Title & Role of a Consort

[Tatiana Maria]

Originally Posted by Countessmeout

Simple fact is that a king in term outranks queen.

Not even a king regnant outranks a queen regnant; King Harald V of Norway does not have a higher rank than Queen Margrethe II of Denmark.

Originally Posted by Countessmeout

I don't ever see there being king consort.

Kings consort have existed before.

Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair

Some changes were even retro-actively: Prince Carl Philip was Sweden's Crown Prince when the Constitution changed and his sister Victoria was made the heiress.

You probably mean that the existing positions were changed, rather than the change being retroactive.

[O-H Anglophile]

Originally Posted by Al_bina

my bolding
I apologise for sounding trite ... You must surely know the reasons why The Duchess of Cornwall will be known as Princess Consort. It is obvious that the Clarence House regrets the statement made in 2005.

Yes, I am fully aware of the circumstances--but nonetheless, whether they regretted it tight after it was released or later, they did make the statement and there will be people who try to hold them to it.

[JR76]

Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria

Not even a king regnant outranks a queen regnant; King Harald V of Norway does not have a higher rank than Queen Margrethe II of Denmark.

In general monarchs are of the same rank. The only reason that Queen Margrethe is given precedence over King Harald is because shes been in office longer.

[O-H Anglophile]

Originally Posted by JR76

In general monarchs are of the same rank. The only reason that Queen Margrethe is given precedence over King Harald is because shes been in office longer.

I don't remember what event it was but a number of monarchs attended-a wedding or funeral? Length of reign determined precedence as you pointed out here.

[Skippyboo]

They used length on the throne when they took the picture of QEII and the other monarchs during the diamond jubilee. New people in the back older ones closer to front.

[tommy100]

Personally I don't see why the system can't continue as now. So what if male consorts don't get the title King? It hasn't stopped many of them from doing great things with their very privileged positions - the Duke of Edinburgh award schemes, Prince Claus' work for development in the third world? And given how much gender inequality there is against women it maybe doesn't hurt for them to have one little advantage over men.

[Countessmeout]

Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria

Not even a king regnant outranks a queen regnant; King Harald V of Norway does not have a higher rank than Queen Margrethe II of Denmark.


Kings consort have existed before.



You probably mean that the existing positions were changed, rather than the change being retroactive.

Are Harald and Margarethe married and I am unaware

We're talking married couples here. 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. It was why people like Elizabeth I didn't wish to marry. She feared her husband would be made king and she would lose her power to him.

The closest thing to a king consort in the uk was in Scotland. Lord Darnley was king but only in name. Mary never gave him the crown matrimonial so he had no actual power. There have been comonarchs, Mary and Philip and Mary and William but that is a different situation.

At least in Europe, a king consort is almost non existent.

[Duc_et_Pair]

Originally Posted by tommy100

Personally I don't see why the system can't continue as now. So what if male consorts don't get the title King? It hasn't stopped many of them from doing great things with their very privileged positions - the Duke of Edinburgh award schemes, Prince Claus' work for development in the third world? And given how much gender inequality there is against women it maybe doesn't hurt for them to have one little advantage over men.

Unlike Henrik, I see no need to change it for male consorts. I only make a plea to treat the ladies the same as male consorts. All has become gender neutral. Except that Mary will be Her Majesty Queen Mary of Denmark and Daniel keeps the same title he already has as consort to the Heir.

Look to the Netherlands: after three successive Princes of the Netherlands, Queen Máxima will have a male "successor" again. Princess Victoria already has a daughter, Estelle. When Estelle will have a girl as firstborn, then Sweden will have three Princes in a row. And suddenlh in 2067 or so there will be a Queen again because Estelle's daughter happens to have a son as firstborn child?

Prince Henrik absolutely has a point. But his solution: treat male spouses alike female spouses is not mine. I turn it around: treat female spouses as male spouses. That brings clarity and transparancy because this means that the bearer of the Crown and the Heir have exclusive titles, only for themselves.

Look at presidents. Their spouses are no president either, male or female. It is really not that difficult. Whe have seen more profound changes than this relative futility.

[Spheno]

Originally Posted by Countessmeout

At least in Europe, a king consort is almost non existent.

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

Pure king-consorts were rare cases.

[Mbruno]

Originally Posted by Spheno

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

Pure king-consorts were rare cases.

I believe Lord Darnley (Henry Stuart) was a king consort in Scotland, but the best known more recent case was Francis, Duke of Cádiz, who, as king consort of Spain, was specifically barred from having any role in government.

