Title & Role of a Consort

[meeralakshmi]

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

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

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

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

There are five actually (Elisabeth, Amalia, Ingrid, Leonor, and Estelle).

 

[meeralakshmi]

"The Queen and King" or "the Queen and Queen Consort" would be the simple solution. Royal houses of Europe are accustomed to having multiple Queens, and less frequently multiple Kings, within the same royal house, thanks to widowhood and abdication.

The UK was able to handle having two Queen Elizabeths by giving Elizabeth Sr. the title of queen mother so referring to a queen and her wife as the queen and the queen consort would work just fine. Camilla was referred to as the queen consort prior to her coronation to distinguish her from her late MIL. Ferdinand II of Portugal became dowager king consort when his wife died and was succeeded by their son and was referred to as the king father.

 

[tdarlene]

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

King Fernando II, Queen Mary II of Portugal husband, was a king consort, not a co- ruler, the queen was the one dealing day to day with government state affairs. the title of the queen's husband was prince only it was only given the title King at the birth of an heir, by law he was entitled King, but not a ruler, only regent has it happened if the queen died before the 18th birthday of the heir. asany other husband he helped the queen on some of her decisions, because there was a lot of internal struggle of the aristrocrats who help her father to regain her throne, and she like her father, even though grateful for their help, had no patience to have weekly dinners with those old and ancient people as she called them, and wanted to modernise the country with some younger genartion of politicians, which when Portugal became a republic it was widespred that she might have had an affair with one of her prime ministers, to whom she was very close, but there is no evidence of.

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?

Yes, Gaston would become emperor consort. most of the senators and politians did not like him, they were also afraid once Isabel became empress that he would rule over her, even though they like the ideia of having a woman ruling. the main reason for coup was because of the abolition of slavery, because at the moment the majority of the senators in government were mostly plantion owners who relied on slave work. Even the emperor D. Pedro II, did not believe that the monarchy would last after his death. He was actualy a republican, but always believed that the country was not ready to become one, due the disparity from region to region.

 

[meeralakshmi]

King Fernando II, Queen Mary II of Portugal husband, was a king consort, not a co- ruler, the queen was the one dealing day to day with government state affairs. the title of the queen's husband was prince only it was only given the title King at the birth of an heir, by law he was entitled King, but not a ruler, only regent has it happened if the queen died before the 18th birthday of the heir. asany other husband he helped the queen on some of her decisions, because there was a lot of internal struggle of the aristrocrats who help her father to regain her throne, and she like her father, even though grateful for their help, had no patience to have weekly dinners with those old and ancient people as she called them, and wanted to modernise the country with some younger genartion of politicians, which when Portugal became a republic it was widespred that she might have had an affair with one of her prime ministers, to whom she was very close, but there is no evidence of.

The constitution stated that the queen’s husband wasn’t allowed to interfere with politics. The exception was when Ferdinand was regent for his wife during her pregnancies and for his son when he became king at 16 due to Maria’s untimely death.

 

[Alondra]

However Afonso would have become king of Portugal if the Portuguese monarchy hadn’t been abolished so it would be cool if he became king/prince consort of another country (Juan Carlos undoing Spain’s king consort tradition is ridiculous but Leonor is free to issue her own decree if she wishes, after all her husband will be Prince of Asturias as long as she’s Princess of Asturias).

While Leonor as Queen of Spain will be free to issue her own decree making her husband a king, the chances are way beyond remote and not ridiculous at all. It may seem unfair to some of you, specially to a future consort having the title of a prince instead of king as was tradition in Spain, but Spanish society has changed a lot since then, and the title "king" for many people still have precedence for the simple reason of being a male. It won't happen today, and even less in the future.

As to Leonor and Sofia's future husbands/partners, they will most likely come from the circle of their friends. Spanish, good solid families' background and in Leonor's case, I wouldn't be surprised if he comes from a military background.

Leonor's consort won't have an easy life. His wife will always be first institutionally, he'll have to give up all type of jobs except the one required of him - supporting his wife, while the rights to his children will be ringfenced against him in a contract prior to the marriage in case of a divorce. Not many aristos in Europe with good education and jobs will want that golden cage.

And yet every other title a woman holds in Spain can be shared with her husband (except infanta but an infante can’t share his title with his wife either because of a gender-blind decision Juan Carlos made). I would think that male titles having precedence over female titles would be something society would move past.

Juan Carlos also reformed the nobles' titles from male primogeniture that been existent in Spain for hundred of years, to absolute primogeniture, paving the way for hundreds of titles being claimed by women. An unfair system he put an end to.

