who is also eldest son of the Sovereign. The Prince of Wales title, however, merely requires for the holder to be Heir Apparent to the Throne. If the Succession to the Crown Act is passed, then the first-born child of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge will be Heir(ess) Apparent regardless of gender. If a girl, she absolutely could one day become The Princess of Wales in her own right.

 

[Tiggersk8]

I don't know and it's odd that Starkey, if this is the production I'm thinking of, would say something like that if it wasn't documented somewhere. He usually does a pretty good job of his fact checking, so...Hmmm....

Now you're *really* making me want to watch this. Has to wait till sometime tomorrow at least, as I've up too late already and I have a Dr's appt tomorrow too.

 

[PrincePatrick]

Neither Lady Mary (future Mary I) nor Lady Elizabeth (future Elizabeth I) or Princess Elizabeth (future Elizabeth II) were ever Princesses of Wales. It is not an automatic title and the Sovereign has to grant it to the heir apparent to the throne. None of them were Heiresses Apparent (all were heiresses presumptive) and none was ever created the Princess of Wales.

In Mary's case, she had been heiress presumptive to the Throne for many years and when it became apparent Catherine of Aragon would not have any further children, some people (Henry VIII included) started referring to her as The Princess of Wales. However, the title was never officially hers.

At no point was Lady Elizabeth called the Princess of Wales; there was always a strong chance Henry VIII and Anne Boleyn would have a son, or Henry would marry again and have a son with his next wife, as did indeed happen.

Princess Elizabeth was likewise never created The Princess of Wales. Admittedly, when it became apparent George VI and Queen Elizabeth (The Queen Mother) would have no further children, some senior politicians suggested the Princess - as heiress apparent to the throne in all but name - could be granted the title. However, George VI is said to have been opposed to the idea, maintaining that the Princess of Wales has always been the wife of the Prince of Wales, and there was never a woman who held the title in her own right.


This said, there is actually no reason at all why a woman couldn't be created The Princess of Wales in her own right. Some titles of the Heir Apparent require the holder to be male: for instance, the title The Duke of Cornwall can only be conferred to a Heir Apparent who is also eldest son of the Sovereign. The Prince of Wales title, however, merely requires for the holder to be Heir Apparent to the Throne. If the Succession to the Crown Act is passed, then the first-born child of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge will be Heir(ess) Apparent regardless of gender. If a girl, she absolutely could one day become The Princess of Wales in her own right.

But was this a legal requirement in the 1520s/30s as it might be today? The sense I get is that legal documents must be filed today to create someone with a title. And even if legal documents were required back then as well, isn't whatever the Sovereign says the end all be all, as the font of titles or whatever? In the same way that Princess Alice was never technically/legally Princess Alice, she will always be known to history as Princess Alice because Queen Elizabeth II allowed her to be known as such. If Henry VIII referred to The Princess Mary as The Princess of Wales, and it was common in court to refer to her as such, why not list her in the history books as the first Princess of Wales? Perhaps there are court records/circulars that refer to "The Princess of Wales". Would that be enough to make it "official," or are Letters Patent the only way to make a title official?

 

[Iluvbertie]

George III was, of course, heir apparent after the death of his father, Frederick Prince of Wales.

Now George couldn't be Duke of Cornwall even though he was the heir apparent because he wasn't the eldest son of the King but George II conferred the title Prince of Wales on him.

 

[Osipi]

In the same way that Princess Alice was never technically/legally Princess Alice, she will always be known to history as Princess Alice because Queen Elizabeth II allowed her to be known as such. If Henry VIII referred to The Princess Mary as The Princess of Wales, and it was common in court to refer to her as such, why not list her in the history books as the first Princess of Wales?

I think the answer to this comes back to the difference between titles and styles. Queen Elizabeth II allowed Princess Alice to be known as such as a courtesy. Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother was affectionately known as the Queen Mum but you would never see Queen Mum in the history books. From my limited forays into medieval history, its struck me that even back then there were meticulous records kept and if Henry VIII had created Mary a Princess of Wales, it would be in on record as such. As much as having a son and heir meant to Henry, I don't see that he would have done this only to have her displaced by a future son.

 

[PrincePatrick]

I think the answer to this comes back to the difference between titles and styles. Queen Elizabeth II allowed Princess Alice to be known as such as a courtesy. Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother was affectionately known as the Queen Mum but you would never see Queen Mum in the history books. From my limited forays into medieval history, its struck me that even back then there were meticulous records kept and if Henry VIII had created Mary a Princess of Wales, it would be in on record as such. As much as having a son and heir meant to Henry, I don't see that he would have done this only to have her displaced by a future son.