I suppose that, historically, the reason why male consorts stopped being called kings, starting with Queen Anne's and Queen Victoria's husbands in Britain, was precisely to prevent a foreign prince from becoming a co-ruler as King jure uxoris, as was indeed the previous practice in Europe. If that was a concern back then, it shouldn't be a concern now though.

All European monarchies today have very clear legal/constitutional rules that specify who can ascend the throne and become Head of State and, generally, speaking , those rules would exclude most male consorts of reigning queens. Moreover, it is pretty clear in most European monarchies today that there cannot be legally more than one Head of State at any given time, In other words, there is no risk or possibility today of confusing a king consort with a reigning king and, therefore, there is no need to call the king consort a prince only to avoid that confusion.

[CrownPrincessJava]

Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair

Unlike Henrik, I see no need to change it for male consorts. I only make a plea to treat the ladies the same as male consorts. All has become gender neutral. Except that Mary will be Her Majesty Queen Mary of Denmark and Daniel keeps the same title he already has as consort to the Heir.

Look to the Netherlands: after three successive Princes of the Netherlands, Queen Máxima will have a male "successor" again. Princess Victoria already has a daughter, Estelle. When Estelle will have a girl as firstborn, then Sweden will have three Princes in a row. And suddenlh in 2067 or so there will be a Queen again because Estelle's daughter happens to have a son as firstborn child?

Prince Henrik absolutely has a point. But his solution: treat male spouses alike female spouses is not mine. I turn it around: treat female spouses as male spouses. That brings clarity and transparancy because this means that the bearer of the Crown and the Heir have exclusive titles, only for themselves.

Look at presidents. Their spouses are no president either, male or female. It is really not that difficult. Whe have seen more profound changes than this relative futility.

I agree with you sentiments regarding titles, and I also believe that the tradition of titles needs to change. In my opinion, I would have the titles as such, using Denmark as an example:

HM The King of Denmark
HRH The Crown Princess of Denmark

OR

HM The Queen of Denmark
HRH The Crown Prince of Denmark

HRH The Hereditary Prince of Denmark
HRH The Princess of Denmark

HRH The Hereditary Princess of Denmark
HRH The Prince of Denmark

If you accepted the etymology of King and Queen, then, by using the current reign of Denmark:

HM King Margrethe of Denmark
HM Queen Henrik of Denmark

HRH Hereditary Prince Frederik of Denmark
HRH Princess Mary of Denmark

In the above case, it is explicitly stated who is regent, who is the heir and their respective spouses.

I believe that Prince Henrik claiming unfairness since he is not "equal to his wife" goes beyond the titles. He has never lobbied to change it to a fairer system, like the above, for future descendants. I believe he wanted to possess the rank and status of QMII, which is simply impossible.

[Tatiana Maria]

Originally Posted by tommy100

And given how much gender inequality there is against women it maybe doesn't hurt for them to have one little advantage over men.

From the point of view of history, the discrepancy demonstrates gender inequality against women (instead of against men). Because the traditional system of family in Europe was patriarchal, queens regnant did not systematically subsume their husbands into their identities, whereas kings regnant were empowered to subsume their wives.

Originally Posted by Countessmeout

Are Harald and Margarethe married and I am unaware

We're talking married couples here. [...]

If a King consort does not outrank a King regnant, and a King regnant does not outrank a Queen regnant, it is a consequence that a King consort cannot outrank a Queen regnant.

Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair

[...] this means that the bearer of the Crown and the Heir have exclusive titles, only for themselves.

This has always been the situation in Japan: the titles of tenno and kotaishi are exclusive to the reigning monarch and the heir(ess).

[O-H Anglophile]

Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria

From the point of view of history, the discrepancy demonstrates gender inequality against women (instead of against men). Because the traditional system of family in Europe was patriarchal, queens regnant did not systematically subsume their husbands into their identities, whereas kings regnant were empowered to subsume their wives.



If a King consort does not outrank a King regnant, and a King regnant does not outrank a Queen regnant, it is a consequence that a King consort cannot outrank a Queen regnant.



This has always been the situation in Japan: the titles of tenno and kotaishi are exclusive to the reigning monarch and the heir(ess).

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.

[M. Payton]

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.......

[JR76]

A fun fact is that the sisters Maria of Hungary & Jadwiga of Poland were both crowned kings of their respective countries & later both their husbands Sigismund & Jogaila also held that title.

[Duc_et_Pair]

Originally Posted by M. Payton

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.......

Why change? Because it is the final closing piece of the profound changes which have completely changed Europe's monarchies. Look at King Carl XVI Gustaf of Sweden. He was just the fifth child after four sisters. And he did not have precedence because he was a boy: his sisters had no any right on the throne at all!

