Queen Consort of England

[dtilque]

In another forum, this trivia question was asked:

"How many wives of Henry VIII were crowned Queen of England?"

My answer was none, since all of them were actually Queen Consorts rather than Queen regnants. Now I know that in common usage, everyone just referred them as the Queen of England and no ever said Queen Consort of England, but that's what they actually were.

The guy who posed the question wants an definitive source or cite before he'll give me credit. Google didn't help; perhaps my google-fu is weak. Can anyone else help me?


PS In case you were wondering, his answer was 2: Katherine of Aragon and Anne Boleyn

[Malden Capell]

You're not far off, but in fact some Queens Consort were indeed crowned ceremonially. Not all of Henry's wives, though.

Katherine of Aragon and Anne Boleyn were crowned Queen Consort, but Jane Seymour was not, although she did receive a royal funeral. Anne of Cleves was not, nor, it appears, was Catherine Howard. I think Catherine Parr was.

So it depends on interpretation of what 'crowned' means; Queen Regnant, none; but Queen Consort, it looks like two or maybe three. Even as Queen Consort some of them were given executive powers in the King's absence.

[dtilque]

You're missing the point. Two of them were crowned; I'm not disputing that. The question is, were they crowned "Queen Consort of England" or just "Queen of England"? My view is that technically they were the former and not the latter.

[Malden Capell]

Originally Posted by dtilque

You're missing the point. Two of them were crowned; I'm not disputing that. The question is, were they crowned "Queen Consort of England" or just "Queen of England"? My view is that technically they were the former and not the latter.

'Queen Consort' essentially means wife of the monarch. 'Queen of England' encompasses that definition as well as Queen Regnant.

I can see what you're saying but overall technically he is correct. I can understand that blur of definition though.

[Giles]

Originally Posted by dtilque

You're missing the point. Two of them were crowned; I'm not disputing that. The question is, were they crowned "Queen Consort of England" or just "Queen of England"? My view is that technically they were the former and not the latter.

A queen consort is the wife of the king, and all of the wives of Henry VIII were queens consort.

Generally, in British History, queens regnant have reached that position because of their ancestry. not who they married -- though there are are a few cases where kings have married women with a better claim to the throne. One such case is Henry VII, whose wife was the daughter, sister and niece of the preceding three monarchs (respectively), and so perhaps had a better claim to the throne than Henry Tudor, her husband. (On the other hand, Lancastrians would argue that Henry VII's mother should have been queen regnant -- in 15th century England, the throne tended to go to the person who commanded the largest armies.)

[Polycarp]

Originally Posted by dtilque

You're missing the point. Two of them were crowned; I'm not disputing that. The question is, were they crowned "Queen Consort of England" or just "Queen of England"? My view is that technically they were the former and not the latter.

There is no title (style) of "Queen Consort" -- the woman is crowned "Queen" regardless of whether her husband was just crowned King or whether she herself is the embodiment of sovereignty. We make the distinction in discussions for purposes of clarification, just as among Prince Philip, Prince Andrew, and Prince Edward, the first is a "Prince Consort" -- but there is no formal title of "Queen Consort" or "Prince Consort." (Note that the same holds true for "Queen Mother".)

[MarcusF]

Originally Posted by Polycarp

There is no title (<snip>
We make the distinction in discussions for purposes of clarification, just as among Prince Philip, Prince Andrew, and Prince Edward, the first is a "Prince Consort" -- but there is no formal title of "Queen Consort" or "Prince Consort." (Note that the same holds true for "Queen Mother".)

But, in principle, there is nothing to stop there being a title of "Prince Consort". This was the title Albert was given by Queen Victoria in 1857. I think it was Philip's choice back when Elizabeth became Queen in 1952 not to receive the title.

[Candyman74]

Originally Posted by dtilque

You're missing the point. Two of them were crowned; I'm not disputing that. The question is, were they crowned "Queen Consort of England" or just "Queen of England"? My view is that technically they were the former and not the latter.

The trick might actually be in the word "wife". Marriages that are annulled render the entire marriage invalid, restrospectively declaring that the couple in question were never married.

So the answer could be "zero".

[matt_mcl]

Originally Posted by Candyman74

The trick might actually be in the word "wife". Marriages that are annulled render the entire marriage invalid, restrospectively declaring that the couple in question were never married.

So the answer could be "zero".

Only three of his marriages were annulled: Catherine of Aragon, Anne Boleyn, and Anne of Cleves. Jane Seymour died in childbirth, Catherine Howard was never annulled despite being beheaded, and Catherine Parr survived him.

[Candyman74]

Originally Posted by matt_mcl

Only three of his marriages were annulled: Catherine of Aragon, Anne Boleyn, and Anne of Cleves. Jane Seymour died in childbirth, Catherine Howard was never annulled despite being beheaded, and Catherine Parr survived him.

Yes; but as someone pointed out above, only two were crowned, and both of those are on the annulled list. Total, therefore, of wives who were crowned: zero.