In Spain women can't take their husband's surname when we marry - our ID and passport is always shown the surnames in our birth certificate, except in cases with a Court mandate.

Juan Carlos changed, with the decree to the title of prince to the consort of a queen regnant, something that as society most of us wanted, and was in line with many other monarchies in Europe like the British, Danish, Dutch.

Unfortunately, he couldn't change the male preference primogeniture for the heir to the throne, as this is entrenched in our Constitution and need a referendum to change it.

 

[Mbruno]

While Leonor as Queen of Spain will be free to issue her own decree making her husband a king, the chances are way beyond remote [...]

I don't think that is the case. Under the constitution of 1978, royal decrees in Spain have to be pre-approved by the Council of Ministers and countersigned by the president of the government (prime minister) or another responsible minister.

Decisions on royal titles are in practice made by the Spanish government although I suppose the reigning queen would be consulted.

Juan Carlos also reformed the nobles' titles from male primogeniture that been existent in Spain for hundred of years, to absolute primogeniture, paving the way for hundreds of titles being claimed by women. An unfair system he put an end to.

Again, I don't think it was King Juan Carlos I who changed the rules of succession to Spanish nobility titles. It was the Spanish Parliament by law.

The King just signed the law (as the he must do under the constitution), which was also countersigned by Prime MInister José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero (who was politically responsible for that act).

 

[Alondra]

Any

I don't think that is the case. Under the constitution of 1978, royal decrees in Spain have to be pre-approved by the Council of Ministers and countersigned by the president of the government (prime minister) or another responsible minister.

Decisions on royal titles are in practice made by the Spanish government although I suppose the reigning queen would be consulted.

Any royal decree has to be approved by the Council of Ministers and the President of the Government of Spain. Apologies for not making it obvious but I thought that by now everyone knows Spain is a parliamentary monarchy and like in any other European parliamentary monarchy, royal decrees are always pre-approved by the government.

Your post encouraged me to do a bit of research of something I kind of remembered but couldn't say for sure. In fact, Juan Carlos' royal decree (with government approval ) only tried to give clarity to the article 58 in the Spanish Constitution "la Reina consorte o el consorte de la Reina". Meaning the consort queen or the consort of the queen, which literally means that in the Spanish Constitution there is no provision for a king consort.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

the title "king" for many people still have precedence for the simple reason of being a male. It won't happen today, and even less in the future.

Juan Carlos also reformed the nobles' titles from male primogeniture that been existent in Spain for hundred of years, to absolute primogeniture, paving the way for hundreds of titles being claimed by women. An unfair system he put an end to.

In Spain women can't take their husband's surname when we marry - our ID and passport is always shown the surnames in our birth certificate, except in cases with a Court mandate.

Juan Carlos changed, with the decree to the title of prince to the consort of a queen regnant, something that as society most of us wanted, and was in line with many other monarchies in Europe like the British, Danish, Dutch.

Unfortunately, he couldn't change the male preference primogeniture for the heir to the throne, as this is entrenched in our Constitution and need a referendum to change it.

One of those laws is different from the others.

Absolute primogeniture succession and gender-neutral surname laws treat women precisely the same as men.

A law stating that a king regnant shares his title with his spouse, but a queen regnant cannot share her title with her spouse, is an example of a sexist law which (as you alluded to) gives men precedence simply for being male.

It is no coincidence that the British, Danish, and Dutch systems you cite do not include absolute primogeniture succession or gender-neutral naming traditions. The vast majority of British, Danish, and Dutch hereditary titles follow the male line only, by law. And there were historically laws and/or strong social pressures for British, Danish, and Dutch married women to use their husbands’ surnames, but not the other way around. All of that is consistent with the "males have precedence" reasoning.

And yet every other title a woman holds in Spain can be shared with her husband (except infanta but an infante can’t share his title with his wife either because of a gender-blind decision Juan Carlos made). I would think that male titles having precedence over female titles would be something society would move past.

Yes, if most Spaniards are increasingly opposed to Queen Leonor sharing her title with her husband because they believe male titles should have precedence, then for consistency they should also lobby to change the ancient custom of Spanish noblewomen’s husbands being Dukes consort, Marquesses consort, et al.

Decisions on royal titles are in practice made by the Spanish government although I suppose the reigning queen would be consulted.

My understanding from the Spanish press and Spanish royal watchers is that in practice, Kings Juan Carlos I and Felipe VI have been the ones making decisions about royal titles, even though the government must countersign their royal decrees as you pointed out.

