Title & Role of a Consort

[Blog Real]

The problem is that they are complicating an issue that is simpler than you think.

Currently, the husband of a Queen is a Prince Consort.
A King's wife is the Queen Consort.

As for same-sex couples, I think the husband of a King should have the title of Prince Consort.
A Queen's wife would be Princess Consort so as not to be confused with the Queen.

This issue is simple to resolve. The most difficult thing is the children that homosexual couples will have, that is. Because they need a third person....
I don't believe that a couple of homosexual monarchs can have children...

Do you think these issues have already been discussed between the various royal houses to be prepared for the future?

 

[JR76]

Currently, the husband of a Queen is a Prince Consort.
A King's wife is the Queen Consort.

Not really. All husbands of a reigning queen holds the position of prince consort (if not king consort), but few hold the style of prince consort. The husbands of the Dutch queens were all styled prince while the two latest men that were styled as prince consorts (Albert & Henrik) were created so by their wives. Henrik even relinquished that title when he retired. Interestingly enough at the same time that Albert was prince consort there were two king consorts in Portugal and Spain.

 

[Mbruno]

This issue is simple to resolve. The most difficult thing is the children that homosexual couples will have, that is. Because they need a third person....
I don't believe that a couple of homosexual monarchs can have children...

They can't have children that share genetic material from both parents (unless some kind of "hybrid cloning" or whatever is used, but that is SciFi).

It is obviously possible, however, for a reigning king to be the biological parent of a child using a surrogate mother and an egg from a woman to whom he is not married. Or, similarly, for a reigning queen to have a biological child using sperm donated by a man who is not her husband.

The question here is whether children conceived like that would be considered "legitimate" for succession purposes and entitled to inherit the throne or not. As I discussed in another thread, in the British peerage for example, children born of surrogate mothers do not have succession rights, even when a peer and his wife (in this case, a heterosexual couple) are both the biological parents. That is because English law defines a woman who gives birth to a child as his/her legal mother and, if she is married, her husband is the legal father. The legal parents, in the latter sense, may under the law transfer their parental rights to the biological parents (as long as that is done altruistically, rather than in exchange for a financial settlement), but, for succession purposes, the child has the same status in this case as an adopted one.


As I also mentioned in another thread, there was an interesting teen / young adult series recently on Netflix about a 16-year-old fictional prince in Sweden who is gay and unexpectedly becomes the Crown Prince (and only person left in the line of succession) after his older brother dies in a car accident. At the time, he was dating another boy in his school, who was the son of a poor immigrant mother from Latin America, but they eventually break up, after their relationship is exposed by a leaked video, and the Crown Prince denies it.

 

[Blog Real]

They can't have children that share genetic material from both parents (unless some kind of "hybrid cloning" or whatever is used, but that is SciFi).

It is obviously possible, however, for a reigning king to be the biological parent of a child using a surrogate mother and an egg from a woman to whom he is not married. Or, similarly, for a reigning queen to have a biological child using sperm donated by a man who is not her husband.

The question here is whether children conceived like that would be considered "legitimate" for succession purposes and entitled to inherit the throne or not. As I discussed in another thread, in the British peerage for example, children born of surrogate mothers do not have succession rights, even when a peer and his wife (in this case, a heterosexual couple) are both the biological parents. That is because English law defines a woman who gives birth to a child as his/her legal mother and, if she is married, her husband is the legal father. The legal parents, in the latter sense, may under the law transfer their parental rights to the biological parents (as long as that is done altruistically, rather than in exchange for a financial settlement), but, for succession purposes, the child has the same status in this case as an adopted one.


As I also mentioned in another thread, there was an interesting teen / young adult series recently on Netflix about a 16-year-old fictional prince in Sweden who is gay and unexpectedly becomes the Crown Prince (and only person left in the line of succession) after his older brother dies in a car accident. At the time, he was dating another boy in his school, who was the son of a poor immigrant mother from Latin America, but they eventually break up, after their relationship is exposed by a leaked video, and the Crown Prince denies it.

It is a complex issue but one that must have already been discussed among the various royal houses.
I think that, despite everything, and to avoid succession problems, it was preferable for a homosexual monarch not to have children.
But what will happen, in time it will be known...

 

[SLV]

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.









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.