[Acsenray]

Originally Posted by dtilque

My answer was none, since all of them were actually Queen Consorts rather than Queen regnants. Now I know that in common usage, everyone just referred them as the Queen of England and no ever said Queen Consort of England, but that's what they actually were.

Queens regnant and queens consort are both "actually" queens. "Queen" doesn't default to queen regnant in meaning.

[Saint Cad]

Trivia question and answer I once saw:
How many kings have been crowned King of England?
One

And yes there is an error with the grammar of the question. If it were "How many kings became King of England?" then the answer would be "One."

[Kiwi Fruit]

Originally Posted by Saint Cad

Trivia question and answer I once saw:
How many kings have been crowned King of England?
One

And yes there is an error with the grammar of the question. If it were "How many kings became King of England?" then the answer would be "One."

And you're waiting for us to ask, "Who was he?"

[fachverwirrt]

Originally Posted by Kiwi Fruit

And you're waiting for us to ask, "Who was he?"

I would assume James I (and VI).

[UDS]

James I and VI, already King of Scotland, became King of England in 1603.

However, Philip II, already King of Spain (and King of Portugal) became King of England in 1554. King consort, it is true, but as pointed out above a king consort is still a king.

George IV was alrfeady King of Hanover when he was crowned King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland in 1820. (He succeeded to both thrones simultaneously, but he wasn't crowned until some time later.) But of course he never held the title "King of England".

And, of course, relying on the fact that a king is crowned some time after he succeeds, you can say that Edward VI, Charles I, Charles II, James III, William III, George I, George II and George III were all kings (of England and Ireland, and in some cases of Scotland) when they were crowned King of England.

However you cut it, the answer "one" is wrong.

So the answer

[dtilque]

Originally Posted by Acsenray

Queens regnant and queens consort are both "actually" queens. "Queen" doesn't default to queen regnant in meaning.

I don't dispute that, but that wasn't my question. I asked if "Queen of England" was technically a title reserved for Queens regnant and all those other queens were technically titled "Queen Consort of England".

After thinking about it, I suspect that all we can say for certain is that regnant queens have the full title (at the time "by grace of God, Queen of England, France, and Ireland, defender of the faith") and that queen consorts do not.

[Saint Cad]

Originally Posted by UDS

James I and VI, already King of Scotland, became King of England in 1603.

However, Philip II, already King of Spain (and King of Portugal) became King of England in 1554. King consort, it is true, but as pointed out above a king consort is still a king.

George IV was alrfeady King of Hanover when he was crowned King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland in 1820. (He succeeded to both thrones simultaneously, but he wasn't crowned until some time later.) But of course he never held the title "King of England".

And, of course, relying on the fact that a king is crowned some time after he succeeds, you can say that Edward VI, Charles I, Charles II, James III, William III, George I, George II and George III were all kings (of England and Ireland, and in some cases of Scotland) when they were crowned King of England.

However you cut it, the answer "one" is wrong.

So the answer

True.
The answer was James VI (I) according to the trivia question. The answer was justified that every other King was a prince, duke etc. when crowned. Even by that definition Philip II would have been a second answer. Plus unless there is a question of succession, a person becomes king upon the death of the previous sovereign and later when coronated they are already king.

[UDS]

Originally Posted by dtilque

I don't dispute that, but that wasn't my question. I asked if "Queen of England" was technically a title reserved for Queens regnant and all those other queens were technically titled "Queen Consort of England".

No. The formal title of a queen consort of the UK is simply "Her Majesty the Queen". And this is also the formal title of a Queen regnant. And the same was true back in the days when England was a distinct kingdom. The word "consort" has never formed part of the formal title of an English/British queen consort. (Whereas it did form part of the formal title of Albert, the Prince Consort.) You can legitimately describe a kings wife as a queen consort, but her title is simply Queen (in the same way that the wife of a duke is a duchess, and not a duchess consort).

A Queen regnant also has a much longer style (". . . by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and of Her other Realms and Territories, Queen . . .") which a queen consort lacks. But the short title, which is the one most commonly used for all official purposes, is the same for both of them.

[fachverwirrt]

Originally Posted by UDS

James I and VI, already King of Scotland, became King of England in 1603.

However, Philip II, already King of Spain (and King of Portugal) became King of England in 1554. King consort, it is true, but as pointed out above a king consort is still a king.

George IV was alrfeady King of Hanover when he was crowned King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland in 1820. (He succeeded to both thrones simultaneously, but he wasn't crowned until some time later.) But of course he never held the title "King of England".

And, of course, relying on the fact that a king is crowned some time after he succeeds, you can say that Edward VI, Charles I, Charles II, James III, William III, George I, George II and George III were all kings (of England and Ireland, and in some cases of Scotland) when they were crowned King of England.

However you cut it, the answer "one" is wrong.

So the answer

As far as I can tell, Philip II didn't become King of Spain until 1556, two years after his marriage to Mary, and wasn't King of Portugal until 1581. He was made King of Naples when he married, but apparently that occurred on the same day as his marriage. George IV ascended the thrones of the UK and Hanover on his father's death, i.e. at the same time. If you use the wording "became king" rather than "crowned king", I don't see how either of them qualify.