Precedence - Who Outranks Who?

[Tatiana Maria]

There are limited examples in the other European monarchies, primarily because they have fewer persons in line to the throne, but recent examples existed in Luxembourg and Monaco. Semi-Salic succession to the throne was in effect in Luxembourg until 2011, but the Grand Duke's siblings and children were cited in order of birth. Sons remain ahead of daughters in the line to the Monegasque throne, but Charlotte Casiraghi was cited ahead of her younger brother Pierre in royal communications even before Pierre's marriage (upon which he may have dropped out of the line of succession, as discussed here).

A less recent example: In the archives of the Belgian Parliament, Astrid is listed before Laurent even before she was given succession rights to the Belgian throne in 1991.

The UK seems to be alone in Europe in assigning younger brothers (the Dukes of York and Edinburgh, the Earl of Wessex) precedence ahead of their older sisters (the Princess Royal, Lady Louise Mountbatten-Windsor) even when the younger brother is not the heir to the throne.

 

[meeralakshmi]

It must place him in a difficult position, but other consorts themselves one turns to the UK and sees a prince consort is not given the title of King. Precedence, I refer to the UK states that only a monarch who inherits the throne is granted the title King much like King Charles. Moreover, to grant a title of King to someone who married into the family is...odd. Additionally, once one grants a title there tends to be lands and assets attached therefore why would a family condone granting a title to someone who married into the family knowing this title would be granted to the spouses heirs hence assets that had historically been a part of the families for generations- would be passed on to another family line diminishing the wealth of the family who granted the title and subsequent assets.

This is not only a matter of Title but Assets

Not every country is the UK. There are multiple monarchies where the husband of a queen regnant has been given the title of king (including England in the case of the husband of Mary I). Queen is the title of a female monarch and yet there's no hesitation about granting that title to a woman who marries a king, I don't see why king shouldn't be treated the same way. I don't think a consort is granted any lands or assets whether they're male or female, they aren't the one with power. Lately male consorts haven't been able to change the name of the royal house, it remains the same. It seems like you're confusing the title of king with the status of co-monarch when that very much isn't the case, a king consort is different from a king regnant (just like with queens).

 

[Somebody]

The example of Mary I's husband is probably partly why in the case of among others Queen Victoria and Queen Elizabeth II husbands of regnant queens were not made kings; those that were, had more authority than just being a consort.

In the case of king Philip of England, from their marriage onwards as long as Mary would live (and be married to him), all official documents (including Acts of Parliament) were to be dated with both their names, and Parliament was to be called under the joint authority of the couple. That privilege was never given to any of the wives of previous kings.

Also Queen Mary II's husband, king William, wasn't a consort but ended up reigning as co-monarch (and later as the sole monarch himself after her death).

So, I am not surprised that in the case of Denmark, they went the same path that the other European monarchies with queen regnants at the time (the Netherlands and the UK) did, which is not elevate Henrik (who had already been made a royal highness prince of Denmark in his own right - unlike wives of male heirs previously; who were already royals prior to marriage being born into foreign royal houses) to the style and title of His Majesty the King.

 

[meeralakshmi]

The example of Mary I's husband is probably partly why in the case of among others Queen Victoria and Queen Elizabeth II husbands of regnant queens were not made kings; those that were, had more authority than just being a consort.

In the case of king Philip of England, from their marriage onwards as long as Mary would live (and be married to him), all official documents (including Acts of Parliament) were to be dated with both their names, and Parliament was to be called under the joint authority of the couple. That privilege was never given to any of the wives of previous kings.

Also Queen Mary II's husband, king William, wasn't a consort but ended up reigning as co-monarch (and later as the sole monarch himself after her death).

So, I am not surprised that in the case of Denmark, they went the same path that the other European monarchies with queen regnants at the time (the Netherlands and the UK) did, which is not elevate Henrik (who had already been made a royal highness prince of Denmark in his own right - unlike wives of male heirs previously; who were already royals prior to marriage being born into foreign royal houses) to the style and title of His Majesty the King.

