Title & Role of a Consort

[Somebody]

Using the completely inaccurate reasoning about the titles for Harry's children really weakens your argument I am afraid. Please don't give any credence to such utter nonsense.

 

[An Ard Ri]

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.

The last Spanish Queen Regent was Maria Christina of Austria who served as Queen Regent from 1885-1902
Prior to that we had :
Maria Christina of the Two Sicilies as Queen Regent from 1833-1840
Elisabeth Farnese as Queen Regent from 1759-1760
Maria Anna of Austria as Queen Regent from 1665-1670

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Using the completely inaccurate reasoning about the titles for Harry's children really weakens your argument I am afraid. Please don't give any credence to such utter nonsense.

I am afraid it is a fact that royal watchers have indeed accused King Charles III of racism on the basis of his reported (now dropped, of course) plans to slim down royal titles. I believe you yourself have commented on those false accusations, so I am surprised you refer to my reference to their being made as "utter nonsense".

 

[muriel]

I am afraid it is a fact that royal watchers have indeed accused King Charles III of racism on the basis of his reported (now dropped, of course) plans to slim down royal titles. I believe you yourself have commented on those false accusations, so I am surprised you refer to my reference to their being made as "utter nonsense".

Anyone can accuse the king of anything, if they so want. But for the allegation to have any credibility, it must be backed up. In this case, these were just malicious lies on the part of Meghan in the Oprah interview of 2021, designed to do damage to the royal family and to portray herself as the victim in an attempt to curry favour with the American public.

Plans to slim down the monarchy under Charles have been well known for a few decades, long before Harry met Meghan. It had nothing to do with Meghan being half black, or Archie & Lili being quarter black. It was never intended that Harry's children would be working royals, like Beatrice, Eugenie, Zara & Peter are not, and the Wessex children will not be. B&E carry the Princess titles only because the Queen let them. Had they been born in the reign of KC3, they would not have had those titles.

Titles for non-working royals just does not make sense in today's day and age. The issue of titles for H&M's children stems from the 1917 LPs, which, under King Charles would have been updated. But we now have a very odd situation. H&M are no longer working royals, and do not represent the Crown or the UK in any way. They have spent years now trashing his family and "The Firm". Yet, they use their own royal titles and publicly refer to their children with Prince and Princess titles.

 

[RabbitRabbit]

I gather he hasn't seen Harry's children in person and they would have been the back up team. But after Meghan was introduced by the circle of Fergie, that went out the window, and the Yorks are fighting harder than ever by any means to get a place on the Royal work list.

I think a consorts role is a partnership role but you're not the person raised to do that job or thrust in because of a family emergency. It's supportive and still fulfilling and you get the recogintion for what you do. I think especially for female heirs it's still important that their husband is not mistaken for being the actual monarch. I can't imagine being in this situation but I wouldn't be insulted by being a Queen consort if I married an heir because that is who you actually are. It's up to the monarch though to make those decisions and individuals views will vary. I think Prince or King Consort is fine.

I am against children of Royal women being a nothing as a rule if they didn't marry a titled Royal or Aristocrat. It's up to a couple what they want for their children but I don't think women should be pressured to give up their own identiy and half their childrens heritage to be 'modern'. It's actually more from Victorian times and later that the male supriority becomes very enforced rather than tradition as titles used to get remade in the UK through the female link if they didn't carry across. If they don't do Royal duties they won't be seen much anyway, it should be a choice. Most aristocrats are quite anonymous to the wider public but your family is your family. But having said that people a long way off in succession lines shouldn't be able to sell the connections and names but you can spot who wears stark colours like on the former huge balcony scenes in the UK Royal family to draw attention or create a fuss to turn heads.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Anyone can accuse the king of anything, if they so want. But for the allegation to have any credibility, it must be backed up.

Nowhere in my post was it suggested that the allegation was credible.

In fact, the first example I gave was the late Prince Gustav Albrecht of Sayn-Wittgenstein-Berleburg being accused of racism in his will. That allegation has been completely discredited. From that it should be quite obvious that I was not limiting my list of examples to credible accusations.

Sayn-Wittgenstein-Berleburg Estate and Family Issues

This is a thread for information and discussion on property, family, legal and dynastic issues involving the Sayn-Wittgenstein-Berleburg family: succession and ownership, marriage and children, names and titles, headship and family disputes, lawsuits, et cetera. Information and discussion on...

www.theroyalforums.com

 

[Mbruno]

I am against children of Royal women being a nothing as a rule if they didn't marry a titled Royal or Aristocrat.

