Title & Role of a Consort

[meeralakshmi]

Is that a feeling you have or is this claim the result of published data?
Other than in a few threads in this forum I seldom see the issue discussed anywhere in the media around Europe.

It is a commonly asked question if you Google it.

You forget that the now Princess Beatrix was Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands, a queen regent. I cannot find anywhere Prince Claus complaining he did not have the title of King consort. I know the Netherlands have some differences in rules, I.e, Maxima being HM Queen, however Henrik has been the only example.

However the government recognized and addressed the inequality by deciding that female consorts would also be princesses.

You're assuming that Prince Daniel and the future spouses of Amalia, Elisabeth, Leonore, Estelle, Ingrid-Alexandra will have an issue being simply known as Prince Consort. Prince Daniel has stated numerous times the he respects Victoria's future role and he is there to support her. If any of the future Queen Regents date men who voice any expectation of their future title, this will be a massive red flag. I hold a PhD and I can tell you that I dated men who stated that if we were to marry, I could not use my Dr title (and I hadnt even graduated!), because their fragile ego's couldnt handle me with a Dr title; because formally, Dr goes before Mr. When I started dating my now-husband, I told him once I graduated, I would be known as Dr CrownPrincessJava and if we were to marry, I would not use Mrs. He said he didn't care; it's my title and I can do what I want. Rather than focussing on titles, perhaps the protocols and conventions of the Royal court need to change?

They might be okay with lesser titles than their female counterparts or they might not. I find it hard to believe that all six of them (provided that all of the young future queens regnant have husbands) would share the same opinion. I can’t imagine Leonor’s husband being happy about only being a prince when all but one of his male predecessors had the title of king, especially when he will still be Prince of Asturias until his wife ascends the throne. I can’t imagine Leonor being happy about being the only person in the entire country banned from sharing their title with their spouse when she’s head of state either. Daniel can support his wife while sharing her title as every female consort does. Henrik was more than happy to support his wife and just did not want a lesser title than his female counterparts. It’s not that the husband of any titled woman should be able to share her title, the wife of a male PhD does not share his title either. The issue is male consorts receiving lesser titles than their female counterparts and husbands and same-sex wives of other royals/nobles being denied courtesy titles when women married to male royals/nobles receive them. In the US the spouse of a president/VP obviously cannot share their spouse’s title as unlike king/queen president always means head of state. However the first male consort did not receive a lesser title than his female counterparts, he was a second gentleman while his female counterparts were/are second ladies. It is not a red flag to want to be treated equally to your female counterparts and want your wife to be treated equally to her male counterparts. The actual red flag would be the male consort asking for political power which Henrik never did. If it’s fine for male consorts to not share their wives’ titles then why not also make female consorts princesses? The Netherlands decided to do so and then chickened out with Máxima but hopefully future female consorts will actually be princess consorts.

Do I think the protocols and conventions of Prince consorts are unfair? Yes, to a degree; but a Queen Consort is not different to a Prince consort, other than one being HM and the other HRH. Was Queen Margrethe wrong to not let Henrik lead the New Year's banquet when she was ill and thus have her son, the Crown Prince, take her place? Absolutely.

If they aren’t different then why not treat them the same? Why should the king’s wife be HM while the queen’s husband is HRH? Margrethe wasn’t wrong to not let Henrik host the New Year’s banquet, the protocol is that the heir hosts when the monarch is unable to. Even if Henrik had had the title of king Frederik would have hosted.

To put him in a list of people who wants to share a title due to some miplaced idea of male-discrimination- a concept you and meerlakshmi have been championing here for months- is simply untrue, I am afraid.

The discrimination is against females, not males. Female leaders are viewed as lesser than male ones which is why their consorts receive lower titles and other female royals/nobles are often not permitted to share their titles with their spouses and children for the same reason.

You perhaps think that your own great interest in the matter is widely shared among the Chris O´Neills, Timothy Laurences and Carlos Zuritas of the Gotha.

Chris was offered his wife’s title but declined it because becoming a Swedish citizen would interfere with his work. Carlos is a non-royal duke consort of his wife’s duchies and holds the same title he would if he were a woman married to a prince. Tim Laurence is fine without a title but that doesn’t mean every man in his position is or would be. If it’s not a big deal for male spouses to go untitled then why not leave female spouses untitled as well (not that that’s what I would want)?