Philip didn't have any actual power, William III on the other hand did (he was a co-ruler, not a consort). "The Act stated that King Philip would take part in governing Mary's realms while reserving most authority for Mary herself. The Act prohibited him from appointing foreigners to any offices, from taking his wife or any child that might be born to them outside her realm, or from claiming the crown for himself should he outlive his wife." Spain and Portugal had king consorts more recently than England who had no power of their own (like King Philip II of Spain).

 

[Lori138]

It all boils down to the fact that a King is of higher rank than a Queen and therefore if the husband of a Queen was created a King, he would then outrank her. Think of the game of chess.

 

[meeralakshmi]

It all boils down to the fact that a King is of higher rank than a Queen and therefore if the husband of a Queen was created a King, he would then outrank her. Think of the game of chess.

So does a reigning king outrank a reigning queen?

 

[Mbruno]

So does a reigning king outrank a reigning queen?

Does a reigning king outrank a reigning grand duke? No, to the extent that they are both sovereign equals as heads of state of independent countries. But king nonetheless is a higher title than grand duke, carrying the style of Majesty versus Royal Highness for a grand duke.

 

[meeralakshmi]

Does a reigning king outrank a reigning grand duke? No, to the extent that they are both sovereign equals as heads of state of independent countries. But king nonetheless is a higher title than grand duke, carrying the style of Majesty versus Royal Highness for a grand duke.

That’s not exactly the same, a grand duke is the head of a grand duchy whereas a reigning king and a reigning queen are both heads of a kingdom with the style of His/Her Majesty. However a queen consort has the style of Her Majesty whereas a prince consort has the style of His Royal Highness so there’s a clear discrepancy there.

 

[tommy100]

In practice they seem to be treated equally these days as sovereign heads of state so they would be ranked by length of reign rather than all the Kings/Queens coming before the Grand Duke.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Does a reigning king outrank a reigning grand duke? No, to the extent that they are both sovereign equals as heads of state of independent countries. But king nonetheless is a higher title than grand duke, carrying the style of Majesty versus Royal Highness for a grand duke.

Although I don't agree with the idea that "king" is a higher title than "queen" in the modern context (another poster mentioned chess pieces, but I genuinely do not know whether the average person thinks the chess queen is a queen regnant or a queen consort, or whether they associate the game titles with real-life royalty), your example demonstrates that even if that were the case, people in 21st-century Europe are fully capable of distinguishing rank from title, and a person who has a "higher" title (the Kings of Spain, Belgium, etc.) is not automatically treated by everybody as higher-ranking than a person who has a "lower" title (the Grand Duke of Luxembourg).

Even if Queen Margrethe II of Denmark, hypothetically, had acquiesced to her husband Henrik and styled him as King, and even if the public disapproved of her hypothetical decision because they thought "King" was a higher title than "Queen", I'm quite sure they would have continued to properly treat Margrethe II, their head of state, as the highest-ranking citizen of Denmark.

In that hypothetical scenario, I don't believe for a moment that the directors of art galleries, shipping companies, etc. would have begun inviting King Henrik to walk three steps ahead of Queen Margrethe II on the red carpet as they arrived for a royal visit. And I do not believe that the citizens attending the New Year's palace ball would have started curtsying/bowing more deeply to King Henrik than to Queen Margrethe II.

 

[Muhler]

I think it's safe to say that most Danes would have had a vague idea of who our head of state was.
That however does not apply to foreigners.
Which was among the many reasons the title of king was off the table in regards to PH.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

I am sure your general assessment of foreigners is right. Even having a male head of state with a female spouse, as is the norm, does not entirely eliminate confusion amongst foreigners who have no interest in royalty. People have (rightfully) complained about low-quality articles in the Daily Mail and such referring to Queen Mary or Queen Letizia as "reigning", gaining a "throne" or "crown" etc.

Fortunately, in every monarchy or republic, foreigners in a position to interact with the head of state and their family (visiting foreign heads of states, foreign diplomats presenting their credentials, etc.) will have been briefed on who the head of state is, how to address them, and how to demonstrate the appropriate respect for their rank. There may be a few people scrolling through Daily Mail royalty headlines who think Mary is Denmark's head of state, but every foreign ambassador to Denmark will know better.

