Ship of Fools: Why doesn't the UK have King Consorts?

Thread: Why doesn't the UK have King Consorts? Board: Purgatory / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=020099

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :

Forgive this Yankee for sticking his nose into questions of the monarchy, but I am curious why, given the recent legislation allowing for gender-neutral primogeniture going forward in terms of succession to the Crown of the United Kingdom, why the possibility of King Consorts has not also been discussed. To clarify, although King Consort might not be a formal title in most places, I mean it to be the equivalent of a Queen consort who is married to a King Regnant. When there is a Queen Regnant (like Victoria or Elizabeth II), her spouse has been called a Prince Consort (although technically only Prince Albert was officially called Prince Consort, at least according to Wikipedia). Victoria wanted to name Albert King Consort but her advisers told her not to.

Like with a Queen Consort, if there is a King Consort the Queen regnant died the surviving widower King (you can't say King dowager, can you!) would not be able to claim the crown in his own right or to get the descendants of whomever he might marry later in life worked into the line of succession and the Crown would instead go to his and the Queen's eldest child or whomever was next in the line of succession.

Although Queen Mary I's husband Phillip of Spain and Queen Mary II's husband William of Orange were co-monarchs and not King Consorts, I think one reason King Consorts are frowned upon in the UK is that there is the unpleasant memory of Queen Mary I's marriage to King Phillip II what with the Reformation and the later history with the Spanish Armada when Elizabeth I was Queen. In addition, given the history of de facto inequality of the sexes, there may be the worry that even with de jure gender equality with Queen Consorts and King Consorts, a King Consort might still try to make the most of the "King" title to try to assert political authority proper to the Sovereign and not to a consort. Indeed, Elizabeth II's alleged desire to seek Prince Philip's approval for various familial decisions early in her reign was controversial precisely for this reason.

Finally, there is the issue (correct me if I am wrong here - I am not sure where I read this) of the historical difference in definitions between "King" and "Queen." There was a time in which a Queen Regnant was considered to technically be not so much a Queen that was Sovereign but a female King (or female "Prince," where Prince means monarch). Only Kings could be Sovereign, according to this usage, so calling a female sovereign Queen in everyday language was merely a way of avoiding gender confusion. This would mean also that a person could not have the title King in any way without in some way being at least co-monarch, if not entitled to all the power of his spouse. Now, this is a pretty sexist and outdated way of using language (if I am even right about this), so I do not know if it is relevant now, but you do know how experts on the monarchy might fret about such things.

So what do you think? Does it seem fair that the female spouse of a King gets to be Queen but the male spouse of a Queen only gets to be a Prince? Could it be changed such that the male spouse of a Queen gets to be King Consort or would it never work? Would such a change even be desirable if it were possible?

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

It's all bollocks anyway. Call 'em what you like; I do.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
Finally, there is the issue (correct me if I am wrong here - I am not sure where I read this) of the historical difference in definitions between "King" and "Queen." There was a time in which a Queen Regnant was considered to technically be not so much a Queen that was Sovereign but a female King (or female "Prince," where Prince means monarch). Only Kings could be Sovereign, according to this usage, so calling a female sovereign Queen in everyday language was merely a way of avoiding gender confusion. This would mean also that a person could not have the title King in any way without in some way being at least co-monarch, if not entitled to all the power of his spouse.

Historical example: Jadwiga (Hedwig) of Poland was considered a female king rather than a queen.

quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
So what do you think? Does it seem fair that the female spouse of a King gets to be Queen but the male spouse of a Queen only gets to be a Prince?

Fair?!? There are many words that can be used to describe hereditary monarchy, but "fair" does not seem to be one of them. The whole idea is to privilege a certain family as heads of state in perpetuity. Fiddling about with terms of address for the person providing the non-royal genes to craft the next monarch seems to miss the whole point of the institution.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

You'll be aware, Stonespring, that attitudes to the Monarchy in the UK vary from the sychophantic to the indifferent to the hostile and all points in between.