Where do you draw the line, however, to decide who is royal or not? It cannot go on in perpetuity for successive generations of descendants of a sovereign . Drawing the line at children of a monarch and children of the heir seems reasonable to me. There is no need for grandchildren of the monarch in collateral lines to be princes or princesses.

 

[RabbitRabbit]

Where do you draw the line, however, to decide who is royal or not? It cannot go on in perpetuity for successive generations of descendants of a sovereign . Drawing the line at children of a monarch and children of the heir seems reasonable to me. There is no need for grandchildren of the monarch in collateral lines to be princes or princesses.

In perpetuity is very different and not in the British system. In the UK the male line HRH stops at grandchildren and them 1 generation of Lords and ladies and from there follows title lines in the British way not like in Europe where it's equal across all grandchildren but that's another thread.

I don't think that going from Royal such as HRH/HSH to blank (unless the parents want this or don't mind) when children could and I think should be either Royal again on repeat or Lords and ladies depending if both (kids to be Royal) or one side (kids to be Lord and Ladies) is the right thing for women to be held to but not men in the post 19th century system. Children of younger Male and Female children of monarchs should be the same so Anne and Andrew's in the British system would be both Lords and Ladies like Edward and Sophie's children if the parents opt for titles. What I think is wrong is to say to daughters and formerly male line grand daughters of monarchs 'we'll offer you these titles as a formality but better to politely decline to the monarch' - that's just slippery grey-man manipulation).

If any of the the younger children of the previous monarch in the UK had married a Royal, almost impossible now, the children shouldn't be different to both sides that their parents are as that's cruel. Sarah Ferguson has a small part aristocratic ancestry and maybe Sophie but their are not from reigning Royal families (almost no one is now) so a half way is a good thing. I just don't understand, unless you talk of commercial value why Sarah and Andrew where so keen on the children being so titled but I think she wanted parity with Diana who was a distant relative and childhood occasional friend from the royal family circle. If Andrew or Anne had married a foreign Royal, yes, their children should have kept titles but that didn't happen. There isn't going to be another HRH generation after that because it's next to impossible that you would have a third successive generation marrying with a reiginig Royal family now as there are how many? 8 in Europe? Ex Royals are mostly German and it may not be wise PR to have more Germans marrying in again for a very, very long time so that's also unlikely and their titles are not legally recognised in Germany. Non German ex Royals are too politically sensitive unless you're talking French, Italian, Austrian and Polish aristocracy and they are Catholic countries so more unlikley to marry in for a different reason.

 

[maria-olivia]

HIH Grand Duchess Maria Romanov married HRH Prince Franz Wilhelm of Hohenzollern. Their Son is not wearing his Father's surname but he is HIH Heditary Grand Duke Georg Romanov. His wife is HSH Princess and their Son is Prince and not not a HIH as his Father .(perhaps out of topic because no Monarchs anymore)

 

[meeralakshmi]

The Consort Conundrum - what would you call the King's husband or the Queen's wife? - Royal Central

The debate about why Queen Camilla is regularly called The Queen Consort rather than just The Queen opens up another discussion. For in the past decade, the majority of European nations that have monarchies have...

royalcentral.co.uk

This article sums up my feelings on this matter. The husband of a king or queen should be king consort and the wife of a king or queen should be queen consort. Anyone married to any other royal or noble should get to use their spouse’s title regardless of the genders of themselves and their spouse. Most European monarchies have taken steps to introduce gender equality into the family (allowing women to inherit the throne, introducing absolute primogeniture, allowing men who marry non-heir princesses to use their wives’ titles, and allowing titles to pass through the female line) and this would complete it. Spain is the exception because they’ve always allowed women to inherit peerages and people to use their spouses’ titles regardless of the genders of the couple (I know of one case of a woman becoming a duchess via marriage to a duchess) but Juan Carlos decided in 1987 that the husband of a future queen regnant (such as Leonor) would only be prince consort despite being Prince of Asturias as long as he was married to the Princess of Asturias. Why he would do so makes no sense to me.

 

[Somebody]

Welcome!

