Philip wasn't a King Consort which is why he was never crowned. I do understand that it's basically a double standard. That's how it evolved.
When Queen Mary I of England came to the throne as the first Queen Regnant of England, under the English common law the doctrine of jure uxoris, the property and titles belonging to a woman became her husband’s upon marriage, and it was feared that any man she married would thereby become King of England in fact and in name.
That is what happened. Felipe II of Spain was technically a "King Consort" but under the terms of Queen Mary’s Marriage Act, Felipe II was in practice a joint sovereign to be styled “King of England” in all official documents (including Acts of Parliament) were to be dated with both their names, and Parliament was to be called under the joint authority of the couple, for Mary’s lifetime only.
King François II of France and Henry Stuart, Lord Darnley, were King Consorts to Mary I of Scotland
That's one of the reasons Elizabeth I never married, she did not want to share power with her husband. William III was a joint sovereign with his wife Mary II. George of Denmark, not an ambitious man, didn't push to be made King Consort.
This was challenged with Queen Victoria who wanted to make Albert her King Consort but Parliament squashed that idea.
That brings us to Prince Philip. Jure uxoris had long ceased to being a factor and tradition evolved to where a Consort of a Queen Regnant wasn't made a King Consort.
So where do we go from here? Stop crowing the wife of a King Regnant or start making the husband of a Queen Regnant a King Consort and crown him during the coronation ceremony?
Message Thread | This response ↓
« Back to index