FWIW, I went from being very antagonistic towards them as a kid/teenager to being mildly positive about them - they do a good 'job' overall, but it could be argued whether it's a job that needs doing in the first place.

But given a choice between the Monarchy and The Donald, I know which I'd choose ...

On the King Consort thing. Well yes, I suspect you're right. It'll have something to do with Mary Tudor and King Philip of Spain and also William and Mary. As for Parliament's sniffiness towards Prince Albert ... Well, I suspect that was down to a number of jingoistic factors and also some kind of half-baked concern that because Albert was German might just conceivably turn out to be a closet Papist or at least liable to be turned that way ... Lots of Catholics in Bavaria dontcha know ...

But the historians here will put us straight on that.

Meanwhile, the arcane workings of the Monarchy tends not to exercise our concern unduly.

Posted by wabale (# 18715) on :

The case of Philip ll of Spain is an interesting one. Despite being crowned King of England alongside Queen Mary in Winchester Cathedral, he is rarely mentioned on lists of English monarchs. He was, briefly, something of a moderating figure on the Queen's Council when it came to religious policy, in contrast to Mary who was somewhat over-zealous in trying to reverse all the anti-papal measures of her brother Edward Vl and her father Henry Vlll. There is, I believe, some evidence that what set some of the English against Philip and Spain was not so much dislike of the Inquisition or Philip's religious views but rather the news of Spanish atrocities among the native peoples of the New World – some of the Conquistadors had been publishing their memoirs! But the long war between England and Spain that began around 1587, and did not end until the beginning of James l's reign, was surely the main reason why Philip was removed from 'English History'.

I rather think the technical problem involved in the idea of 'Kingship' which you mention would not have been as important as the practical ones. People wanted a strong monarchy, and had Mary lived longer no doubt suitable formulae would have emerged to define Philip's role more precisely. After all Elizabeth managed to invent new ways of running her council and her court which went against many of the rules and conventions which assumed the monarch was male. At the beginning of their reigns, both Mary (who had a consort) and Elizabeth (who didn't) must have given nightmares to the designers of The Great Seal of England, which normally featured a mounted King in armour wielding a sword.

One other point, which I think demonstrates the primacy of practical politics over legal traditions: Elizabeth's 'Supremacy' over the Church of England was far more effective in practice than Henry's 'Headship'. For example the important decisions about the Church Settlement in 1559 were made personally by Elizabeth, not by Parliament or even William Cecil. So much for the unique qualities of male 'Kingship'!

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

In Patricia Wrede's dragon novels, IIRC, the dragon titles of king and queen are simply job titles, with no assigned gender. Just depends on what work the particular dragon is going to do.

[ 28. February 2017, 23:55: Message edited by: Golden Key ]

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :

quote:
Originally posted by wabale:
But the long war between England and Spain that began around 1587, and did not end until the beginning of James l's reign, was surely the main reason why Philip was removed from 'English History'.

Someone correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that I saw a portrait of Philip in the gallery of monarchs in one of the rooms in the Houses of Parliament when I was in London 6 years ago.

Posted by Stercus Tauri (# 16668) on :

A long time ago I asked my mother - a good amateur historian - about why we had a prince consort instead of a king, but my memory must have erased most of her well detailed answer. I think it may have been because of the need to keep foreign consorts in their places. She could have recreated that answer right up to the time she died last year, complete with references and footnotes. I'll see what I can find, though - it's an interesting question.

I like the monarchy the same way I like steam locomotives. They are anachronistic in the modern world and we don't really need them, but immensely charming, and they add character to an excessively rationalised world.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

Once upon a time there was a society-wide belief that a woman's husband would automatically gain authority over her and over whatever she had authority over--and therefore queens regnant and their advisors were much exercised to avoid this problem. I rather suspect that the use of "prince" rather than "king" is a way of reminding everybody just who holds the power. After all, in some senses almost anybody can be a "prince," including women and junior members of the family as well as princes of the church etc. But the same is not true of the term "king" (at least in English), by and large.

Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :

It doesn't matter what they are called as long as the royals fulfill their constitutional roles.

Is there still a Chamberlain of the Stool? I understand that Hugh Dennis had that role for a while.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Thing is, Stonespring, there is a statue of George Washington in Trafalgar Square and, I'm told, around 40 other plaques, memorials and public representations and references to him of various kinds in different parts of the country.

There is a statue of Abraham Lincoln in Manchester, due to that city's particular connections with the cotton trade and anti-slavery lobbying ...

There's a whopping big statue of Oliver Cromwell outside Parliament too.

So if there's and portrait of Philip of Spain in one of the galleries inside the building it doesn't necessarily imply endorsement of some kind. Of course, we are aware of 'Bloody Mary' being married to Philip but he tends not to get a great deal of attention in the popular imagination save as the Spanish King who sent the Armada in 1588.

A few generations ago we were all a lot more gung-ho about that sort of thing than we are now. My parents' generation probably caught the last of it - 'Drake is in his hammock and a thousand miles away/'Captain, art thou sleeping there below?/Slung athwart the round-shot in Nombre Dios bay/And dreaming all the while of Plymouth Hoe ...'

Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Once upon a time there was a society-wide belief that a woman's husband would automatically gain authority over her and over whatever she had authority over--and therefore queens regnant and their advisors were much exercised to avoid this problem. I rather suspect that the use of "prince" rather than "king" is a way of reminding everybody just who holds the power. After all, in some senses almost anybody can be a "prince," including women and junior members of the family as well as princes of the church etc. But the same is not true of the term "king" (at least in English), by and large.

I think this is basically right - any king is in charge, on the other hand there are queens and queens...

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

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.

Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :

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.

Well no, it was like that before WilliamandMary as well - in terms of us only having one monarch at a time. WilliamandMary was the anomaly even at the time.

You can only have one king, and that's The King. You can have as many queens as you like (the 20th century concurrent record is of course 3), but only one could be The Queen. (Prior to the 3 queens, there was a period where there were 2 concurrent queens, neither of which was The Queen, but one of which was the Queen.) Confused yet? Even British people probably struggle with that one!

Incidentally, it's worth bearing in mind that Victoria had an enormous amount of trouble getting Albert made Prince Consort. Albert remains to this day the only Prince Consort we've had.

Of course, in the past this was got round in terms of titles by the relative rarity of our royalties marrying non royalties - so they could just keep their own title of "prince" in their own right. This is the main reason why William had to be made Duke of Cambridge. Otherwise his wife's title would have been Princess William of Wales, because she wasn't bringing a title of her own to the party.

[ 01. March 2017, 07:29: Message edited by: betjemaniac ]

Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :

As a rule of thumb:

A) a queen - dowager wife of a former reigning King
B) the Queen - wife of a reigning King
C) The Queen - reigning Queen

so, just after the Coronation of QEII you had concurrently:
Queen Mary (A)
Queen Elizabeth (A)
Queen Elizabeth II (C)

whereas, when George VI was still alive you had:
Queen Mary (A)
Queen Elizabeth (B)

so there are 3 categories of Queenship (well, I suppose 4 if you count reigning Queens that haven't been crowned yet), but still only one category of Kingship. Partly this is due to primogeniture meaning that most of the time no one had to worry about what you call the husband of a reigning Queen - it didn't often come up.

There's a huge gap from the Empress Matilda (and her right to rule was of course not exactly uncontested, although the Anarchy isn't even taught in British schools) to Elizabeth the First where it just wasn't something anyone had to worry about.