The Consort Conundrum - what would you call the King's husband or the Queen's wife? - Royal Central

The debate about why Queen Camilla is regularly called The Queen Consort rather than just The Queen opens up another discussion. For in the past decade, the majority of European nations that have monarchies have...

royalcentral.co.uk

This article sums up my feelings on this matter. The husband of a king or queen should be king consort and the wife of a king or queen should be queen consort. Anyone married to any other royal or noble should get to use their spouse’s title regardless of the genders of themselves and their spouse. Most European monarchies have taken steps to introduce gender equality into the family (allowing women to inherit the throne, introducing absolute primogeniture, allowing men who marry non-heir princesses to use their wives’ titles, and allowing titles to pass through the female line) and this would complete it. Spain is the exception because they’ve always allowed women to inherit peerages and people to use their spouses’ titles regardless of the genders of the couple (I know of one case of a woman becoming a duchess via marriage to a duchess) but Juan Carlos decided in 1987 that the husband of a future queen regnant (such as Leonor) would only be prince consort despite being Prince of Asturias as long as he was married to the Princess of Asturias. Why he would do so makes no sense to me.

Which European monarchies are you thinking of? Given that you refer that 'most' monarchies have implemented these steps - while I can think of only two where this somewhat applies. Are there other examples?

Allowing men who marry non-heir princesses to use their wives' titles:
- Spain: ducal title is shared but no title of 'infante' for spouses of infantas
- Sweden: ducal title offered to Madeleine's future husbands but no marriage (Jonas) or declined (Chris).
I am not aware of any other European monarchies that practice this custom. For most monarchies this applies only to the spouse of the female heir.

Allowing titles to pass through the female line (other than for (future) female monarchs):
- in Spain this indeed applies to nobility titles (like the UK, these are peerages that only pass on two one person - instead of titles that are shared by all family members) but so far it does not apply to the royal house: the children of infantas are no infantes or infantas themselves, while the children of an infante (or the prince of Asturias) are.
- in Sweden Madeleine's children are the first to receive titles via their mother (not counting Victoria as future queen).

Nonetheless, unlike most European monarchies, Spain still practices male-preference cognatic primogeniture.

 

[meeralakshmi]

Welcome!


Which European monarchies are you thinking of? Given that you refer that 'most' monarchies have implemented these steps - while I can think of only two where this somewhat applies. Are there other examples?

Allowing men who marry non-heir princesses to use their wives' titles:
- Spain: ducal title is shared but no title of 'infante' for spouses of infantas
- Sweden: ducal title offered to Madeleine's future husbands but no marriage (Jonas) or declined (Chris).
I am not aware of any other European monarchies that practice this custom. For most monarchies this applies only to the spouse of the female heir.

Allowing titles to pass through the female line (other than for (future) female monarchs):
- in Spain this indeed applies to nobility titles (like the UK, these are peerages that only pass on two one person - instead of titles that are shared by all family members) but so far it does not apply to the royal house: the children of infantas are no infantes or infantas themselves, while the children of an infante (or the prince of Asturias) are.
- in Sweden Madeleine's children are the first to receive titles via their mother (not counting Victoria as future queen).

Nonetheless, unlike most European monarchies, Spain still practices male-preference cognatic primogeniture.

I didn’t mean that every single European monarchy has implemented all of these changes. Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, and the UK have just adopted absolute primogeniture. However a couple examples you’re forgetting are that the husband of Queen Margrethe’s sister Princess Benedikte declined being made a prince of Denmark and the husband of Princess Astrid of Belgium was eventually made a prince of Belgium. Their five children are also princes and princesses of Belgium. The ex-husbands of Felipe’s sisters and husbands of Juan Carlos’ weren’t made infantes because Juan Carlos decided that you can no longer become an infante/infanta by marriage. Had Felipe and Juan Carlos had brothers who married women their wives would also be non-royal duchesses. Before that the spouses of infantes/infantas were made infantes/infantas. He also decided that the children of infantes/infantas will no longer be infantes/infantas; you can only be an infante/infanta if you’re a non-heir child of the monarch or child of the heir. None of the changes he implemented were gender-specific besides changing the title of the consort of the queen. It is quite ironic that Spain is the most progressive with titles but still practices male-preference primogeniture. One change I forgot to mention is that the Swedish monarchy now makes princesses duchesses in their own right at birth; before that was reserved for princes.

