Title & Role of a Consort

On October 31, 2023, Queen Letizia will be stripped of her only constitutional role under the Spanish constitution, which is to serve as regent for her daughter if Leonor ascends the throne before turning 18, or to serve as regent for her husband if he is unable to fulfill his duties as King and that incapacity is recognized by the Parliament . The latter role in particular will be assumed by Leonor when she turns 18.

Moved from Prince Henrik: "I Should Be King" Discussion:

Muhler said:

Applying principles of equality to an institution that is based on anything but equality is a bit off, I'd say.

Click to expand...

Do you feel the same way about, for example:

Those who demonize the late Prince Gustav Albrecht of Sayn-Wittgenstein-Berleburg, or even falsely accuse him of racism, all because his last will in 1943 disinherited family members who married commoners?

Those who accuse King Charles III of the UK of racism because at one point he considered not granting royal titles to his male-line grandchildren of biracial descent?

Those who applauded the firing of a British courtier who was accused of making a comment that could be interpreted as racially insensitive?

Those who savaged a Spanish royal commentator for criticizing the choice of Letizia Ortiz as princess and now queen consort because she was not noble?


The fact is that almost all royal watchers do apply principles of equality – including class equality and racial equality – to hereditary monarchy. It is only gender equality where many draw the line.


@Muhler (or others): Please feel free to copy your prior responses as well.

Using the completely inaccurate reasoning about the titles for Harry's children really weakens your argument I am afraid. Please don't give any credence to such utter nonsense.

Mbruno said:

On October 31, 2023, Queen Letizia will be stripped of her only constitutional role under the Spanish constitution, which is to serve as regent for her daughter if Leonor ascends the throne before turning 18, or to serve as regent for her husband if he is unable to fulfill his duties as King and that incapacity is recognized by the Parliament . The latter role in particular will be assumed by Leonor when she turns 18.

Click to expand...

The last Spanish Queen Regent was Maria Christina of Austria who served as Queen Regent from 1885-1902
Prior to that we had :
Maria Christina of the Two Sicilies as Queen Regent from 1833-1840
Elisabeth Farnese as Queen Regent from 1759-1760
Maria Anna of Austria as Queen Regent from 1665-1670

Somebody said:

Using the completely inaccurate reasoning about the titles for Harry's children really weakens your argument I am afraid. Please don't give any credence to such utter nonsense.

Click to expand...

I am afraid it is a fact that royal watchers have indeed accused King Charles III of racism on the basis of his reported (now dropped, of course) plans to slim down royal titles. I believe you yourself have commented on those false accusations, so I am surprised you refer to my reference to their being made as "utter nonsense".

Tatiana Maria said:

I am afraid it is a fact that royal watchers have indeed accused King Charles III of racism on the basis of his reported (now dropped, of course) plans to slim down royal titles. I believe you yourself have commented on those false accusations, so I am surprised you refer to my reference to their being made as "utter nonsense".

Click to expand...

Anyone can accuse the king of anything, if they so want. But for the allegation to have any credibility, it must be backed up. In this case, these were just malicious lies on the part of Meghan in the Oprah interview of 2021, designed to do damage to the royal family and to portray herself as the victim in an attempt to curry favour with the American public.

Plans to slim down the monarchy under Charles have been well known for a few decades, long before Harry met Meghan. It had nothing to do with Meghan being half black, or Archie & Lili being quarter black. It was never intended that Harry's children would be working royals, like Beatrice, Eugenie, Zara & Peter are not, and the Wessex children will not be. B&E carry the Princess titles only because the Queen let them. Had they been born in the reign of KC3, they would not have had those titles.

Titles for non-working royals just does not make sense in today's day and age. The issue of titles for H&M's children stems from the 1917 LPs, which, under King Charles would have been updated. But we now have a very odd situation. H&M are no longer working royals, and do not represent the Crown or the UK in any way. They have spent years now trashing his family and "The Firm". Yet, they use their own royal titles and publicly refer to their children with Prince and Princess titles.

I gather he hasn't seen Harry's children in person and they would have been the back up team. But after Meghan was introduced by the circle of Fergie, that went out the window, and the Yorks are fighting harder than ever by any means to get a place on the Royal work list.

