Title & Role of a Consort

[Winnie]

I totally believe in the posts that state that each country should rule and choose or accept their rulers exactly how their laws and customs expect. There is no country that is perfect in the eyes of others. If they want to change any part of their rulings, they will. If they don't it is not another's business. They don't want to be exactly the same as others.

 

[Osipi]

Look at Prince Harry. Would he now not date a Meghan Markle but a nice Italian -and Roman Catholic- donna, for an example a Beatrice Borromeo, then he would have lost his place in the succession for marrying "a papist".

Just to clarify, due to the Succession of the Crown Act of 2013 which was enacted on March 26, 2015, Harry could marry a "papist" if he chose to and keep his place in the succession.

 

[Skippyboo]

Even if it wasn't changed, Harry could just marry a Catholic. He loses his place but he is still a Prince, gets made a Duke and any kids are in the succession if they are not Catholic or the wife could just convert to Anglican like Autumn did. It's only a problem prior to the law change if the person was a direct heir and the Catholic wife won't change her religion. You would still have a problem now if George married a Catholic who refused to let her children be Anglican instead of Catholic. The kids could not inherit the throne then.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

Just to clarify, due to the Succession of the Crown Act of 2013 which was enacted on March 26, 2015, Harry could marry a "papist" if he chose to and keep his place in the succession.

But that was exactly the point I made: "Why change things? It has always been this way?" If the UK did not change the law, Harry still could not marry a "Papist". Unacceptable in our day.

The point I wanted to make was that all monarchies have made never-seen profound changes. That Charles could marry a divorcee, his former maîtresse even, is another example that monarchies are far more flexible than many seem to think. When in all but two major European monarchies there are female sovereigns with a Prince, mark my words: we will see gendrification in that as well.

 

[Al_bina]

... [snipped]

I know Japan was exploring the idea of allowing an Empress when it became clear Aiko was not going to have a brother, but then her cousin was born and Japan abandoned the process.

Japan did a very short exploration of the idea in question. The government considers restoring the collateral branches of the Imperial family nowadays.

 

[Skippyboo]

But that was exactly the point I made: "Why change things? It has always been this way?" If the UK did not change the law, Harry still could not marry a "Papist". Unacceptable in our day.

The point I wanted to make was that all monarchies have made never-seen profound changes. That Charles could marry a divorcee, his former maîtresse even, is another example that monarchies are far more flexible than many seem to think. When in all but two major European monarchies there are female sovereigns with a Prince, mark my words: we will see gendrification in that as well.

Harry could still marry a Papist without the law being changed just like Prince Michael did.

 

[M. Payton]

I totally believe in the posts that state that each country should rule and choose or accept their rulers exactly how their laws and customs expect. There is no country that is perfect in the eyes of others. If they want to change any part of their rulings, they will. If they don't it is not another's business. They don't want to be exactly the same as others.

Absolutely agree with you Winnie, no country should be expected to follow the and laws of another country be they a monarchy who has a different set of rules and laws in place. We, as in each country should respect our own heritage and history and follow our own rules that the government sets forth for us. Protocol between the 2 different counties takes place between them and not everyone else.

So what if one country has a queen and a prince consort or a king with a queen who is using the title of queen set forth in their country and another is completely different......it really is no big deal IMHO.

 

[Stefan]

Okay something is missing here that I do not understand about titles and changing them ......Why?

Why can't each country just keep it's own rules, laws, traditions, history, customs and heritage ....why this need that everyone Must be alike, male/female/king/queen/princes and so forth. Denmark is Denmark, Sweden is Sweden and so forth.......do we have to drink from the same glass of wine or eat the same food, or speak the same language to be understood? I don't personally think so.......this is your history regardless of what country you live in so why change the royal family to be like the next royal family.....we are all different and that;s what makes us and all the different royal families so unique.....we aren't robots yet I hope.

I like the difference in each country for that is what makes each country interesting and challenging for there is something to learn from each country and each royal family.......

So why did Spain change it's Tradition that the husband of a reinging Queen is King-Consort? They had them in the past but according to the Royal Decree from 1987 which regulates the Titles of the member of the spanish RF the husband of a future reiigning Queen will be Prince of Spain.

 

[Al_bina]

I totally believe in the posts that state that each country should rule and choose or accept their rulers exactly how their laws and customs expect. There is no country that is perfect in the eyes of others. If they want to change any part of their rulings, they will. If they don't it is not another's business. They don't want to be exactly the same as others.

Right you are. Forcing changes may lead to serious blowback.

 

[M. Payton]

So why did Spain change it's Tradition that the husband of a reinging Queen is King-Consort? They had them in the past but according to the Royal Decree from 1987 which regulates the Titles of the member of the spanish RF the husband of a future reiigning Queen will be Prince of Spain.

