|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Why doesn't the UK have King Consorts?
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
betjemaniac, I think you'll find that Queen Mary died a couple of months before the Coronation, not after. In any event, after George VI had died, so there were 3 queens alive at the same time.
My understanding is that there was quite a lot of doubt about the succession of Elizabeth I. Many of those concerned wanted a strong monarch to get rid of any claims Phillip may make, and as Elizabeth was a mere woman she may not have been up to the task.
HM is, of course, Duke of Lancaster, not Duchess. A Duchess of Lancaster would also be Queen Consort. AFAIK, Prince Phillip has no Lancaster title.
[ 01. March 2017, 10:34: Message edited by: Gee D ]
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
betjemaniac, I think you'll find that Queen Mary died a couple of months before the Coronation, not after. In any event, after George VI had died, so there were 3 queens alive at the same time.
My understanding is that there was quite a lot of doubt about the succession of Elizabeth I. Many of those concerned wanted a strong monarch to get rid of any claims Phillip may make, and as Elizabeth was a mere woman she may not have been up to the task.
HM is, of course, Duke of Lancaster, not Duchess. A Duchess of Lancaster would also be Queen Consort. AFAIK, Prince Phillip has no Lancaster title.
meant accession not coronation - again I can only plead lack of coffee!
--------------------
And is it true? For if it is....
Posts: 1481 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
Prince Philip's titles:
At birth - Prince Philip of Greece and Denmark, of the house of Glucksburg
He abandoned his Greek/Danish titles before he became engaged to HMQ and took the surname of Mountbatten from his maternal grandparents.
When George VI created Philip Duke of Edinburgh he also received the courtesy titles of Earl of Merioneth and Baron Greenwich; Merioneth was chosen probably because it was assumed his first son would have a long wait before his mother became Queen and the son then became Prince of Wales.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
Perhaps it was felt that kings consort was too continental and foreign as a concept, the examples of Spanish kings consort (Francisco de Asís, husband of Isabel II, and only possibly the father of her children) and the Portuguese Ferdinand II held up as examples of the instability of swarthier Europeans. And the example of Henry of Scotland (aka Lord Darnley) was rarely mentioned as an example to follow.
The abovementioned instances of the Crown being held in duality, owing to the nature of the political circumstances of the time, don't really apply to the idea of a king consort, as it is only really a title which one can apply (should one wish) to the human attachments of queens regnant.
It might be interesting to speculate on the title which we would use for the same-sex partner of a sovereign. A gay King George VII (e.g.) could have a prince consort, I suppose, or if not made a prince, just a simple Mr (or Sir) Karma Jones, the King's Consort. And a lesbian Victoria II could be married to Alberta, Princess Consort or just (Dame) Alberta Singh, the Queen's Consort. This could complicate succession factors in those Commonwealth realms which do not recognize same-sex marriage and still distinguish between legitimate and illegitimate, as any children of Victoria II would be illegitimate in those countries, and not eligible for the succession unless further legislation enabled this. In the same way, George VII could arrange for children to be born of surrogacy, but I think that even then some legislation would be required, either to legitimize them, or to permit the sovereign to legitimize them by instrument.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
A gay King George VII (e.g.) could have a prince consort
It has been rumoured, then denied, then rumoured, then denied, for years that Charles will be George VII, in which case your speculation could well come as an unwelcome shock to the Duchess of Cornwall!
--------------------
And is it true? For if it is....
Posts: 1481 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
I see a story that Prince Charles intends to have Camilla crowned Queen. IMO this is perfectly reasonable and historical.
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
I see a story that Prince Charles intends to have Camilla crowned Queen. IMO this is perfectly reasonable and historical.
In much the same way that she *is* the Princess of Wales, but everyone (them included) keeps very quiet about the fact...
--------------------
And is it true? For if it is....
Posts: 1481 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
In the same way, George VII could arrange for children to be born of surrogacy, but I think that even then some legislation would be required, either to legitimize them, or to permit the sovereign to legitimize them by instrument.
Under current law, the crown may only be inherited by the heirs of the body of Electress Sophia of Hanover.
My understanding is that heirs of the body are still required to be legitimate, so children of unmarried royals are excluded from the succession.
