Title & Role of a Consort

[Queen Claude]

Henrik had to deal with his sons princely status only because his wife had sisters and Margrethe's male cousins lost their princely status - I think I am recalling that correctly. In Daniel's case does he / will he rank higher than his son, brother-in-law, nephews by marriage* and future grandchildren? As mentioned, it may not be as big a deal to him as it was to Henrik, but are his circumstances really different than Henrik?

* Oops Daniel does outrank his nephews by marriage due to the 2019 changes.

 

[meeralakshmi]

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.

Not true, the only example of such a case I can think of is King William III of England and he was a co-monarch, not a consort.

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)

What signifies that Daniel is ranked higher than the other princes when his title is the same as theirs? According to Henrik’s Wikipedia page he was HRH Prince Henrik of Denmark until 2005, do you have a source for the HRH The Prince of Denmark title?

 

[maria-olivia]

Elisabetta is HIH Achduchess of Astria Este ,

 

[meeralakshmi]

Henrik had to deal with his sons princely status only because his wife had sisters and Margrethe's male cousins lost their princely status - I think I am recalling that correctly. In Daniel's case does he / will he rank higher than his son, brother-in-law, nephews by marriage* and future grandchildren? As mentioned, it may not be as big a deal to him as it was to Henrik, but are his circumstances really different than Henrik?

* Oops Daniel does outrank his nephews by marriage due to the 2019 changes.

The husband of Margrethe’s sister Princess Benedikte declined being made a prince of Denmark. Had he accepted the title Henrik would have had the same title as his BIL despite being married to the queen and Richard being married to a princess. You’re right that Daniel won’t outrank the other princes unless he’s given the title of prince/king consort. While I don’t think it was right that Carl Gustaf decided that the spouses of Carl Philip and Madeleine’s kids would be untitled (allow CP and Madeleine’s kids’ spouses to use their spouses’ titles but CP and Madeleine’s grandkids can be untitled) at least the decision was gender-blind.

Elisabetta is HIH Achduchess of Astria Este ,

She’s a princess of Belgium and archduchess of Austria-Este so her full title is HI&RH Princess Elisabetta of Belgium, Archduchess of Austria-Este. The five children of Princess Astrid and Prince Lorenz got both of their parents’ titles.

 

[Linda_26]

She’s a princess of Belgium and archduchess of Austria-Este so her full title is HI&RH Princess Elisabetta of Belgium, Archduchess of Austria-Este. The five children of Princess Astrid and Prince Lorenz got both of their parents’ titles.

Elisabetta is not, legally, a Princess of Belgium and she's only referred to as a "Princess" (without any territorial designation, as far as I know) by courtesy

 

[JR76]

.You’re right that Daniel won’t outrank the other princes unless he’s given the title of prince/king consort.

Another title than prince or not, as the husband of The Queen Daniel will outrank every other man in the country.

 

[meeralakshmi]

Another title than prince or not, as the husband of The Queen Daniel will outrank every other man in the country.

On paper sure. However Queen Silvia’s title distinguishes her from all the other Swedish royal women whereas Daniel’s current title won’t.

 

[JR76]

On paper sure. However Queen Silvia’s title distinguishes her from all the other Swedish royal women whereas Daniel’s current title won’t.

It doesn't matter. Every Swede knows who and what Daniel is and he will be treated accordingly by the people, by the authorities and by the Court.

 

[Mbruno]

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.

Yes, I meant William Isvy, of course.

 

[Curryong]

I just feel, and this is entirely my own opinion, that it would just be nice, nothing more than that, if males married to reigning Queens and taking on the role of consort, could be called Prince Consort. At the least they would then be distinguished, in the public eye, from growing sons, brothers in law etc. Who’s it going to hurt or harm? It is just a courtesy, a pat on the back, if you will.

 

[Silverpot]

It doesn't matter. Every Swede knows who and what Daniel is and he will be treated accordingly by the people, by the authorities and by the Court.

Indeed.
This is just semantics. If we were serious with this gender equality thing, we should just call (the future) Victoria HM The King, since that title carries more weight than Queen Reignant. Then Daniel can be the King's Consort, Kungagemål. But nobody would care, of course.

 

[meeralakshmi]

I just feel, and this is entirely my own opinion, that it would just be nice, nothing more than that, if males married to reigning Queens and taking on the role of consort, could be called Prince Consort. At the least they would then be distinguished, in the public eye, from growing sons, brothers in law etc. Who’s it going to hurt or harm? It is just a courtesy, a pat on the back, if you will.