..

But Queens Elizabeth and Margrethe are both King and Queen. The function of head of State is a King, their title is Queen. At least that is the situation in the Netherlands when Queen Beatrix was still monarch. From what I understand, princes Claus (and Bernard before him) could not be named King, as their wives already had that function.

 

[muriel]

Perhaps for this discussion to be meaningful, a consort should really be invited to join this discussion. Might M-T of Luxembourg be the right person to provide some perspective?

 

[Heavs]

Perhaps for this discussion to be meaningful, a consort should really be invited to join this discussion. Might M-T of Luxembourg be the right person to provide some perspective?

Wouldn't M-T be tainted by the Waringo report? She would certainly have an interesting perspective to add to the discussion but there's an official report that concludes she was a huge bully that among other things completely overstepped the role of consort and helped bring the Cour into disrepute.

Prince Henrik had some things to say about not being King but at the time a lot of people thought this was part of the temper tantrum about being considered "less" than his son, which is another matter entirely.

I'm personally not in favour of a male consort being named King in the interests of "fairness" simply because "here come the King and Queen" is so ingrained into the English language as the King being the most important one, although I don't know about other languages.

And to be honest nothing about royalty is actually based on fairness.

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.

Because it really only matters when discussing matters of status between Queen's regnant and their husbands. At all other times its taken for granted that a female monarch will be a Queen Regnant and there's no real appetite among royal watchers (many of whom do value tradition in titles and other things to do with royalty) that PC Victoria for instance becomes King Victoria.

 

[An Ard Ri]

Not really. All husbands of a reigning queen holds the position of prince consort (if not king consort), but few hold the style of prince consort. The husbands of the Dutch queens were all styled prince while the two latest men that were styled as prince consorts (Albert & Henrik) were created so by their wives. Henrik even relinquished that title when he retired. Interestingly enough at the same time that Albert was prince consort there were two king consorts in Portugal and Spain.

As far as I know the spouse of Charlotte, Grand Duchess of Luxembourg was also styled Prince Consort and was never made a Grand Duke of Luxembourg?

His Royal Highness The Prince Consort of Luxembourg, Prince of Bourbon-Parma.

 

[irish_royalist]

If anyone reads 'Royalty Digest, Quarterly', Trond Noren Isaksen has written a very interesting article on Prince Henrik of Denmark and the Kings Consort of Navarre.
As we all know, Prince Henrik often complained that he had not been styled King Consort. Interestingly, he has a significant Navarrese heritage - and the ancient Kingdom of Navarre had many female monarchs, with their husbands styled as King.
He notes that the style of 'Prince Consort' was a Victorian invention, starting with Queen Victoria and Prince Albert, and carried on by their descendants ever since.

 

[Blog Real]

Interestingly in Belgium there hasn't been a Queen Regent yet, it's interesting to see what will happen when Princess Elisabeth is queen.

 

[An Ard Ri]

Also Queen Anne's husband Prince George of Denmark as far as I'm aware was never made a Prince of the United Kingdom but was made Duke of Cumberland by William III in 1689.


HRH Prince George of Denmark and Norway, Duke of Cumberland.

 

[Mbruno]

Some monarchical constitutions use the word "King" to refer to the Head of State probably because they were originally written at a time when only men could succeed to the throne. That is definitely the case for example in Belgium, Denmark and Norway.

Conversely, some Commonwealth realm constitutions like Canada's Constitution Act 1867 or the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act of 1900, which were passed during Queen Victoria's reign, use only the term "Queen" to refer to the monarch, with the remark, however, as stated in the Australian Constitution Act that: "The provisions of this Act referring to the Queen shall extend to Her Majesty's heirs and successors in the sovereignty of the United Kingdom".

More recent constitutional texts avoid those traps by using a different wording. For example, as I mentioned in another thread, the Swedish constitution now normally refers to the monarch simply as "the Head of State" or, alternatively, "the King or Queen who occupies the throne", or "the King or Queen who is the Head of State". Likewise, the New Zealand Constitution Act of 1986 uses the neutral term "the Sovereign" to refer to the King or Queen who occupies the throne.