 

[Mbruno]

I am sure your general assessment of foreigners is right. Even having a male head of state with a female spouse, as is the norm, does not entirely eliminate confusion amongst foreigners who have no interest in royalty. People have (rightfully) complained about low-quality articles in the Daily Mail and such referring to Queen Mary or Queen Letizia as "reigning", gaining a "throne" or "crown" etc.

Fortunately, in every monarchy or republic, foreigners in a position to interact with the head of state and their family (visiting foreign heads of states, foreign diplomats presenting their credentials, etc.) will have been briefed on who the head of state is, how to address them, and how to demonstrate the appropriate respect for their rank. There may be a few people scrolling through Daily Mail royalty headlines who think Mary is Denmark's head of state, but every foreign ambassador to Denmark will know better.

The issue with Prince Henrik at the infamous state dinner was, as Muhler said, that the Crown Prince in Denmark automatically becomes the Regent (i.e., acting head of state) when the monarch is unavailable and he is available. As acting head of state, he should then be the host to the visiting foreign head of state, even if the Prince Consort has in theory higher precedence than the Crown Prince in the court.

In the United Kingdom, however, I don't think that would be necessarily the same as the UK doesn't have an automatic regency in the absence of the monarch. A regency is only established when the monarch is declared incapacitated in the manner prescribed in the Regency Act 1937 and, in that case, the heir to the Crown, if he is 18 or older, a British or Commonwealth citizen, and domiciled in the UK, becomes the default Regent.

If the monarch is only temporarily absent or unavailable, the normal procedure in the UK would be, if necessary, to appoint two Counsellors of State to perform a specific constitutional role, other than those that are reserved to the monarch only. The Prince Consort can be a Counsellor of State by law and hosting a state visit is not a reserved prerogative, so I assume Queen Elizabeth II, if she had ever been in the same position as Queen Margrethe II was in that infamous occasion, could have designated Prince Philip as a Counsellor of State specifically to host a state visit , together perhaps with the Prince of Wales or any of the other next 3 people in the line of succession as co-hosts, but, as Prince Philip had higher precedence in the Court (which QEII made patently clear), he would have taken the main seat at the table.

At least that is how I see it. The main issue lies on countries like Denmark or Sweden having the heir as automatic Regent pro tempore, when the heir is available and the monarch is not, while the UK relies instead on the more flexible system of Counsellors of State, and other countries like Belgium, the Netherlands, and Spain don't even have legal or constitution provisions for a regency pro tempore (I think), but rather only for permanent regencies.

 

[Blog Real]

The example of Mary I's husband is probably partly why in the case of among others Queen Victoria and Queen Elizabeth II husbands of regnant queens were not made kings; those that were, had more authority than just being a consort.

In the case of king Philip of England, from their marriage onwards as long as Mary would live (and be married to him), all official documents (including Acts of Parliament) were to be dated with both their names, and Parliament was to be called under the joint authority of the couple. That privilege was never given to any of the wives of previous kings.

Also Queen Mary II's husband, king William, wasn't a consort but ended up reigning as co-monarch (and later as the sole monarch himself after her death).

So, I am not surprised that in the case of Denmark, they went the same path that the other European monarchies with queen regnants at the time (the Netherlands and the UK) did, which is not elevate Henrik (who had already been made a royal highness prince of Denmark in his own right - unlike wives of male heirs previously; who were already royals prior to marriage being born into foreign royal houses) to the style and title of His Majesty the King.

Was Ferdinand II, husband of Queen Maria II of Portugal, the last to have the title of king consort?

 

[Luc122]

In my opinion, an anointed and crowned monarch who reigns by the Grace of God always outranks a person who was elected and who rules by the grace of politics.

I must agree, these presidents serve but a few years while monarchs and their heirs reign for centuries

 

[Mbruno]

I must agree, these presidents serve but a few years while monarchs and their heirs reign for centuries

In multinational events attended by multiple heads of state, the protocol normally should be to seat the heads of state by seniority, i.e., those who have been in office longer should be given higher precedence. As monarchs are permanent and presidents (normally) only serve fixed terms of office, monarchs usually have more seniority than presidents and would get higher precedence anyway. That is not necessarily always the case though as there may be a situation where a new monarch has just ascended the throne and a president on his second term (or third term when allowed?) may have been in office for 8 years or more.