 

[meeralakshmi]

David Furnish (husband of Sir Elton John) has said he finds it unfair that he can’t hold a courtesy title when he could if he were female.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Was Queen Margrethe wrong to not let Henrik lead the New Year's banquet when she was ill and thus have her son, the Crown Prince, take her place? Absolutely. She as Queen Regent could have chosen to, but she didn't. However, if Henrik had been told before marriage that this is the convention of the Danish court, he could have walked away.

Margrethe wasn’t wrong to not let Henrik host the New Year’s banquet, the protocol is that the heir hosts when the monarch is unable to. Even if Henrik had had the title of king Frederik would have hosted.

I’ve posted some clarifications about the 2002 New Year’s situation (unrelated to titles) and Henrik’s subsequent interview in his thread:

Prince Henrik, the Prince Consort (1934-2018)

A new prize in honour of late Prince Henrik has been created and will be delivired by Queen Margrethe for the first time on June 12, 2022 - the Prince Henrik Prize, a new poetry prize that aims to recognize Danish poets. ** kongehuset: Ny litteraturpris bærer Prins Henriks navn **

www.theroyalforums.com

The Prince also briefly mentioned his title in that interview:

“Can you imagine people saying in the 1960s 'The King and Princess Ingrid'? But Ingrid became Queen. Today people still say The Queen and Prince Henrik, but Prince Henrik is still Prince Henrik – and now number three [in people’s eyes]. I don’t care if my title is The Prince or if they say 'The Queen and the Crocodile' or 'The Queen and Ba-u-bab', but Ba-u-bab must be number two.”​

Prins Henrik rystede Danmark: 'Jeg føler mig kasseret' | B.T.

www.bt.dk

 

[meeralakshmi]

He said this in 2002 as well: “In my opinion, a married couple should be equal, regardless of what role in society the couple may occupy. Denmark could have made me a prince of state, prince of the realm, king consort, who knows. It is an oversight, perhaps an unwillingness. But it is not the title that is decisive, but the awareness that I have a role, a function.”

 

[Tatiana Maria]

David Furnish (husband of Sir Elton John) has said he finds it unfair that he can’t hold a courtesy title when he could if he were female.

Thanks. Found Mr. Furnish's comment:

“‘I am for 100 per cent equality across the board for everybody, in all walks of life,’ David [Furnish], 53, tells me. ‘So the designation of a title is an example of something we need in order to get there.

‘The reality is, if a woman is married to man with a title, she gets a title.

‘I think everybody should have the same opportunities and the same privileges and the same honours.

‘I think if we could just level the playing field in life as much as possible, then we’d all be in a much better place.’”

SEBASTIAN SHAKESPEARE: Sir Elton has a title, why don't I, asks hubby

David Furnish claims that not receiving a title when he married Elton, who was knighted in 1998, is a form of ‘discrimination’ because a woman in the same situation would be known as ‘Lady’.

www.dailymail.co.uk

 

[meeralakshmi]

It reminds me of a line in the ITV show Victoria where the new young Queen is urging Lord Melbourne to allow Albert to be king:
“if the people get into the way of making Kings, they might get into the way of unmaking them”

Victoria wanted to make Albert king consort, not co-monarch. What she wanted was no different from wives of kings regnant automatically becoming queen.

 

[Spheno]

Victoria wanted to make Albert king consort, not co-monarch. What she wanted was no different from wives of kings regnant automatically becoming queen.

England had only one king-consort. And he was co-monarch. There was no other way.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

England had only one king-consort. And he was co-monarch. There was no other way.

Whom did you have in mind? If it is King Philip (husband of Queen Mary I), he was certainly not a co-monarch. Just the opposite: The Act of Parliament of 1554 concerning their marriage explicitly stated that the crown, sovereignty etc. of England would continue to be Mary’s alone, and Philip would acquire no rights to it.

“your Majesty as our only queen, shall and may solely and as a sole queen, use, have and enjoy the crown and sovereignty of and over your realms, dominions and subjects, with all the pre-eminence’s, prerogatives, dignities, authorities, jurisdictions, honours, castles, manors, lands, tenements and hereditaments belonging to the same, in such sole and only estate and in as large and ample manner and form in all degrees, acts, exercises and conditions, from and after the solemnisation of the said marriage, and at all times during the same, which God grant long to continue and endure, as your Highness now hath had, used, exercised and enjoyed, or might have had, used or enjoyed the same before the solemnisation of the said marriage: without any right, title, estate, claim or demand to be given, come or grow unto the said most noble prince as tenant by the courtesy of this realm, or in or by any other means by force of the said marriage,”

https://web.archive.org/web/20190225044848/https://rbsche.people.wm.edu/H111_doc_marriageofqueenmary.html

 

[Silverpot]

Whom did you have in mind? If it is King Philip (husband of Queen Mary I), he was certainly not a co-monarch. Just the opposite: The Act of Parliament of 1554 concerning their marriage explicitly stated that the crown, sovereignty etc. of England would continue to be Mary’s alone, and Philip would acquire no rights to it.