Children of a male royal born to a surrogate are clearly not legitimate under present law, and so excluded from the succession.
Children of a female royal who is married to another woman might be a more interesting case, but I think still excluded under current law; I think a legitimate child must be the biological child of a man and a woman who are married to each other.
The fact that the legal parents at birth of a royal child could be his or her married lesbian mothers doesn't, I think, cause that child to be legitimate.
(Legitimacy in English law is only relevant to the inheritance of royal and noble titles, I think.)
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
I am sure if the question of legitimacy arises, the law could be changed - as the rules on succession already have been (since 2015 the order has been changed from male-order primogeniture to absolute progeniture, ie the first-born regardless of biological sex is first in line).
Or they could just follow tradition and punt the crown down the line to the next person. We've had monarchs dying without heirs of the(ir own) body before and always managed to work something out. Richard I, for example...
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
I think that legislation would be required for the scenarios which I have outlined, if only to clarify the situation. Canadian law does not currently address legitimacy questions with respect to hereditary titles (the patents or writs might well be justiciable questions) although in the UK courtesy titles are used for children by surrogacy of peers even if they do not succeed; and, in any case, succession to the Crown is determined as by law and is automatic only within that.
However, it would likely be the reality of Victoria II, whether diesel or femme, which would likely drive her premiers to gather and devise a solution to lay in front of her sixteen national parliaments to regulate succession by surrogacy or through donor insemination. The problem is that currently there might be a Caribbean government or two without as much sympathy as others and so her consort might have different titles with respect to different realms (Dame Alberta Singh in perhaps Saint Lucia, but the Princess Consort in Barbados or the Queen Consort in New Zealand).
A quick chat with one of my constitutional lawyer friends (who was really intrigued about them, and has also suggested that we explore the possibility that a non-binary person might inherit-- perhaps that's for another thread) suggests that (Canadian) Charter considerations would trump (oh!) current provisions. For this reason, as well, we would need legislation to clarify. To further complicate things, they are one of those who hold that the Charter trumps the Act for the Protestant Succession as there is no notwithstanding clause; otherwise a possible RC claimant in the line could bring an action (the Rouleau case determined an action on this can only be brought by a directly affected party).
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
Or they could just follow tradition and punt the crown down the line to the next person. We've had monarchs dying without heirs of the(ir own) body before and always managed to work something out. Richard I, for example...
Yes, of course, and under current law, that's what would happen. So if we imagine that (say) Prince George of Cambridge marries a man, he may have children, but they will not qualify as heirs of his body, and so Princess Charlotte will remain his heir.
The succession doesn't have to pass to heirs of the body of the previous monarch. It passes to the heirs of the body of Sophia of Hanover. (You don't have to go back to Richard I: George IV, William IV, and Edward VIII are all examples of kings who were succeeded by someone who wasn't an heir of their body (two brothers and a niece.)
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
What is the significance (political, legal, religious, or otherwise) of crowning a Queen Consort, but not a Prince Consort, at a Coronation?
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
I am sure if the question of legitimacy arises, the law could be changed - as the rules on succession already have been (since 2015 the order has been changed from male-order primogeniture to absolute progeniture, ie the first-born regardless of biological sex is first in line).
Not quite as simple as that, and at least as complex as AtheA writes of. The legislation would be needed in all the realms, not just the UK. Here, there would need to be legislation from each of the States to authorise the federal parliament to legislate. That is because each State has its own relationship directly with HM, in contrast to Canadian provinces.
If you think that's simple, just look at the very recent history of the change from male-preferene primogeniture to primogeniture. The Queensland government did not like the otherwise agreed legislation and wanted to pass its own, flawed though it was and quite likely ineffective in giving the necessary power. The general primacy of federal legislation covering the field (a technical term, yes it is) would clearly not apply.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Phantom Flan Flinger
Shipmate
# 8891
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
It might be interesting to speculate on the title which we would use for the same-sex partner of a sovereign. A gay King George VII (e.g.) could have a prince consort, I suppose,
Or a queen consort ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
--------------------
http://www.faith-hope-and-confusion.com/
Posts: 1020 | From: Leicester, England | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
In the cases of Edward II and James VI& I the usual euphemism has been 'favourites'.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
Leorning Cniht: quote:
You don't have to go back to Richard I...
