If England had a lesbian queen, would the consort be considered a queen too?

[buritobr]

In England, if a consort is female, she is considered "queen", if a consort is male, he is not considered "king". Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon was "queen", Prince Philip is not king, Camilla Parker and Kate Middleton might be "queen" one day.

And if the queen was lesbian? Would her wife receive the title of "queen consort"?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

The reason consorts of reigning queens are titled princes is that, if there's a queen and a king, people might wrongly assume the king is the one who's the actual monarch (because sexism, essentially). This problem would be compounded even further with two queens, so my guess is that a lesbian queen would have a princess consort (and a gay king would have a prince consort).

I'm not exactly a devoted royal-watcher, but I could swear I've read at some point that Camilla has said she'll go by princess consort when Charles takes the throne, either because [Ariana Grande voice] it's equality or because she knows she's not well-liked.

[PSOL]

You’re always asking the interesting questions burrito, you’re always asking the interesting questions...

[brucejoel99]

The reason consorts of reigning queens are titled princes is that, if there's a queen and a king, people might wrongly assume the king is the one who's the actual monarch (because sexism, essentially). This problem would be compounded even further with two queens, so my guess is that a lesbian queen would have a princess consort (and a gay king would have a prince consort).

I'm not exactly a devoted royal-watcher, but I could swear I've read at some point that Camilla has said she'll go by princess consort when Charles takes the throne, either because [Ariana Grande voice] it's equality or because she knows she's not well-liked.

Yeah, this. Women have never been able to give a title to their spouses; therefore, the consort in question wouldn't be considered a Queen Consort, as it's never been possible for a spouse to take on their wife's titles.

In the case of a royal, however, something would obviously be offered (as has historically been the case when a Queen marries her consort): I assume the Queen in question would create her wife a Princess in her own right via letters patent & declare her style & title to be HRH The Princess Consort (à la Camilla; although a lot of people - despite Prince Charles' statements on the matter - expect her to end up being Queen anyway); similarly, a gay King's consort would be given a title much like Prince Philip (or would indeed be declared HRH The Prince Consort).

[Former President tack50]

For what is worth I think in Spain the reigning queen's husband is called a king (rey consorte).

The last time we had a consort king was all the way back during the reign of Isabel II (1834-1868); with her husband Francisco Asís de Borbón being consort king.

This hypothetical is actually somewhat realistic here actually, given that the current heir to the throne is a woman (Princess Leonor). If, for some reason, she turned out to be a lesbian I guess her wife would indeed be called a queen consort, much like her husband would be called king consort.

A more interesting question would be whether any adoptive children they take could inherit the throne or if, after her death; the throne would have to be passed on to her sister.

Though by that time, which is several decades into the future and I myself will probably be dead by then, Spain may as well be a republic lol

[Pulaski]

I'm not exactly a devoted royal-watcher, but I could swear I've read at some point that Camilla has said she'll go by princess consort when Charles takes the throne, either because [Ariana Grande voice] it's equality or because she knows she's not well-liked.

It's really up in the air at this point. Camilla is not nearly as disliked as she once was.

[CumbrianLefty]

I'm not exactly a devoted royal-watcher, but I could swear I've read at some point that Camilla has said she'll go by princess consort when Charles takes the throne, either because [Ariana Grande voice] it's equality or because she knows she's not well-liked.

It's really up in the air at this point. Camilla is not nearly as disliked as she once was.

Though I think that is through more general indifference, rather than people now actually *liking* her.

[Kingpoleon]

The reason consorts of reigning queens are titled princes is that, if there's a queen and a king, people might wrongly assume the king is the one who's the actual monarch (because sexism, essentially). This problem would be compounded even further with two queens, so my guess is that a lesbian queen would have a princess consort (and a gay king would have a prince consort).

I'm not exactly a devoted royal-watcher, but I could swear I've read at some point that Camilla has said she'll go by princess consort when Charles takes the throne, either because [Ariana Grande voice] it's equality or because she knows she's not well-liked.

Not precisely. A king bears his title out in his spouse. So a King’s husband could take the unprecedented title of King Consort.

[brucejoel99]

A more interesting question would be whether any adoptive children they take could inherit the throne or if, after her death; the throne would have to be passed on to her sister.

I don't think that such kids would be eligible to inherit the throne. Such royals could of course indeed adopt children, but they couldn't become part of the line of succession without Spain adopting a constitutional amendment that changes the requirements for said line.

