Succession to the Crown Act 2013, Part 1: 2011 - Sep 2022

[Noble Consort Ming]

As tempting as this might seem, I can't see this as a realistic possibility. The words "King" and "Consort" just don't work together. The meaning of King and Queen is far too entrenched in history and tradition and usage to be changed this way.

.

Although it might not work in Great Britain I just wanted to point out that there have been King Consorts in some European monarchies.

 

[Artemisia]

Actually, it could and did work for Britain; Philip of Spain was given the title of King Consort of England following his marriage to Mary I.

 

[Trillian]

But Phillip of Spain was a king in his own right.

 

[Roslyn]

Although it might not work in Great Britain I just wanted to point out that there have been King Consorts in some European monarchies.

That's interesting. I didn't know that. Was this recently?

Actually, it could and did work for Britain; Philip of Spain was given the title of King Consort of England following his marriage to Mary I.

Back in 1554, though, and though it might have worked for the time, I don't think many people would like the reign of Bloody Mary to be repeated.

Philip was actually King of Naples at the moment of his marriage to Mary, so a king was marrying a queen. And Queen Mary's Marriage Act provided for a joint reign, in terms which limited Philip's power but nevertheless provided that he was King of England, not merely a consort, and his signature was to be affixed to documents before Mary's, as was deemed proper for husband and wife at the time. I haven't hunted out the original legislation, as I probably couldn't read it anyway, but this covers it: Act for the Marriage of Queen Mary to Philip of Spain - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Artemisia]

But Phillip of Spain was a king in his own right.

Before his marriage to Mary, Philip was created King of Naples and Jerusalem to have equal rank with his future wife (he became King of Spain after his marriage, and King of Portugal after Mary's death). However, the marriage treaties also stipulated Philip was to become King of England and Ireland jure uxoris (by right of wife).

After Philip became King of Spain, his and Mary's joint titles were: "Philip and Mary, by the Grace of God King and Queen of England, Spain, France, Jerusalem, both the Sicilies and Ireland, Defenders of the Faith, Archdukes of Austria, Dukes of Burgundy, Milan and Brabant, Counts of Habsburg, Flanders and Tirol."

There is some debate on whether he was a King Consort or a King Regnant; although according to the marriage treaty he had virtually all rights and powers of a King Regnant (it was actually a treason to deny his royal authority and all official documents were issued under both his and Mary's names), his role was for only the duration of his marriage. As soon as Mary died, Philip ceased to be King of England and Ireland. In short, while Philip was not exactly a Consort-only (consorts have no political role, and he certainly did), he was not a full King Regnant either (unlike, say, William III who was co-regnant Monarch with Mary II).

 

[Noble Consort Ming]

That's interesting. I didn't know that. Was this recently?

Depends what you consider recently. This is the first one that comes to mind for me. I'll have to dig around for others.

The husband of Isabella II of Spain was King Consort.

Francis, Duke of Cádiz - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Edited to add:

The case of the husband of Queen Maria II of Portugal is a little different. He received the title of king after the birth of their first child and is numbered as a king but his equal reign ended when she died.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferdinand_II_of_Portugal

This was also the case for Maria I of Portugal and her husband(and uncle!) Pedro III who automatically became king when she became queen because they already had a child. His reign ended with his death which came before hers.

The last two are not really examples of king consorts but interesting.

 

[Artemisia]

That's interesting. I didn't know that. Was this recently?

There are in fact quite a few examples of Kings Consort, including recent ones:

- Francis II of France and Lord Darnley
The first and second husbands of Mary, Queen of Scots were both accorded the styles of Kings Consort of Scotland. Francis II was a King Consort from 1558 to 1560, and Darnley was King Consort from 1565 to 1567.

- Philip of Spain
I've discussed his position in a previous post.

- Francis, Duke of Cadiz
Was King Consort to Isabella II of Spain from 1846 to 1868.

- Philip IV of France
Apart from being King of France, he was also King Consort of Navarre as husband of Joan I of Navarre from 1284 to 1305.

- Philip III of Navarre
King Consort of Joan II of Navarre from 1328 to 1343.

- John II of Aragon
King of Aragon, as well as King Consort of Blanche I of Navarre from 1425 to 1479. Admittedly, after his wife's death, he became effectively a King Regnant of Navarre.