Ideally (as I initially said) they would treat husbands of queens the same as wives of kings and make them king consort.

 

[Opals]

Or in the future wives of Kings could be called Princess Consort instead of Queen, that would also provide gender equality.

 

[JR76]

Indeed.
This is just semantics. If we were serious with this gender equality thing, we should just call (the future) Victoria HM The King, since that title carries more weight than Queen Reignant. Then Daniel can be the King's Consort, Kungagemål. But nobody would care, of course.

Stockholm October 1650:- "I hereby crown Queen Christina to be King of the lands of the Swedes and of the Goths and of the provinces thereunder.
Her and no-one else ".

 

[Silverpot]

Stockholm October 1650:- "I hereby crown Queen Christina to be King of the lands of the Swedes and of the Goths and of the provinces thereunder.
Her and no-one else ".

Oo, I like that! Let's hope it will be used again. King she shall be.
After all Queen is an old Norse word, simply meaning woman, qvinna.

 

[Noble Consort Ming]

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?




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

The husband of Queen Maria II was not simply a king consort. He was co-ruler and had a regnal number, Ferdinand II. King Consorts do not receive regnal numbers. Before that the husband of Queen Maria I of Portugal became King Peter(Pedro) III.

 

[An Ard Ri]

Or in the future wives of Kings could be called Princess Consort instead of Queen

They are in some Arabic monarchies.

 

[maria-olivia]

The Priness of Wales loved so much her husband Prince Leopold de Saxe Cobourg Gotha that she wanted him to be King when she should be Queen. It would be a "première' , alas the Princess died giving birth to her first child who died also.

 

[meeralakshmi]

It doesn't matter. Every Swede knows who and what Daniel is and he will be treated accordingly by the people, by the authorities and by the Court.

So would it be fine for Silvia to simply be HRH Princess Silvia of Sweden, Duchess of Jämtland?

Indeed.
This is just semantics. If we were serious with this gender equality thing, we should just call (the future) Victoria HM The King, since that title carries more weight than Queen Reignant. Then Daniel can be the King's Consort, Kungagemål. But nobody would care, of course.

So you think a reigning king is inherently more powerful than a reigning queen? Pretty outdated and misogynistic isn’t it (which is the point I’ve been trying to make)?

Or in the future wives of Kings could be called Princess Consort instead of Queen, that would also provide gender equality.

Yes that’s also an option, that way there would also be no confusion about what title to give the spouse of a gay monarch. They were going to make Máxima HRH The Princess of the Netherlands in line with the husbands of the past three consecutive queens regnant being HRH The Prince of the Netherlands but they decided to make her queen because the wives of the past kings had the title of queen.

The husband of Queen Maria II was not simply a king consort. He was co-ruler and had a regnal number, Ferdinand II. King Consorts do not receive regnal numbers. Before that the husband of Queen Maria I of Portugal became King Peter(Pedro) III.

Multiple sources refer to both Peter III and Ferdinand II as king consorts. Both functioned more as consorts than co-monarchs either way, they had little political involvement alongside their wives but Ferdinand did step in for his wife when she was pregnant. I would put jure uxoris in the same category as consort because kings jure uxoris haven’t really done much politically and aren’t able to rule in their own right if their wives die or abdicate. The only example of a genuine co-monarch I can think of is King William III of England who was made king in his own right and continued to rule after his wife’s death.

The Priness of Wales loved so much her husband Prince Leopold de Saxe Cobourg Gotha that she wanted him to be King when she should be Queen. It would be a "première' , alas the Princess died giving birth to her first child who died also.

Mary I’s (Bloody Mary’s) husband was king consort of England because he couldn’t be downgraded to a prince already being king of Spain. However it truly is tragic what happened to the original Princess Charlotte of Wales, it’s nice that we finally have another Princess Charlotte of Wales even if she’s named after her grandfather Charles III and not the original PCOW.

 

[Silverpot]

So you think a reigning king is inherently more powerful than a reigning queen? Pretty outdated and misogynistic isn’t it (which is the point I’ve been trying to make)?

No that's not what I said. I said that the WORD King carries more weight than the WORD Queen. Out of tradition, male Kings have ruled the world since forever. That's why I suggested that a reigning Queen should be called Her Majesty The King.
Words are important and is at the heart of this discussion, and is the reason why a reigning Queens husband can't have the title King consort. It would send the wrong message.

 

[meeralakshmi]

No that's not what I said. I said that the WORD King carries more weight than the WORD Queen. Out of tradition, male Kings have ruled the world since forever. That's why I suggested that a reigning Queen should be called Her Majesty The King.
Words are important and is at the heart of this discussion, and is the reason why a reigning Queens husband can't have the title King consort. It would send the wrong message.