The 2006 nobility reform, on the other hand, was an Act of Parliament (not a Royal Decree) and was the initiative of the then government.

 

[Alondra]

Consort of the queen could be either prince consort or king consort.

You need to read the full sentence to understand why it's obvious that a king consort is not mentioned in the Constitution. The sentence is "la reina consorte o el consorte de la reina". It makes it clear that the consort of the king will be queen, but it doesn't give the title/style of king consort to a regnant queen.

If the Constitution had entrenched the title of king consort, it would have read "la reina consorte or el rey consorte" - Tthe queen consort or the king consort.

I get some of you have problems understanding this, but the reality is that Spain's futures Queen regnant consorts won't be styled as king.

Yes, if most Spaniards are increasingly opposed to Queen Leonor sharing her title with her husband because they believe male titles should have precedence, then for consistency they should also lobby to change the ancient custom of Spanish noblewomen’s husbands being Dukes consort, Marquesses consort, et al.

Dukes, Marquesses and other noble titles have little relevance today in Spanish society. They are aristocracy but with few exceptions, like the House of Alba, they are seen as a title without value hanging on to it because of social or historical prestige. None of them can claim it because of inheritance privileges, as they are subjected to the same laws of taxation as the rest of us.

Juan Carlos, with the approval of the government at the time, created very few aristocratic new titles, around 50 and only a handful to be passed on. Felipe after 15 years has not given a new aristocratic title yet.

The difference with a Queen's regnant consort's title, is that it's not an empty one. It'll not only be the title of the consort of the Queen of Spain, but more importantly, the consort to the Head of State. Debate is always welcome but some posters should refrain from saying words like "ridiculous" when in Spain no one has questioned, except for a few extreme right wing forums, that a regnant queen's consort should be styled as Prince.

Spain has a long tradition in monarchy but that tradition came to an end twice. First in 1873 during the First Republic and in 1931 during the Second Republic following Alfonso XIII abdication. After that came the Spanish Civil War and 40 years of dictatorship.

Spain's monarchy today is not the same as some poster's countries institutions. We are a secular country in the sense that we don't have an estate religion, and King or Queen must take an oath to obey the Constitution.

And no, it's not ridiculous or strange that Leonor's husband won't be king consort. Please, just accept it.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Consort of the queen could be either prince consort or king consort.

You need to read the full sentence to understand why it's obvious that a king consort is not mentioned in the Constitution. The sentence is "la reina consorte o el consorte de la reina". It makes it clear that the consort of the king will be queen, but it doesn't give the title/style of king consort to a regnant queen.

If the Constitution had entrenched the title of king consort, it would have read "la reina consorte or el rey consorte" - Tthe queen consort or the king consort.

If the Constitution had entrenched the title of prince consort, it would have read "la reina consorte o el príncipe consorte" - the queen consort or the prince consort.

By writing "the consort of the Queen" instead of specifying a particular title, the drafters of the Constitution left it open to the sitting monarch and government to decide which title a Queen's consort will receive.

I get some of you have problems understanding this, but the reality is that Spain's futures Queen regnant consorts won't be styled as king.

Disagreement is not the same as lack of understanding, and there is never any guarantee that today's laws or opinions will persist for eternity.

However, I appreciate your polite explanation of the reasons why you and many other members of the public agree with King Juan Carlos I's action but are not as strongly opposed to gender equality in noble consort titles, and it has given me a better understanding of your position.

Debate is always welcome but some posters should refrain from saying words like "ridiculous" when in Spain no one has questioned, except for a few extreme right wing forums, that a regnant queen's consort should be styled as Prince.

And no, it's not ridiculous or strange that Leonor's husband won't be king consort. Please, just accept it.

What @meeralakshmi's original post (which was not addressed towards you) referred to as "ridiculous" was "Juan Carlos' undoing Spain's consort tradition" - that is, his specific action. I am quite sure she (and I) had no intention of insulting you, though I understand your feelings given that you agree with Juan Carlos' action.

I very much agree that debate should be welcome and no one should be ridiculed in the debate (regardless of whether support for women's equality is limited to extreme right-wingers). Many royal watchers who have argued in favor of gender-equal titles have been dismissed with words such as "ridiculous" and "strange", so I hope you will agree that is inappropriate.

 

[Mbruno]

If the Constitution had entrenched the title of prince consort, it would have read "la reina consorte o el príncipe consorte" - the queen consort or the prince consort.

