Queens, living title holders

[LadyRohan]

As I was preparing a blog post about H.M Queen Elizabeth II, I started thinking about how, when used in English, the phrase 'the Queen' so invariably brings most peoples thoughts to Q.E II. However, my I lost my trail of thoughts when I tried to compile a list of every living woman who has, currently or in pretense, the title of Queen, regnant or consort or another equal title appropriate to the monarchy in question such as empress, grand duchess etc, or who has had it during their lifetime.
I'd love lots of input on people who belong on this list, and I'm sure in asking for it, also posts about why some of you disagree with entries, their titles or claim to fame ?
Additionally, the inclusion of the sub-national monarchies in current republics would be interesting, as I'm quite unsure about the presence of female regnants or consorts there.

Queens (and those of similar rank) of sovereign and sub-national monarchies (regnant in bold, consorts in italic)



Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and 12 other Commonwealth Realms

Queen Margrethe II of the Kingdom of Denmark

Queen Sonja of Norway
Queen Silvia of Sweden

Queen Maxima of the Kingdom of the Netherlands
Princess Beatrix of the Kingdom of the Netherlands

Queen Mathilde of the Belgians
Queen Paola of the Belgians

Queen Letizia of Spain
Queen Sofia of Spain
Grand Duchess Maria Teresa of Luxembourg
Princess Marie of Liechtenstein
Princess Charlene of Monaco

Queen Rania of Jordan
Queen-Dowager Noor Al-Hussein of Jordan
Princess Muna Al-Hussein of Jordan

Princess Lalla Salma of Morocco

Queen 'Masenate of Lesotho
Queen-Mother Ntfombi of Eswatini
Queen Suthida of Thailand
Queen-Mother Sirikit of Thailand
Queen-Mother Norodom Monineath of Cambodia
Queen Azizah of Malaysia
Empress Masako of Japan
Empress Emerita Michiko of Japan

Queen Nanasipau'u Tuku'aho of Tonga
Queen Jetsun Pema of Bhutan
Queen-Mother Dorji Wangmo
Queen-Mother Tshering Pem
Queen-Mother Tshering Yangdon
Queen-Mother Sangay Choden
Queen-Grandmother Kesang Choden

Queen Saleha of Brunei


Titles in pretense (monarchy abolished)

Queen Anne-Marie of the Hellenes
Tsaritsa Margarita of the Bulgarians
Empress Farah Pahlavi of Iran
Queen Komal of Nepal
Queen Hope of Sikkim

The ones I'm unsure of where/if to place

Queen Fadila of Egypt
Empress Catherine Bokassa of the Central African Empire
Royal Consort Atawhai of the Mãori

 

[Prinsara]

Empress Emerita Michiko of Japan and Princess Beatrix of the Netherlands.

 

[Countessmeout]

Well if you are going to include dowager queens (I noticed you added some)

Bhutan actually has six women with the title queen in some form. Jetsun of course but she has company.

The four queen mothers (the four wives of the previous king all hold the title queen mother, not just his actual mother)

Queen Mother Dorji Wangmo
Queen Mother Tshering Pem
Queen Mother Tshering Yangdon (the actual mother of the king)
Queen Mother Sangay Choden

And then there is the king's grandmother.

-Queen grandmother Kesang Choden

The king's great-grandmother died in 2003.

 

[Somebody]

Empress Emerita Michiko of Japan and Princess Beatrix of the Netherlands.

I second that. Beatrix was a queen regnant, never a consort - just like her mother and grandmother before her. So italics is incorrect.

 

[Somebody]

If you include Lalla Salma, who never had the title of queen, you probably should also include Princess Muna Al-Hussein (king Abdullah's mother).

And what about 'Her Majesty Margareta Custodian of the Crown'? Given that she uses 'Her Majesty' instead of 'Her Royal Highness' - at least she herself pretends to hold the same rank.

 

[LadyRohan]

Appreciate the comments so far, completely agree on the omissions. When it comes to Margareta of Romania, I would put her in the same boat as the other pretenders who were not born with or married to people with the style of Majesty, or equal rank. Romania has seemingly accepted a hybrid solution for the Romanian Royal Family and the usage of Her Majesty when it comes to Margareta, but as long as she doesn't hold the title Queen or equal, she doesn't warrant inclusion on this list.