Good points. I just wish they included footnotes with documentaries like this.

 

[Artemisia]

But was this a legal requirement in the 1520s/30s as it might be today? The sense I get is that legal documents must be filed today to create someone with a title. And even if legal documents were required back then as well, isn't whatever the Sovereign says the end all be all, as the font of titles or whatever? In the same way that Princess Alice was never technically/legally Princess Alice, she will always be known to history as Princess Alice because Queen Elizabeth II allowed her to be known as such. If Henry VIII referred to The Princess Mary as The Princess of Wales, and it was common in court to refer to her as such, why not list her in the history books as the first Princess of Wales? Perhaps there are court records/circulars that refer to "The Princess of Wales". Would that be enough to make it "official," or are Letters Patent the only way to make a title official?

Then, as now, the Heir Apparent must be invested wit the title of the Prince of Wales to actually hold it. For instance, Henry VIII became Heir Apparent to the Throne on 2 April 1502 (upon his elder childless brother's death) but was not granted the Prince of Wales title until February of 1503 or 1504.

Henry merely acknowledged that as his (at the time) sole heir, Mary was The Princess of Wales (heiress to the Throne) in all but name. He also gave Mary (then just a child) her own court, as well many of the prerogatives normally held by the Prince of Wales only. She was even sent to preside over the Council of Wales and the Marches in 1525, aged just 9. A lot of courtiers and even foreigners called her The Princess of Wales; among them was Juan Luis Vives, the famous Spanish humanist who played a role in Mary's education. Nevertheless, Mary was never formally invested with the title. Had Henry wanted to do so, I doubt anyone would have mind; after all Mary already was the Princess of Wales de juro. But he didn't. Moreover, after the annulment of marriage and declaring Mary a bastard, she was no longer heiress (until he passed the Third Succession Act), meaning she couldn't even theoretically hold the title.

In case of most peerage titles, Letters of Patent or Writs of Summons are the only way to make a title official. In case of royal titles, however, the Sovereign's word is believed to be highest authority and he/she is indeed the fount of all honours.

 

[Ish]

Okay, so I have a question regarding the title of Duke of Edinburgh. It's been established that while it's the intention if HM and The DoE that eventually the EoW will be created the DoE, but first both HM and the DoE must die and the duchy must merge with the crown - and that there are circumstances under which it will now merge and will instead end up with Harry or the DoY.

My question is, since honours come from HM is it possible for her to issue LPs regarding the duchy stating that on the death of the current DoE the title will pass to his youngest son? She's issued LPs before that allow for the changing of the inheritance of other duchys, could she not do so here and thus avoid all the speculation and possible drama (and ensure that her wishes are carried out regarding the matter)?

Also, regarding the title of The Princess Royal. I know it's a title denoting the eldest daughter of the monarch. What I wonder is can there be two Princess Royals at one time - say both HM and Charles were to die and William's eldest daughter was not his heir owing to an elder brother, would both Anne and William's daughter be The Princess Royal, or only one? And if only one, which one - does Anne keep the title or does she lose it?

 

[Osipi]

Good points. I just wish they included footnotes with documentaries like this.

The good part about not having footnotes is that it whets the appetite for more knowledge and raises questions and that gives rise to discussions such as we have here. The information that comes out can sometimes be very in depth and by participating we really expand our own scope of understanding of how things work. Some of the knowledge presented here would take hours to present in depth in a TV documentary methinks.

 

[KittyAtlanta]

I do believe the title is Anne's for life. There can only be one at a time.

 

[Artemisia]

Okay, so I have a question regarding the title of Duke of Edinburgh. It's been established that while it's the intention if HM and The DoE that eventually the EoW will be created the DoE, but first both HM and the DoE must die and the duchy must merge with the crown - and that there are circumstances under which it will now merge and will instead end up with Harry or the DoY.

Have a look at this thread - The future of the Duke of Edinburgh title - which explains all the possible future scenarios of the title.

My question is, since honours come from HM is it possible for her to issue LPs regarding the duchy stating that on the death of the current DoE the title will pass to his youngest son? She's issued LPs before that allow for the changing of the inheritance of other duchys, could she not do so here and thus avoid all the speculation and possible drama (and ensure that her wishes are carried out regarding the matter)?

No, Her Majesty can't alter the line of succession to the Duke of Edinburgh title. Nor has she ever done that in regards to other titles. The only way any changes to the original Letters Patent can be made is through an Act of Parliament. Not even the Monarch can amend them just like that.

