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

[Furienna]

It is soo customary and ingrained in people to think that man reigns over woman, that there is no real emotional readiness to accept that there can be a queen regnant with a king consort.

Yeah, it must be something like that.

 

[AnnEliza]

What a ridiculous article. Is all this flack about Camilla being Princess Consort instead of Queen Consort because she's divorced? I think that's ridiculous. Henry VIII was the monarch to first be named Defender of the Faith, and it was given to him by the Pope. Then he kept the title when he broke with the Church of Rome, divorced Catherine of Aragon and married Anne Boleyn and crowned her Queen Consort. There's tradition. There have been divorces and remarriages and there's never been a Princess Consort. And as someone pointed out, monarchy is not about fairness. Anyway, if anyone thinks that the U.S. holds all its citizens as equals just because we don't have titles or a monarch, that our "democracy", which is actually a republic, is somehow more fair, that's very naive.

 

[Roslyn]

I've wondered about that though. If a king's wife automatically becomes a queen, why can't a queen's husband become a king?

This is a complex issue, with the reasons rooted in millenia of history and culture.

In the Anglo-Saxon period, the head of the English nation was its elected chief and representative: the king. All the old Teutonic kingdoms were elective. The witan (council) elected the most competent member of the royal family to discharge the functions of king. They didn't elect a queen, they elected a king. The consort of the king was his wife, known as the queen. She occupied a very exalted position; women in that culture were held in high regard and had power.

Things changed after the Norman invasion and the status of women was diminished further and further until eventually they were regarded legally and socially as nothing more than the property of men, especially when they were married. A husband and wife were one legal person, with the wife merely being an extension of the husband. She took his status and titles, but could not have greater status than him, and king is a greater status than queen so the husband of a queen regnant cannot become king.

 

[royalistbert]

The more time passes the more people accept Camilla will be Queen. The Monarchy is suposed to be continuity. To suddenly have Princess Consorts after 1000 years is inconsistent.

 

[cepe]

I welcome this request by this MP because it might prevent Prince Charles from going ahead with this daft idea of "Princess Consort" if he realises he is setting a
precedent.

Camilla should be Queen Consort.

 

[Spheno]

This is not clever idea. "Queen" is more attractive than any "princess" and generates more money for a country.

 

[Roslyn]

I think in the interests of gender equality it is a good idea. Why should a woman who is married to a monarch enjoy a benefit - the status of Majesty - that a man married to a monarch does not? Why should she not just be HRH Princess -, The Princess Consort, and the man be HRH Prince -, The Prince Consort? They are both merely consorts, without any formal role in the government.

It think it is fair, and once done it will set a new precedent, and confirming that Camilla is to be The Princess Consort will get the ball rolling. It would be a compromise which should appease both those who claim she should not be Queen for reasons related to Diana, and also those who think she should have the same status as any woman married to the King. Times change. Equal primogeniture is coming in, and I think this change would go well with that one.

 

[Iluvbertie]

What a ridiculous article. Is all this flack about Camilla being Princess Consort instead of Queen Consort because she's divorced?

I don't think this idea has anything to do with Camilla but more to do with equality. The man proposing this is advocating that the spouses of monarchs be treated the same regardless of gender - to go along with equality of rights to the throne.

The Princess Consort idea for Camilla has been around since 2005 but will need legislation. This is a chance to get that onto the books now but now just for Camilla but for all future wives of Kings.

I actually think it is a good idea. If you wish to have equality over the rights of girls and boys to inherit based solely on birth order then it is only fair that their spouses are treated the same.

I think that's ridiculous. Henry VIII was the monarch to first be named Defender of the Faith, and it was given to him by the Pope. Then he kept the title when he broke with the Church of Rome, divorced Catherine of Aragon and married Anne Boleyn and crowned her Queen Consort.

He didn't keep the title. He was stripped of that title by the Pope. Some years later he had the English Parliament confer that title on him again. To change/remove the title Defender of the Faith from the British monarch will take legislation as the title was established by legislation.

There's tradition. There have been divorces and remarriages and there's never been a Princess Consort. And as someone pointed out, monarchy is not about fairness.

The issue isn't about divorce and remarriage - it is about Camilla being the 'third person' in Diana's marriage.

 

[royalistbert]

Yes let's destroy 1000 years of history. I don't want any future concorts denied queenly style just becauces of equality. If they really want equality instead of downgrading woman's titles, they should upgrade men's titles.

I think they should create the title "King consort" if they really want eqaulity.