 

[An Ard Ri]

The Consort Conundrum - what would you call the King's husband or the Queen's wife? - Royal Central

The debate about why Queen Camilla is regularly called The Queen Consort rather than just The Queen opens up another discussion. For in the past decade, the majority of European nations that have monarchies have...

royalcentral.co.uk

This article sums up my feelings on this matter. The husband of a king or queen should be king consort and the wife of a king or queen should be queen consort. Anyone married to any other royal or noble should get to use their spouse’s title regardless of the genders of themselves and their spouse. Most European monarchies have taken steps to introduce gender equality into the family (allowing women to inherit the throne, introducing absolute primogeniture, allowing men who marry non-heir princesses to use their wives’ titles, and allowing titles to pass through the female line) and this would complete it. Spain is the exception because they’ve always allowed women to inherit peerages and people to use their spouses’ titles regardless of the genders of the couple (I know of one case of a woman becoming a duchess via marriage to a duchess) but Juan Carlos decided in 1987 that the husband of a future queen regnant (such as Leonor) would only be prince consort despite being Prince of Asturias as long as he was married to the Princess of Asturias. Why he would do so makes no sense to me.

The husbands of all recent Queen Regnants have been Prince Consorts ,this is not unique to Spain alone
Its a title that started with Prince Albert in the United Kingdom following his marriage to Queen Victoria.
Queen Anne's husband also was never made king consort either.
Queen Elizabeth II's husband was also was never made king consort either and styled HRH The Duke of Edinburgh and later Prince Philip ,The Duke of Edinburgh.
Other monarchies have since followed that British Tradition.
The husbands of the 3 consecutive Dutch Queen Regnants were all styled Dutch Prince Consorts
The late husband of Margrethe II of Denmark too was styled Prince Consort of Denmark.

I have no issue with this European Royal tradition and think it works perfectly fine.
There are some monarchies where the Monarchs wife is style Princess and not Queen or the Monarch can have multiple wives!

 

[Stefan]

Welcome!


Which European monarchies are you thinking of? Given that you refer that 'most' monarchies have implemented these steps - while I can think of only two where this somewhat applies. Are there other examples?

Allowing men who marry non-heir princesses to use their wives' titles:
- Spain: ducal title is shared but no title of 'infante' for spouses of infantas

Not anymore, but in the past the Title Infante was given to spouses of Infanta's who married equally, like the husbands of the sisters of King Alfonso XIII.

 

[An Ard Ri]

Not anymore, but in the past the Title Infante was given to spouses of Infanta's who married equally, like the husbands of the sisters of King Alfonso XIII.

Yes indeed Prince Ferdinand of Bavaria was made an Infante of Spain in 1906 and retained that title after his second marriage.
Prince Carlos of Bourbon-Two Sicilies was made an Infante in 1901.

Neither of the husbands of Alfonso XIII 2 daughters were made Infantes.

 

[Somebody]

I didn’t mean that every single European monarchy has implemented all of these changes. Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, and the UK have just adopted absolute primogeniture. However a couple examples you’re forgetting are that the husband of Queen Margrethe’s sister Princess Benedikte declined being made a prince of Denmark and the husband of Princess Astrid of Belgium was eventually made a prince of Belgium. Their five children are also princes and princesses of Belgium. The ex-husbands of Felipe’s sisters and husbands of Juan Carlos’ weren’t made infantes because Juan Carlos decided that you can no longer become an infante/infanta by marriage. Had Felipe and Juan Carlos had brothers who married women their wives would also be non-royal duchesses. Before that the spouses of infantes/infantas were made infantes/infantas. He also decided that the children of infantes/infantas will no longer be infantes/infantas; you can only be an infante/infanta if you’re a non-heir child of the monarch or child of the heir. None of the changes he implemented were gender-specific besides changing the title of the consort of the queen. It is quite ironic that Spain is the most progressive with titles but still practices male-preference primogeniture. One change I forgot to mention is that the Swedish monarchy now makes princesses duchesses in their own right at birth; before that was reserved for princes.

Thanks, so your claim was that most of the European monarchies adopted one or more of those changes. With that I fully agree.

Good point about Belgium. Although at the time it seemed more of a measure to ensure that Astrid (or Amedeo) would end up on the throne instead of Laurent if Philippe would remain unmarried. It will be interesting to see what will truly happen in the next generation: will Gabriel and Emmanuel's spouses be treated exactly the same as Eleonore's - and what about their children? So far, among the children-in-law of Astrid a clear difference can be observed: Elisabetta is called a princess, while William is not called a prince.

I guess it is a bit more easy for countries that work with peerages that are inherited by only one person (the eldest (son or child)), such as Spain, to become gender-neutral in its application. One of the main reasons given in for example the Netherlands not to go that route is that it would largely increase the number of nobles if both men and women could pass on their titles - and that is not considered desirable.