An example to explain this better. The Duke and Duchess of Fife (the Duchess being the daughter of Edward VII) only had two daughters, meaning the Dukedom should have became extinct about the Duke's death. To avoid that, and not to go through the whole Act of Parliament process, Queen Victoria simply created a second Dukedom of Fife with a remainder that allowed female inheritance. When the Duke of Fife died, the first Dukedom became extinct while the second was inherited by his daughter, Princess Alexandra.

Another example, this time when Letters Patent were actually amended by an Act of Parliament. John Churchill, 1st Duke of Marlborough had no sons and the original Letters Patent of his title had the standard "heirs male" reminder, meaning his daughters could not inherit the title. Not to let it become extinct, an Act of Parliament was passed which allowed female inheritance.

In both cases, the Sovereign's will alone was not enough to make any changes to the title. The Monarch can grant peerage titles but to revoke, amend or suspend them an Act of Parliament is required.

Also, regarding the title of The Princess Royal. I know it's a title denoting the eldest daughter of the monarch. What I wonder is can there be two Princess Royals at one time - say both HM and Charles were to die and William's eldest daughter was not his heir owing to an elder brother, would both Anne and William's daughter be The Princess Royal, or only one? And if only one, which one - does Anne keep the title or does she lose it?

The Princess Royal isn't an automatic title; it is usually but not always granted to the eldest surviving daughter of the current Monarch.
There can only be one Princess Royal at a time. Princess Anne will continue to be The Princess Royal until her death upon which the title will be available for new creation for the eldest daughter of the Monarch of the time.

 

[Ish]

Thank you!

 

[Sister Morphine]

Also, regarding the title of The Princess Royal. I know it's a title denoting the eldest daughter of the monarch. What I wonder is can there be two Princess Royals at one time - say both HM and Charles were to die and William's eldest daughter was not his heir owing to an elder brother, would both Anne and William's daughter be The Princess Royal, or only one? And if only one, which one - does Anne keep the title or does she lose it?

There can only be one Princess Royal at a time. So Anne is The Princess Royal until her death. When William is King, if he wants to bestow his eldest daughter (if he has one) with that title, it will have to be after his aunt has passed.

Queen Elizabeth II was never The Princess Royal as the eldest daughter of George VI because his sister Mary was still alive, and thus the title was not available.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Okay, so I have a question regarding the title of Duke of Edinburgh. It's been established that while it's the intention if HM and The DoE that eventually the EoW will be created the DoE, but first both HM and the DoE must die and the duchy must merge with the crown - and that there are circumstances under which it will now merge and will instead end up with Harry or the DoY.

My question is, since honours come from HM is it possible for her to issue LPs regarding the duchy stating that on the death of the current DoE the title will pass to his youngest son? She's issued LPs before that allow for the changing of the inheritance of other duchys, could she not do so here and thus avoid all the speculation and possible drama (and ensure that her wishes are carried out regarding the matter)?

Also, regarding the title of The Princess Royal. I know it's a title denoting the eldest daughter of the monarch. What I wonder is can there be two Princess Royals at one time - say both HM and Charles were to die and William's eldest daughter was not his heir owing to an elder brother, would both Anne and William's daughter be The Princess Royal, or only one? And if only one, which one - does Anne keep the title or does she lose it?

The Queen can't issue new LPs for the Edinburgh title. She could ask Parliament though to alter the LPs but...that would mean asking parliament to strip her and Philip's elder two sons of their rights - not something I think either of them would want to do.

As for the Princess Royal title - no there can only be one Princess Royal at a time.

If we go back to Queen Victoria and look at the Princess Royals since then and when they were created it shows this quite clearly:

Victoria created her daughter Princess Royal shortly after she was born. She died in 1901, the same year as her mother and Edward VII created his eldest daughter, Louise, Princess Royal in 1905.

Louise died in 1931 and so George V was finally able to create his own daughter, Mary, Princess Royal in 1932 - just short of a year later.

Mary died in 1965 so The Queen could have created Anne Princess Royal any time after that but waited 22 years, until 1987, before giving her that title.

The title is reserved for the eldest daughter of the monarch and there can only be one at a time.

 

[Grandma828]

Thanks to everyone for the lessons in British history.

 

[Queen Camilla]

It's King Charles & Queen Camilla.

But, if Charles wants to be known as King George; then Camilla is Princess Consort Gladys or Maud or Edith or Alice or some other name. It is C&C together or else...
George & Gladys have a nice ring to it.

 

[cepe]

As we are all keenly aware, the palace takes serious polls very seriously, and always. Remember, once Her Majesty move to Windsor permanently, or SGC to be exact, The Palace has about a year to get a feeling on where the Commonwealth stands on the matter of Camila being crowned as Queen Consort.

Camilla becomes Queen Consort automatically - how she decides to be styled (ie Princess Consort) is up to her.