 

[NGalitzine]

From the moment of conception we are unequal. Why start mucking around with the monarchy to make things "equal" when nothing else is?

 

[Iluvbertie]

But that is what they are doing with the Equal Primogeniture Bill - changing tradition and trying to make things more equal for women.

So why have this bill at all? It is changing 1000+ years of tradition.

 

[Roslyn]

Yes let's destroy 1000 years of history. I don't want any future concorts denied queenly style just becauces of equality. If they really want equality instead of downgrading woman's titles, they should upgrade men's titles.

I think they should create the title "King consort" if they really want eqaulity.

But what's the big deal about "queenly style" anyway? A queen consort has no official role other than brood mare, just as a prince consort really has no other role than to sire the next generation.

To suggest that there should be a title of 'King consort' overlooks the fact that within our system king is a superior position to queen. It just isn't an option.

And, yes, I am very happy to destroy 1000 years and more of history for equality. To destroy the practice of allowing men to dictate to women what they wear and where they go and what they say and how they vote - if they have the vote, which they didn't until relatively recently because they weren't considered worthy of such a huge responsibility or capable of making such important decisions - and the right to physically punish them for disobeying the man, and the right to force their wives to have sex if they weren't in the mood; and to give women the right to divorce their husbands on the same grounds as are available to the husband. I could go on and on, but I won't. I think I've made my point and I'm getting off topic. Equality is not a concept that should be taken lightly.

 

[captive1princess]

To me, Prince Consort or Princess Consort denotes the spouse of a Prince or Princess. If at present the wife of a King is Queen Consort, why cannot the husband of a Queen be King Consort?

Historically, most of the time a King has ruled, due to male succession laws. His wife, since time immemorial, has been Queen. By allowing women equal rights we are now wondering what to call their spouses - let them be King Consort! No historical precedent (if that is the case) doesn't mean it is wrong, it just means that times have changed.

Subjectively speaking, I think a King and his Princess sounds wrong, as though she were his daughter, not spouse. And I have always thought that a Queen and her Prince sounded wrong too, as though he were her toyboy, not her spouse.

A King and his Queen Consort or a Queen and her King Consort sounds better IMO. It brings to my mind a couple, one primarily supporting the other perhaps, but far more equal, more of a team, united in their work.

 

[NGalitzine]

Absolutely. I see no real reason for this bill at all.

 

[VictoriaB]

From the moment of conception we are unequal. Why start mucking around with the monarchy to make things "equal" when nothing else is?

If they are going to change things to bring in absolute primogeniture then I think equality of the monarch's consort should also be introduced. Now whether that is to make a male consort King Consort as proposed by Royalistbert or to make a female consort Princess Consort is neither here nor there to me provided both are treated equally.

Just because something has been unequal or unfair for a thousand years is no reason not to rectify it given the chance - legal and formal racial discrimination has been legislated away by many governments over the last 50 years or so. What if governments had refused to enact change because life's full of inequalities and it had been the norm for hundreds of years? Why should gender equality be any different?

 

[Duke-of-Earl]

An institution like monarchy demands a certain amount of tradition. Almost every monarchist I know accepts the fact that the rules and traditions of the monarchy, while not up to the political correctness standards of 2012 Britain, are necessary or the entire institution will collapse.
Either do away with monarchy or accept the fact it is never going to be equal and fair.

 

[Roslyn]

From the moment of conception we are unequal.

Do you really believe that?

Why start mucking around with the monarchy to make things "equal" when nothing else is?

We have to at least try.

 

[cepe]

An institution like monarchy demands a certain amount of tradition. Almost every monarchist I know accepts the fact that the rules and traditions of the monarchy, while not up to the political correctness standards of 2012 Britain, are necessary or the entire institution will collapse.
Either do away with monarchy or accept the fact it is never going to be equal and fair.

Just like life.

 

[Furienna]

King is a greater status than queen.

Yes, but that's just weird. I know that most monarchs in history has been men (kings), so most queens have "only" been a king's consort. But there have also been several regent queens, who have been just as good as a monarch as any man could have been in the same situation. So I don't see why "king" should be a higher rank than "queen". I understand that it has something to do with old gender roles, but still, it doesn't make much sense.

 

[padams2359]

If W & C 's first child is a daughter, I think at the very least, she will marry from the British Aristocracy. I am not sure that an everyday man could live through the subservience that D o E has done proudly for all these many years.

 

[NGalitzine]

Do you really believe that?