That does not mean that all other countries have to follow the way Spain does things. Each country should respect it's own laws and rules that are set forth by their government. My Point that I am trying to make is that let each country do as they please, let Spain be Spain and so forth. IMHO I think there would be serious problems in all the countries if each country was the same, where is the individuality of each country, gone with the wind so to speak. I do not want Spain to be like England, nor do I want Sweden to be like the Netherlands. Why this sudden urge to make everyone the same all because of a grouchy old man elsewhere that is hissy fitting over not being King Consort who by the way is *retired*? This is an interesting discussion yet for me personally, I do not want all of Europe to be the same, I love the individuality of each, makes for learning, watching and viewing of each for there is much to learn from each for they are much more interesting that way, JMHO.?

 

[Osipi]

I would have to side with those that promote the individuality of each nation to maintain their own customs, titles and ways of doing things. To me, if every nation followed a certain way of doing things and a mass consensus of how things should be comes to pass, it just sounds too much like we'd be heading for the much abhorred idea of a New World Order where each and every country is exactly the same under one set of rules and traditions for everyone.

Titles and styles of a country should never be one size fits all universally and left up to the powers that be of each country to determine what is best for them.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

I didn't think there could be an heiress in Japan. That's why Aiko isn't going to be the Empress after her father is Emperor, her cousin Prince Hisahito is the heir after Naruhito.

Japan had eight female emperors in the old days; female succession was outlawed in 1889.

http://japan.kantei.go.jp/policy/koshitsu/051124_e.pdf

 

[O-H Anglophile]

No one here is advocating a forced change-how would that even occur? I don't think the EU has that kind of power over the monarchies. But changes have been enacted among European monarchies and many of them have eventually adopted similar rules of inheritance. Change can be organic-we've been anticipating that possibility.

As there are more Queens as monarchs in Europe than Queens as Kings' spouses, it will only be natural for more questions about the position and title of their spouses to arise. We have been discussing how that may evolve into changes.

 

[CrownPrincessJava]

Change can be organic-we've been anticipating that possibility.

As there are more Queens as monarchs in Europe than Queens as Kings' spouses, it will only be natural for more questions about the position and title of their spouses to arise. We have been discussing how that may evolve into changes.

Agree, and I thought that is why this thread was created. I do not believe that a change in one kingdom will be viewed as a change for all European kingdoms and Principalities.

Our society has been seeing a multitude of changes of societal traditions over the past century. Majority of European monarchies have changed from Salic to absolute primogeniture succession in the past 50-60 years. With those changes to traditional succession, it is only natural that questions about monarchs and their spouse's titles are asked.

I am, for one, happy that this debate is occurring!

 

[M. Payton]

No one here is advocating a forced change-how would that even occur? I don't think the EU has that kind of power over the monarchies. But changes have been enacted among European monarchies and many of them have eventually adopted similar rules of inheritance. Change can be organic-we've been anticipating that possibility.

As there are more Queens as monarchs in Europe than Queens as Kings' spouses, it will only be natural for more questions about the position and title of their spouses to arise. We have been discussing how that may evolve into changes.

I do understand that and this is a very good topic to discuss. I also have seen changes in monarchies and some I like and some I don't, yet it is not up to me. I am for one not wanting things so change so much that I do not recognize each individual country. I like that fact that there is major differences in each country, that in itself makes it very interesting for me.
The future will be very different someday with so many countries having queens who will out number the kings.....yet that is a long way off hopefully. It will be very interesting which of all these countries survive being a monarchy at all. I hope there are more monarchies in the future for maybe some that have lost those monarchies will return to such. I think on a whole that if there was no monarchies at all, it would be a sad way of life for the entire world for they are the very beginnings of any country's history out there. We all need to preserve our countries history for the future.?

 

[Stefan]

That does not mean that all other countries have to follow the way Spain does things. Each country should respect it's own laws and rules that are set forth by their government. My Point that I am trying to make is that let each country do as they please, let Spain be Spain and so forth. IMHO I think there would be serious problems in all the countries if each country was the same, where is the individuality of each country, gone with the wind so to speak. I do not want Spain to be like England, nor do I want Sweden to be like the Netherlands. Why this sudden urge to make everyone the same all because of a grouchy old man elsewhere that is hissy fitting over not being King Consort who by the way is *retired*? This is an interesting discussion yet for me personally, I do not want all of Europe to be the same, I love the individuality of each, makes for learning, watching and viewing of each for there is much to learn from each for they are much more interesting that way, JMHO.?

My point is that Spain changed it's tradition indeed of sticking to it. No need for that as there is a precedent for King-Consorts.