In any case, although I understand the argument put forward by some Dutch or Danish posters, I don't think it is reasonable to assume that Queen Beatrix or Queen Margrethe II are titled Queen, but are constitutionally the King of the Netherlands or of Denmark by virtue of the respective constitutions of those countries using only the term King to refer to the monarch. In fact, both Margrethe and Beatrix discharge/discharged the powers pertaining to their offices as laid down in the constitution using "Queen" in the preamble of royal decrees, legislative bills or proclamations, which seems to contradict that such powers could be exercised by a King only.

 

[An Ard Ri]

Interestingly in Belgium there hasn't been a Queen Regent yet, it's interesting to see what will happen when Princess Elisabeth is queen.

Queen Regent or Queen Regnant?

I don't think believe Belgium has had either.

 

[Blog Real]

Queen Regent or Queen Regnant?

I don't think believe Belgium has had either.

Yes Queen Regnant. I confused.

 

[CyrilVladisla]

Will Princess Elisabeth use a Roman numeral when she is the Queen Regnant and be Queen Elisabeth I of the Belgians so she is not confused with the spouse of King Albert I, Queen Elisabeth of the Belgians?

 

[W.Y.CII]

Will Princess Elisabeth use a Roman numeral when she is the Queen Regnant and be Queen Elisabeth I of the Belgians so she is not confused with the spouse of King Albert I, Queen Elisabeth of the Belgians?

Normally there wouldn't be numeral if there isn't another namesake monarch right? (Juan Carlos I is the only exception I think.) Christina of Sweden had never used a numeral to differentiate herself from her grandmother Queen Christina of Sweden, and same for Elizabeth I who are called "the first" later because there is "the second" but not because she had a queen (consort) grandmother who also named Elizabeth. No reason for her to add a numeral (IMO it would be quite embarrassing if you call yourself "the first" but there actually isn't "the second"......)

 

[Tatiana Maria]

The problem is that they are complicating an issue that is simpler than you think.

Currently, the husband of a Queen is a Prince Consort.
A King's wife is the Queen Consort.

Gender-equal titulature and treatment would simplify matters, not complicate them. When a monarchy has a tradition of male sovereigns and female consorts, and female sovereigns and/or male consorts are treated unequally, then solutions must be worked out over the first female sovereign/male consort, since the traditions set by male sovereigns and female consorts have been excluded as usable precedents.

Solutions may even need to be reworked for the next female sovereign and male consort, since the previous case-by-case solutions may be inappropriate for subsequent couples.

Absent the simplicity which following the precedents set for female consorts would achieve, the husband of Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands was styled as Prince Claus of the Netherlands, the husband of Queen Elizabeth II of Britain was styled as The Duke of Edinburgh, and the husband of Queen Margrethe II of Denmark changed from The Prince to The Prince Consort to Prince Henrik, resulting in four separate styles applied to three male consorts.

As for same-sex couples, I think the husband of a King should have the title of Prince Consort.
A Queen's wife would be Princess Consort so as not to be confused with the Queen.

This issue is simple to resolve.

Gender equality would also simplify, not complicate, the unprecedented situation of a same-gender royal consort. When a queen's husband is treated unequally to a king's wife, arguments could be made for either option: treating a queen's wife in the same fashion as a king's wife (using the precedent set by previous female consorts), or treating a queen's wife in the same fashion as a queen's husband (using the precedent set by previous consorts of queens regnant). When a queen's husband is treated equally to a king's wife, the answer will be simple.

And to be honest nothing about royalty is actually based on fairness.

When it comes to for instance accusations against royals of racist remarks or poor treatment of employees, I see a general opinion among royal watchers (even the ones who are extremely traditional) that if the accusations prove to be true then people should absolutely not stand for it. And where royal families have repealed house laws discriminating against commoner consorts, those rule changes are cheered by most of the royal watching community. There are inherently unfair aspects of hereditary monarchy, and perhaps even in elective monarchy, but it is also plain that unfairness is not always unproblematic in monarchies, however traditional.

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. [...]

Because it really only matters when discussing matters of status between Queen's regnant and their husbands. At all other times its taken for granted that a female monarch will be a Queen Regnant and there's no real appetite among royal watchers (many of whom do value tradition in titles and other things to do with royalty) that PC Victoria for instance becomes King Victoria.