By writing "the consort of the Queen" instead of specifying a particular title, the drafters of the Constitution left it open to the sitting monarch and government to decide which title a Queen's consort will receive.



Disagreement is not the same as lack of understanding, and there is never any guarantee that today's laws or opinions will persist for eternity.



What @meeralakshmi's original post (which was not addressed towards you) referred to as "ridiculous" was "Juan Carlos' undoing Spain's consort tradition". I am quite sure she (and I) had no intention of insulting you, though I understand your feelings given that you agree with Juan Carlos' action.

I very much agree that debate should be welcome and no one should be ridiculed in the debate (regardless of whether support for women's equality is limited to extreme right-wingers). Many royal watchers who have argued in favor of gender-equal titles have been dismissed with words such as "ridiculous" and "strange", so I hope you will agree that is inappropriate.

While the fathers of the constitution refrained from committing to a title for the "consort of the queen", the royal decree 1368/1987 clarified that the consort of the Queen of Spain shall have the title of Prince with the style of Royal Highness.

This particular royal decree, which is still in force today, was issued on the proposal of the Minister of Justice who countersigned it, so I understand that downgrading the consort of the queen to a prince only was a political decision of the Spanish government at that time. I would be surprised if future governments decided to reverse it when Leonor is queen.

Actually what I am more curious to see is if Leonor's husband will be made Prince of Asturias before her accession, as the Royal Decree 138/1987 apparently mandates, or if that will be changed to give him a lesser title.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

While the fathers of the constitution refrained from committing to a title for the "consort of the queen", the royal decree 1368/1987 clarified that the consort of the Queen of Spain shall have the title of Prince with the style of Royal Highness.

This particular royal decree, which is still in force today, was issued on the proposal of the Minister of Justice who countersigned it, so I understand that downgrading the consort of the queen to a prince only was a political decision of the Spanish government at that time.

I believe “on the proposal of the...” is the boilerplate wording for Royal Decrees associated with a ministry's jurisdiction. Formally, Royal Decrees are co-signed by the King and the Government.

Behind the scenes, my understanding (based on what I have read in Spanish media and heard from Spanish royal watchers) is that the governments have allowed King Juan Carlos I and King Felipe VI to make the decisions where royal family titles are concerned.

Actually what I am more curious to see is if Leonor's husband will be made Prince of Asturias before her accession, as the Royal Decree 138/1987 apparently mandates, or if that will be changed to give him a lesser title.

Yes, it will be interesting to see if there is public pressure to prevent Leonor from sharing her title with her spouse.

 

[Alondra]

By writing "the consort of the Queen" instead of specifying a particular title, the drafters of the Constitution left it open to the sitting monarch and government to decide which title a Queen's consort will receive.

I agree to a certain point. You need to understand Spain and its politics after 40 years of dictatorship. Franco died in 1975 and we voted the Constitution in 1978.

Our Constitution is one of the youngest and most progressive in the world but it was written at a time when many crown issues were left to be solved later because the important thing then was approving it and move on to a full democracy.

But even then, when so many crown issues were left to subsequent governments to solve, the text in article 58 is more than obvious. By explicitly mentioning the word "queen consort" to the king of Spain, while using the word "consort" to a Queen regnant, it makes abundantly clear what was the intention of the wording for most Spanish Constitutional scholars.

Which is the reason no one in Spain is having a problem with it....except some of you in TRF

 

[Tatiana Maria]

By writing "the consort of the Queen" instead of specifying a particular title, the drafters of the Constitution left it open to the sitting monarch and government to decide which title a Queen's consort will receive.

I agree to a certain point. You need to understand Spain and its politics after 40 years of dictatorship. Franco died in 1975 and we voted the Constitution in 1978.

Our Constitution is one of the youngest and most progressive in the world but it was written at a time when many crown issues were left to be solved later because the important thing then was approving it and move on to a full democracy.

But even then, when so many crown issues were left to subsequent governments to solve, the text in article 58 is more than obvious. By explicitly mentioning the word "queen consort" to the king of Spain, while using the word "consort" to a king, it makes abundantly clear what was the intention of the wording for most Spanish Constitutional scholars.

Yes, the wording “the Queen consort or the consort of the Queen” is explicit about the title “Queen consort”.

But is is not explicit (one way or the other) about the title of a consort of the Queen. So the clear intention was to leave that as one of the “crown issues [that] were left to subsequent governments to solve”, I would say.