- John III of Navarre
King Consort of Queen Catherine of Navarre from 1484 to 1516.

- Antoine de Bourbon
King Consort of Jeanne III of Navarre from 1555 to 1562.

- Ferdinand II of Aragon
King of Aragon as well as King Consort of Isabella I of Castile from 1475 to 1504.

- David Soslan
King Consort of Queen Tamar of Georgia from 1189 to 1207.

- Ghias ad-din
King Consort of Queen Rusudan of Georgia from 1223 to 1226 (when the Queen repudiated the marriage because of his re-conversion to Muslim religion)

- Philip of Antioch
King Consort of Queen Isabella of Armenia from 1222 to 1224.

- Hethum I of Armenia
King Consort of Queen Isabella of Armenia from 1226 to 1230s (he became Isabella's co-regnant monarch in 1230s, after their first child was born).

- Louis of Cyprus
King Consort of Queen Charlotte of Cyprus from 1459 to 1464 (as well as titular King Consort of Jerusalem and Armenia).


There was also the case of Portuguese Queens Regnant and their spouses. According to Portuguese laws, the consort of a Queen Regnant automatically became King when and if an issue was born to them. Generally, it is agreed that those Kings were Kings Consort and not Kings Regnant, although they did have numerals - something usually reserved for reigning Monarchs only. Two examples could be Fernando II of Portugal(consort of Queen Maria II of Portugal from 1837 to 1853) and Peter III of Portugal (consort of Maria I of Portugal from 1777 to 1786). The system was similar to the one used in Navarre where Kings Consort usually (but not always) were accorded numerals as well.

In addition, provisions for an Emperor Consort was made in the Brazilian Constitution of 1823 (Article 120).

Back in 1554, though, and though it might have worked for the time, I don't think many people would like the reign of Bloody Mary to be repeated.

I've made a post on that immediately after yours. I'm not saying the scenario is likely, but it is not unprecedented for it happened both in England and Scotland, as well as quite a few other countries. Admittedly, in most cases, that was centuries ago.

 

[Roslyn]

This has all been a very interesting history lesson for me. I don't know much about those other monarchies and my knowledge of the British example doesn't extend back much before Queen Victoria. I learn so much thanks to the knowledgeable people here.

 

[DukeOfAster]

I think the world of the Late Diana, Princess of Wales but it is long time incoming and Diana's own children seem to llike Camilla so i say Let her be Queen. In the end if it had not been for alot of Tradition making clear that Charles should marry Diana he would have Married Camilla and this whole mess would not have happened. Camilla did not drive the car that killed Diana she was in love with her Husband.

 

[Nice Nofret]

There are in fact quite a few examples of Kings Consort, including recent ones:

- Francis II of France and Lord Darnley
The first and second husbands of Mary, Queen of Scots were both accorded the styles of Kings Consort of Scotland. Francis II was a King Consort from 1558 to 1560, and Darnley was King Consort from 1565 to 1567.

- Philip of Spain
I've discussed his position in a previous post.

- Francis, Duke of Cadiz
Was King Consort to Isabella II of Spain from 1846 to 1868.

- Philip IV of France
Apart from being King of France, he was also King Consort of Navarre as husband of Joan I of Navarre from 1284 to 1305.

- Philip III of Navarre
King Consort of Joan II of Navarre from 1328 to 1343.

- John II of Aragon
King of Aragon, as well as King Consort of Blanche I of Navarre from 1425 to 1479. Admittedly, after his wife's death, he became effectively a King Regnant of Navarre.

- John III of Navarre
King Consort of Queen Catherine of Navarre from 1484 to 1516.

- Antoine de Bourbon
King Consort of Jeanne III of Navarre from 1555 to 1562.

- Ferdinand II of Aragon
King of Aragon as well as King Consort of Isabella I of Castile from 1475 to 1504.

- David Soslan
King Consort of Queen Tamar of Georgia from 1189 to 1207.

- Ghias ad-din
King Consort of Queen Rusudan of Georgia from 1223 to 1226 (when the Queen repudiated the marriage because of his re-conversion to Muslim religion)

- Philip of Antioch
King Consort of Queen Isabella of Armenia from 1222 to 1224.

- Hethum I of Armenia
King Consort of Queen Isabella of Armenia from 1226 to 1230s (he became Isabella's co-regnant monarch in 1230s, after their first child was born).

