Does the fact that the Constitution only refers to the Head of State as King because, until Frederik IX, women were not allowed to reign and therefore, there was no need to speak of the Head of State as King OR Queen ?
I find it odd if Q.Margrethe calls herself King.
Can't imagine Elizabeth II calling herself King (although she is DUKE /not Duchess of Lancaster )
But then Britain
a) does not have a constitution with dated expressions.
b) Elizabeth II is the last of a line of a few reigning Queens.
: It is rather clear when you listen to
: interviews with Margrethe that she in a way
: considers herself to be the king. And she
: has a very strong historical sense, that
: Henrik clearly lacks.
: She often says things like "The King -
: in this case me - [Does this or that]"
: I just stumbled over a program about Queen
: Ingrid (Well, yes she as Her Majesty and
: Queen) and it is striking how she saw her
: role as part of history and her aim was to
: strenghten the monarchy. Henrik's aim is the
: --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