Which is the reason no one in Spain is having a problem with it....except some of you in TRF

It is extremely rare for there to be an issue (especially on the topic of sexism) that all 47 million people living in a country agree unanimously on. I have encountered Spaniards who support gender equality in royal titles, and you yourself mentioned “a few extreme right-wing forums” where posters favor gender equality, so it is not literally “no one”.

That said, if you have polling data showing exact numbers on this issue, I would be very interested to see it.

 

[Alondra]

Yes, the wording “the Queen consort or the consort of the Queen” is explicit about the title “Queen consort”.

But is is not explicit (one way or the other) about the title of a consort of the Queen. So the clear intention was to leave that as one of the “crown issues [that] were left to subsequent governments to solve”, I would say.




It is extremely rare for there to be an issue (especially on the topic of sexism) that all 47 million people living in a country agree unanimously on. I have encountered Spaniards who support gender equality in royal titles, and you yourself mentioned “a few extreme right-wing forums” where posters favor gender equality, so it is not literally “no one”.

That said, if you have polling data showing exact numbers on this issue, I would be very interested to see it.

I can give you my opinion as a Spaniard but I'm not going to start looking for statistics on the net to satisfy posters on the TRF. This is not what this place is supposed to be about. If you want statistics, the net is available to you.

I'll tell you an anecdote I was involved in years ago in TRF. It was in the style forum, so not necessarily controversial. A Norwegian poster said how wonderful MM looked. I thought she looked awful because she was wearing thick black tights with high heels. In Spain, no one wears think black tights with high heels, except with chunky flat shoes. The Norwegian poster told me that those black tights are normal attire for women in their country, even with heels. And I apologised because I realised I was judging their style from the social style of my country.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

I can give you my opinion as a Spaniard but I'm not going to start looking for statistics on the net to satisfy posters on the TRF. This is not what this place is supposed to be about. If you want statistics, the net is available to you.

I’m not entirely certain what you are addressing when you say “This is not what this place is supposed to be about”, so I’ll address a couple of interpretations.


If you meant that “satisfying [other] posters” is not what TRF is supposed to be about, then we agree. Please note that I said I would be interested to see polling data; it wasn’t meant as a demand that you satisfy my interest.

However, on a related note, the burden of proof lies with the person who makes the allegation. If you seriously claimed that all Spaniards agreed with you, then it would be up to you, rather than me, to supply the proof to satisfy your claim. Likewise, if I claimed that most Spaniards agreed with me, it would be my responsibility, not yours, to search for the proof to satisfy my claim.

But I am glad we agree that we do not need to satisfy one another, and can continue to civilly hold different opinions.


If you mean that “looking for statistics on the net” is not part of what TRF is supposed to be about, then I must disagree, as someone who does read and post internet polls and other statistics on TRF.

It is easy for all of us to arrive at incorrect conclusions about the public’s opinion from our unrepresentative circle of royal watchers and personal acquaintances. Polls provide more reliable data and are a worthy addition to the conversation.

I'll tell you an anecdote I was involved in years ago in TRF. It was in the style forum, so not necessarily controversial. A Norwegian poster said how wonderful MM looked. I thought she looked awful because she was wearing thick black tights with high heels. In Spain, no one wears think black tights with high heels, except with chunky flat shoes. The Norwegian poster told me that those black tights are normal attire for women in their country, even with heels. And I apologised because I realised I was judging their style from the social style of my country.

That’s a lovely reminder of the importance of maintaining open minds to factors we may not have known or thought of. As I said in a previous post, I did learn from reading your opinions, even if we continue to disagree on the issue.

 

[Alondra]

I'm glad you took something positive from my posts, even if we disagree on the issue of the title of the future husband (or wife, who knows?) of Leonor

 

[meeralakshmi]

In the Netherlands 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 the government argued that since in the Netherlands a woman is permitted to use her husband’s title as a courtesy title, she should receive the courtesy title and style of HM Queen Máxima. Her title and style is therefore HM Queen Máxima, Princess of the Netherlands. Since a man is entitled to use his wife’s title as a courtesy title in Spain the Spanish government could make the same argument for Leonor’s husband and he would therefore be HM King X, Prince of Spain.

The difference with a Queen's regnant consort's title, is that it's not an empty one. It'll not only be the title of the consort of the Queen of Spain, but more importantly, the consort to the Head of State.

Leonor’s husband will be Prince of Asturias as long as his wife is Princess of Asturias which will lead the public who haven’t read the 1987 decree to think he’ll be king when his wife is queen. They may also think that because the only male consort of the unified Spain so far was a king consort Leonor’s husband will be as well. Juan Carlos likely made the decision he did because he thought it would look better if Spain went along with what the other monarchies were doing (which is rooted in sexism against women, something the Spanish monarchy and nobility traditionally haven’t had).