- Louis of Cyprus
King Consort of Queen Charlotte of Cyprus from 1459 to 1464 (as well as titular King Consort of Jerusalem and Armenia).


There was also the case of Portuguese Queens Regnant and their spouses. According to Portuguese laws, the consort of a Queen Regnant automatically became King when and if an issue was born to them. Generally, it is agreed that those Kings were Kings Consort and not Kings Regnant, although they did have numerals - something usually reserved for reigning Monarchs only. Two examples could be Fernando II of Portugal(consort of Queen Maria II of Portugal from 1837 to 1853) and Peter III of Portugal (consort of Maria I of Portugal from 1777 to 1786). The system was similar to the one used in Navarre where Kings Consort usually (but not always) were accorded numerals as well.

In addition, provisions for an Emperor Consort was made in the Brazilian Constitution of 1823 (Article 120).



I've made a post on that immediately after yours. I'm not saying the scenario is likely, but it is not unprecedented for it happened both in England and Scotland, as well as quite a few other countries. Admittedly, in most cases, that was centuries ago.

This is one of the reasons QEI didn't want to marry; any husband of hers would haver expected to become King Consort and to have a say in reigning her country.

 

[Roslyn]

Reading about these older, mainly European, examples of the husbands of Queens being made King Consort make me thankful that we have the more modern precedents of Prince Albert and Prince Philip.

I think it was a good thing that Elizabeth I didn't marry. I'm sure her husband would have expected to have a say, if not outright rule. As it was, a lot of men tried to make her submit to their will. The Elizabethan Age would have had quite a different tone if she had been married.

 

[padams2359]

Slightly off topic. Were provisions made for Princess Elizabeth (Heir Apparent), not being the Princess of Wales or Duchess of Cornwall as far as payout from the Duchy to support before she ascended to the thrown? Or was she supported by George VI?

 

[Artemisia]

Queen Elizabeth was not at any point of her life Heiress Apparent.

When the Duchy of Cornwall is vacant, the income from it goes to the Sovereign. Since Elizabeth was heiress presumptive, and since chances of a son born to the King were extremely low, the Government agreed that part of the Duchy's income should be used to support Princess Elizabeth's household.

 

[Osipi]

Slightly off topic. Were provisions made for Princess Elizabeth (Heir Apparent), not being the Princess of Wales or Duchess of Cornwall as far as payout from the Duchy to support before she ascended to the thrown? Or was she supported by George VI?

And to add to that question... Was Princess Elizabeth ever the heir apparent or was she heir presumptive until she ascended the throne?

 

[Artemisia]

And to add to that question... Was Princess Elizabeth ever the heir apparent or was she heir presumptive until she ascended the throne?

Queen Elizabeth was never Heiress Apparent: she was always Heiress Presumptive.

An Heir(ess) Apparent is someone who cannot be displaced in the line of succession by any event bar his/her own death. However unlikely it was towards the end of his life, there was always a theoretical chance George VI would sire a legitimate son who would then immediately displace his elder sisters in the succession line.

 

[Vecchiolarry]

Hi,

Why even have a monarchy if you don't have a King and Queen at least?
Or a Queen, if no King, as is the case today??

Ands in the case of twins, is not Catherine present at the birth to say which came first? Is not William going to be present too?
They are whom I would believe before doctors/palace grey suits....
Their word should stop all conspiracy & theorists!!

Larry

 

[Iluvbertie]

Elizabeth, like Victoria before her, was only ever an heiress presumptive or 'presumed heir'.

A son to George VI would have replaced, just as any child born to Queen Adelaide would have repleced Victoria.

Had The Queen Mum had a son after February 6th 1952 but before November 6th 1952 that son or son's line would be Elizabeth's heir not Charles. This was apparently - can't find the reference now but have read it somewhere - the decision in 1837 about Victoria - a child born to Adelaide within 9 months of Victoria's accession would be Victoria's heir. I have also read, however, that Victoria would have had to abdicate immediately - so it isn't written in stone.

Charles is the heir apparent and William is his heir apparent.

Of course, in the future, there will be fewer chances for an heiress apparent as the first born, regardless of gender will be the apparent heir.

The only way there would be a 'presumptive heir' in future will be in cases like Victoria's rather than Elizabeth's.

