As I was taught it, the husband of the Queen (let’s say) is not entitled to be called “King”. Yet, if this is correct, then why would Princess Diana deserve the title of “Princess” when the bloodline to the throne runs through Prince Charles? And, if I am correct…what is the proper title for the Queen’s husband?
Also, if a royal couple has a girl and then a boy, does the boy inherit the throne being the first born male? Or, does it go by the first-born, regardless?
When the King marries, his bride becomes Queen. When the Queen marries, her husband becomes Prince (Consort).
When a prince marries, his bride becomes a princess. When a princess marries, the husband is usually awarded some other title (like a duchy).
The throne of England goes to the first-born male. I think most other countries do the same.
Short answer, there is an inference of regent or consort, depending on your designation. The spouse of a regent receives the matching title, but as a consort. Should they divorce, the title is revoked. The Title of King, however, out ranks everything else except, presumably, Ace high.
The rule is. the female spouse of a male titleholder becomes “the [Female Counterpart] of [HisTitle]”: the Duke of Albany’s wife becomes Duchess of Albany; the Prince’s wife becomes Princess. The male spouse of a female titleholder receives fuck all by virtue of the marriage, but is often granted a style by Royal Warrant. Baroness (in her own right) Miniver marries; her husband does not become Lord Miniver.
Note that prior to Tudor times, the husband of an heiress did become Earl of Whompshire or whatever iure uxoris (“by right of his wife”). This is how the Earl of Westmoreland’s son became Earl of Salisbury, and his son Earl of Warwick, all three being alive and Earls simultaneously for a few years until grandpa kicked the bucket. (Warwick family; the last-named was the Kingmaker.)
I would have sworn that there was a law enacted (and I think it was said to have been at the behest of the Queen) that in future the eldest child of the ruler (king or queen) would be heir to the throne. And that it happened about 20 years ago? We need someone (preferably a Brit) who is up on this stuff to speak up.
But Polycarp’s response about how spouses are styled is correct, AIUI, except that queens of England choose what title their husbands receive. Queen Victoria insisted that Prince Albert be given that title; she was very much in love with Albert. I dunno if Elizabeth II was simply less in love with the Duke, or if it was that she had been more carefully taught regarding her royal prerogatives and protection thereof. It was quite possibly the latter; Victoria’s ministers were less than thrilled - at least some of the time - with the amount of influence that Albert had on her decisions, according to biographies I’ve read. That may be why ER2 only asked a dukedom for her husband. And it’s been reported that he was not very happy with her choice in the matter.
Lots of things changed with the advent of the Tudors.
In case the above posts don’t quite make the point, to summarize:
Due to some admittedly archaic and sexist thinking, there is the assumption in British law that a King out-ranks a Queen. Therefore, when the Throne is held by a woman (as Queen Regnant), her husband cannot be titled King, 'lest he out-rank his wife.
Elizabeth II’s husband is indeed Prince Philip (actually “The Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh”), much as Victoria’s husband Albert was titled Prince.
British law has not yet been amended to a system of “absolute primogeniture” in which the eldest child would inherit a title regardless of their sex (such a measure has been proposed but has never been enacted). Currently, the eldest male relative will inherit before any female siblings. The order of seniority beyond children of the title holder similarly favours male relatives over female.
Just to nitpick. The Swedish succession order was changed when the kings second child was a son (Prince Philip), allowing his first-born daughter (Crown-princess Victoria) to become queen. And I just can’t write about them without mentioning their gorgeous li’l sister, Madeleine.
To change any rules touching the line of succession would, under the Statute of Westminster, require all the Commonwealth countries which retain the Queen as Head of State to pass exactly similar legislation through various legislatures. Nobody in our useless Labour government seems to have realised this when they announced the change, so they had to un-announce it about a week later.
In Spain the first male inherits the throne and, in no males, the first female. There has been talk of changing this to give both sexes equal rights but this would run into a problem because prince Felipe has two daughters and no sons. The law could be changed before he had any sons but if he has a son the law could not be changed after that because it would be depriving the son of his right. So right now if the prince would have a son it would create a problem in changing the law.
As you’re figuring out, it’s all down to which country you’re talking about.
Salic law is the system under which no females may inherit the throne. Japan has this system. Now, the Emperor has two sons, but for years they only had daughters, who could not inherit after their fathers. The throne would have to pass to a male further out along the line of succession. Some people did not like this and argued that the law should be changed… but tradition dies hard in the Japanese Imperial family, and since, with the birth of a boy in 2006, the thone is now secure for two generations, it’s unlikely this will change.
Britain and several other countries use a system of male primogeniture. Within each family, boys (and their offspring if any) have precedence over their sisters. So Princess Anne comes behind all three of her brothers and their children in the line of succession, even though she’s older than Andrew and Edward.