Of course, some Queen consorts were powerful in their own right - Catherine of Aragon was frequently left in charge of the country by Henry VIII while he was doing other things. Indeed, much to his embarrassment, while he was off partying at the Field of the Cloth of Gold, an English army defeated the Scots at Solway Moss and on his return Catherine presented him with the coat of the King of Scotland. This did not go down well....

Posted by Uncle Pete (# 10422) on :

Even with gender neutral primogeniture, the question, at this time in the UK and in the other realms of the Monarch, remains academic. For the time being, barring further births and likely death, the Queen's heirs are

The Prince of Wales
HRH The Duke of Cambridge
Prince George of Cambridge
Princess Charlotte of Cambridge
Prince Henry of Wales
The Duke of York
Princess Beatrice of York
Princess Eugenie of York
The Earl of Wessex and his progeny
The Princess Royal and her progeny and their progeny
etcetera

So it seems likely that the next heirs in line being male for 3 generations the question of a King or Prince Consort will not arise in our lifetimes.

The European monarchies are a different kettle of fish. In the next generation female monarchs will arise in most cases.

[ 01. March 2017, 08:25: Message edited by: Uncle Pete ]

Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Uncle Pete:
Even with gender neutral primogeniture, the question, at this time in the UK and in the other realms of the Monarch, remains academic. For the time being, barring death, the Queen's heirs are

[LIST] [*]The Prince of Wales [*]HRH The Duke of Cambridge [*]Prince George of Cambridge [*]Princess Charlotte of Cambridge [*]Prince Henry of Wales [*]The Duke of York [*]Princess Beatrice of York [*]Princess Eugenie of York [*]The Earl of Wessex and his progeny [*]The Princess Royal and her progeny and their progeny [*]etcetera

Quite, and although I'm a monarchist anyway so of course I would say this wouldn't I, etc, I rather think the British government has got a few other more pressing things to be thinking about just at present....

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

It was the Battle of Flodden, betjemaniac.

The Battle of Solway Moss took place later on.

Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
It was the Battle of Flodden, betjemaniac.

The Battle of Solway Moss took place later on.

True and Henry was at Tournai, not the Field of the Cloth of Gold. This is what happens when you post first thing in the morning and have given up coffee for Lent.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

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 ]

Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :

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!

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

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.

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

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.

Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :

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!

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

I see a story that Prince Charles intends to have Camilla crowned Queen. IMO this is perfectly reasonable and historical.

Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :

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...

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

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.)

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

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...

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

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).

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

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.)

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :

What is the significance (political, legal, religious, or otherwise) of crowning a Queen Consort, but not a Prince Consort, at a Coronation?

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

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.

Posted by The Phantom Flan Flinger (# 8891) on :

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]

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

In the cases of Edward II and James VI& I the usual euphemism has been 'favourites'.

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

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.

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

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.

Posted by american piskie (# 593) on :

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.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

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.

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

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 ]

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

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.

Posted by american piskie (# 593) on :

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).

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

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.

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :

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

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :

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.

Posted by wabale (# 18715) on :

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.

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

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.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

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.

Posted by M. (# 3291) on :

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.

Posted by american piskie (# 593) on :

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.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

That is her usual formal signature. No II in it.

Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :

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]

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

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.

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

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 ]

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

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."

Posted by Barnabas Aus (# 15869) on :

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.

Posted by Callan (# 525) on :

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.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

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.

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :

Sorry to resurrect this thread, but it turns out the Prince Consort of the Danish Queen just announced he will not be buried with her because he feels he has not been afforded enough er, status? attention? relative to his wife the Queen, and specific mention in the article is made of his desire to be a King Consort.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/03/world/europe/denmark-prince-henrik-burial-wishes.html

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

Bless his heart.

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

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.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

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 ]

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

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 ]

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

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 ]

Posted by Callan (# 525) on :

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!

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

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.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

Thanks Callan - any reading on Elizabeth Villiers that you can quickly suggest please?

Posted by John Holding (# 158) on :

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

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

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'.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

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.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0