Whether that person is a man or a woman doesn't matter, that person is The King.
: Yes the constitutions speak of King meaning
: Monarch yet we do/did not style Margrethe,
: Elizabeth, Beatrix, Juliana, Wilhelmina and
: Victoria as kings. They were styled as Queen
: the female version of the title.
: Again there is a difference between a
: King-regnant/Queen-regnant and the title of
: Everybody understands that when King Harald
: and Queen Sonja or King Karl Gustav and
: Queen Silvia are mentioned that Norway or
: Sweden don't have a dual kingship but that
: one is the monarch and the other is the
: spouse. So it is perfectly possible to have
: equal titles one male and one female when
: the man is the monarch. We've been used to
: it for centuries.
: Female rules have been less normal than
: males. Fitting the historic view that
: somehow men were more capable to rule than
: women. We as human beings have fortunately
: evolved. We also understand that women are
: just as capable as men when it comes to
: being monarch.
: If King always means monarch than why was
: Willem I styled HM king Willem Frederik of
: the Netherlands, count of Nassau between his
: abdication in 1840 and his death in 1843?
: Why was Leopold III still styled king after
: his abdication and his death in 1983? And
: his son Albert II still styled king even
: though he abdicated just like King Juan
: Why was Philip II of Spain styled HM the
: King of England during his marriage with
: Mary Tudor and was Henry Darnley styled King
: of Scotland?
: All these men were not the Monarch of the
: country at those times yet they carried the
: title of King.
: Making it worse if we take your
: interpretation of the constitution literally
: a country that has a constitution that
: speaks of king can only have a male monarch.
: The line of succession may pass through
: females (as that is directed by another part
: of the constitution) but the sovereign would
: have to be male. I hope your not in favour
: of such an interpretation.
: The word king in the constitution means
: monarch. The title king can imply:
: 1 the monarch
: 2 the former monarch
: 3 the ex-monarch
: 4 spouse of the female monarch
: We have historical examples of all four and
: it's about time we start to accept that.
: Again im not impressed by Hendrik's way of
: addressing the subject but i do agree with
: his basic view that as the legal spouse of a
: well loved and respected monarch he should
: have the equal style and title. Especially
: in nations that have adopted a gender
: neutral succession and equality laws in all
: other area's of life.
: --Previous Message--
: Most of the examples you mention Johan took
: place before the constitutional era in
: Right now, the Constitution, and no longer
: the will of the King (or Queen), is what
: And in the Dutch case, the Constitution
: talks about 'The King' and that refers to
: either the entire government (of which the
: reigning monarch is head) or the person who
: is the reigning monarch.
: When the reigning monarch is a man, and thus
: King, there is no problem, everyone knows
: who is meant.
: However, when there is a Queen-regnant and
: her husband is King-Consort (but in
: day-to-day language, King), it might cause
: problems in legal matters and so the term
: Prince is used for the husband of a reigning
: Queen who is 'King' for constitutional
: This can be fixed easily of course, change
: the Constitution and change the wording to
: 'Monarch' or 'government'. In that way, it
: remains clear who is meant and the husband
: of a Queen Regnant can be a King-Consort.
Message Thread | This response ↓
« Back to index