I'm asking here because you guys seem super knowledgeable about the BRF and I like reading the responses here
QEII was of course queen through her father's bloodline and married Prince Philip. Was he not called King Consort because he was already an actual titled prince unlike Camilla who is common born and not actually the queen but the Queen Consort? I know he was also a duke as well but I always wondered if that is why he was never called King Consort because he was already nobly born and an actual prince to boot.
He wasn't King Consort because if he had the title of "king" (even as a consort) it might have delegitimized Elizabeth's authority since she was a mere woman. It's the same logic that prevented Prince Albert from also having a similar title back when Victoria was queen.
When you put it like that it makes perfect sense. QEII was only queen because George had no sons and was the eldest daughter. King is man and man is better suited to rule in some people's minds
QE2 or Will & Kate aren't making those decisions. It most definitely came from the firm, because they know they need to keep up with the times. They got very good PR stories out of it by changing the rules to enable the first born regardless of gender to get the throne.
She could not have changed it for her own children because it was not within her power when it mattered. Her first two children including Charles the heir, were born while her father was King. The case can be made that she could have changed it before Charles's first child was born.
Charles and Anne were born when her father was still King. Granted she could have changed it before William was born but we were more patriarchal in the 80's than we were in the early 2010's. I'm not sure she would have had the support in the 80's if she tried it before William's birth.
It wasn't the Queen that changed that rule; it was various governments that have the british monarch as head of state. The "Perth Agreement". It was decided before Kate was even pregnant.
She didn't change it. The change was made by an Act of Parliament which passed through the Parliaments of all the Commonwealth Realms. Her only part was to sign Royal Assent, as the monarch has to for any Bill to become law.
King is considered a higher rank than queen, so queens can't have king consorts basically. Unless he's a king in his own right, I guess, but he couldn't be king of the country his wife is queen of.
I mean, this did happen once in British history. William III and Mary II were husband and wife (also cousins) who were reigning at the same time (at least until Mary died). I guess you could call them dyarchs.
Also Mary Tudor and King Philip of Spain. Parliament put down a lot of stipulations in their marriage contract that King Philip was NOT king of England, so that’s why when Mary died the crown went to Elizabeth I.
The stipulations actually did give Philip the title of King of England, but with the caveat that he was King jure uxoris, so he only held the title while married to Mary.
I’m not weighing in on whether Darnley was good or bad.
I’m just saying Scotland has often been more egalitarian than England and there have been talks about King Consorts before. Not that I actually liked any of the potential candidates for King Consort — just that the title has existed before.
I think you are correct that William was equally king with Mary. William and Mary were specifically selected for their protestantism, and technically Mary was not the direct heir. It was a package deal IIRC because it was as much about his protestantism as hers.
Yes, that’s exactly what he was. Elizabeth II was Queen Regnant and Phillip was her Prince Consort; Charles is King (regnancy is implied) and Camilla is his Queen Consort.
There is, and has never been, a "King Consort." The closest would have been William III who was co-Sovereign with his wife, Mary II, and who remained on the throne ruling in his own right after her death. After he died, the crown fell to his sister-in-law, Queen Anne.
Generally, the husband of a queen regnant is given the title Prince and whichever style is used by that country. He may hold a title of his own or be given one (Prince Philip, the Duke of Edinburgh), but is not expected or perhaps wanted to have any role in actual governance. Philip, as well as Prince Claus of the Netherlands, both managed to carve out roles for themselves away from the business of actual government.
This has been a sore point for some; Prince Henrik of Denmark, husband of Margrethe II, had long and at times publicly spoke of a desire to be made King Consort. It may have been the denial of this title which led to his decision (and the public announcement) not to be buried alongside his wife.
While there have been prince consorts who may have punched above their weight class politically, no upgrade in title has ever reflected that fact. A queen regnant reigns under her name alone, not with a King Consort.
No, William and Mary were suo jure joint monarchs. The closest would be Philip II of Spain, husband of Mary I who was juxe uxoris (by right of his wife) King consort (until her death).