 

[meeralakshmi]

The husbands of all recent Queen Regnants have been Prince Consorts ,this is not unique to Spain alone
Its a title that started with Prince Albert in the United Kingdom following his marriage to Queen Victoria.
Queen Anne's husband also was never made king consort either.
Queen Elizabeth II's husband was also was never made king consort either and styled HRH The Duke of Edinburgh and later Prince Philip ,The Duke of Edinburgh.
Other monarchies have since followed that British Tradition.
The husbands of the 3 consecutive Dutch Queen Regnants were all styled Dutch Prince Consorts
The late husband of Margrethe II of Denmark too was styled Prince Consort of Denmark.

I have no issue with this European Royal tradition and think it works perfectly fine.
There are some monarchies where the Monarchs wife is style Princess and not Queen or the Monarch can have multiple wives!

The husbands of Queen Isabella II of Spain and Queen Maria II of Portugal were both king consorts. Victoria wanted Albert to be king consort but the government didn’t allow it because he was a foreigner so she made him prince consort. If we’re going to talk about tradition most European monarchies have already broken the traditions of not allowing women to inherit the throne, male-preference primogeniture, husbands of non-heir princesses not receiving their wives’ titles, and titles not being able to pass through the female line. All traditions were broken for the sake of gender equality. A queen’s husband being prince consort despite a king’s wife being queen consort may be a tradition (a recent one at that) but it’s necessary to look into why that unequal tradition exists. It exists because king is perceived as a higher rank than queen which is rooted in misogyny. It’s basically saying that no reigning queen will be as powerful as a reigning king. I see no reason why the ranks of king and queen shouldn’t be seen as equal; if a queen regnant is equal to a king regnant then a king consort should be equal to a queen consort. What do you think should be done in the case of gay monarchs?

Not anymore, but in the past the Title Infante was given to spouses of Infanta's who married equally, like the husbands of the sisters of King Alfonso XIII.

Yes indeed Prince Ferdinand of Bavaria was made an Infante of Spain in 1906 and retained that title after his second marriage.
Prince Carlos of Bourbon-Two Sicilies was made an Infante in 1901.

Neither of the husbands of Alfonso XIII 2 daughters were made Infantes.

The wives of his sons weren’t made infantas either.

 

[Stefan]

The wives of his sons weren’t made infantas either.

But none of them married equal according to the Pragamtic Decree. Only the Count of Barcelona.

 

[meeralakshmi]

Thanks, so your claim was that most of the European monarchies adopted one or more of those changes. With that I fully agree.

Good point about Belgium. Although at the time it seemed more of a measure to ensure that Astrid (or Amedeo) would end up on the throne instead of Laurent if Philippe would remain unmarried. It will be interesting to see what will truly happen in the next generation: will Gabriel and Emmanuel's spouses be treated exactly the same as Eleonore's - and what about their children? So far, among the children-in-law of Astrid a clear difference can be observed: Elisabetta is called a princess, while William is not called a prince.

I guess it is a bit more easy for countries that work with peerages that are inherited by only one person (the eldest (son or child)), such as Spain, to become gender-neutral in its application. One of the main reasons given in for example the Netherlands not to go that route is that it would largely increase the number of nobles if both men and women could pass on their titles - and that is not considered desirable.

Amedeo and Maria Laura’s children are in the line of succession to the Belgian throne despite not being princes/princesses of Belgium so I don’t know if Astrid’s husband and kids being made princes/princesses of Belgium was to ensure Astrid and her descendants being in the line of succession. I believe there’s a decree that states that only the grandchildren of the monarch will be princes/princesses of Belgium so like Astrid’s grandkids Laurent’s grandkids also won’t be princes/princesses of Belgium. However Eléonore’s spouse and kids will be princes/princesses of Belgium. Yes Maria Laura’s husband should have been made a prince of Belgium. What difference will it make in the Netherlands if more people have noble titles? Is there a cost associated with it?

But none of them married equal according to the Pragamtic Decree. Only the Count of Barcelona.

His wife had the rank and precedence of an infanta at birth but not the title. She still wasn’t made an infanta by marriage though, I wonder why.