 

[Mbruno]

As I was preparing a blog post about H.M Queen Elizabeth II, I started thinking about how, when used in English, the phrase 'the Queen' so invariably brings most peoples thoughts to Q.E II.

Queens Margrethe, Letizia, Mathilde, maybe Maxima and Silvia too, and so on, are all also normally referred to simply as "HM The Queen" in their respective countries. The territorial designation "of [xxx]" is only added when they are referenced overseas.


The British Queen is indeed usually referred to as "The Queen" in the Commonwealth and the US, but, in the non-English-speaking countries, I think it is more common to cite her as "Queen Elizabeth". Nobody says, however, "Queen Elizabeth of Great Britain" or "Queen Elizabeth of England" as one would say for example "Queen Margrethe of Denmark". That is quite interesting actually.

 

[Countessmeout]

Yet you included women like Lalla Salma who has never been titled queen. Or a Grand Duchess. Or a Sovereign Prince's wife.

In the case of Margareta, 'custodian to the throne' is the equivelant of queen.

If we are going to simply list any women who is/was consort to a sovereign, then the wives of many of the Middle Eastern royals should be included. They may not have gained a new title like queen, but either does Lalla Salma. Women like Mozah who were consort to the Emir but never had the title queen.

 

[LadyRohan]

Yet you included women like Lalla Salma who has never been titled queen. Or a Grand Duchess. Or a Sovereign Prince's wife.

In the case of Margareta, 'custodian to the throne' is the equivelant of queen.

If we are going to simply list any women who is/was consort to a sovereign, then the wives of many of the Middle Eastern royals should be included. They may not have gained a new title like queen, but either does Lalla Salma. Women like Mozah who were consort to the Emir but never had the title queen.

As I said in the primary post, the list is restricted to titled consorts of sovereigns. That would be a Queen or an equal title. In several monarchies, a sovereigns wife is titled princess-consort, and unless I have missed any titled consort of a Middle Eastern monarch, I am comfortable with the list inclusions so far.

 

[Prinsara]

There was no Romanian monarchy for Margareta to inherit, so I believe it does make a difference, even if she is addressed as Your Majesty. It's not like being the Queen of something active and having the monarchy abolished. She is a queen regnant in semi-pretense, but she never was a real one.

 

[Noble Consort Ming]

Technically Maxima is Queen Maxima, Princess of the Netherlands. She is a princess in her own right but as a queen consort is not called Queen Maxima of the Netherlands. But she is often incorrectly called so.

 

[Mbruno]

Technically Maxima is Queen Maxima, Princess of the Netherlands. She is a princess in her own right but as a queen consort is not called Queen Maxima of the Netherlands. But she is often incorrectly called so.

Likewise, titles like Queen Letizia of Spain and Queen Mathilde of the Belgians are also legally incorrect. However, that is how they are referred to in English-speaking world, which was the premise of the OP.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

As I said in the primary post, the list is restricted to titled consorts of sovereigns. That would be a Queen or an equal title. In several monarchies, a sovereigns wife is titled princess-consort, and unless I have missed any titled consort of a Middle Eastern monarch, I am comfortable with the list inclusions so far.

What factors do you rely on to conclude whether a title in a non-European language is more equivalent to "queen" or more equivalent to "princess consort"?

 

[Meraude]

<snip>
The British Queen is indeed usually referred to as "The Queen" in the Commonwealth and the US, but, in the non-English-speaking countries, I think it is more common to cite her as "Queen Elizabeth". Nobody says, however, "Queen Elizabeth of Great Britain" or "Queen Elizabeth of England" as one would say for example "Queen Margrethe of Denmark". That is quite interesting actually.

At least in Sweden we see/hear both "Queen Elizabeth of Great Britain" and "Queen Elisabeth of England", when first mentioning her for example in TV, or in an article, and even in the most royalistic of Swedish magazines.
https://www.svenskdam.se/kungligt/90-fakta-om-elizabeth/5745100

 

[Tirilschatz]

Well, when in Germany someone mentions "Die Queen" ("The Queen") it is without any doubt, absolutely clear who it is. And I think that is rather nice.