I know that (none of Henry VIII's children had heirs of the body either, to take another example) but several historians have speculated that Richard I was gay. There is of course no way of finding out for certain without a TARDIS.
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
What is the significance (political, legal, religious, or otherwise) of crowning a Queen Consort, but not a Prince Consort, at a Coronation?
Likely none at all unless we can work one up. The basic coronation rite was devised by Saint Dunstan in Anglo-Saxon times, when the idea of a queen regnant was not key to the concept of a ruler. However, any constitutional lawyer or liturgical analyst worth their salt (or fee) could easily work one up.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
american piskie
Shipmate
# 593
|
Posted
I do wish folks would remember that "the UK" is not a fancy way of saying "England". The Scots surely had Kings Consort; Henry Darnley and all that. My vague recollection is that a crowned spouse of a queen regnant who had borne a child to said spouse became king on the death of the queen. I also seem to recall that this was also the theory in England, and that King Philip would have succeeded on Mary's death if there had been children. But my recollections of history lessons in the 1950s are no doubt all astray.
Posts: 356 | From: Oxford, England, UK | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
Leorning Cniht, it has never been the case that to inherit the crown you have to be an heir of the body of the previous sovereign. For that to be the case, it would mean starting a fresh line of succession each time the monarch died.
It is possible that the fundamental rule is that descent passes to the heir of the person last seised under rules that applied to real property until the early C19. These are quite complex but the circumstances where they would change very much from what one might expect are rare. An inaccurate summary is that one cannot inherit through a person who was never seised or entitled to inherit as such a person. So in tracing backwards and then down to collaterals, one only goes back through the royal line of descent.
Although originally one had to be descended from Cerdic, I think you're probably right that now one also has to be descended from the Electress Sophia. One also has to be a Prod. I don't know who is regarded as the Scottish equivalent of Cerdic, but there are a sufficient number of Prod descendants of the Electress for the point to be immaterial.
The significant issue, though, is that if I'm right on the 'last seised' point, the present Queen succeeded because she was the heir according to those rules of George VI, not the Electress. It isn't only because he had abdicated that the Duke of Windsor's claim did not revive when his brother died.
For the really technically arcane, co-parcenary does not apply to the Crown. If anyone really is sufficiently batty to be interested, look that one up.
As Prince George of Denmark and the Prince Consort both died before their wives, the argument about whether a widower succeeds in advance of his son or daughter has never arisen since the union of the Crowns. I've never heard it argued that it could apply to the Duke of Edinburgh.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
No, the requirement for the monarch to be Protestant was removed in 2015, placing Prince Michael of Kent and his heirs back in the line of succession and making it virtually certain that at some point in the future the C of E will be disestablished.
american piskie: quote:
I do wish folks would remember that "the UK" is not a fancy way of saying "England". The Scots surely had Kings Consort; Henry Darnley and all that. My vague recollection is that a crowned spouse of a queen regnant who had borne a child to said spouse became king on the death of the queen.
That's true, but 'the UK' is not a fancy way of saying 'Scotland' either. And Henry Darnley would not have become King of Scots in his own right if the Queen had died before him; that required Mary's consent, and as they were estranged fairly quickly after the marriage she refused to give it.
[ 03. March 2017, 09:19: Message edited by: Jane R ]
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
For the really technically arcane, co-parcenary does not apply to the Crown. If anyone really is sufficiently batty to be interested, look that one up.
Estates tail were abolished in NSW by the Conveyancing Act 1919, so co-parcenary has ceased to be relevant. Not sure about other States.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
american piskie
Shipmate
# 593
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
american piskie: quote:
I do wish folks would remember that "the UK" is not a fancy way of saying "England". The Scots surely had Kings Consort; Henry Darnley and all that. My vague recollection is that a crowned spouse of a queen regnant who had borne a child to said spouse became king on the death of the queen.
That's true, but 'the UK' is not a fancy way of saying 'Scotland' either. And Henry Darnley would not have become King of Scots in his own right if the Queen had died before him; that required Mary's consent, and as they were estranged fairly quickly after the marriage she refused to give it.