The historical connotation of a word doesn’t change its actual meaning. Queen has always been the female form of king and the title of a female ruler. There have historically been many king consorts who were never mistaken for the actual monarchs, the concept of prince consort is relatively new. Going along with the misogynistic belief that king is an inherently superior rank to queen by giving a female monarch the title of king or making a queen’s husband a prince to make it clear he’s ranked below his wife while a king’s wife is always queen is only going to reinforce that misogynistic belief. I doubt that most people actually think a reigning queen has any less power than a reigning king and there was plenty of confusion about why Camilla was made queen but Philip wasn’t made king. Multiple monarchies’ traditions have been changed (such as allowing women to inherit the throne at all) in the name of gender equality and there’s no reason this one also shouldn’t be. Maybe the wife of a king should only be princess consort to make it clear she has no power of her own. What do you think should be done in the event of a gay monarch?

 

[JR76]

So would it be fine for Silvia to simply be HRH Princess Silvia of Sweden, Duchess of Jämtland?

Why? What's the point? It's all semantics anyway. At the end of the day Daniel knows who he is as does everyone else.

 

[meeralakshmi]

Why? What's the point? It's all semantics anyway. At the end of the day Daniel knows who he is as does everyone else.

Sure but you can’t argue that it isn’t fair that a female consort gets a title that makes it clear she’s the consort but a male consort doesn’t.

 

[Noble Consort Ming]

Multiple sources refer to both Peter III and Ferdinand II as king consorts. Both functioned more as consorts than co-monarchs either way, they had little political involvement alongside their wives but Ferdinand did step in for his wife when she was pregnant. I would put jure uxoris in the same category as consort because kings jure uxoris haven’t really done much politically and aren’t able to rule in their own right if their wives die or abdicate. The only example of a genuine co-monarch I can think of is King William III of England who was made king in his own right and continued to rule after his wife’s death.

And multiple sources refer to them as co-rulers as well. That is the reason they received a regnal number. [.....]
In my birth country of Poland Queen Jadwiga's husband became co-ruler, sole ruler after her death, and his descendants continued to rule(they were not descended from her as she and her newborn died soon after she gave birth). There are many such examples in European history. [.....]

 

[meeralakshmi]

And multiple sources refer to them as co-rulers as well. That is the reason they received a regnal number. [.....]

In my birth country of Poland Queen Jadwiga's husband became co-ruler, sole ruler after her death, and his descendants continued to rule(they were not descended from her as she and her newborn died in childbirth). There are many such examples in European history. [.....]

Jure uxoris translates to “by right of his wife.” That wasn’t the case for William III and it wasn’t the case for Jadwiga’s husband (Wikipedia specifies if a queen’s husband was king jure uxoris or created king in his own right). However I admit I forgot about the one other case of a co-monarch I was familiar with, Louis I of Naples was a co-monarch alongside Joanna I. Peter III predeceased his wife but Ferdinand II wasn’t able to rule in his own right once his wife died in childbirth, she was succeeded by their son.

Some other cases of genuine co-monarchs I was able to find:

- Guy of Lusignan (king of Jerusalem)
- Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (king of Hungary)
- Martin I of Sicily

 

[maria-olivia]

For Princes Philip and Henrik , they did not know their father in Law should die so early after their Wedding.
Prince Claus was victim of the Lockheed affait from his Father in law.

 

[meeralakshmi]

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

This IMO is basically a case of don't fix what ain't broken.
It does really truly matter that things are as little confusing as possible. Most countries are not monarchies and most people don't really know about monarchies. What they do know, through film, fairy tales, novels and what not is that a king rule, usually with a queen by his side. Sometimes a queen rules, usually without a man by her side.
And even among a number of monarchies, the concept of a female monarch is theoretical at best.
I'm a passionate believer in KISS = Keep It Simple Stupid.
So let's keep it simple stupid: A female monarch is a queen, with a prince by her side. - Queen rules over prince, problem solved.

Apart from that in a Danish context the word King appears often in the Constitution, where it really should be the Monarch, and that means that the wording of the Constitution needs to be changed to avoid confusion.

Anyway, in the eyes of the DK public and the politicians this is a non-issue and as such not going to be changed any decade soon.
Also because while we are at it: At some point there will be an open gay man (or woman, but let's leave that aside for this post) on the throne and he will marry the love of his life, a man. That in itself will present interesting problems, but there really is nothing to prevent that from happening now.
According to your opinion, the husband of the king should be... wait for it... king. So we have his majesty king A and his majesty king B. After all you can't deny a gay man the right to be titled king, can you? That would break the principles of equality. So talk about confusion!

