FW: Re: consorts

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
John Parsons

FW: Re: consorts

Legg inn av John Parsons » 11 feb 2005 02:21:02

William III owed his title to Parliament, not his marriage. He had married
Mary of England many years before he became king. In fact he insisted on
Parliament authorizing his assumption of the throne precisely so he could
not be derided as a king who owed his throne to his wife's apron strings.

It was never marriage that made the queen of England's husband king. Philip
II of Spain had to wait to be made king by Parliament, not by Mary Tudor.
Queen Victoria wanted Prince Albert to become King Consort and considered
accomplishing this by letters patent, but the Chancellor of the day told her
this was constitutionally impossible. Successive Prime Ministers refused to
lay the matter before Parliament, arguing the precedent of Queen Anne's
husband who was only Prince George, duke of Cumberland. In the end Victoria
had to settle for making Albert Prince Consort herself, by letters patent,
in 1857--17 years after his marriage.

Regards

John P.



From: "Chris Dickinson" <chris@dickinson.uk.net
Reply-To: "Chris Dickinson" <chris@dickinson.uk.net
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: consorts
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2005 00:43:04 +0000 (UTC)

Betty Owen wrote:

snip
I know Victoria's husband was Prince conscort... I am assuming when you
are
Queen that the highest you can become as a husband would be a prince.
snip


William III

Chris


Peter Stewart

Re: FW: Re: consorts

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 11 feb 2005 04:36:21

John Parsons wrote:

Queen Victoria wanted Prince Albert to become King Consort
and considered accomplishing this by letters patent, but the
Chancellor of the day told her this was constitutionally impossible.

The difference is that Victoria wanted Albert to have a constitutional
role alongside her own, not just a title and honour.

It is clear that British sovereigns can have subjects whose title -
rather than constitutional role - appears equal to their own, that is
"Her Majesty" and "Queen" in the current circumstances. The present
queen has had two of these in the course of her own reign, her
grandmother Queen Mary and her mother Queen Elizabeth. The main
distinction in usage is that the definite article is dropped for
dowagers, so that for instance "HM the Queen" meant the sovereign
herself and "HM Queen Elizabeth" meant the queen mother. But both of
these ladies were crowned queens of the United Kingdom, the former as
sovereign and the latter as consort - HM Camilla could be "the" queen
of Tarts without any need for clarification by protocol like this. She
will presumably receive some kind of blessing but wear only a coronet
at any future coronation of her husband-to-be.

If Camilla becomes Princess Consort and then King Charles dies leaving
the throne to King William V, I wonder if she will then become known as
"the Princess Step-Mother". The only alternative I can see from
precedent would be "Princess Charles", not a very pretty choice. Or
maybe she will be made a duchess or princess in her own right by then
(with Cornwall passing to William on his father's accession). Duchess
of Greenwich might be suitable - the lady has loved a sailor, after
all, and her bottle-blonde hair should have acquired a greenish tinge
with age by that time.

Peter Stewart

Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»