Of course, when it comes to offical mentions, papers or tv speakers refer to her as Queen Elizabeth II. but I don't know anybody who doesn't just say Die Queen.
Funny enough since the other kings and queens of Europe are just referred to by their names, without any titles, at least in my circle.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

This will be the first time since i believe 1816 that the will be no female monarch in Europe.

I think it has technically been even longer than that, as Empress Marie Louise of the French was appointed as the regnant duchess of Parma, Piacenza and Guastalla by the treaties of Fontainebleau in 1814 and Vienna in 1815, even if she did not actually administer the government of the duchies until 1816.

There's been at least one reigning Queen regent during the past 208 years, anywhere in the world?! Wow!

Stefan was only counting female monarchs in Europe, with or without the Queen title, but if anyone is knowledgeable enough to specify the last point in time when there was no female monarch in the entire world, I would be very interested to know when it was.

In Europe, there has uninterruptedly been at least one reigning Queen since at least 1833 (or earlier if one counts Maria II during the period of dispute over the Portuguese throne), when Isabel II succeeded as Queen of Spain upon the death of her father (her throne was likewise disputed, but as her government always maintained its control of the majority of the territory, I think it is fair to count her as a reigning Queen since 1833).

By the time that Queen Isabel II was deposed in 1868, Queen Maria II reigned in Portugal and Queen Victoria reigned in Britain. When Queen Victoria died in 1901, Queen Wilhelmina was reigning in the Netherlands, and she was succeeded by her daughter, then her granddaughter Beatrix, who reigned until 2013, by which time Queen Elizabeth II was reigning in Great Britain and Queen Margrethe II was reigning in Denmark.


If the European monarchies had introduced gender-equal succession a couple of generations earlier, there could have been an entire generation of reigning Queens and no reigning Kings in Europe, as the reigning houses of Europe's seven surviving kingdoms all had daughters as their firstborn children between 1926 and 1940:

Britain: Elizabeth (1926)
Belgium: Joséphine-Charlotte (1927)
Norway: Ragnhild (1930)
Sweden: Margaretha (1934)
Spain: Pilar (1936)
Netherlands: Beatrix (1938)
Denmark: Margrethe (1940)

 

[SirGyamfi1]

I think it has technically been even longer than that, as Empress Marie Louise of the French was appointed as the regnant duchess of Parma, Piacenza and Guastalla by the treaties of Fontainebleau in 1814 and Vienna in 1815, even if she did not actually administer the government of the duchies until 1816.




Stefan was only counting female monarchs in Europe, with or without the Queen title, but if anyone is knowledgeable enough to specify the last point in time when there was no female monarch in the entire world, I would be very interested to know when it was.

In Europe, there has uninterruptedly been at least one reigning Queen since at least 1833 (or earlier if one counts Maria II during the period of dispute over the Portuguese throne), when Isabel II succeeded as Queen of Spain upon the death of her father (her throne was likewise disputed, but as her government always maintained its control of the majority of the territory, I think it is fair to count her as a reigning Queen since 1833).

By the time that Queen Isabel II was deposed in 1868, Queen Maria II reigned in Portugal and Queen Victoria reigned in Britain. When Queen Victoria died in 1901, Queen Wilhelmina was reigning in the Netherlands, and she was succeeded by her daughter, then her granddaughter Beatrix, who reigned until 2013, by which time Queen Elizabeth II was reigning in Great Britain and Queen Margrethe II was reigning in Denmark.


If the European monarchies had introduced gender-equal succession a couple of generations earlier, there could have been an entire generation of reigning Queens and no reigning Kings in Europe, as the reigning houses of Europe's seven surviving kingdoms all had daughters as their firstborn children between 1926 and 1940:

Britain: Elizabeth (1926)
Belgium: Joséphine-Charlotte (1927)
Norway: Ragnhild (1930)
Sweden: Margaretha (1934)
Spain: Pilar (1936)
Netherlands: Beatrix (1938)
Denmark: Margrethe (1940)

Josephine-Charlotte probably wouldn’t have married Grand Duke Jean because he was an heir to throne, Ragnhild would never have married her husband, Margaretha of Sweden wouldn’t have married her husband, Queen Margarethe would certainly not be allowed to marry Henrik either considering the flak the other male members got for marrying commoners.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Josephine-Charlotte probably wouldn’t have married Grand Duke Jean because he was an heir to throne, Ragnhild would never have married her husband, Margaretha of Sweden wouldn’t have married her husband, Queen Margarethe would certainly not be allowed to marry Henrik either considering the flak the other male members got for marrying commoners.