Interesting. So the general perception among royal watchers is that the female sovereigns of European kingdoms do bear lower titles than their male counterparts, but it is never discussed because nobody has objections to it? I am not sure if I view general opinion in the same way (and personally, though I value tradition in titles, if I perceived Queen to be a lower title than King then I would object to the inferior treatment of female monarchs), but I haven't carried out a survey of royal watchers, and it is an interesting thought.

I'm personally not in favour of a male consort being named King in the interests of "fairness" simply because "here come the King and Queen" is so ingrained into the English language as the King being the most important one, although I don't know about other languages.

I assume you are a native and/or fluent English speaker, and so am I, but for me "here come the Queen and King" would cause the perception of the Queen being the more important spouse while "here come the King and Queen" would cause the perception of the King being the more important spouse.

 

[JR76]

I assume you are a native and/or fluent English speaker, and so am I, but for me "here come the Queen and King" would cause the perception of the Queen being the more important spouse while "here come the King and Queen" would cause the perception of the King being the more important spouse.

I agree. Personally the phrase "the Queen and King" would signal to me in any of the six languages I either speak or understand that it was the queen who had the higher position. It's all a matter of habit, really. If a monarchy would start using the title of king for the male spouse of a queen people would quickly get used to it and stop finding it strange. Foreign governments would use it for matters of diplomatic protocol and although I'm sure that foreign reporters would initially mess it up (yes, I'm looking at you English language press who can't stop using Kate Middleton) they are neither important nor would affect the narrative in the royal couple's home country.

 

[HenRach Dominion]

I'm still relatively new to this site, so I'm not sure if it's been discuss yet, but if a royal married someone of the same sex, what would their titles be?

 

[Tatiana Maria]

I'm still relatively new to this site, so I'm not sure if it's been discuss yet, but if a royal married someone of the same sex, what would their titles be?

To my knowledge the question has not been discussed publicly by any of the royal families in countries where same-sex marriage has been officially recognized, thus we can only speculate about future decisions.

Under the present legislation, a same-sex spouse would not automatically take a royal title in any of those countries, with the possible exceptions of a spouse of the Spanish heir and an approved wife of a Luxembourgian princess (that would be the case under my interpretations of the royal decree in Spain and the house law in Luxembourg, but the laws were promulgated before the legalization of same-sex marriage in the respective countries). Note that in most of those countries, that is also the case for male spouses of female royals.

I agree. Personally the phrase "the Queen and King" would signal to me in any of the six languages I either speak or understand that it was the queen who had the higher position. It's all a matter of habit, really. If a monarchy would start using the title of king for the male spouse of a queen people would quickly get used to it and stop finding it strange. Foreign governments would use it for matters of diplomatic protocol and although I'm sure that foreign reporters would initially mess it up (yes, I'm looking at you English language press who can't stop using Kate Middleton) they are neither important nor would affect the narrative in the royal couple's home country.

Agreed. From time to time a foreign reporter refers to Crown Princess Mary of Denmark as Princess Mary and occasionally even to Prince Daniel of Sweden as Crown Prince Daniel. In either case it hasn't harmed the functioning of the monarchy in Denmark or Sweden.

 

[JR76]

Christina of Sweden had never used a numeral to differentiate herself from her grandmother Queen Christina of Sweden

It would have been strange for Queen Kristina to use a numeral to differentiate herself from her grandmother since the latter was a queen consort and not a queen regnant. Her cousin King Karl X's granddaughter Queen (regnant) Ulrika Eleonora is sometimes spoken of as "the younger" to differentiate her from her mother Queen (consort) Ulrika Eleonora "the elder", but these are modern and unofficial designations.

 

[W.Y.CII]

It would have been strange for Queen Kristina to use a numeral to differentiate herself from her grandmother since the latter was a queen consort and not a queen regnant. Her cousin King Karl X's granddaughter Queen (regnant) Ulrika Eleonora is sometimes spoken of as "the younger" to differentiate her from her mother Queen (consort) Ulrika Eleonora "the elder", but these are modern and unofficial designations.

Yes, that's exactly why I said it's unnecessary for Elisabeth to use "Elisabeth I" as the queen regnant in order to differentiate herself from her great-great-grandmother Elisabeth who was queen consort.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Under the reforms suggested by the Japanese government in 2005, the husband of a female emperor or member of the imperial family was to use the same form of address as the wife of a male emperor or member of the imperial family. These forms of address are translated into English as Majesty in the case of an emperor's (empress's) consort and Imperial Highness in the case of the consort of a member of the Imperial Family.

