Are there any countries other than the U.S. where the spouse (or whatever else kind of partner) of the president or the prime minister is considered to be a significant figure? My impression is that there’s no equivalent in other countries at all. It’s considered kind of offensive to even do any significant amount of discussion of them in the news, or so I understand. The First Lady is considered such an important figure in the U.S. (as being the official hostess for the White House) that in those cases where the President isn’t married, a niece or some other such relative of the President is designated as the First Lady for the purpose of being the offical hostess for the White House:
Incidentally, mutantmoose, I wouldn’t take the TV show The West Wing as being an accurate picture of how the White House actually works. Like most American TV shows, it just makes up nonsense whenever it feels like it. It’s very annoying having to explain to foreigners who watch a lot of American TV that the image they get of the U.S. is often wildly inaccurate.
Another reason it’s not on par with the White House is that it’s just a residence and not the PM’s office.
Also, unlike the White House, it’s actually pretty hard to see. It’s behind some trees and whatnot, the grounds aren’t open to the public, and since it’s basically just a house with little in the way of public space, there are no tours.
That’s a joke, right? If Hillary Clinton were president, we’d have one of the most high-profile politically-involved presidential spouses in history, second only to Eleanor Roosevelt, if that.
I think that’s debatable. I’m pretty sure that Hillary would want to keep Bill in the background and Bill himself isn’t as able to do as many things as he used to. Believe me, the Republicans would have a field day with him otherwise.
Furthermore, the very prospect of people wondering what to do with the title “first lady” would give us an opportunity to dump it altogether.
This is a good point. The White House is the symbol of one of the three branches of the US federal government.
I would say that 24 Sussex doesn’t have that function for us. Parliament is the builidng that symbolises government, both legislative and executive, since our executive sit in Parliament.
It’s not unusual in Latin America. In fact, the position is often even more formalized. “La Primera Dama” at least in Panama operates an official government department that distributes funds for various charitable causes, among other things.
And it tends to be overshadowed by Rideau Hall just down the road by the roundabout. 24 Sussex could be any one of a hundred mansions, embassies, or High Commissions–the French Embassy is next door and the South African High Commission is across the street.
And rightfully so, but I’ve copied the text of the reported message (with no links, of course) because it really shines a new light on some unknown episodes in world history.
Even if you take the view that Elizabeth, and not Quentin Bryce, is the head of state of Australia, then your claim is still wrong in the general case. “His Royal Highness Prince x, Duke of Edinburgh” is not a title reserved for the spouse of the head of state. It’s just a title he happens to hold. The style of a British prince, and the Dukedom of Edinburgh, are appointed at the whim of the monarch.
I don’t understand the objection. The only ‘whim’ title involved is Duke of Edinburgh. The other is the standard title of the spouse of the monarch. His/Her Royal Highness, Prince/ss X.
There is no such standard. Philip, for example, was given that title by Elizabeth only several years after her ascension to the throne. He did not acquire that title automatically upon marriage, nor upon his wife’s becoming queen. It’s perfectly possible that a future male consort will have a different title, or even no title whatsoever (though that would be highly unlikely).
The previous prince consort, Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg Gotha, had that title in his own right. He was given the title of “Prince Consort” during his marriage to the Queen Regnant.
Before that was Prince George of Denmark and Norway, Duke of Cumberland – he was Prince of Denmark and Norway in his own right, and was given the title of Duke of Cumberland when he married the then Princess Anne (just as Prince Philip was given the title of Duke of Edinburgh when he married the Princess Elizabeth).
None of these prince consorts had any title in common. There’s no automatic title for a prince consort of the United Kingdom (or of Great Britain, or England, or Scotland, as Prince George was).
And all of that happens because you’re not allowed to have a king that is in a lower position than the queen. If the reigning monarch were male, his wife would definitely have an inherent title.
Not so much inherent as inherited: the wife generally gets the husband’s titles. I don’t think there’s any title specifically reserved for, and automatically conferred upon, a queen consort.