Margrethe II was in reality heiress to the throne when she was allowed to marry Count Henri de Monpezat (and before her Prince Georg was in line to the throne when he was allowed to marry Anne, Viscountess Anson), so there hypothetically being female heirs to the throne in other countries would surely not have changed that.

 

[SirGyamfi1]

Margrethe II was in reality heiress to the throne when she was allowed to marry Count Henri de Monpezat (and before her Prince Georg was in line to the throne when he was allowed to marry Anne, Viscountess Anson), so there hypothetically being female heirs to the throne in other countries would surely not have changed that.

Didn’t you and Muhler have a discussion on the succession issue in Denmark and the reasons why the Rosenborg branch were sidelined from the succession? Henrik Monpezant wasn’t a count or noble until the Queen created the title Count Monpezant

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Didn’t you and Muhler have a discussion on the succession issue in Denmark and the reasons why the Rosenborg branch were sidelined from the succession? Henrik Monpezant wasn’t a count or noble until the Queen created the title Count Monpezant

The line of succession to the throne was modified by referendum in 1953, upon which Princess Margrethe became heiress to the throne at age 13. She married in 1967, when she was heiress.

I am aware that you do not consider Count Henri to have been a real noble, but King Frederik IX did, and obviously the King's opinion was the one which mattered as far as the Danish Constitution was concerned.

 

[SirGyamfi1]

The line of succession to the throne was modified by referendum in 1953, upon which Princess Margrethe became heiress to the throne at age 13. She married in 1967, when she was heiress.

I am aware that you do not consider Count Henri to have been a real noble, but King Frederik IX did, and obviously the King's opinion was the one which mattered as far as the Danish Constitution was concerned.

It’s not an opinion, but a fact. Even royals and other nobles can get things wrong. His family’s claims to being part of the French nobility was false and his family was never confirmed as being part of the French nobility. Thank you for confirming my answer on the succession that the referendum confirmed her as Queen. Being noble or royal is not based on opinions, but facts and his family were not nobles nor were they in the catalog of French nobility. Queen Margarethe’s cousins lost their positions and royal titles for marrying commoners.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

It’s not an opinion, but a fact. Even royals and other nobles can get things wrong. His family’s claims to being part of the French nobility was false and his family was never confirmed as being part of the French nobility. Thank you for confirming my answer on the succession that the referendum confirmed her as Queen. Being noble or royal is not based on opinions, but facts and his family were not nobles nor were they in the catalog of French nobility. Queen Margarethe’s cousins lost their positions and royal titles for marrying commoners.

It is a fact that persons who are not legally nobility or royalty are sometimes treated as such in European royal courts and noble circles - such as the Danish royal court continuing to call the ex-queen of Greece Queen, even though she was confirmed long ago to have lost that status. In relation to your original point, Princess Margrethe was already heiress to the throne when she married (so your original argument that she would not have been allowed to marry Henri if she were heiress is not true), and it is a fact that King Frederik IX considered the marriage of Princess Margrethe as noble (naturally, since the complaint about her husband's family being not "real" nobles did not begin until many years later) and thus approved it and permitted her to keep her position, unlike her cousins who married commoners. If you would like to argue that she lost her position for marrying a commoner in 1967 and has been a usurper of the Danish throne for the last 52 years, I suggest taking it up with the Danish government.

 

[SirGyamfi1]

It is a fact that persons who are not legally nobility or royalty are sometimes treated as such in European royal courts and noble circles - such as the Danish royal court continuing to call the ex-queen of Greece Queen, even though she was confirmed long ago to have lost that status. In relation to your original point, Princess Margrethe was already heiress to the throne when she married (so your original argument that she would not have been allowed to marry Henri if she were heiress is not true), and it is a fact that King Frederik IX considered the marriage of Princess Margrethe as noble (naturally, since the complaint about her husband's family being not "real" nobles did not begin until many years later) and thus approved it and permitted her to keep her position, unlike her cousins who married commoners. If you would like to argue that she lost her position for marrying a commoner in 1967 and has been a usurper of the Danish throne for the last 52 years, I suggest taking it up with the Danish government.