 

[Somebody]

The husbands of Queen Isabella II of Spain and Queen Maria II of Portugal were both king consorts. Victoria wanted Albert to be king consort but the government didn’t allow it because he was a foreigner so she made him prince consort. If we’re going to talk about tradition most European monarchies have already broken the traditions of not allowing women to inherit the throne, male-preference primogeniture, husbands of non-heir princesses not receiving their wives’ titles, and titles not being able to pass through the female line. All traditions were broken for the sake of gender equality. A queen’s husband being prince consort despite a king’s wife being queen consort may be a tradition (a recent one at that) but it’s necessary to look into why that unequal tradition exists. It exists because king is perceived as a higher rank than queen which is rooted in misogyny. It’s basically saying that no reigning queen will be as powerful as a reigning king. I see no reason why the ranks of king and queen shouldn’t be seen as equal; if a queen regnant is equal to a king regnant then a king consort should be equal to a queen consort. What do you think should be done in the case of gay monarchs?

Let's again stress that most of the European monarchies have broken a few of the mentioned traditions. Only Sweden seems to have made it completely gender-neutral in theory but in day-to-day practice Daniel is still treated differently at court than Sofia would have been had she been the crown princess and CP the crown prince; and of course, Chris refused a title.

The following traditions are still in place in the following European monarchies:
Not allowing women to inherit the throne: Liechtenstein
Male-preference primogeniture: Monaco, Spain
Husbands of non-heir princesses not receiving their wives’ titles [while wives of non-heirs do]: The Netherlands, Norway, Denmark, UK, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Monaco [Belgium is a bit inconsistent]
Titles not being able to pass through the female line [N.B. for non-future monarchs; while they pass on (longer) for the male line): The Netherlands, Norway, Denmark, UK, Monaco, Luxembourg, Liechtenstein [Belgium is again a different case because they've both Belgium and other titles]

Amedeo and Maria Laura’s children are in the line of succession to the Belgian throne despite not being princes/princesses of Belgium so I don’t know if Astrid’s husband and kids being made princes/princesses of Belgium was to ensure Astrid and her descendants being in the line of succession. I believe there’s a decree that states that only the grandchildren of the monarch will be princes/princesses of Belgium so like Astrid’s grandkids Laurent’s grandkids also won’t be princes/princesses of Belgium. However Eléonore’s spouse and kids will be princes/princesses of Belgium. Yes Maria Laura’s husband should have been made a prince of Belgium.

A lot has changed over het last 35 years. It was no coincidence that in 1991 both absolute primogeniture was introduced in Belgium and Astrid's children were made princes and princesses of Belgium - according to that law ALL descendants would be. So, at the time they made that connection. Only in 2015 the strict link between being in the line of succession and being a prince or princess of Belgium was broken when the 1991 law was replaced by a new one limiting the title to children and grandchildren of the monarch and heir.

Spouses of princes and princesses of Belgium no longer receive their spouse title automatically by law but it is decided on an individual basis.

What difference will it make in the Netherlands if more people have noble titles? Is there a cost associated with it?

It was debated in parliament. Nobility is/was considered an outdated practice suggesting that some are 'more' than others that they'd rather have slowly die out than increase their numbers.

 

[meeralakshmi]

Let's again stress that most of the European monarchies have broken a few of the mentioned traditions. Only Sweden seems to have made it completely gender-neutral in theory but in day-to-day practice Daniel is still treated differently at court than Sofia would have been had she been the crown princess and CP the crown prince; and of course, Chris refused a title.

The following traditions are still in place in the following European monarchies:
Not allowing women to inherit the throne: Liechtenstein
Male-preference primogeniture: Monaco, Spain
Husbands of non-heir princesses not receiving their wives’ titles [while wives of non-heirs do]: The Netherlands, Norway, Denmark, UK, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Monaco [Belgium is a bit inconsistent]
Titles not being able to pass through the female line [N.B. for non-future monarchs; while they pass on (longer) for the male line): The Netherlands, Norway, Denmark, UK, Monaco, Luxembourg, Liechtenstein [Belgium is again a different case because they've both Belgium and other titles]

You’re right about Sweden, the only things they haven’t applied gender equality to are the titles of the spouse of the heir and the spouse of the monarch. It’s quite unfair that Daniel has the same title he would if his wife wasn’t the heir (AKA the title Madeleine’s husband declined, a prince of Sweden and duke consort of his wife’s duchy) but Sofia would be crown princess of Sweden if Carl Philip was still the heir. Hopefully when Victoria is queen he’ll at least be HRH The Prince Consort of Sweden, Duke of Västergötland. I’m guessing that the monarchies that haven’t gone further in terms of gender equality eventually will; again you’re forgetting that Benedikte’s husband declined being made a prince of Denmark. There was a bill to allow women to inherit peerages and men to use their wives’ noble titles in the UK but it didn’t pass. Charles has said he’ll create Charlotte a duchess in her own right so I’m sure there’ll be debate about what titles her spouse and kids should have. There are going to be several reigning queens in the near future who I’m sure will make monarchies (further) consider the gender equality issue.