In practice, however, what I have noticed in many international events, is that precedence among heads of state can be rather discretionary. Sometimes heads of state of "powerful" countries like the USA are given higher precedence/prominence even when they are less senior than other heads of state in attendance.

Conversely, I noticed at Queen Elizabeth II's funeral that they seated, obviously the British Royal Family, and all foreign monarchs in front, followed by Commonwealth heads of government and heads of state, and, finally, all presidents of non-Commonwealth countries , including the President of the United States and the President of the French Republic, in the back.

The monarchs were seated in order of seniority, but, in a somewhat odd way, i.e., whenever there had been an abdication and the former monarch was also present, the seniority was determined (apparently) by the date of accession of the former monarch, rather than the current post-abdication monarch. So, King Willem-Alexander got the seniority of Princess Beatrix, and King Felipe VI, the seniority of King Juan Carlos. I wonder if that was a subtle way for the British courtiers to imply that they don't "recognize" abdications, but, seriously, probably not.


As far as the Commonwealth heads of government and other heads of state are concerned, I don't know exactly how they were seated as it was difficult to see them on the broadcast and I don't have access to the seating plan.

 

[Durham]

Non European monarchs were treated differently again. Placed in their own section immediately behind European royalty.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

The issue with Prince Henrik at the infamous state dinner was, as Muhler said, that the Crown Prince in Denmark automatically becomes the Regent (i.e., acting head of state) when the monarch is unavailable and he is available. As acting head of state, he should then be the host to the visiting foreign head of state, even if the Prince Consort has in theory higher precedence than the Crown Prince in the court.

Yes, and my understanding from media reports and Muhler's explanations is that this arrangement was indeed entirely arisen from the regency situation and unaffected by titles. That is to say, if the same situation were to recur today, it would also be Crown Prince (Regent) Christian acting as host even if Queen Mary were present. And that would be another occasion of a person with a "lower" title taking precedence (temporarily in this case) over a person with a "higher" title (as most probably conceive of "Queen" as a higher title than "Crown Prince").

Another instance of this: Ever since her abdication, Queen Margrethe has been placed after Crown Prince Christian at official events despite retaining her higher title, as the Crown Prince holds a constitutional position while the titular Queen does not.

 

[Mbruno]

Non European monarchs were treated differently again. Placed in their own section immediately behind European royalty.

True and well noted. I remember that the explanation at the time was that the European royals were related to the late Queen and, therefore, were categorized as "family" too.

In fact, deposed royal families with a degree of kinship to Queen Elizabeth II, such as the Greeks or the Bulgarians, were given higher precedence than actual reigning monarchs of non-European countries, like the Emperor of Japan, and all others in attendance. They were seated right next to the reigning European monarchs if I recall it correctly.

That was not the case though at King Charles III's coronation where the attending non-European monarchs (the Sultan of Brunei, the King of Malaysia, the King of Thailand, etc.) were given apparently the "right" precedence and non-reigning heads of royal houses (or their representatives) were seated behind all reignining monarchs or representatives thereof like Crown Princes (I don't know exactly where).

 

[Durham]

True and well noted. I remember that the explanation at the time was that the European royals were related to the late Queen and, therefore, were categorized as "family" too.

In fact, deposed royal families with a degree of kinship to Queen Elizabeth II, such as the Greeks or the Bulgarians, were given higher precedence than actual reigning monarchs of non-European countries, like the Emperor of Japan, and all others in attendance. They were seated right next to the reigning European monarchs if I recall it correctly.

That was not the case though at King Charles III's coronation where the attending non-European monarchs (the Sultan of Brunei, the King of Malaysia, the King of Thailand, etc.) were given apparently the "right" precedence and non-reigning heads of royal houses (or their representatives) were seated behind all reignining monarchs or representatives thereof like Crown Princes (I don't know exactly where).

Yes indeed, both European & non European royalty were treated the same at the coronation. Reigning monarchs seated by length of reign so the King of Sweden (with the crown princess) then the Sultan of Brunei (with son?) etc.

What I didn't understand was the seating of Regent Alois. He was sat with the monarchs. I would have thought he belonged directly after monarchs but before crown princes.