Of course I believe that. A baby conceived in the belly of a single teenage crack addict is unequal to a baby conceived by a middle class, married, well educated mother in the suburbs who takes care of herself and will receive proper medical attention throughout her pregnancy and afterwards for both herself and her child. Their chances of success in life, or even just living, are not equal.
In the western world a white blue eyed blond male, from a middle class family with a descent education will always have advantages over a woman or a person of colour. People who are taller make more money than people who are shorter. The same for good looking people. Its just how life works. It is not necessarily fair or equal but that is life. You can write all the laws you want but you cannot make everyone equal.

 

[VictoriaB]

. I am not sure that an everyday man could live through the subservience that D o E has done proudly for all these many years.

But it's ok for a woman to be expected to do so?

 

[Roslyn]

Of course I believe that. A baby conceived in the belly of a single teenage crack addict is unequal to a baby conceived by a middle class, married, well eductaed mother in the suburbs who takes care of herself and will receive proper medical attention throughout her pregnancy and afterwards for both herself and her child. Their chances of success in life, or even just living, are not equal.
In the western world a white blue eyed blond male, from a middle class family with a descent education will always have advantages over a woman or a person of colour. People wo are taller make more money than people who are shorter. The same for good looking people. Its just how life works. It is not necessarily fair or equal but that is life.

You make good points, of course, but that's not the sort of equality I was talking about.

 

[Duke-of-Earl]

A lot of politicians proposing these changes are republicans and know once they start mucking around with the traditions of monarchy, the institution will die a slow death.
In a lot ways , monarchy isn't 'real life' and trying to make it real life by 'modernising' it and making it political correct is just going to kill it off.

 

[VictoriaB]

A lot of politicians proposing these changes are republicans and know once they start mucking around with the traditions of monarchy, the institution will die a slow death.
In a lot ways , monarchy isn't 'real life' and trying to make it real life by 'modernising' it and making it political correct is just going to kill it off.

Or they recognise that to survive the monarchy must remain relevant and it cannot do that if it's preserved in aspic.

The Queen did away with presentations at Court, Royal walkabouts were introduced in the 1930s, George V introduced the Christmas broadcast, the Queen started paying income tax. After Diana's death there was almost revolution because the Royal Family stuck to tradition and failed to fly the Union Flag at half mast.

IMHO not all traditions are bad and not all modernization is good but there has to be a happy medium. To say we cannot change something because it has always been done that way risks alienating people and making the
Monarchy irrelevant.

It seems that some of those arguing against change were more than happy for the Cambridges to break with tradition and spend Christmas with her family because that's what modern couples do and because it was only fair.

 

[Duke-of-Earl]

Organic change I have no problem with. Its when politicians try and legislate fairness and equality in monarchy that things fall apart.

 

[duchessrachel]

Equality law means Duchess of Cambridge may never be our Queen | UK | Express.co.uk - Home of the Daily and Sunday Express
Welcome to the insanity that is modern day, hyper-politically correct Britain

It will really make me mad if she does not become Queen Catherine. I think there should be a counter proposal to make male spouses King Consorts. It would be awesome for the DoE to become King Phillip after all these years.

 

[Baroness of Books]

I doubt very much at this stage Prince Philip would become a king consort. If any changes would be implemented, I'm sure it would be in Charles' or William's reigns.

 

[COESpiral]

If Camilla is still married to Charles when he becomes King then she should be the Queen. End of story. Doesn't matter what the Diana worshippers want, she wouldn't have been the Queen anyway as the divorce took care of that, so even if she were still living, would there still be such an uproar? I don't even know if Charles would have re-married were Diana still alive, but it's obvious that Camilla makes him very happy and no one should go throughout life miserable or being made miserable, so as his wife Camilla deserves the title and the respect that goes with it.

As an American, I admit I don't get why Diana is practically sainted, but then I was in college when she died and didn't start paying much attention to any of the European royals until a few years ago.

 

[Mirabel]

Or they recognise that to survive the monarchy must remain relevant and it cannot do that if it's preserved in aspic.

The Queen did away with presentations at Court, Royal walkabouts were introduced in the 1930s, George V introduced the Christmas broadcast, the Queen started paying income tax. After Diana's death there was almost revolution because the Royal Family stuck to tradition and failed to fly the Union Flag at half mast.

But many of those changes were rooted in necessity.
The Queen had to do away with the presentations due to widespread corruption in the process. It was supposed to be that an older woman would present a younger relative, but people were taking fees to present strangers and it got out of control.

The broadcasts and walkabouts were to give the Monarchy a way of interacting with the public.
It wasn't change for the sake of change.