My recollection was indeed a bit defective, thanks. I have now refreshed my mind on the provisions of the English Treason Act of 1554, and see that King Philip, had Queen Mary died leaving a child, would have gone on being King until the child became 18 (m) or married (f).
Posts: 356 | From: Oxford, England, UK | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Leorning Cniht, it has never been the case that to inherit the crown you have to be an heir of the body of the previous sovereign. For that to be the case, it would mean starting a fresh line of succession each time the monarch died.
Yes, that's what I've been saying. But you do have to be an heir of the body of Sophia of Hanover, which means being an heir of the body of one of the heirs of her body.
quote:
Although originally one had to be descended from Cerdic, I think you're probably right that now one also has to be descended from the Electress Sophia.
Yes - 1701 Act of Succession, with the other possibilities listed in that act being extinct. In the unlikely event of Sophia's line becoming extinct, new legislation would be necessary.
quote:
The significant issue, though, is that if I'm right on the 'last seised' point, the present Queen succeeded because she was the heir according to those rules of George VI, not the Electress. It isn't only because he had abdicated that the Duke of Windsor's claim did not revive when his brother died.
I'm trying to think whether there's a difference between your chain of seisin and the ordered list of heirs of the body of Sophia of Hanover. And I think the answer is no. I don't think it matters whether there's one reason or two why the Duke of Windsor's claim did not revive - the question is whether you can construct a scenario where the different rules produce a different ranking of claimants. And I think you can only obtain a difference if you allow temporary abdications.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by american piskie:
I do wish folks would remember that "the UK" is not a fancy way of saying "England". The Scots surely had Kings Consort; Henry Darnley and all that. My vague recollection is that a crowned spouse of a queen regnant who had borne a child to said spouse became king on the death of the queen. I also seem to recall that this was also the theory in England, and that King Philip would have succeeded on Mary's death if there had been children. But my recollections of history lessons in the 1950s are no doubt all astray.
My apoligies re: the UK. I was hesitant to say UK in the thread title for this very reason but used it because currently Elizabeth II is styled the Queen of the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and of her other Realms and Territories," etc. In the OP I talked about English history and not Scottish history though, and I apologize.
If Wikipedia is to be trusted, which very well may not be the case, neither Philip of Spain or Darnley were entitled to claim the throne after the death of their spouse (although Darnley infamously did not outlive Mary, Queen of Scots).
See:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Act_for_the_Marriage_of_Queen_Mary_to_Philip_of_Spain
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown_Matrimonial
and
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Stuart,_Lord_Darnley#Estrangement
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
I'm confused - is someone alleging that the line of succession to the Scottish Crown could even today be different to the line of succession to the English Crown? I thought that since the Act of Union there would be one Kingdom and therefore one law for succession. But I know very, very little about the law in general, let alone English and Scottish law.
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
wabale
Shipmate
# 18715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by american piskie:
I have now refreshed my mind on the provisions of the English Treason Act of 1554, and see that King Philip, had Queen Mary died leaving a child, would have gone on being King until the child became 18 (m) or married (f).
Hi, american piskie. I am incredibly impressed that you can have a knowledge of the English Treason Act of 1554, even if it had to be refreshed! Having tried to refresh my own memory – I tutored several young people on this period of English History about 8 years ago – I can't quite get my head round this and the Marriage Act in the same year, let alone what a realm consisting of England, Ireland and the 17 Hapsburg provinces of the Netherlands would have looked like. But I am fairly confident the one thing Mary's advisers didn't define in detail was the role of Philip as King, however it might appear on Acts of Parliament. My understanding is that Philip was, in practice, to be her adviser, and one of many. He was to be co-ruler, but in theory only. The limits of his power can be seen in the fact that his one major piece of advice, not to press ahead with a vigorous campaign of prosecutions of Protestant heretics, was ignored by Mary and later by the man who became her main adviser, Cardinal Reginald Pole. Had, on the other hand, Mary died leaving Philip 'holding the baby', Mary's advisers seem to have been diplomatically vague about where, exactly, that would leave Philip.