It would take an Act of Parliament in the UK to "unmake" her Queen Consort. At that point, the Commonwealth could be consulted. However, IMO it will never come to this.

 

[DukeOfAster]

camilla becomes queen consort automatically - how she decides to be styled (ie princess consort) is up to her.

It would take an act of parliament in the uk to "unmake" her queen consort. At that point, the commonwealth could be consulted. However, imo it will never come to this.

amen!!!!!!!!!!

 

[branchg]

Camilla becomes Queen Consort automatically - how she decides to be styled (ie Princess Consort) is up to her.

Actually, it is not up to her. Once Charles is King, Camilla can only be HM The Queen or HM Queen Camilla as the wife of The Sovereign. There is no other title or style she can hold and it is automatic.

She cannot use the title or style of "Princess Consort" because her husband is no longer a Prince or HRH. To do so would indeed require an Act of Parliament stripping her of the right to be Queen, which will never happen.

 

[royalistbert]

It would look very odd and embarassing for Camilla to be the only Princess Consort in Europe.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Even if the parliament did strip her of the right to take the female styles and titles from her husband - something every other woman in the land has the right to do - it will still take LPs from Charles to create her anything else.

The only title she could use from Charles, when he becomes King, that doesn't require action would be HRH The Duchess of Lancaster as the wife of HRH The Duke of Lancaster - not a title that has been used officially for centuries but a possibility.

Queen Victoria used Duchess of Lancaster sometimes to travel incognito on the continent.

 

[Roslyn]

Actually, it is not up to her. Once Charles is King, Camilla can only be HM The Queen or HM Queen Camilla as the wife of The Sovereign. There is no other title or style she can hold and it is automatic.

She cannot use the title or style of "Princess Consort" because her husband is no longer a Prince or HRH. To do so would indeed require an Act of Parliament stripping her of the right to be Queen, which will never happen.

Why is it that parliament would have to so act? It is not a legal requirement that a married woman use her husband's style and titles, just custom. Why is it different in the case of the king's wife? Isn't it the monarch who makes these decisions about styles and titles, not parliament?

 

[cepe]

ooooh Iluvbertie - what a great idea! HRH The Duchess of Lancaster - like it a lot.

However, Prince Charles is convinced she can be called Princess Consort - style-wise, not as her actual title. Still legally be Queen but prefers to be called Princess Consort. I suppose the nearest is Princess Alice, Duchess of Gloucester being called that because she asked permission and was given it, even though it was not her title.

Still don't understand why this can't be done with the permission of the monarch (King Charles III)

 

[Roslyn]

ooooh Iluvbertie - what a great idea! HRH The Duchess of Lancaster - like it a lot.

However, Prince Charles is convinced she can be called Princess Consort - style-wise, not as her actual title. Still legally be Queen but prefers to be called Princess Consort. I suppose the nearest is Princess Alice, Duchess of Gloucester being called that because she asked permission and was given it, even though it was not her title.

Still don't understand why this can't be done with the permission of the monarch (King Charles III)

As I understand it, all that would have to happen would be for King Charles to issue Letters Patent; it would have nothing to do with parliament. Though I now rather like the idea of Duchess of Lancaster.

 

[branchg]

Well I took the liberty to contact both Debrett's Peerage & Burke's Peerage, the latter being less helpful, but they did give a formal response. I used the same email with both of them. Here is what I wrote & how they responded regarding the legal style and title of Princess Alice, Duchess of Gloucester.

Alice was "HRH The Princess Henry" automatically as the wife of a son of The Sovereign. This was her rank, not her title, which was "HRH The Duchess of Gloucester".

With Henry's death and her daughter-in-law becoming "The" Duchess of Gloucester, she automatically became "HRH The Dowager Duchess of Gloucester". She remained "HRH The Princess Henry" as a widow of a Prince of the UK.

At her request, The Queen granted her aunt permission to style herself "HRH Princess Alice, Duchess of Gloucester". This is entirely within the gift of The Sovereign, just as she never objected to people calling Diana "Princess Diana", even though that was always incorrect.

A woman who marries a son or male-line grandson takes the rank of a Princess with the style of HRH, along with any titles if their husband is also a Peer. The Sovereign can allow them at any time to use the princely dignity with their own name because HRH Prince/Princess is purely a style regulated by the fount of honour.

 

[cepe]

Princess Alice didn't need LP's - it was what she wanted to be called and the Queen said yes!

I think Prince Charles will do the same. Never mind what experts think - they said he couldn't marry Camilla - if that's what he wants, he'll do it!

My preference is Queen Camilla, Queen Consort. Why must she make do with 2nd best?