 

[MARG]

A little familiarisation with the history of Spain would tell you that Juan Carlos was re-establishing the Spanish Monarchy after the death of General Franco. With such a gap in the governance and a Franco appointed Crown Prince progress was going to be a little slower and a deviate considerably for Franco's dreams.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

Harry could still marry a Papist without the law being changed just like Prince Michael did.

Prince Michael forfeited his place in the line of succession to the throne through his marriage to a 'Papist'. He was reinstated to the line of succession on 26 March 2015, following the end of the ban on marrying Roman-Catholics.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

No one here is advocating a forced change-how would that even occur? I don't think the EU has that kind of power over the monarchies. But changes have been enacted among European monarchies and many of them have eventually adopted similar rules of inheritance. Change can be organic-we've been anticipating that possibility.

As there are more Queens as monarchs in Europe than Queens as Kings' spouses, it will only be natural for more questions about the position and title of their spouses to arise. We have been discussing how that may evolve into changes.

Amen. It only started in Sweden: succession in order of birth, regardless of the gender. This raised questions in almost all Parliaments over Europe and one by one we saw all these monarchies changing their successions indeed. Spain leaves the current succession as it is: Leonor and Sofía are the heiresses and no belated arrival of an Infante is to be expected. Reason: changing the Constitution is opening Pandora's Box, seeing the separatist tendencies in Catalonia and other regions and the Government wants that box to be firmly closed as long as possible.

This means that monarchies, and there are only a handful, look at each other indeed. When in the UK the number of Princes and Princesses of the UK was limited to grandchildren of a Sovereign, this was adapted by many other Royal Houses. Belgium being the latest. Spain has strictly limited the titles of Infantes and Infantas de España to children of a King or a Heir. This was adapted by the Dutch Royal House, for an example. Máxima is not known as Princess of the Netherlands (despite the Royal House Act 2002). Reason? Well: "seen the tradition and precedents in other Royal Houses" the Dutch parliamentarians sadly started to meddle and gave in to allow Máxima "to be known as" Queen. So a Royal House is never an isolated organism, there is always an interaction.

 

[Skippyboo]

Prince Michael forfeited his place in the line of succession to the throne through his marriage to a 'Papist'. He was reinstated to the line of succession on 26 March 2015, following the end of the ban on marrying Roman-Catholics.

Yes, he was but an earlier post stated that Harry couldn't marry a Catholic without the law being changed. But he could still get married just like Michael did. It would have just cost him his spot in the line of succession which if you aren't a direct heir doesn't really mean that much. A more likely scenario is the woman converts to CoE like Autumn did.

England had a historical reason why they banned Catholics from marriage into the royal family that another country would not have had.

Just because there will be a generation of Queens in Europe doesn't mean that the U.K. who has 3 Kings lined up for the throne should mess with the title of the Monarch's spouse.

If Camilla was the former Jane Doe who didn't meet and marry Charles until after his divorce, no one in the U.K. would be questioning whether she would be Queen when Charles became King.

 

[Sunspot]

I think gender equality for titles is a good idea. But I don't know if it's better for male spouses to be made kings consort or female spouses to be made princesses consort.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

It is pretty simple:

The Sovereign is The King or The Queen
The Consort is The Prince or The Princess

HM The Queen (Victoria)
HRH The Prince (Daniel)

HM The King (Christian)
HRH The Princess (spouse)

HM The Queen (Catharina-Amalia)
HRH The Prince (spouse)

HM The King (Charles)
HRH The Princess (Camilla)

Etc.

Perfectly gender neutral and a solution honouring the difference in Sovereigns and consorts.

 

[Mbruno]

It is pretty simple:

The Sovereign is The King or The Queen
The Consort is The Prince or The Princess

HM The Queen (Victoria)
HRH The Prince (Daniel)

HM The King (Christian)
HRH The Princess (spouse)

HM The Queen (Catharina-Amalia)
HRH The Prince (spouse)

HM The King (Charles)
HRH The Princess (Camilla)

Etc.

Perfectly gender neutral and a solution honouring the difference in Sovereigns and consorts.

The problem is that, while there is only one king or queen ( barring a widow or an emeritus), there are many princes. If you call the husband of a Queen the prince consort, his rank/ precedence is confused with that of his children for example, which is undesirable.

 

[O-H Anglophile]

So we go crazy and title the Queen's husband Queen's Consort and the Kings's wife King's Consort. No confusion. Or make up a gender neutral title for either.

 

[Mbruno]

So we go crazy and title the Queen's husband Queen's Consort and the Kings's wife King's Consort. No confusion. Or make up a gender neutral title for either.