The reason consorts of reigning queens are titled princes is that, if there's a queen and a king, people might wrongly assume the king is the one who's the actual monarch (because sexism, essentially). This problem would be compounded even further with two queens, so my guess is that a lesbian queen would have a princess consort (and a gay king would have a prince consort).

I'm not exactly a devoted royal-watcher, but I could swear I've read at some point that Camilla has said she'll go by princess consort when Charles takes the throne, either because [Ariana Grande voice] it's equality or because she knows she's not well-liked.

Not precisely. A king bears his title out in his spouse. So a King’s husband could take the unprecedented title of King Consort.

Maybe in another country, but the title & style pertaining to the King (i.e. the Monarch) is important in the British patriarchal hierarchical system, as within this hierarchy, the Monarch must hold a higher position than their spouse, so a gay King's consort couldn't take on the title & style pertaining to a supposed "King Consort" unless legislation were to be passed to the contrary.

[kcguy]

There's a Wikipedia article, which touches some of these subjects obliquely.  (The article is about aristocratic titles, but it's possible the royal family operates similarly.)  It seems like I've read something more explicit, but I can't find it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Courtesy_titles_in_the_United_Kingdom

In 2013, there was a private member's bill in the House of Lords to allow the spouse of a woman who holds [a title] to assume the title The Honourable. This bill stalled, and was not passed by the end of the Parliament.

Civil partners of someone using a courtesy title are not entitled to use their partner's title.

Pursuant to a Royal Warrant dated 30 April 2004, [adopted] children are now automatically entitled to the same styles and courtesy titles as their siblings. However, unlike biological children, they cannot inherit peerages from their parent.

FYI, by "styles and courtesy titles", it means things like Lord John Smith or The Honourable Mary Jones.  "Peerages" are hereditary titles held by only one person at a time, such as The Duke of Devonshire or Baroness WIlliams.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Women have never been able to give a title to their spouses; therefore, the consort in question wouldn't be considered a Queen Consort, as it's never been possible for a spouse to take on their wife's titles.

King Phillip (husband of Mary I)  and King William III (husband of Mary II) would be surprised to hear that.

The reason the UK didn't have King Albert (husband of Victoria) or King Phillip II (husband of Elizabeth II) is that the Parliament wanted to ensure that neither foreign hubby got the idea that they'd be able to reign even in the limited way English royals now do.

[brucejoel99]

Women have never been able to give a title to their spouses; therefore, the consort in question wouldn't be considered a Queen Consort, as it's never been possible for a spouse to take on their wife's titles.

King Phillip (husband of Mary I)  and King William III (husband of Mary II) would be surprised to hear that.

The reason the UK didn't have King Albert (husband of Victoria) or King Phillip II (husband of Elizabeth II) is that the Parliament wanted to ensure that neither foreign hubby got the idea that they'd be able to reign even in the limited way English royals now do.

Point of correction: King Philip (husband of Mary I) actually belongs in the same category as Albert & the modern-day Philip. He was only referred to as King on account of his having simultaneously been the King of Spain. In fact, Parliament passed legislation - the Act for the Marriage of Queen Mary to Philip of Spain - to specifically prevent Philip from seizing power within England on the basis of jure uxoris (by right of his wife).

As for William III, yes, he was indeed permitted to derive his powers within England from his wife & reign jure uxoris, but only because Parliament actually permitted him to do so.

So while my use of the word "never" was indeed a technical error, it's not incorrect to state that it's not currently possible for a male spouse to take on their wife's titles, as there's currently no monarchical legislation that provides as such.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

It's much more likely the consort would be given such title as "Princess Consort" (kind of similar to Albert), or perhaps given a peerage (most likely a dukedom, like Phillip, who didn't become a "British Prince" until 1957).

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Here's another, related question: what about the status of the lesbian royal couple's child, conceived by artificial insemination? Wouldn't a child be considered a bastard due to somebody else being a sperm donor, or would it be overlooked?

[brucejoel99]

Here's another, related question: what about the status of the lesbian royal couple's child, conceived by artificial insemination? Wouldn't a child be considered a bastard due to somebody else being a sperm donor, or would it be overlooked?

Under current law, since the birth parents wouldn't have been married to each other, the child would be considered "illegitimate" in terms of inheritance & would thus be disqualified from the succession. The laws of succession to the British throne would have to be altered (à la the Perth Agreement) in order to allow the child to be legally considered an heir in the line of succession.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Here's another, related question: what about the status of the lesbian royal couple's child, conceived by artificial insemination? Wouldn't a child be considered a bastard due to somebody else being a sperm donor, or would it be overlooked?