 

[NGalitzine]

^^^^^
Nothing ever stops a good conspiracy theorist.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Hi,

Why even have a monarchy if you don't have a King and Queen at least?
Or a Queen, if no King, as is the case today??

Ands in the case of twins, is not Catherine present at the birth to say which came first? Is not William going to be present too?
They are whom I would believe before doctors/palace grey suits....
Their word should stop all conspiracy & theorists!!

Larry

It is the doctor or midwife who puts down the time of birth and that is the official time so it will be the doctor's word who will decide if they are so close together that it isn't clear and usually there are a couple of minutes at least - time enough for the first one to be clearly recorded before the second one arrives.

 

[NGalitzine]

Well no matter how close the timing one still has to come out first unless they are conjoined. Its not like the birth room will be empty. There will be witnesses.......but even that would not stop a good conspiracy theorist or tabloid writer.

 

[cepe]

Well no matter how close the timing one still has to come out first unless they are conjoined. Its not like the birth room will be empty. There will be witnesses.......but even that would not stop a good conspiracy theorist or tabloid writer.

Something about not letting the truth get in the way of a good story

 

[COUNTESS]

It is all nonsense and keeps people and the press going. No one, really, cares.

 

[cepe]

yes they do - vicarious living; dreams of better things; sense of history; fear of politicians; desire for continuity; desire for equality; something to break the monotony; etc

oh yes - and something to complain about or deride

 

[Trillian]

Continuity of leadership without political fear or favour?

 

[padams2359]

Did SJP announce twins, and I missed it? Not sure who put 2 in there?

 

[Artemisia]

No one has made any such announcement. The twins speculation started because the condition Kate is suffering from mainly occurs when a woman is pregnant with twins and, to a lesser degree, with a girl.

 

[Lumutqueen]

Hi,
Ands in the case of twins, is not Catherine present at the birth to say which came first? Is not William going to be present too?
They are whom I would believe before doctors/palace grey suits....
Their word should stop all conspiracy & theorists!!

Larry

Doctors will decide who comes out first or second, if it's caesarean. If it's not, then the babies decide.

Did SJP announce twins, and I missed it? Not sure who put 2 in there?

SJP did not announce twins, hypothetical conversation.

 

[AdmirerUS]

Hi,

Why even have a monarchy if you don't have a King and Queen at least?
Or a Queen, if no King, as is the case today??

Ands in the case of twins, is not Catherine present at the birth to say which came first? Is not William going to be present too?
They are whom I would believe before doctors/palace grey suits....
Their word should stop all conspiracy & theorists!!

Larry

Queen Elizabeth I is rolling over in the grave right now! And all her fans are saying "Wait one minute, now..."

 

[Duke-of-Earl]

Why didn't they talk to Charles before this mad scramble? | Mail Online

The announcement of the Duchess of Cambridge’s pregnancy – and the imminent arrival of a child who will be third in line to the throne – has caused a flurry of activity in Whitehall.
As part of the Government’s commitment to equal opportunities, driven by the Lib Dems and especially by their leader Nick Clegg, it wishes to ensure that the first-born child of the Cambridges succeeds to the throne irrespective of its sex.
At present, custom and practice going back to the Norman Conquest and before dictates that a first-born girl can reign as queen only if she has no younger brother.

The Succession to the Crown Bill, drawn up by the Cabinet Office and published last month, seeks to change that.
The Government originally raised the issue in 2011, when David Cameron asked all 15 Commonwealth nations who have the Queen as Head of State to approve the change.
They have now done this. They also approved changes to the Royal Marriages Act of 1772 and to the Bill of Rights of 1689, to allow those in line to the throne to marry a Catholic without having to renounce their right to succeed – as, for example, Prince Michael of Kent had to when he married his Catholic wife in 1978.However,
I am told by friends of the Prince of Wales that he is alarmed, for several reasons, about the nature of this major constitutional change.

 

[Artemisia]

A stupid article full of errors.

The Act of Settlement clearly states that the Monarch, as well as those who wish to retain their succession rights, must always belong to the Church of England: there are no plans to change that. That means the theoretical situation the DM article envisions can never take place. Now, I'm pretty sure Prince Charles is perfectly aware of the fact, which in turn means the whole article was basically made up. What a surprise.