Because the titles applied to imperial wives are gender specific, new titles were to be established for imperial husbands.

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

(ii) The Consort’s Title

Under the current system, the consort of a (male) Emperor is titled Kōgō (皇后, Empress), and the widow of a (male) Emperor is titled Taikōtaigō (太皇太后, Grand Empress Dowager), or Kōtaigō (皇太后, Empress Dowager). The consorts of a Shinnō and of an Ō are titled respectively Shinnō-hi (親王妃) and Ō-hi (王妃). With the informed advice of learned individuals possessing an expert knowledge of the subject, appropriate titles will likewise need to be established for the consorts of female Emperors, Naishinnō, and Joō.

As for the titles Tennō (天皇, Emperor), Kōtaishi (皇太子, the Crown Prince if the child of the Emperor), and Kōtaison (皇太孫, the Crown Prince if the grandchild of the Emperor), these do not apply specifically to males: it is a matter of historical fact that women too have become Emperors and Kōtaishi. It would therefore be appropriate to use these same titles of women as well.

(iii) Honorific Forms of Address and Other Terminology

Under the current system, the Empress, the Grand Empress Dowager, and the Empress Dowager are, like the Emperor, addressed as Heika (陛下), or “Your Majesty”; other members of the Imperial Family are addressed as Denka (殿下), or “Your Highness.” As for place of burial, that of the Empress, the Grand Empress Dowager, or the Empress Dowager is, like that of the Emperor, termed a Ryō (陵), or Mausoleum; that of any other member of the Imperial Family is termed a Bo (墓), or Tomb. In the same fashion, similar terminology should be used with respect to the consort or widower of a female Emperor as with respect to the Emperor herself.

As far as I know the spouse of Charlotte, Grand Duchess of Luxembourg was also styled Prince Consort and was never made a Grand Duke of Luxembourg?

The husband of Grand Duchess Charlotte was styled His Royal Highness the Prince of Luxembourg, even after her abdication.

By the new 2012 house law, the husband of the reigning Grand Duchess will hold "the predicate Royal Highness and the title Prince of Luxembourg, Prince Consort". I am not sure if that suggests he will use Prince of Luxembourg or Prince Consort.


Answered the discussion of regnal ordinals here.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Kings and queens have the style of Majesty; princes and princesses on the other hand have the style of Royal Highness.

I wonder, if the proposed reforms in Japan in 2005 had been passed into legislation, how would the title and form of address of Aiko's hypothetical husband (refer to previous post) have been translated into English? His Majesty the Prince Consort?

 

[An Ard Ri]

The kingdom of Navarre had many Queen Regnants all of the husbands were styled kings of Navarre


Jeanne I was Queen of Navarre and Countess of Champagne and Brie 1274 until 1305
Jeanne married the future Philippe IV of France who was styled King of France and Navarre.

Jeanne II was Queen of Navarre from1328-1349
Her husband Philippe, Count of Évreux was styled Philippe III of Navarre.

Blanche I of Navarre was Queen of Navarre from 1425-1441
Her husband Juan ,Duke of Montblanc later became King of Argon in 1458 and held power in Navarre for his imprisoned daughter Blanche II who never ruled and died in mysterious circumstances.

Blanche II Queen of Navarre (1461-1464) Never reigned and imprisoned by her father at Orthez where she died.

Eleanor was Queen of Navarre, Countess de Foix and Viscountess de Narbonne .Her husband was Gaston IV, Count of Foix but he died in 1472 before Eleanor became Queen Regnant in 1479.

Catherine of Navarre was queen of Navarre ,Countess of Foix ,Bigorre and Viscountess of Béarn from 1483-1517
Her husband was Jean d'Albret,Count of Périgord and Viscount of Limoges and styled Jean III ,King of Navarre,Count de Foix.