Under current law, since the birth parents wouldn't have been married to each other, the child would be considered "illegitimate" in terms of inheritance & would thus be disqualified from the succession. The laws of succession to the British throne would have to be altered (à la the Perth Agreement) in order to allow the child to be legally considered an heir in the line of succession.

There's already work being done on making artificial sperm (or eggs) from skin cells and/or stem cells. By the time there is an LGBT British monarch, it likely will be possible for a monarch and spouse of the same sex to conceive a child that is genetically theirs with at most a surrogate mother required to bring the child to term. The only real complication I can think of would be if a childless queen and her spouse were to both be pregnant at the same time, would it be a race to see which gave birth to the heir apparent, or would there be some other rules?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Women have never been able to give a title to their spouses; therefore, the consort in question wouldn't be considered a Queen Consort, as it's never been possible for a spouse to take on their wife's titles.

King Phillip (husband of Mary I)  and King William III (husband of Mary II) would be surprised to hear that.

The reason the UK didn't have King Albert (husband of Victoria) or King Phillip II (husband of Elizabeth II) is that the Parliament wanted to ensure that neither foreign hubby got the idea that they'd be able to reign even in the limited way English royals now do.

Point of correction: King Philip (husband of Mary I) actually belongs in the same category as Albert & the modern-day Philip. He was only referred to as King on account of his having simultaneously been the King of Spain. In fact, Parliament passed legislation - the Act for the Marriage of Queen Mary to Philip of Spain - to specifically prevent Philip from seizing power within England on the basis of jure uxoris (by right of his wife).

But that Act did provide for Philip to be titled King of England jure uxoris. It just rendered him the de facto junior partner in the marriage by restricting his ability to appoint officials, banning him from transporting Mary out of the country, and providing that his English titles would lapse if Mary predeceased him (as she, of course, did).

[brucejoel99]

Here's another, related question: what about the status of the lesbian royal couple's child, conceived by artificial insemination? Wouldn't a child be considered a bastard due to somebody else being a sperm donor, or would it be overlooked?

Under current law, since the birth parents wouldn't have been married to each other, the child would be considered "illegitimate" in terms of inheritance & would thus be disqualified from the succession. The laws of succession to the British throne would have to be altered (à la the Perth Agreement) in order to allow the child to be legally considered an heir in the line of succession.

There's already work being done on making artificial sperm (or eggs) from skin cells and/or stem cells. By the time there is an LGBT British monarch, it likely will be possible for a monarch and spouse of the same sex to conceive a child that is genetically theirs with at most a surrogate mother required to bring the child to term. The only real complication I can think of would be if a childless queen and her spouse were to both be pregnant at the same time, would it be a race to see which gave birth to the heir apparent, or would there be some other rules?

If both expected children are genetically theirs & only theirs, then yeah, it'd be a race to see which child is born first.

Women have never been able to give a title to their spouses; therefore, the consort in question wouldn't be considered a Queen Consort, as it's never been possible for a spouse to take on their wife's titles.

King Phillip (husband of Mary I)  and King William III (husband of Mary II) would be surprised to hear that.

The reason the UK didn't have King Albert (husband of Victoria) or King Phillip II (husband of Elizabeth II) is that the Parliament wanted to ensure that neither foreign hubby got the idea that they'd be able to reign even in the limited way English royals now do.

Point of correction: King Philip (husband of Mary I) actually belongs in the same category as Albert & the modern-day Philip. He was only referred to as King on account of his having simultaneously been the King of Spain. In fact, Parliament passed legislation - the Act for the Marriage of Queen Mary to Philip of Spain - to specifically prevent Philip from seizing power within England on the basis of jure uxoris (by right of his wife).

But that Act did provide for Philip to be titled King of England jure uxoris. It just rendered him the de facto junior partner in the marriage by restricting his ability to appoint officials, banning him from transporting Mary out of the country, and providing that his English titles would lapse if Mary predeceased him (as she, of course, did).

True, but that's pretty much the crux of the issue: an Act of Parliament had to specifically provide for Philip to receive said title by right of his wife; it wasn't inherent, & that legislation only applied to his instance. The point is that, in general, a spouse doesn't receive a title by right of their wife (unlike when a Queen consort would inherently receive the title of 'Queen' by right of their husband) unless Parliament specifically allows them to do so.

[QAnonKelly]

Lol did you happen to watch The Favourite?