In the US the first male consort of a vice president was given an equivalent title, role, and precedence to the past female consorts of vice presidents and it worked out just fine. The same would apply to royal consorts.

Dukes, Marquesses and other noble titles have little relevance today in Spanish society. They are aristocracy but with few exceptions, like the House of Alba, they are seen as a title without value hanging on to it because of social or historical prestige. None of them can claim it because of inheritance privileges, as they are subjected to the same laws of taxation as the rest of us.

The Spanish nobility system is so progressive that it allowed the wife of a duchess to become a duchess jure uxoris. I genuinely don’t see why that would be a bad thing if nobility was more politically relevant.

 

[meeralakshmi]

Juan Carlos changed, with the decree to the title of prince to the consort of a queen regnant, something that as society most of us wanted, and was in line with many other monarchies in Europe like the British, Danish, Dutch.

One of those laws is different from the others.

Absolute primogeniture succession and gender-neutral surname laws treat women precisely the same as men.

A law stating that a king regnant shares his title with his spouse, but a queen regnant cannot share her title with her spouse, is an example of a sexist law which (as you alluded to) gives men precedence simply for being male.

It is no coincidence that the British, Danish, and Dutch systems you cite do not include absolute primogeniture succession or gender-neutral naming traditions. The vast majority of British, Danish, and Dutch hereditary titles follow the male line only, by law. And there were historically laws and/or strong social pressures for British, Danish, and Dutch married women to use their husbands’ surnames, but not the other way around. All of that is consistent with the "males have precedence" reasoning.

Despite the most recent British, Danish, and Dutch male consorts all having the title of prince they all still had different titles:

- UK - HRH The Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh
- Denmark - HRH Prince Henrik of Denmark and briefly HRH The Prince Consort of Denmark
- Netherlands - HRH The Prince of the Netherlands

If the UK, Denmark, and the Netherlands all do their own thing there's no reason Spain shouldn't be allowed to do their own thing as well; are they supposed to conform with the UK, Denmark, or the Netherlands specifically? At one point Spain and Portugal had king consorts at the same time the UK had a prince consort and it caused no issue. If anything other monarchies should try to be more gender-equal like Spain, not the other way around.

And on the subject of the UK every single husband of a queen regnant has had a different title:

- Mary I - HM The King of England (jure uxoris)
- Mary II - HM The King of England (co-monarch)
- Anne - HRH Prince George of Denmark, Duke of Cumberland
- Victoria - HRH The Prince Consort
- Elizabeth II - HRH The Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh

They therefore have no actual tradition to go off of. Victoria attempted to set in stone that any future husband of a queen regnant would have the title of prince consort and precedence over everyone besides the queen (she had wanted to make Albert king consort but made him prince consort when the government didn’t allow it due to him being a foreigner) but the government wasn’t interested.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Just to add to your informative post, Henrik was styled HKH Prinsen (HRH The Prince) as consort to the Queen before his wife elevated him to HKH Prinsgemalen (HRH The Prince Consort) in 2005. See for example the guestlist of his son's wedding in 2004.

 

[meeralakshmi]

Just to add to your informative post, Henrik was styled HKH Prinsen (HRH The Prince) as consort to the Queen before his wife elevated him to HKH Prinsgemalen (HRH The Prince Consort) in 2005. See for example the guestlist of his son's wedding in 2004.

Interesting, not sure why no English sources list that title. In that case he could have been given the style of His Majesty even before receiving the prince consort title (so HM The Prince of Denmark).

Also interesting that the guest list has the titles and styles of all the non-Scandinavian royals (excluding Benedikte's family) in French except the British and Japanese royals which are in English, why is it not entirely in Danish?

Interesting, not sure why no English sources list that title. In that case he could have been given the style of His Majesty even before receiving the prince consort title (so HM The Prince of Denmark).

And maybe if he had become HM The Prince of Denmark when his wife became queen there would have been no need for the prince consort title and he wouldn't have been as fixated on becoming king consort even if I think they should have just made him king consort from the start.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

I wonder why the monarchs of Scandinavia (and Spain, but that is less surprising) have been the most questioning of the ancient European tradition that a married woman takes on the status of her husband.


King Harald V of Norway: When his son Crown Prince Haakon became engaged to marry Mette-Marit Tjessem Høiby, the then Prime Minister claimed Mette-Marit would automatically receive the titles of Crown Princess and later Queen. But the Palace pushed back against his claim, and subsequently King Harald V issued a statement saying that he, the King, had decided what Mette-Marit’s title would be.