I have no objection to a new gender-neutral title as long as both male and female consorts have the style of Majesty as their spouses. What I object to is a male consort having the same style as his children ( Royal Highness) and a lower style than his wife.

 

[O-H Anglophile]

I have no objection to a new gender-neutral title as long as both male and female consorts have the style of Majesty as their spouses. What I object to is a male consort having the same style as his children ( Royal Highness) and a lower style than his wife.

I think as long as it is clear they are not the Monarch, (as is seems the biggest issue is with a Queen's husband being titled King) the Monarch's spouse should be given more rank and courtesy than all others but the Monarch.

 

[QueenEmpath]

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

Exactly, and they'll always compare you to your sister in-laws and mother in laws (In case of Kate). Overlooking your own work

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

The problem is that, while there is only one king or queen ( barring a widow or an emeritus), there are many princes. If you call the husband of a Queen the prince consort, his rank/ precedence is confused with that of his children for example, which is undesirable.

There is no problem. It is the same was with The King (Philippe, Felipe) versus King Albert II, King Juan Carlos. In Denmark, for decades it was Hendes Majestæt Dronningen / Hans Kongelige Højhed Prinsen (HM The Queen / HRH The Prince).

In the Netherlands it was always "de Koningin en de Prins" (The Queen and the Prince). In 1980 Prince Claus refused to be know as De Prins, out of respect for Prince Bernhard, who was The Prince from 6 januari 1937 tot 30 april 1980. Instead he requested to be referred as Prince Claus. In the end Prince Bernhard would outlive his son-in-law, so the title The Prince of the Netherlands was never used by Claus.

Máxima would have been H.K.H. de Prinses der Nederlanden, was it not for the last moment that the Cabinet tought it was "undesirable" that Máxima was "lower" than other female spouses. (Apparently it was not "undesirable" for male spouses...). The Cabinet came with the solution to refer Máxima by her titre de coutoisie as spouse of the King, rather than by her rightful and very own title.

 

[CyrilVladisla]

The title of The Prince Consort was finally declared for Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha on June 26, 1857. He was actually awarded the title by Letters Patent four days later.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Norwegian royal journalist and writer Trond Norén Isaksen has written an article in Aftenposten about the title of a potential future husband of Princess Ingrid Alexandra stating that "if the Princess marries a man he should have the title of king". He goes on writing that it was the custom in European monarchies until Queen Anne ascended the throne of England etc in 1702 and that there are nothing in the Norwegian Constitution stopping it from happening.
The article was written as a commentary on a piece by "language reporter" (?) Kristin Storrusten that I unfortunately haven't been able to read because of a paywall.

https://www.aftenposten.no/meninger/debatt/i/Rrxpga/en-dronnings-ektemann-boer-kalles-konge

Trond Norén Isaksen is a reliable historian, and his article is worth the read.

It is very questionable that commenters usually plead tradition regarding gender-discriminatory titles of European consorts, but willfully exclude the hundreds of years of tradition which were set by kings consort prior to the recent trend begun by the UK.

In terms of titles, Kings traditionally are the highest title. Including higher then queen. If a husband was given the title king it was believed he would out rank his wife.

The perception that King is a "higher title" than Queen only seems to emerge in discussions of titles of consorts, and never elsewhere.

Nowhere in the many discussions I have read on royal websites and social media have I ever heard admirers of Queen Elizabeth II of the UK or Queen Margrethe II of Denmark bemoan that they were given "lower titles" than their fathers and other male monarchs.

Royal watchers to my knowledge have never argued that monarchies whose constitutions strictly regulate the powers and duties of a King will provoke a constitutional crisis if and when Princess Elisabeth of Belgium, for example, accedes to the throne as a Queen. On this issue, royal watchers easily accept that a Queen is precisely the same thing as a King, and therefore the constitution's regulations for reigning Kings will extend to a reigning Queen.

As for consorts, it is frequently brought up in conversations about the British royal family that under British common law, a wife has the right to take the rank and title of her husband and morganatic marriages are impossible for female consorts. But no one has claimed that if the future King Charles's wife Camilla is styled Queen, it would introduce morganatic marriages for female consorts as Queen is a "lower title" than King.

Many husbands became Kings jure uxoris. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jure_uxoris

Pure king-consorts were rare cases.

If you are inferring that historically most kings consort had a role in government, I believe that is correct, but it was likewise correct for princes consort. It was assumed for most of European history that regardless of his title, a male consort would actively participate in affairs of government, or "co-rule", if you prefer. Indeed, even recent historians have castigated the husband of Queen Anne of Great Britain for choosing to be politically inactive.

I also disagree with the claim in the article that the term "jure uxoris" is not equivalent to the term "consort". "Jure uxoris" translates to in right of a wife, and that is I understand the term "consort" to imply.