Look at Queen Margrethe II. As her father only had three daughters, neither she nor Benedikte nor Anne-Marie were supposed to follow their own father: Prince Knud of Denmark, The Hereditary Prince, would be the next King, had they not changed the law to make Margrethe the Thronefollower indeed.

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".

We are talking about persons living right now, when we are reading this forum. It are exactly King Carl XVI Gustaf's sisters, all alive today, who simply had no rights at all. The very reigning Queen Margrethe II of today would never have been Queen today, were these changes not made. Look at Carl Philip of Sweden and his Sofia Hellqvist. It was on A to Z printed in rule that a Swedish successor could not engage into marriage with "a Swedish countryman's daughter" without losing his rights.

All argument on "leave the titles, why change" fall flat dead when we would have used the same for the changes I described. Monarchies are far more flexible than the outside world thinks. Both King Juan Carlos and Emperor Akihito informed their Governments about their wish to abdicate. And their respectibe Governments initiated special Bills to read by Parliament to facilitate said wishes.

The line of male succession has been broken. Even the name of the royal dynasty is adapted by law to prevent issue known with the surname of the father (as has always been the tradition in society). We will see a never-before seen female dominance on Europe's thrones in the next generation: Ingrid Alexandra, Victoria and Estelle, Catharina-Amalia, Elisabeth, Amalia and Leonor. All of them will have a Prince as consort.

This sends two messages:
- where in all municipalities, provinces, departments, national services, state agencies, etc. there is gender equality, this is still not the case in the highest office of state
- female heads of state are seen as "weak", they need a consort with a lower title whereas male heads of state are "always stronger" and "of course" always outrank a Queen

This is 2017. It is time to settle it. And my personal solution would be: treat female consorts if they were male consorts:

S.M. le Roi des Belges
S.A.R. la princesse Mathilde de Belgique

H.M. The Queen of the United Kingdom of GB & NI
H.R.H The Prince Philip of the United Kingdom of GB & NI

Z.M. de Koning der Nederlanden
H.K.H. prinses Máxima der Nederlanden

S.K.H. der Grossherzog von Luxemburg
I.K.H. Prinzessin Maria Teresa von Luxemburg

H.M. Dronningen af Denmark
H.K.H. prins Henrik af Denmark

It is really not that difficult as then there is complete logica and equality in the titulature.

[Lee-Z]

Originally Posted by M. Payton

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.......

With all the opinions on this thread i think we can basically state this as a fact:
all monarchies are from different cultures, countries and laws

So imo you are right: what happens in one monarchy has no immediate impact on other monarchies, and even if titles and succession does change in a monarchy it's not *because* it changed in another monarchy.

[O-H Anglophile]

As Duc has pointed out, just in our lifetime, a number of European countries have changed their rules in just allowing a female monarch. They didn't change because another country did it. They changed because it was stupid and unequal that a woman could not be monarch at all and they recognized that.

More countries have eliminated male preference primogeniture in favor of absolute primogeniture. Do you not think some questioned why Sweden changed the male primogeniture when Carl Philip existed to be the male heir? I believe one of those people questioning it was the King of Sweden.

Generally changes like that are rolling ones- one country changes their law, another country changes theirs years or decades later.

I perceive changes that have been made have strengthened the monarchies that do still exist.

Gender equality in the title of the spouse of a monarch is just another thing that may or may not change in various countries, but it is related to other changes that have occurred in recent history.

[Lee-Z]

Originally Posted by O-H Anglophile

More countries have eliminated male preference primogeniture in favor of absolute primogeniture. Do you not think some questioned why Sweden changed the male primogeniture when Carl Philip existed to be the male heir?.

This situation has been discussed extensively in another thread on these forums, but afaik this legislation change was started before P.Carl-Philip was born and only formally finalized after his birth. So it really had nothing to do with the prince himself as a person, but there are peolle who think it did...

edited: found the thread http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums...nge-10379.html

[O-H Anglophile]

Originally Posted by Lee-Z

This situation has been discussed extensively in another thread on these forums, but afaik this legislation change was started before P.Carl-Philip was born and only formally finalized after his birth. So it really had nothing to do with the prince himself as a person, but there are peolle who think it did...

edited: found the thread http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums...nge-10379.html

Why on earth could the legislation in Sweden have had something to do with Carl Philip as a person- he was an infant when it happened. That is ignorant.

It doesn't matter that the change process began before Carl Philip's birth. Sweden could have withdrawn the change. They didn't withdraw it because they came to believe the eldest child regardless of sex should be the heir. (I was just pointing out that some people didn't see the need for the change, including the king, and supported male primogeniture. This is relevant to a discussion about changes in the rules and traditions of various monarchies.)

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.