Queen Margrethe II of Denmark: When her son Prince Joachim became engaged to marry for the second time to Marie Cavallier, he told the press that Queen Margrethe II had only recently decided that Marie would become a princess, and that this was the Queen’s decision to make.

King Carl XVI Gustaf of Sweden: When it was announced in 2019 that the King's younger children’s children would never perform official duties or receive funding from the state, the head of the royal court stated that the children would not share their titles with any future spouses.


King Juan Carlos I of Spain also decreed that the wife of an Infante will not automatically become an Infanta, but the Spanish peninsula has a long tradition of nomenclature being less gender discriminatory than elsewhere in Europe.

In Scandinavia, on the other hand, laws required women to take their husbands’ surnames only a few decades ago, and nobility continues to pass through the male line only. So I wonder why the Scandinavian monarchs have been the only ones, outside of Spain, to question the assumption that wives automatically take on their husbands’ titles?

 

[meeralakshmi]

I wonder why the monarchs of Scandinavia (and Spain, but that is less surprising) have been the most questioning of the ancient European tradition that a married woman takes on the status of her husband.


King Harald V of Norway: When his son Crown Prince Haakon became engaged to marry Mette-Marit Tjessem Høiby, the then Prime Minister claimed Mette-Marit would automatically receive the titles of Crown Princess and later Queen. But the Palace pushed back against his claim, and subsequently King Harald V issued a statement saying that he, the King, had decided what Mette-Marit’s title would be.

Queen Margrethe II of Denmark: When her son Prince Joachim became engaged to marry for the second time to Marie Cavallier, he told the press that Queen Margrethe II had only recently decided that Marie would become a princess, and that this was the Queen’s decision to make.

King Carl XVI Gustaf of Sweden: When it was announced in 2019 that the King's younger children’s children would never perform official duties or receive funding from the state, the head of the royal court stated that the children would not share their titles with any future spouses.


King Juan Carlos I of Spain also decreed that the wife of an Infante will not automatically become an Infanta, but the Spanish peninsula has a long tradition of nomenclature being less gender discriminatory than elsewhere in Europe.

In Scandinavia, on the other hand, laws required women to take their husbands’ surnames only a few decades ago, and nobility continues to pass through the male line only. So I wonder why the Scandinavian monarchs have been the only ones, outside of Spain, to question the assumption that wives automatically take on their husbands’ titles?

Honestly I’m not sure, however in Belgium you can also no longer automatically become a princess by marriage. In the Netherlands it was intended that Prince/Princess of Orange and king/queen of the Netherlands be reserved for the heir/monarch after three consecutive queens regnant but then they decided that since wives are entitled to use their husbands’ titles as courtesy titles Máxima should receive the courtesy title of HM Queen Máxima. However that didn’t apply when WA was Prince of Orange for some reason. While the infante/infanta title can no longer be shared with one’s spouse Juan Carlos worked around it by giving infantes/infantas life peerages upon their marriages that could be shared with their spouses. The fact that Spain has made sure a titled person has a title to share with their spouse no matter what is what makes JC’s decision that a queen can no longer share her title with her spouse but a king still can so bizarre.

Since a man is entitled to use his wife’s title as a courtesy title in Spain the Spanish government could make the same argument for Leonor’s husband and he would therefore be HM King X, Prince of Spain.

And why this is a real possibility.

However that didn’t apply when WA was Prince of Orange for some reason.

Honestly I’m thinking that the Netherlands was just worried to have a princess consort while the wives of the the other kings had the title of queen consort but I’m not sure why monarchies haven’t had the same thought about the wives of kings having the title of queen consort but husbands of queens only having the title of prince consort (and sometimes not even that).

 

[meeralakshmi]

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’.

It appears that Swedish royal dukedoms revert to the crown either upon the holder’s death or the holder ascending the throne. Therefore the duchy of Västergötland will revert to the crown when Victoria becomes queen and Daniel will no longer be Duke of Västergötland; Silvia was never Duchess of Jämtland because she married Carl Gustaf after he became king. If they don’t want to pull a Máxima my guess is that Daniel will be HRH (or preferably HM) The Prince Consort of Sweden. The only other male consort of Sweden (husband of Queen Ulrika Eleonora) had the title of prince consort until his wife abdicated so he could become king regnant as Frederick I because she wasn’t able to make him her co-monarch.

