Under English law, the wife of a king automatically becomes queen consort. And there have been cases, such as Caroline of Brunswick and Wallis Simpson, when it would have made things so much simpler if this had not been the case. Changing this would require an Act of Parliament. Moreover, the issue is a topical one, as there is no doubt that the Duchess of Cornwall will legally become queen consort when Charles becomes king, even although she has said that she will not want to be referred to as such. Just as she currently doesn’t use the title ‘Princess of Wales’.
Statute or caselaw plz. AFAICR while the consort is automatically…the consort, the specific style that is used upto the King. Which is why when Charles married Camilla it was announced that she would upon his accession be known as “Princess Consort”.
Remember this and these are “courtesy titles” not titles in their own right,
I know it would never happen, but I wish it would. “Hello, I’m King Charles III* and this is my wife, The Old Ball and Chain Camilla.”
*or George VIII, depending on how he feels when he ascends the throne
VII
Caroline of Brunswick was still Queen Consort. Even though she and George IV were estranged, they never divorced. Wallis Simpson didn’t marry Edward VIII until AFTER he abdicated. Her husband was no longer a king, so she couldn’t be a queen.
No, Catherine the Great was Catherine II. She was a princess from a minor German principality. We’re talking about Catherine I.
D’oh! I knew that. I have on my fridge a magnet of the St. Petersburg Bronze Horseman with the inscription “Petro Primo Catharina Secunda MDCCLXXXII”. :smack:
It’s common to use a person’s highest title. “Duke of Edinburgh” is a higher title than “Prince Philip.” The same way that “Duke of York” is higher than “Prince Andrew” and “Earl of Wessex” is higher than “Prince Edward” and “Duke of Cambridge” is higher than “Prince William.” Also, “Prince of Wales,” “Duke of Rothesay,” and “Duke of Cornwall” are all higher than “Prince Charles.” (The “prince” in “Prince of Wales” is a different kind of prince than the “prince” in "Prince Charles, like Fürst versus Prinz.)
To be entirely accurate, NOBODY is styled “Queen Consort” or, excepting Alfred, Prince Conaort, or anything Regnant for that matter. We use the terms queen consort and queen regnant to distinguishim explanations between two groups that share the style Queen, i.e., kings’ wives and monarchs who are women.
What’s a George between friends?
(Misread the Wiki page–I can’t remember how many of which names the monarchs of England have except for the Queens.)
Which simply states the powers and privileges of the Royal Family. It does not state the “style” that is given to them which is at the monarchs discretion.
For example currently by Royal Warrant of George V, the children of a monarch are styled as Princes/Princesses as well as the grandchildren in the male line. Which is why Princess Anne’s children are not simply Mr and Miss despite being very much royal family and in the case of Zara Philips, carrying out royal duties.
The Queen could by a new warrant, grant Anne’s children a title, but she has not done so (apparently she did want to when Peter Phillips was born, but Anne refused).
Yes. And Prince is a very ambiguous term, having several meanings in English, and also used to translate foreign words of different meanings. Any sovereign ruler is a “prince” (cf. Machiavelli). In English “prince” can also be a generic word for any nobleman of rank Count/Earl or higher (is this meaning obsolescent?).
In German, Fürst (Prince) is distinct from Gefürsteter Graf (princely count). All other things being equal, I think German Herzog (Duke) outranked Fürst but German noble ranks are so confusing even the experts disagree on generalities.
In England, “Prince of Wales” is a very high rank – higher than Duke. Indeed, before their conquest by England, a “Prince of Wales” was an overlord to whom “Kings” pledged fealty.
Quite simply, the Royal Sovereignty is indivisible (British constitutional history tends to try and forget the exception of William III and Mary II). Elizabeth II is Queen Regnant - she is Queen by being the eldest child (in the absence of sons) of Her father, George VI, so sovereignty passed to Her alone.
Prince Philip married Elizabeth II, and has no claim to royal Sovereignty. So he remains merely Her companion - Her Consort.
If, however, it had been the other way round, and Philip had been the son and heir of the previous monarch, then he would be King, and his wife Elizabeth would be Queen Consort. But through centuries of use and lots of sexism there are connotations to the world King different from those of the word Queen. A King is assumed to be the superior of the partnership; a Queen is assumed to be inferior. To make it abundantly clear who’s in charge, a Consort to a female monarch cannot be called a King.
Note that in some countries, women were never allowed to be high title-holders. A German Duchess, for example, was always a wife (or other relative) of the title-holding Duke, never a “Duke” in her own right.
This is why one of Queen Elizabeth’s auxiliary titles is Duke (not Duchess) of Normandy. I’m not sure, but the title may be more than a pretense – Her Majesty is sovereign of the Bailiwicks of Guernsey and Jersey – residues of Normandy – which are not part of the U.K.: they even have their own high-level Internet country codes.
Was the Queen Mum the first to hold that title? What was Queen Victoria’s mother called?
Have previous kings had to issue warrants granting their wives the title of “Queen”, or has it just been assumed?
She’s also Duke of Lancaster, which is very much part of the UK.
It’s automatic. Queens have long been titled thus by virtue of being married to a King, and are normally crowned alongside the King, if they were married before he ascended the throne.
Let’s not forget that the idea of a Queen ruling in her own name was virtually unimaginable for long periods of history, with extremely rare exceptions. A Queen was always the wife of a king.
She wasn’t the first, but is probably the most memorable since she, like the sovereign, was Queen Elizabeth and needed to be distinguished from her.
Further: Victoria’s mother was not the Queen Mother because she was not a Queen - she was the wife of one of the King’s younger brothers, and all the elder brothers died without (legitimate) issue, leaving Victoria to inherit (since her father was also dead).