Jeanne III of Navarre (Jeanne d'Albret) 1528-1572
Titles
Queen of Navarre
Duchess of Albret
Duchess of Vendôme (by marriage)
Duchess of Beaumont (by marriage)
Countess of Limoges
Countess of Foix
Countess of Armagnac
Countess of Bigorre
Countess of Périgord
Countess of Marle (by marriage)
Countess of Soissons
Princess of Andorra

Jeanne married Antoine de Bourbon,Duke of Vendôme who was styled King of Navarre along with the numerous other titles he and Jeanne held.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Carina Bergfeldt spoke with Aftonbladet about her interview with Daniel due to his 50th birthday.

[...] What fascinates him apart from the obvious, that he is married to Crown Princess Victoria?
- That's the role I'm interested in. We have seen in other royal families that it is not always easy to be a prince consort. Prince Philip didn't always love his role, Prince Claus of the Netherlands also had a hard time with it at times, and you don't have to go further than our neighboring country Denmark for an example of someone who really didn't always enjoy the role. My curiosity is simply why Prince Daniel would be so different. [...]

Prins Daniel intervjuas i SVT av Carina Bergfeldt – fyller 50 år

I think that's a question many of us royal watchers have thought about. Without minimizing the princes' individual choices and personalities, I suspect their family and career backgrounds contributed to the difference in emotional adjustment. Philip, Claus and Henrik were raised within royal or noble families, which were and are notoriously patriarchal, and their premarital careers were spent in the military or diplomatic service, where most of their male colleagues probably had wives who accepted a supporting role, following their husbands from posting to posting, taking care of domestic matters and assisting their husband's career instead of building their own.

Growing up as a middle-class commoner with two working parents, and with a pre-royal working life in fitness and entrepreneurship, Daniel's experiences probably had less in common with the previous generation of male consorts.

 

[Prinsara]

But on the other hand, Daniel has constantly been viewed as having "married up", from the time he and Victoria became involved till now.

Patriarchy and traditions aside, there was no "lesser" role for him to settle into. I think Daniel is like most female commoner spouses in being very careful to project a dutiful, polished image. He has no room to publicly look discontented.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

In most of the European monarchies, there is currently a serious clash between the rules of titles and the rules of citizenship for royal wives.

All of the European monarchies have reformed their laws of citizenship so that foreign women no longer have the automatic right to gain citizenship simply by virtue of marrying a citizen. In addition, many (perhaps most) European governments/publics are no longer willing to grant fast-tracked citizenship to all royal wives.

At the same time, most of the European monarchies incorporate the name of the country into their royal titles, and most also require any woman who marries a prince to share the title of her husband.

This has resulted in a bizarre situation of there being a Princess of Luxembourg (Claire) who is not a citizen of Luxembourg and a Princess of the United Kingdom (Meghan) who is not a citizen of the United Kingdom. If no reforms are enacted, it will surely occur in more countries in the future.

Monarchies ought to do one of three things:
1: End the practice of automatically conferring wives with the feminine version of their husband's title.
2: Remove the name of the country from their royal titles.
3: Pass a law which automatically bestows citizenship on any woman who marries a "Prince of Country X".

Option 1 would be my preference.

 

[Mbruno]

On October 31, 2023, Queen Letizia will be stripped of her only constitutional role under the Spanish constitution, which is to serve as regent for her daughter if Leonor ascends the throne before turning 18, or to serve as regent for her husband if he is unable to fulfill his duties as King and that incapacity is recognized by the Parliament . The latter role in particular will be assumed by Leonor when she turns 18.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Moved from Prince Henrik: "I Should Be King" Discussion:

Applying principles of equality to an institution that is based on anything but equality is a bit off, I'd say.

Do you feel the same way about, for example:

Those who demonize the late Prince Gustav Albrecht of Sayn-Wittgenstein-Berleburg, or even falsely accuse him of racism, all because his last will in 1943 disinherited family members who married commoners?

Those who accuse King Charles III of the UK of racism because at one point he considered not granting royal titles to his male-line grandchildren of biracial descent?

Those who applauded the firing of a British courtier who was accused of making a comment that could be interpreted as racially insensitive?

Those who savaged a Spanish royal commentator for criticizing the choice of Letizia Ortiz as princess and now queen consort because she was not noble?


The fact is that almost all royal watchers do apply principles of equality – including class equality and racial equality – to hereditary monarchy. It is only gender equality where many draw the line.


@Muhler (or others): Please feel free to copy your prior responses as well.