Posts: 74 | From: Essex, United Kingdom | Registered: Jan 2017
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
I'm confused - is someone alleging that the line of succession to the Scottish Crown could even today be different to the line of succession to the English Crown? I thought that since the Act of Union there would be one Kingdom and therefore one law for succession. But I know very, very little about the law in general, let alone English and Scottish law.
IIRC neither the English nor the Scottish crowns exist, with the Scottish crown continues to manifest itself in court and ecclesiastical proceedings. I was once told by a scholar of Irish law that this was why, on the death of George VI, the crown was not held jointly by Elizabeth and Margaret (a theory I've never heard of in any other context) as Scottish law would require.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
My memory is that there were still 2 crowns after the Acts of 1707 despite the union of the 2 countries into 1, but a side effect of the 1800 Act was to create 1 crown for the United Kingdom. But don't take that as gospel. Now, of course, there is a separate crown for each of the Commonwealth realms, and hence the need for uniform legislation to cover succession. restrictions upon the religion of the monarch's spouse etc.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
M.
Ship's Spare Part
# 3291
|
Posted
I believe there was a case taken through the courts at the Queen's accession to determine whether she was Queen Elizabeth II of England etc but Queen Elizabeth I of Scotland, the answer being, just Queen Elizabeth II.
My memory might be playing tricks of course.
M.
Posts: 2303 | From: Lurking in Surrey | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
american piskie
Shipmate
# 593
|
Posted
Court case or not, the E II R stuff certainly led to post boxes in Scotland with the new logo being blown up. I seem to recall that Her Gracious Majesty had the good taste to sign the bible she presented to Crathie Church (her parish church) simply Elizabeth R.
Posts: 356 | From: Oxford, England, UK | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
That is her usual formal signature. No II in it.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
simontoad
Ship's Amphibian
# 18096
|
Posted
Stonespring, as far as I am concerned you and indeed any American from any region are most welcome to express interest in the governance of Great Britain and the Commonwealth of Nations.
Wouldn't it be lovely if you were able to put your questions to an expert on the Royal Family such as Terry Devlin, Royal Correspondent for the Armstrong and Miller Show. It is worth watching to the end ![[Yipee]](graemlins/spin.gif)
--------------------
Human
Posts: 1571 | From: Romsey, Vic, AU | Registered: May 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
No, the requirement for the monarch to be Protestant was removed in 2015, placing Prince Michael of Kent and his heirs back in the line of succession and making it virtually certain that at some point in the future the C of E will be disestablished.
If you look at the Succession to the Crown Act 2103 (UK), you will see that what has been removed is the bar upon marriage to a Papist; there has been no alteration to the requirement that the heir cannot be one. That could not be changed while the UK monarch remains Supreme Governor of the C of E. Given the need to have the same person occupy the throne of the other Commonwealth realms, that bar was not removed in those countries either.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by M.:
I believe there was a case taken through the courts at the Queen's accession to determine whether she was Queen Elizabeth II of England etc but Queen Elizabeth I of Scotland, the answer being, just Queen Elizabeth II.
My memory might be playing tricks of course.
There was a court case—MacCormick v. Lord Advocate—but it was dismissed, and the dismissal was upheld.
According to the linked article, it was Churchill's suggestion that was followed. A monarch would use the number that would be highest as between England and Scotland. So a new King James would be James VIII, even though England has only had two Jameses, because Scotland had seven. Likewise, a King David would be David II, and a King Henry would be Henry IX. And Elizabeth is Elizabeth II.
[ 04. March 2017, 11:31: Message edited by: Nick Tamen ]
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
Meanwhile, I am reminded of Lord Steele's opening address at the opening of the Scottish Parliament in 1999, when he said: "It is good that today, once again, we the elected representatives of the people are able to welcome your majesty, not only as Queen of the United Kingdom, but seated as you are among us, to greet you in the historic and constitutionally correct manner, with warmth and affection, as Queen of Scots."
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas Aus
Shipmate
# 15869
|
Posted
Gee D wrote:
quote:
HM is, of course, Duke of Lancaster, not Duchess.
And also Duke of Normandy, as we discovered on visiting Guernsey in 2011, the Channel Islands being the remnant of the dukedom.