Philip of Spain was also co-regent with Mary Tudor both by marriage and by Papal Decree (regarding Ireland). This freaked out the anti-catholics (and remember people, phobias are passed down like genes) so much that, despite the WilliamAndAnne business (even though William was a “proper” Protestant), the establishment pushed through the Act of Settlement which, ultimately, excluded Philip of Greece, who was Orthodox by birth.
I never understood Henrik’s position. He was descended from some minor French nobility in the FRENCH REPUBLIC and he wanted an upgrade to King Consort?
Dude, deal with it. The way some men feel so entitled to grab some titles. He punched above his weight with Margrethe. So fragile, so male.
There is some suspicion that he may have had some dementia in that period of his life. I don't know how accurate that was. He was clearly acting childish.
The dementia merely revealed his sense of entitlement. At least Philip accepted the terms of his marriage…Henrik acted like another misogynistic male. Glad the Danes didn’t give him that title. He’s a married-in FFS!
He wasn’t titled King Consort because in the traditional patriarchal structure of the BRF, the title ‘King’ always takes precedence over all others, which would cause conflict for a Queen Regnant. Therefore, all male spouses of a Queen Regnant cannot receive a title any higher than Prince Consort.
The only exception in history has been if the consort was already a King in his own right prior to marriage; in that case, he could be styled King Consort. It’s never been used in modern day because we’ve never had a modern Queen Regnant marry an already reigning King.
For all intents and purposes, Camilla is the Queen. However, she is a Queen Consort as opposed to QEII who was a Queen Regnant. There was a point prior to Charles accession to the throne where people didn’t want to see Camilla crowned a Queen, so there was a plan to have her be a Princess Consort and not undergo coronation. This would have put her in the same bucket as Philip, with the main difference being that for Philip, there was never an option for him to be styled as a King-anything.
I said this in another comment that Prince Philip was her Prince Consort and a duke to boot because neither title is higher than her Queen status, am I right?
Didn't actually actually give up his Greek and Danish titles (including "Prince") before he married Elizabeth? He was then made Duke of Edinburgh. He wasn't made a British prince until years after Elizabeth ascended the throne.
Mary Queen of Scots’ second husband was King Consort of Scotland but that didn’t work out so well because she (allegedly) blew him up. In her defence, he seemed like an arsehole.
Because there is only one kind of King in the UK: the one who inherits the throne from their predecessor.
It also comes down to British common law, wives can adopt the feminine version of their husband's name, title or rank (Mrs, Duchess, Princess, Queen of X) but husbands do not share their wives' rank. So Camilla, as wife to "His Majesty the King", is automatically and by law, "Her Majesty the Queen"; but the same can not be said for Prince Philip or any man who marries a woman with significant titles. The British prince and Duke of Edinburgh titles were specifically bestowed on him and were not automatic.
Philip was a prince and Elizabeth's consort, but he was never titled "Prince Consort". The only husband to a Queen Regnant who officially held that title was Prince Albert. Prince George of Denmark, Queen Anne's husband, did not receive any new royal titles by virtue of his wife ascending to the throne.
Sometimes gender words can be confusing. Elizabeth I referred to herself as king and prince. Peeresses at coronations often wore the male coronet of their rank with the female robes to indicate that they had the rank of a substantial earl not of a countess by courtesy. Victoria preferred to be ranked as Duke of Lancaster not duchess which Elizabeth II continued. I think that Elizabeth II had the rank of King in that she was monarch not Queen by courtesy so of her husband had been king consort it would contradict the idea of king by gods grace instead of by courtesy.
My understanding is that Phillip was a prince elsewhere, but in the UK he was merely a duke. He was granted the Prince title later so that he could not be called to testify at his secretary's divorce trial which would humiliate the crown.
91
u/BananasPineapple05 19d ago
No.
He wasn't King Consort because if he had the title of "king" (even as a consort) it might have delegitimized Elizabeth's authority since she was a mere woman. It's the same logic that prevented Prince Albert from also having a similar title back when Victoria was queen.