Linus Van Pelt
Sr. Member
Posts: 2,145
|
|
« on: January 25, 2015, 09:10:59 PM » |
|
In fact, there is an old tradition of non-regnant Kings consort in Britain. In Scotland, both Lord Darnley and Francis II were known as King while married to Mary, Queen of Scots, although Mary was regnant. In England, Mary I's husband Philip of Spain was King of England. Granted, both Francis and Philip were regnant kings in their home countries but they were also non-regnant kings of Scotland and England respectively.
When Anne took the throne in 1702, there was some controversy, discussed in Parliament, about whether her husband Prince George of Denmark would be made King Consort, but in the end he wasn't. And when Victoria married Albert, she wanted to make him King Consort but the government refused out of concern for his foreign origins, making him Prince Consort instead. Elizabeth II then continued this newer precedent with Philip.
But in light of Tudor practice, King is arguably the older and more traditional title for a non-regnant male consort, and they were certainly aware of the possibility in the 18th and 19th centuries.
|