Let's again stress that most of the European monarchies have broken a few of the mentioned traditions. Only Sweden seems to have made it completely gender-neutral in theory but in day-to-day practice Daniel is still treated differently at court than Sofia would have been had she been the crown princess and CP the crown prince; and of course, Chris refused a title.

The following traditions are still in place in the following European monarchies:
Not allowing women to inherit the throne: Liechtenstein
Male-preference primogeniture: Monaco, Spain
Husbands of non-heir princesses not receiving their wives’ titles [while wives of non-heirs do]: The Netherlands, Norway, Denmark, UK, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Monaco [Belgium is a bit inconsistent]
Titles not being able to pass through the female line [N.B. for non-future monarchs; while they pass on (longer) for the male line): The Netherlands, Norway, Denmark, UK, Monaco, Luxembourg, Liechtenstein [Belgium is again a different case because they've both Belgium and other titles]

Queen Juliana also wanted to make Princess Margriet’s husband a prince of the Netherlands but didn’t because she was worried about setting precedent. He expressed that it was unfair that his wife and kids were princes/princesses but he wasn’t.

 

[Hans-Rickard]

You’re right about Sweden, the only things they haven’t applied gender equality to are the titles of the spouse of the heir and the spouse of the monarch. It’s quite unfair that Daniel has the same title he would if his wife wasn’t the heir (AKA the title Madeleine’s husband declined, a prince of Sweden and duke consort of his wife’s duchy) but Sofia would be crown princess of Sweden if Carl Philip was still the heir. Hopefully when Victoria is queen he’ll at least be HRH The Prince Consort of Sweden, Duke of Västergötland. I’m guessing that the monarchies that haven’t gone further in terms of gender equality eventually will; again you’re forgetting that Benedikte’s husband declined being made a prince of Denmark. There was a bill to allow women to inherit peerages and men to use their wives’ noble titles in the UK but it didn’t pass. Charles has said he’ll create Charlotte a duchess in her own right so I’m sure there’ll be debate about what titles her spouse and kids should have. There are going to be several reigning queens in the near future who I’m sure will make monarchies (further) consider the gender equality issue.

If Prince Daniel would demand full equality, he should argument for recieving the title of King Consort and not Prince Consort.

But he seems to be totally uninterested in titles…. I really cannot imagine Daniel doing a Henrik of Denmark and cause a stir about the title-question…

The Prince Consort thing in Denmark between 2005-2016 was just to appease Henriks ego as he never stopped to publicly insult his wife over not being King Consort…

 

[meeralakshmi]

If Prince Daniel would demand full equality, he should argument for recieving the title of King Consort and not Prince Consort.

But he seems to be totally uninterested in titles…. I really cannot imagine Daniel doing a Henrik of Denmark and cause a stir about the title-question…

The Prince Consort thing in Denmark between 2005-2016 was just to appease Henriks ego as he never stopped to publicly insult his wife over not being King Consort…

Which is the argument I’m making, that Daniel should be crown prince of Sweden and then king consort. The Swedish monarchy doesn’t seem interested in that though so they should at least give him the title of prince consort to distinguish him from the other princes. That was Henrik’s argument, that him simply being Prince Henrik of Denmark didn’t distinguish his position from that of his infant grandsons’.

 

[Minister of Court]

I hope a monstrosity of a title like ”king consort” will never see the light of day again…

That said, I wouldn’t mind future prince consorts of queen regnants given the style of Majesty.

 

[Mbruno]

Thanks, so your claim was that most of the European monarchies adopted one or more of those changes. With that I fully agree.

Good point about Belgium. Although at the time it seemed more of a measure to ensure that Astrid (or Amedeo) would end up on the throne instead of Laurent if Philippe would remain unmarried. It will be interesting to see what will truly happen in the next generation: will Gabriel and Emmanuel's spouses be treated exactly the same as Eleonore's - and what about their children? So far, among the children-in-law of Astrid a clear difference can be observed: Elisabetta is called a princess, while William is not called a prince.

