The Scandinavian Royals Message Board
[ Post a Response | The Scandinavian Royals Message Board ]
Re: Gender neutral succession
I think the main reason is because they assume that the title King means reigning monarch of a Kingdom. Even in countries where that is obviously not true historically.
In the UK there have been King-consorts in both England and Scotland, in Belgium King Leopold III and currently King Albert II kept their title of king when their sons succeeded and became the reigning monarch. In the Netherlands the same happened when Willem I abdicated. Add to those the more known examples of King-consorts in Spain, Portugal, Navarra, Jerusalem and Sicily and it is clear that the title king does not always mean reigning male sovereign of a kingdom. It also means that there is no legitimate reason not to style the husband of a reigning monarch of a kingdom as King or King-consort just like the wife is styled as Queen. Especially as the reason why they used to style the husband of a reigning Queen prince was because they felt that a couple with the same rank meant the husband as the male was the dominant or more important one. Not styling the husband of a reigning Queen as King(-consort) implies the title of Queen regnant is lower than that of King regnant. That is pure discrimination on the base of gender or sex and prohibited in most European monarchies.
I am not so sure in the Spanish case. Even if the present legislation gives the Queen’s consort the title of Prince, I think it will not be accepted when Leonor becomes Queen.
Anyway, I do not understand the double standards in this case. How can one accept equality between men and women when they become monarchs, but not when they become consorts? I will never understand it. In countries like Spain, we have always had Kings, Dukes, Counts, etc, consort and there has never been a problem. Why are those countries which have never/seldom allowed female succession so reluctant to accept this concept?
Definitely not. His name is not Victoria, but Daniel. In that case Crown Prince Daniel would have been an option. but since the title Crown Prince is exclusively for a male heir apparent to the throne, he was not given that title. When Victoria accedes to the throne, Daniel will not be given the title King.
It isn’t so gender neutral/equal after all… Daniel should be titled crown prince (consort) and eventually become king consort of Sweden… or all future female consorts should not be crown princess or queen.
Okay, that is your opinion. I don't agree. I don't think that any of the current monarchies allow a male consort to use the title of the male Monarch. When UK introduced gender neutral succession, Prine Philip was not made King. And Prince Henrik of Denmark wasn't King.
Message Thread | This response ↓|