Finally, some countries use absolute primogeniture, where succession goes by birth order with no consideration for the child’s sex.
Many European monarchies that previously used Salic law have switched to male or absolute primogeniture as an acknowledgement of the changing times. Norway had an odd switch… up till and including the current generation (King Harald and his two older sisters), succession was governed by Salic law. For the next generation (Crown Prince Haakon and his older sister), the rule is male primogeniture. For the following generation (Princess Ingrid Alexandra and her younger brother, and possible future siblings), absolute primogeniture will govern succession. This was done shortly before the death of Harald’s father, King Olav, as a way of bringing Norway’s monarchy more into line with its neighbors - Sweden already had absolute primogeniture and Denmark had male primogeniture - while acknowledging that the generations waiting to inherit weren’t exactly babies and it was hardly fair to change the rules they had lived under their whole lives. For the record, the older sisters involved voiced their approval of the decision. I don’t know if anybody asked the guys 
So you mean (if they hadn’t un-announced it) that theoretically, the British Isles might have ended up with a different King/Queen than the rest of the Commonwealth?
That’s just awesome!
The concept of monarchy comes fro an age when equality of the sexes didn’t exactly come high on anyone’s agenda, and as a tradition it has remained unchanged. Everyone knows it isn’t right in this day and age (and let’s face it, some of our finest monarchs - including the present incumbent - have been women), but the issue has not been a priority for at least 80 years, as in that time there hasn’t been a monarch’s daughter born before a monarch’s son (the present Queen being the eldest of two sisters, and the present heir having just two sons).
The issue pops up occasionally in Parliament and there’s certainly a feeling that the law should be changed before William gets married. There’s the issue of the law needing to be approved by all the countries that currently have our Queen as Head of State (about 16 countries, I think), which is a hassle when there’s more important things to sort out, like the economy, but it isn’t insurmountable. I can’t imagine any of these countries objecting to the change - it would be a pretty big insult to our current, and highly respected, Monarch to suggest that boy trumps girl, for starters.
No, I don’t believe that would happen, as the agreement is that these countries have the same Head of State as the UK. They don’t go picking and choosing whichever royal they fancy. But it would highly undiplomatic for them not to be consulted on a change. The more likely scenario would be that any country that objected would remove itself from the system entirely. Effectively becoming a republic (or making up their own Monarchy, whatever).
And I should add that the Queen is not Queen of the entire Commonwealth - she’s ‘Head’ of the Commonwealth, which includes some republics amongst its members (e.g. India). Think of her more like a Chairman.
Ok, gottcha.
Prince Charles was a prince by birth and took on the title of the Prince of Wales, so Diana should more properly have been referred to after the marriage as ‘Diana, Princess of Wales’. The media and public pressure soon made the Queen agree that the term Princess Diana was also acceptable.
No cites except my memory of media coverage at the time.
Diana was never offically “Princess Diana” as you only get to be “Princess Whatshername” if you are born a Princess - not by marriage - Princess Ann, Princess Beatrice, etc.
When she was married to Charles she was “Her Royal Highness, the Princess of Wales” (as well as being Duchess of various places!), after her divorce she lost the HRH and was styled Lady Diana, Princes of Wales on the instructions of the Queen. Both before and after the divorce “Princess Diana” or “Princess Di” was just popular labels much loved by the tabloid press.
Fair enough, but the Royals certainly stopped making a fuss about the use of ‘Princess Diana’ in the press when it quickly became obvious they couldn’t win. I had thought there was some sort of statement/official leak that it wasn’t right to say ‘Princess Diana’, but they wouldn’t object to the usage.
I agree that all official terminology used her proper title.
Thweet! (That’s a whistle, not a lisped ‘sweet’.) Yes Charles was born a prince, second in line for the throne at his birth. And he inherited the title of Duke of Cornwall at the age of 3 in 1952 when his grandfather, King George VI, died.
But he was created Prince of Wales in about 1970 – as have all previous Royal-heir Princes of Wales been. (Following a precedent set by his Uncle David, the ;late Duke of Windsor, je attended college in Wales for a year, learning language and history before his investiture.
I remember his Investiture quite well, thank you.
I don’t see an irreconcilable difference between ‘took on’ and ‘created’ in this case. He took on, or assumed, the title when he was created the PoW at his Investiture at Caernarvon Castle in 1969.
But maybe I could have thought a bit harder about terminology.
King consorts aren’t unheard of in British history. Mary I’s husband (the future Phillip II of Spain) was given the title “King of England”, but no real power. Likewise Mary, Queen of Scots first and second husbands (Francis II of France and Henry, Lord Darnley) were both made “King of Scots”. Spain and Portugal also granted the queen’s husband the title king if he sired children with her.