I’m not disputing her succession rights to the throne which she has recently passed to her son by abdicating and when a referendum confirmed her as Queen. I’m simply saying that Henri’s claims to nobility are false and there’s no disputing that. Considering that her cousins lost their successions and titles for marrying commoners, do you really think that it’s not hypocritical to think that she could have married him with his false claims to nobility? There’s a distinction between false nobles or people claiming to be nobility vs deposed families, especially relatively recently deposed royals like the former royal house of Greece. There’s a thread on this forum about false nobles or people claiming to be of noble descent. The information about her husband’s family only came out after her father, The King died. I didn’t say she lost her position, I’m saying she may not have married him if she was going to ascend the throne earlier without a referendum confirming her position as next monarch. Also Infanta Pilar would not get to marry her husband because marriages to nobles in Spain were not regarded as dynastic.

 

[Somebody]

I don't understand your reasoning. Margrethe wasn't in line to the throne before the decision was made that women could ascend the throne - resulting in Frederik IX's children replacing his brother and Knud's son. So, why would she not have married him if she had not been in line to the throne? Do you think she would have needed to marry royalty in that case - like her sisters? However, there wouldn't have been much to lose if she married Henri in that case as she wouldn't have had succession rights. The Norwegian princesses had no issue marrying non-royals/nobles. The consequences were only for Harald as he needed his father's permission to remain in line to the throne (and only got permission by threatening not to marry at all which would have been the end of the Norwegian monarchy after his death).

 

[SirGyamfi1]

I don't understand your reasoning. Margrethe wasn't in line to the throne before the decision was made that women could ascend the throne - resulting in Frederik IX's children replacing his brother and Knud's son. So, why would she not have married him if she had not been in line to the throne? Do you think she would have needed to marry royalty in that case - like her sisters? However, there wouldn't have been much to lose if she married Henri in that case as she wouldn't have had succession rights. The Norwegian princesses had no issue marrying non-royals/nobles. The consequences were only for Harald as he needed his father's permission to remain in line to the throne (and only got permission by threatening not to marry at all which would have been the end of the Norwegian monarchy after his death).

Tatiana Maria was saying that if the succession to the Danish throne was amended much earlier for Margarethe to be considered a successor to the throne then she would have acceded to the throne much earlier. I was saying that if she was going to be a successor much earlier she wouldn’t have married Henri because of his false claims to nobility which only became news after her father died. I think she would have married royalty or at least high nobility. Harald’s case was different because he was the only male left. I don’t know what the situation would turn out in the other scenario because Anne-Marie lost her succession rights after marrying King Constantine, I don’t know how the situation with Benedikte would have turned out.

 

[Somebody]

Tatiana Maria was saying that if the succession to the Danish throne was amended much earlier for Margarethe to be considered a successor to the throne then she would have acceded to the throne much earlier. I was saying that if she was going to be a successor much earlier she wouldn’t have married Henri because of his false claims to nobility which only became news after her father died. I think she would have married royalty or at least high nobility. Harald’s case was different because he was the only male left. I don’t know what the situation would turn out in the other scenario because Anne-Marie lost her succession rights after marrying King Constantine, I don’t know how the situation with Benedikte would have turned out.

She never said that. Margrethe's ascension to the throne depended on her father's death which happened 5 years after she married and 20 years after the preparations started to make her the heir (as her father only had daughters). She became the heir at the age of 13, so it would not have mattered one bit had she been the heir 5 or 10 years earlier. She had been the heir for 14 years when she married.

Had she been the queen at the time she married, there is no reason why she wouldn't have married Henri either (in fact, Carl Gustaf showed that it would have been even easier, as she wouldn't have needed permission). So, I still don't understand the link you are trying to make at all - but am afraid that any additional explanation won't be helpful either, so I will leave it at this.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Thank you very much, Somebody. I indeed never said that, or anything close to it.

I also fully endorse the remainder of your post.