 

[tommy100]

The monarchs were seated in order of seniority, but, in a somewhat odd way, i.e., whenever there had been an abdication and the former monarch was also present, the seniority was determined (apparently) by the date of accession of the former monarch, rather than the current post-abdication monarch. So, King Willem-Alexander got the seniority of Princess Beatrix, and King Felipe VI, the seniority of King Juan Carlos. I wonder if that was a subtle way for the British courtiers to imply that they don't "recognize" abdications, but, seriously, probably not.

I've always thought that it was a nice way to recognise that for much of her reign the former monarchs were Queen Elizabeth II's colleagues and equals (to a degree) and that they were recognised by their former precedence rather than being places after all the other current reigning sovereigns as ex monarchs.
( I add that this is my own personal view, I'm not saying necessarily saying that was why it was done just its a nice outcome of the way it was done but who knows maybe it was the reason)
Quite possibly it was just the easiest thing to do, we know plans for the funeral were drawn up decades before Queen Elizabeth died so maybe it was decided to simply add the new monarchs in to where their parent had always been placed in the plans rather than to move the former monarchs into a new section.

 

[Noble Consort Ming]

Was Ferdinand II, husband of Queen Maria II of Portugal, the last to have the title of king consort?

No. Ferdinand was king from 1837 to 1853. The husband of Isabella II of Spain, Francisco de Asís, was king consort from 1846 to 1868.

Ferdinand was king juro uxoris(by right of his wife) and had a regnal number. Francisco de Asís was king consort.

Maria also had a prince consort before Ferdinand. He died before they had children so he never became king(he would have only been named king after the birth of a child, king by right of his wife, not king consort).

 

[Mbruno]

No. Ferdinand was king from 1837 to 1853. The husband of Isabella II of Spain, Francisco de Asís, was king consort from 1846 to 1868.

Ferdinand was king juro uxoris(by right of his wife) and had a regnal number. Francisco de Asís was king consort.

Maria also had a prince consort before Ferdinand. He died before they had children so he never became king(he would have only been named king after the birth of a child, king by right of his wife, not king consort).

Would Gaston d'Orléans, Comte d'Eu, have become Emperor Consort (or Emperor jure uxoris?) of Brazil if Princess Isabel had ascended the Brazilian throne? I assume the Empire of Brazil followed similar rules as the Kingdom of Portugal, or did it not?

I also read once that the possibility of the Count of Eu becoming Emperor was one of the reasons that led the Brazilian military to overthrow the monarchy in the 1889 coup as the Count was disliked in Brazil. Is that true or not accurate at all?

 

[meeralakshmi]

Was Ferdinand II, husband of Queen Maria II of Portugal, the last to have the title of king consort?

That would be Francisco de Asís, Duke of Cádiz. He was king consort of Spain from 1846-1868 while Ferdinand was king consort of Portugal from 1837-1853.

No. Ferdinand was king from 1837 to 1853. The husband of Isabella II of Spain, Francisco de Asís, was king consort from 1846 to 1868.

Ferdinand was king juro uxoris(by right of his wife) and had a regnal number. Francisco de Asís was king consort.

Maria also had a prince consort before Ferdinand. He died before they had children so he never became king(he would have only been named king after the birth of a child, king by right of his wife, not king consort).

Ferdinand didn’t play a political role except when he was regent for his wife when she was pregnant. He also ceased to be king when his wife died. Not exactly the same as a co-monarch.

Would Gaston d'Orléans, Comte d'Eu, have become Emperor Consort (or Emperor jure uxoris?) of Brazil if Princess Isabel had ascended the Brazilian throne? I assume the Empire of Brazil followed similar rules as the Kingdom of Portugal, or did it not?

I also read once that the possibility of the Count of Eu becoming Emperor was one of the reasons that led the Brazilian military to overthrow the monarchy in the 1889 coup as the Count was disliked in Brazil. Is that true or not accurate at all?

I would assume so considering that he was the Prince Imperial of Brazil by marriage.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Ferdinand didn’t play a political role except when he was regent for his wife when she was pregnant. He also ceased to be king when his wife died. Not exactly the same as a co-monarch.