On the subject of sharing titles I wonder if Victoria will possibly share her style of Her Majesty with Daniel when she becomes queen now that the Swedish monarchy has gotten more progressive (absolute primogeniture, giving duchies to princesses, giving titles to children of princesses, and allowing husbands of princesses to share their non-heir titles). The only other male consort of Sweden received the title of prince consort so we can count on Daniel at least receiving that.

 

[JR76]

The only other male consort of Sweden (husband of Queen Ulrika Eleonora) had the title of prince consort until his wife abdicated so he could become king regnant as Frederick I because she wasn’t able to make him her co-monarch.

To my knowledge Prince Fredrik never held the title of Prince Consort. He was raised to the dignity of Royal highness on December 6, 1718 by his wife The Queen which was confirmed by Parliament on March 9, 1719.

 

[meeralakshmi]

Prince Fredrik never held the title of Prince Consort. He was raised to the dignity of Royal highness on December 6, 1718 by his wife The Queen which was confirmed by Parliament on March 9, 1719.

According to Wikipedia and other sources he was prince consort. This is the source Wikipedia cites: 1255-1256 (Nordisk familjebok / Uggleupplagan. 8. Feiss - Fruktmögel)

I was able to translate the text into English and it doesn’t say the exact words “prince consort” anywhere. However every English source refers to him as prince consort.

They state that he was given the title prince of Sweden with the style of HRH and served as prince consort. However I’m not sure if that means HRH The Prince of Sweden or HRH Prince Fredrik of Sweden.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Are you certain your English sources are not blindly repeating what Wikipedia says or jumping to conclusions that every husband of a queen regnant has been titled like Albert or Philip of the United Kingdom? Far too many self-proclaimed royal experts and sources do so.

Indeed, there’s no mention of Fredrik being given the title of prince consort in that encyclopedia article they cite. Only that he was created “Royal Highness”:

Sedan ständerna genom formligt konungaval bekräftat Ulrika Eleonoras seger öfver sin systerson och medtäflare, den ofvannämnde Karl Fredrik, önskade hon upphöja sin gemål till medregent, men lyckades icke vid 1719 års riksdag förverkliga denna plan. F. fick nöja sig med att ständerna tillerkände honom titeln "kunglig höghet".​

Translation:

After the Estates confirmed Ulrika Eleonora’s victory over her nephew and rival, the aforementioned Karl Fredrik, by an official royal election, she wished to elevate her consort to co-regent, but failed to realize this plan in the Parliament of 1719. F[redrik]. had to content himself with the Estates granting him the title “Royal Highness”.​

This encyclopedia article says the same:

Fredrik I - Svenskt Biografiskt Lexikon


I think this is a more reliable source: Fredrik’s proclamation as reigning king in 1720 refers to the titles he held up to that moment (as Queen Ulrika Eleonora’s consort):

Hennes Kongl. Maj:ts högtälskelige gemål, den durchleuchtigste furste Friedrich, arfprins till Hessen, furste till Hirschfeldt, grefve till Catzen-Ellenbogen, Dietz, Ziegenheim, Nidda och Schaumburg &c.​

This could roughly be translated as:

Her Royal Majesty’s Well-Beloved Consort, the Most Serene Highness Prince Friedrich, Hereditary Prince to Hesse, Prince to Hirschfeldt, Count to Catzen-Ellenbogen, Dietz, Ziegenheim, Nidda and Schaumburg &c.​

Regeringsform 1720 - Wikisource

sv.wikisource.org

 

[JR76]

They state that he was given the title prince of Sweden with the style of HRH and served as prince consort. However I’m not sure if that means HRH The Prince of Sweden or HRH Prince Fredrik of Sweden.

You've confused position with title which is an easy mistake to make.
As the husband of the Queen, Fredrik held the position of prince consort , but not the title of Prince Consort.

 

[meeralakshmi]

You've confused position with title which is an easy mistake to make.
As the husband of the Queen, Fredrik held the position of prince consort , but not the title of Prince Consort.

I see, so was his title HRH The Prince of Sweden (like the prince consorts of the Netherlands) or HRH Prince Fredrik of Sweden?

 

[Silverpot]

I was able to translate the text into English and it doesn’t say the exact words “prince consort” anywhere. However every English source refers to him as prince consort.

Probably because the word "consort=gemål" is not commonly used in Swedish, especially today since it has a very old fashion vibe to it. The word doesn't elevate the Prince title in any way, only making it sound a bit silly imo.
As I've tried to explain before, it's not always possible to take an English word and translate it and it will magically take on the same meaning.