“your Majesty as our only queen, shall and may solely and as a sole queen, use, have and enjoy the crown and sovereignty of and over your realms, dominions and subjects, with all the pre-eminence’s, prerogatives, dignities, authorities, jurisdictions, honours, castles, manors, lands, tenements and hereditaments belonging to the same, in such sole and only estate and in as large and ample manner and form in all degrees, acts, exercises and conditions, from and after the solemnisation of the said marriage, and at all times during the same, which God grant long to continue and endure, as your Highness now hath had, used, exercised and enjoyed, or might have had, used or enjoyed the same before the solemnisation of the said marriage: without any right, title, estate, claim or demand to be given, come or grow unto the said most noble prince as tenant by the courtesy of this realm, or in or by any other means by force of the said marriage,”​

​

https://web.archive.org/web/20190225044848/https://rbsche.people.wm.edu/H111_doc_marriageofqueenmary.html

She probably had King William III and Mary II in mind.

 

[meeralakshmi]

William was going to be made king consort but asked to be created co-ruler.

 

[Curryong]

Yes, he did. I seem to recall reading that William didn’t ask to be co-ruler but demanded it of Parliament, otherwise he intended to return to the Netherlands. And Mary backed him up. So Parliament agreed, though no doubt reluctantly as he wasn’t overly popular.

 

[Stefan]

Yes, he did. I seem to recall reading that William didn’t ask to be co-ruler but demanded it of Parliament, otherwise he intended to return to the Netherlands. And Mary backed him up. So Parliament agreed, though no doubt reluctantly as he wasn’t overly popular.

But he also was the next in the line of succession after Mary's sister Anne

 

[Curryong]

Yes that’s true, through his mother. However Anne was fifteen years younger than he was, and he was not in the best of health as a life-long asthmatic. So, no guarantee at all that he would outlive Anne and actually get to set on the throne anyway. A bird in the hand and all that.

 

[Marengo]

I think his concerns were more immediate and more focussed on his own country. To keep Louis XIV at bay he needed the English and for that he needed to influence English politics as much as he could.

IIRC it was stipulated that any children from a potential second marriage of Willem would be lower in the line of succession than the children of Anne.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Carlos is a non-royal duke consort of his wife’s duchies and holds the same title he would if he were a woman married to a prince.

Great observation. Infanta Margarita and Carlos Zurita weren’t a case of women being denied the same treatment as men. If a “Margarita Zurita” had married an “Infante Carlos” in 1972, that couple would have been titled exactly the same as Infanta Margarita and Carlos Zurita.

Under the Spanish Bourbons, consorts’ titles never discriminated by gender. Unequal (not royally born) spouses – male or female – were simply never authorized to use royal titles before King Juan Carlos I (with one exception).

Non-royal women married to Infantes of Spain, such as María Solange Mesía (the wife of Infante José Eugenio) or Emanuela de Dampierre (the wife of Infante Jaime), also did not become HRHs, Infantas of Spain, or Princesses of Bourbon. Like Carlos Zurita, they shared only the non-royal noble titles of their husbands.

(Yes, Emanuela called herself “Infanta”, but the Royal Family never authorized or accepted this, and addressed her only as Excelentísima Señora and Duchess of Segovia.)

Chris was offered his wife’s title but declined it because becoming a Swedish citizen would interfere with his work.

You're right. Sources here: Titles of the Swedish RF and Changes 2019

 

[theroyalfly]

David Furnish (husband of Sir Elton John) has said he finds it unfair that he can’t hold a courtesy title when he could if he were female.

In 2008, shortly before her death (in articulo mortis), the 21st Duchess of Medina Sidonia, Luisa Isabel Álvarez de Toledo, married her secretary and long-time partner. Her surviving spouse is formally recognized in Spain as Dowager Duchess of Medina Sidonia.