The Portuguese Constitution even explicitly prohibited the husband of a monarch from playing any role in governing.

https://www.arqnet.pt/portal/portugal/liberalismo/c1826t5.html

No. Ferdinand was king from 1837 to 1853. The husband of Isabella II of Spain, Francisco de Asís, was king consort from 1846 to 1868.

Ferdinand was king juro uxoris(by right of his wife) and had a regnal number. Francisco de Asís was king consort.

Maria also had a prince consort before Ferdinand. He died before they had children so he never became king(he would have only been named king after the birth of a child, king by right of his wife, not king consort).

Fernando II of Portugal and Francisco de Asís of Spain were in precisely the same position: spouses (not co-monarchs) of reigning Queens, who as such were titled King. "Consort" is simply a descriptor which is not used as part of a formal title (except in the case of Camilla of the UK, who used "Queen Consort" prior to her crowning).

Both of them retained the title King until their deaths, even after the death (Fernando) or deposal and abdication (Francisco) of their wives. (Just as queens consort typically remain titled Queen even after being widowed or their husband abdicating.)

But as this is no longer about precedence but about titles, I suggest further discussion about this be moved to a more appropriate thread, perhaps Title & Role of a Consort.

 

[meeralakshmi]

The Portuguese Constitution even explicitly prohibited the husband of a monarch from playing any role in governing.

https://www.arqnet.pt/portal/portugal/liberalismo/c1826t5.html

Fernando II of Portugal and Francisco de Asís of Spain were in precisely the same position: spouses (not co-monarchs) of reigning Queens, who as such were titled King. "Consort" is simply a descriptor which is not used as part of a formal title (except in the case of Camilla of the UK, who used "Queen Consort" prior to her crowning).

Both of them retained the title King until their deaths, even after the death (Fernando) or deposal and abdication (Francisco) of their wives. (Just as queens consort typically remain titled Queen even after being widowed or their husband abdicating.)

But as this is no longer about precedence but about titles, I suggest further discussion about this be moved to a more appropriate thread, perhaps Title & Role of a Consort.

There are various cases of co-monarchs (the most famous being William III of England) but Wikipedia never lists them as jure uxoris.

 

[meeralakshmi]

(another poster mentioned chess pieces, but I genuinely do not know whether the average person thinks the chess queen is a queen regnant or a queen consort, or whether they associate the game titles with real-life royalty)

The queen in chess is definitely a queen consort, that’s why losing the king costs you the game but not the queen. Same with the playing cards, the queen is ranked below the king because she’s a queen consort. Were it the other way around in either game I think people would be able to tell that they were dealing with a queen regnant and a king consort (why else would the queen be more powerful than the king?).

I know that in chess the queen can do a lot more things than the king so she’s technically more powerful but she has to use her power to protect the king because he’s still the one in charge and losing him will cost the entire kingdom. A nice bit of role reversal since in fairy tales you usually see the prince rescue the princess.

I think that if we want to say that queen and prince consorts are on equal footing (which they currently aren’t) prince consorts should at least be allowed to share their wives’ style of Majesty and receive the official title of prince consort (which Philip never did and Henrik didn’t for most of his position). If monarchies really don’t want to use the title king consort (though there’s no reason that they shouldn’t) they should at least allow the queen’s husband to use the style of His Majesty when the king’s wife is styled Her Majesty. The style of HM and the official title of prince consort would distinguish prince consorts from the other princes. Another sign that prince consorts aren’t actually equal to queen consorts is that in the UK they aren’t crowned alongside their spouses (and they at least deserve that even if they don’t receive the title king).

The queen in chess is definitely a queen consort, that’s why losing the king costs you the game but not the queen. Same with the playing cards, the queen is ranked below the king because she’s a queen consort. Were it the other way around in either game I think people would be able to tell that they were dealing with a queen regnant and a king consort (why else would the queen be more powerful than the king?).

I know that in chess the queen can do a lot more things than the king so she’s technically more powerful but she has to use her power to protect the king because he’s still the one in charge and losing him will cost the entire kingdom. A nice bit of role reversal since in fairy tales you usually see the prince rescue the princess.

As I explained here a king regnant outranks a queen consort but not a queen regnant. Similarly a king consort is equal to a queen consort but below a queen regnant. However as I explained in my previous message a prince consort isn’t really equal to a queen consort.