It's not a question whether such a scenario will happen, in a legal and constitutional context it's a matter whether this scenario can happen.

So there is a reason why monarchies retain the system of the husband (and presumably at some point the wife) of a reigning queen gets a lesser title.

It didn’t cause confusion when the wife of the 21st Duchess of Medina Sidonia was made duchess consort (Spain generally allows people to use their spouses’ titles regardless of the genders of the couple) because people knew that one spouse held the title in her own right and the other was a duchess by marriage. In the case of a gay king they could refer to him and his husband as King A and King B (like you said) or the king and the king consort (likewise for a lesbian queen). If anything it causes confusion that the wife of a king is a queen but the husband of a queen isn’t a king, people wondered why Camilla was made queen but Philip wasn’t made king for example. In this day and age everyone knows who the monarch is so it should cause less confusion that their spouse is given the equivalent of their title no matter what, not more. Treat the husband of the king/queen and the wife of the queen the same way you would treat the wife of the king.


The Duchess of Medina Sidonia married her girlfriend 11 hours before her death so there were technically only two duchesses for that amount of time. However her widow has been rightfully referred to as the Dowager Duchess since her death.

 

[meeralakshmi]

That's in UK (and Denmark too for that matter, where there has been only one female monarch in the entire history of the DRF.) There are other monarchies, where female monarchs are not that uncommon. In UK for example they have had a female monarch on average once every century, for the past 500 years, which is not a bad track record.
Anyway, they came up with a title that suited that particular situation in that particular century and in accordance with the political circumstances of the time.

Keep in mind that until very recently, actually only a little more than 50 years in fact, the very idea of the consort having the same title as the monarch would have been met with a blank stare, because titles within a monarchy served to help establish exactly where you were in the pecking order, for the very simple reason that no one, as in no one at all, were equal.

Also, what is the benefit of bestowing equal titles to royals if it makes absolutely no difference? Especially if it only makes it more complicated to determine who is who to people.
Example: You are at an international conference. Among the many people you meet and are casually introduced to, is His Majesty Emir F of X and His Majesty Emir M of X. - You don't know them. You'd probably never even heard of their country but right now you are a nano-second away from committing a faux pas, if you mistake the wrong one for the monarch.
That wouldn't happen if they were presented as His Majesty Emir F of X and His Royal Highness Grand Prince M of X.

If you are a staunch believer in absolute equality, don't marry into a royal family. Any royal family.

Since the mods consider me responding in the LGBT thread off topic I’ll respond to you here. One female monarch per century in the UK is far from common and it’s been that way because until 2013 the law was written to keep a man on the throne whenever possible (to an extent). I admit that I was incorrect about the number of queens regnant so far, there were actually six but it remains that the husbands of the five married ones all had different titles. I don’t know where else you’re speaking of where female monarchs aren’t uncommon, the Netherlands had three queens regnant in a row but only because there were no male heirs until Beatrix gave birth to Willem-Alexander. Absolute primogeniture was eventually adopted after that. Spain and the kingdoms that preceded it have been around for a while so you would see many female monarchs there though not nearly as many as male monarchs due to male-preference primogeniture. The husbands of the female monarchs always had the title of king. I don’t know what you mean by a consort having the same title as a monarch being a new thing, queen has always been used to refer to both a female monarch and the wife of a king and until recently the husbands of queens were often called kings. I’m aware that not everyone in a royal family is equal in terms of how much power they have, I never argued that. However that doesn’t mean that people in the same position of power shouldn’t be treated equally regardless of gender. The benefit in bestowing equal titles is that men and women are treated as equal which should be seen as a positive thing. Non-royal consorts have equal titles (first lady and first gentleman) so there’s no reason royal consorts shouldn’t have equal titles as well. They were going to make Máxima HRH The Princess of the Netherlands in line with the husbands of the past three queens regnant being HRH The Prince of the Netherlands (which was why she wasn’t made Princess of Orange) but then decided to make her queen because that was the title of the wives of the past kings. In your example the emir and the emir consort would work just fine, there are examples of female married-in royals being given special titles to prevent confusion with other royals that didn’t involve downgrading the titles they already had. If I were to marry a queen or a female prime minister/president I would know I would never be equal to my wife but I would expect to be seen as equal to the wife of a king or male prime minister/president.

 

[Mbruno]

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?

 

[maria-olivia]

INo one of the 4 future Queens to come will marry now. So we have to wait.