Posts: 375 | From: Hunter Valley NSW | Registered: Sep 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I thought it was due to the William-an-Mary joint thingamejig. It caused such a mess that we now only have one Monarch at a time and having someone near the top with a confusing title "King" would mess up all the legislation which talks about the King and Crown interchangeably.
I'm not sure why having a Queen-consort doesn't mess with the legislation, possibly because King is the default term and Queen is the alternate.
The William and Mary business worked reasonably well. William wasn't exactly well liked but he was one of the ablest statesmen of his day and his lack of title to the throne meant he couldn't use his abilities to subvert the constitution.
The problem is more to do with the fact that whilst the monarch is de jure ruler of the UK all Queens of England have, hitherto, taken an oath to obey their husband. Like Desdemona they have, therefore, a divided duty. The diminishment of the husband's status is, therefore, necessary to make it apparent to everyone that the Queen had the right and duty to act in the interests of the realm and against her husband's urgings, should it be necessary.
So Philip of Spain got to be King subject to a detailed treaty which limited his power (and meant that any issue would have also got to be Duke of Burgundy as well as K of E) and William the Deliverer got to be King as he was basically what Parliament wanted and the marriage to Mary was a convenient legal fiction. Queen Anne's husband, George of Denmark was an amiable non-entity, so there was no question of his becoming King. The Prince Consort was distrusted as being a foreigner and Victoria was a comparatively young woman, both of which were considerations in leading Lord Melbourne to advise that the title of King Consort not be offered to Albert. This seems to have set the precedent for Elizabeth II. The first Elizabeth ducked the question completely by remaining single.
Barring some kind of catastrophe there is not likely to be a Queen Regnant for the century after Elizabeth's death. By which time it is possible either that the United Kingdom no longer exists as a unitary state or has become a Republic. If George's oldest girl scoops the pot she might feel moved to suggest that her husband becomes King Consort. But that theoretical possibility hardly seems worth being concerned about.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
... William the Deliverer got to be King as he was basically what Parliament wanted and the marriage to Mary was a convenient legal fiction. ...
Up to a point Lord Callan.
William was also of Stuart descent. Charles I was the grandfather of both him and Mary. Mary, though, as the daughter of James the VII and II had a better claim than anyone else at the time except James who had jumped ship and the baby in the warming pan - hence the story about the warming pan. And both of them were Papists.
It was essential to keeping what were about to become the Tories on side that Mary, as the Prod with the best claim, be queen. The convenient legal fiction wasn't her taking her father's throne. It was allowing William's Stuart blood to let him be king. It was the price of getting him over, but it also meant that he remained king after 1694. Anne did not succeed then but when he died in 1702.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
Bless his heart.
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
I found Prince Henrik's stance a bit odd, as the Danes have never AFAIK had a King Consort-- in any case, such a decision would have to be a governmental matter rather than Queen Margret's decision. Perhaps he had a fit of self-promoting egalitarianism?
As the most recent European example of a King Consort was Queen Isabella's consort Francis, I'm not sure that this would be a precedent one would want to emulate.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
They've never had a King Consort because this is the first Queen in about 600 years.
[ 13. August 2017, 22:36: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
Prince Henrik has been a pain in the neck for years. He has a habit of ranting on about not being made King which has become a bit of a joke in Denmark.
From the beginning he's been in a sulk about not being titled "King Consort", yet has done little to endear himself to the Danes. First, he decided that learning the language was not a priority and to this day his linguistic howlers are a national joke. Then he has constantly claimed to be the only person married to a queen not called Prince Consort, conveniently forgetting our own Prince Philip has never been so titled. There have been various scandals about his womanising and dodgy business dealings over the years, and he didn't do his cause any favours when he decided he was "too ill" to take in part in Queen Margrethe's 75th birthday celebrations but then left on a junket to Venice with some of his buddies.
As for why the UK doesn't have King Consorts, well, the record of men marrying queens of England/the UK isn't great.
Geoffrey of Anjou supported Matilda in protecting Normandy but gave her little help in England.