I guess it is a bit more easy for countries that work with peerages that are inherited by only one person (the eldest (son or child)), such as Spain, to become gender-neutral in its application. One of the main reasons given in for example the Netherlands not to go that route is that it would largely increase the number of nobles if both men and women could pass on their titles - and that is not considered desirable.

Claire, Lorenz, and indeed Mathilde have the title of Prince or Princess of Belgium in their own right as those titles were given to them by separate royal decrees issued by King Albert II. Elisabetta has not been granted the title of Princess of Belgium in her own right, but she is referred by courtesy as a Princess because her husband is a Prince of Belgium. She has been called "Princess Amedeo", as in British usage, but, more commonly, "Princess Elisabetta" cf. Princess Laurentine or Princess Mabel, who are not princesses in their own right either.

Like Elisabetta, Albert Isvy has not been made a Prince of Belgium in his own right either and, most likely, will never be. Unlike Elisabetta, however, he is not referred to as a Prince by courtesy, which I can only attribute to the European custom of husbands not using royal titles borne by their wives, even though the contrary, i.e., wives using royal titles borne by their husbands, still seems to be customary as in Elisabetta's case.

I hope a monstrosity of a title like ”king consort” will never see the light of day again…

That said, I wouldn’t mind future prince consorts of queen regnants given the style of Majesty.

Just as a curiosity, why would King Consort be more of a "monstrosity" than "Queen Consort"?

I suppose that he reason why "King Consort" is seen as a monstrosity, and "Queen Consort" is not, is just that we are conditioned, after centuries of gender inequality, to perceive the role of monarch as a male role in which the default title of the monarch is King, while Queen is normally the title of the King's wife.

 

[Linda_26]

Claire, Lorenz, and indeed Mathilde have the title of Prince or Princess of Belgium in their own right as those titles were given to them by separate royal decrees issued by King Albert II. Elisabetta has not been granted the title of Princess of Belgium in her own right, but she is referred by courtesy as a Princess because her husband is a Prince of Belgium. She has been called "Princess Amedeo", as in British usage, but, more commonly, "Princess Elisabetta" cf. Princess Laurentine or Princess Mabel, who are not princesses in their own right either.

Like Elisabetta, Albert Isvy has not been made a Prince of Belgium in his own right either and, most likely, will never be. Unlike Elisabetta, however, he is not referred to as a Prince by courtesy, which I can only attribute to the European custom of husbands not using royal titles borne by their wives, even though the contrary, i.e., wives using royal titles borne by their husbands, still seems to be customary as in Elisabetta's case.

I imagine you're referring to William Isvy, husband of Princess Maria Laura. Albert is their newborn son.
It's also my understanding that the different way Elisabetta and William are referred to is down to the custom of wives being allowed to use their husbands' titles, but not the contrary.
I hope that in the future all children-in-law of King Philippe, regardless of gender, will be created Princes/Princesses of Belgium in their own right, as it was the case in the previous generation.

 

[meeralakshmi]

I hope a monstrosity of a title like ”king consort” will never see the light of day again…

That said, I wouldn’t mind future prince consorts of queen regnants given the style of Majesty.

Why not? The title of king consort is nothing new.

 

[Minister of Court]

Why not? The title of king consort is nothing new.

I prefer it to stay in the history books. King consorts of old were more or less co-sovereigns with their respective wives. To confer such a title in this day and age would serve no purpose.

 

[meeralakshmi]

I hope a monstrosity of a title like ”king consort” will never see the light of day again…

That said, I wouldn’t mind future prince consorts of queen regnants given the style of Majesty.

However I’ve also thought that prince consorts should at least have the style of His Majesty.

 

[Hans-Rickard]

In Daniel’s case, he may or may not be styled as ”Prinsgemålen” (Prince Consort) after accession but it’s not neccessary to distinguish him from other males wich was Henriks biggest problem, as Sweden will have a female heir in the next reign as well, so Daniel will be the highest ranked male at the royal court anyway…

And the swedish people will know their next royal couple as ”Drottningen och Prins Daniel” (The Queen and Prince Daniel) regardless…
People often say ”The King and Silvia” about our current couple not even mentioning that Silvia is the Queen…

Prince Henriks title between 1972-2005 was ”H.K.H. Prinsen” (The Prince) wich he felt made no difference between him and his grandsons, and placed him below The Crown Prince (wich it ofcourse did when it came to who should deputise for QMII but never otherwise)