I think a consorts role is a partnership role but you're not the person raised to do that job or thrust in because of a family emergency. It's supportive and still fulfilling and you get the recogintion for what you do. I think especially for female heirs it's still important that their husband is not mistaken for being the actual monarch. I can't imagine being in this situation but I wouldn't be insulted by being a Queen consort if I married an heir because that is who you actually are. It's up to the monarch though to make those decisions and individuals views will vary. I think Prince or King Consort is fine.

I am against children of Royal women being a nothing as a rule if they didn't marry a titled Royal or Aristocrat. It's up to a couple what they want for their children but I don't think women should be pressured to give up their own identiy and half their childrens heritage to be 'modern'. It's actually more from Victorian times and later that the male supriority becomes very enforced rather than tradition as titles used to get remade in the UK through the female link if they didn't carry across. If they don't do Royal duties they won't be seen much anyway, it should be a choice. Most aristocrats are quite anonymous to the wider public but your family is your family. But having said that people a long way off in succession lines shouldn't be able to sell the connections and names but you can spot who wears stark colours like on the former huge balcony scenes in the UK Royal family to draw attention or create a fuss to turn heads.

muriel said:

Anyone can accuse the king of anything, if they so want. But for the allegation to have any credibility, it must be backed up.

Click to expand...

Nowhere in my post was it suggested that the allegation was credible.

In fact, the first example I gave was the late Prince Gustav Albrecht of Sayn-Wittgenstein-Berleburg being accused of racism in his will. That allegation has been completely discredited. From that it should be quite obvious that I was not limiting my list of examples to credible accusations.

RabbitRabbit said:

I am against children of Royal women being a nothing as a rule if they didn't marry a titled Royal or Aristocrat.

Click to expand...

Where do you draw the line, however, to decide who is royal or not? It cannot go on in perpetuity for successive generations of descendants of a sovereign . Drawing the line at children of a monarch and children of the heir seems reasonable to me. There is no need for grandchildren of the monarch in collateral lines to be princes or princesses.

Mbruno said:

Where do you draw the line, however, to decide who is royal or not? It cannot go on in perpetuity for successive generations of descendants of a sovereign . Drawing the line at children of a monarch and children of the heir seems reasonable to me. There is no need for grandchildren of the monarch in collateral lines to be princes or princesses.

Click to expand...

In perpetuity is very different and not in the British system. In the UK the male line HRH stops at grandchildren and them 1 generation of Lords and ladies and from there follows title lines in the British way not like in Europe where it's equal across all grandchildren but that's another thread.

I don't think that going from Royal such as HRH/HSH to blank (unless the parents want this or don't mind) when children could and I think should be either Royal again on repeat or Lords and ladies depending if both (kids to be Royal) or one side (kids to be Lord and Ladies) is the right thing for women to be held to but not men in the post 19th century system. Children of younger Male and Female children of monarchs should be the same so Anne and Andrew's in the British system would be both Lords and Ladies like Edward and Sophie's children if the parents opt for titles. What I think is wrong is to say to daughters and formerly male line grand daughters of monarchs 'we'll offer you these titles as a formality but better to politely decline to the monarch' - that's just slippery grey-man manipulation).

If any of the the younger children of the previous monarch in the UK had married a Royal, almost impossible now, the children shouldn't be different to both sides that their parents are as that's cruel. Sarah Ferguson has a small part aristocratic ancestry and maybe Sophie but their are not from reigning Royal families (almost no one is now) so a half way is a good thing. I just don't understand, unless you talk of commercial value why Sarah and Andrew where so keen on the children being so titled but I think she wanted parity with Diana who was a distant relative and childhood occasional friend from the royal family circle. If Andrew or Anne had married a foreign Royal, yes, their children should have kept titles but that didn't happen. There isn't going to be another HRH generation after that because it's next to impossible that you would have a third successive generation marrying with a reiginig Royal family now as there are how many? 8 in Europe? Ex Royals are mostly German and it may not be wise PR to have more Germans marrying in again for a very, very long time so that's also unlikely and their titles are not legally recognised in Germany. Non German ex Royals are too politically sensitive unless you're talking French, Italian, Austrian and Polish aristocracy and they are Catholic countries so more unlikley to marry in for a different reason.

HIH Grand Duchess Maria Romanov married HRH Prince Franz Wilhelm of Hohenzollern. Their Son is not wearing his Father's surname but he is HIH Heditary Grand Duke Georg Romanov. His wife is HSH Princess and their Son is Prince and not not a HIH as his Father .(perhaps out of topic because no Monarchs anymore)