Philip II of Spain was always rumoured to be more interested in Elizabeth than in Mary Tudor, his wife, and his insistence of bringing his mistress to England with him at the time of their marriage doesn't speak well...
William III may have been "invited" to take the crown but is was his wife's rather than his. And although he restricted himself to one mistress - stark contrast to his father-in-law - it was always rumoured that his eagerness to consummate his marriage with Mary (just 15 at the time of the wedding) led to medical complications causing their childlessness.
While Queen Anne and George of Denmark were a devoted couple, and he himself never sought the title, an attempt by friends to get him named as King Consort was seen off. As for Victoria and Albert, he was viewed as an interfering foreigner and for most of her subjects it was only after his death that his true worth was appreciated.
And that brings us to our present Queen and Philip who had to wait more than 20 years to get to the position where his female descendants could have the name "Mountbatten" tacked onto the front of Windsor for a surname.
I think male consorts are always going to be viewed with suspicion, on-the-make or achieving by hanging onto their wife's coat-tails; in any case, as time goes on it becomes irrelevant.
[ 15. August 2017, 12:13: Message edited by: L'organist ]
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
From the beginning he's been in a sulk about not being titled "King Consort", yet has done little to endear himself to the Danes. First, he decided that learning the language was not a priority and to this day his linguistic howlers are a national joke. Then he has constantly claimed to be the only person married to a queen not called Prince Consort, conveniently forgetting our own Prince Philip has never been so titled.
William III may have been "invited" to take the crown but is was his wife's rather than his. And although he restricted himself to one mistress - stark contrast to his father-in-law - it was always rumoured that his eagerness to consummate his marriage with Mary (just 15 at the time of the wedding) led to medical complications causing their childlessness.
I don't think you're 100% correct in claiming Prince Phillip as your own; he's about 6% yours and the same amount ours, the Canadians, New Zealandrs and all the other Commonwealth monarchies. We're caught with him until the happy day when we become a republic
I did not know about any mistress for William III. I had long understood him as having a liking for the then equivalent of young guardees. It seems much more likely to me that the inability to have children was related to the same problem as affected Anne. I can't remember how many still births and miscarriages she had, let alone children dying in their very early years.
From memory, the oldest child only made it to 11 or 12.
[ 15. August 2017, 12:27: Message edited by: Gee D ]
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
William III had one mistress - Elizabeth Villiers and a number of close male friends with whom he may or may not have been sexually involved. I incline to the view that he probably wasn't - it was, after all the Jacobites who had a vested interest in bringing him down who promoted the rumour, and I can see that if one's standard of heterosexuality is the Restoration monarchy then William clearly fell short!
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
William III had one mistress - Elizabeth Villiers and a number of close male friends with whom he may or may not have been sexually involved. I incline to the view that he probably wasn't - it was, after all the Jacobites who had a vested interest in bringing him down who promoted the rumour, and I can see that if one's standard of heterosexuality is the Restoration monarchy then William clearly fell short!
As Charles II produced 6 dukes, an earl, and a countess, to populate the House of Lords, it is unfortunate that future monarchs did not follow with such energy his programme to recruit members of the legislature from diverse backgrounds.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
Thanks Callan - any reading on Elizabeth Villiers that you can quickly suggest please?
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
As I recall, WIlliam outdid even James VI and I in the number of handsome young male courtiers he promoted to the House of Lord. The Dukes of Portland and Devonshire among them. Obviously Charles II had the advantage in producing offspring with his paramours.
John
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
As I recall, WIlliam outdid even James VI and I in the number of handsome young male courtiers he promoted to the House of Lord. The Dukes of Portland and Devonshire among them. Obviously Charles II had the advantage in producing offspring with his paramours.
I don't know anything about the Portlands, but the Cavendishes got promoted to their dukedom as a reward for backing William and Mary's accession. His commitment was quite literally at the level of putting his neck on the line. Had the invasion failed, he would have been unlikely to have got away without being executed.
He was also nearly 50. Hardly a 'handsome young male courtier'.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
IIRC, the principal beneficiaries were a couple of his Dutch contingent: Bentinck, who became Earl of Portland, the earldom; and Keppel who became Earl of Albermarle. Both titles later were raised by someone else to a dukedom.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
