The European Royals Message Board
[ Post a response | The European Royals Message Board ]
Re: Sovereigns in their own rights
User logged in as JanEl
I wasn't the one who initiated this particular thread. But it's true that in the past I've raised discussions of multiple sovereigns, including consorts. Since succession laws have traditionally been restrictive, limited to male heirs in the male lines, becoming a queen consort has typically been the only way a princess could reasonably hope to sit on a throne.
Hmmm, let me remind you that you opened the door to consort queens by mentioning Maud of Norway and Emperess Vicky .
You have a point. However, as hereditary monarchies declined in power, prestige, and purpose over the centuries, it became increasingly rare for a royal to have two or more children become sovereigns in their own rights.
This typically happened because of high death rates, in the days before modern medicine (especially children and infants), or the branching out of dynasties. We've seen this in the Habsburgs, Bourbons, Coburgs, and Glücksburgs - where a number of cadet members of the houses would never have acquired crowns, had they not been offered them elsewhere.
So even though a consort may not qualify as a sovereign in her own right, I think it impressive nonetheless for a royal to *boast* more than one child sitting on a throne of some sort -- especially in the last century. Such as King Leopold III of the Belgians and his first wife, born Princess Astrid of Sweden.
I don't think consorts should be included. They're not the "monarch" of the country.
Message Thread | This response ↓|