Talk:King consort

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Is Henrik, husband of Queen Margrethe II of Denmark, designated king consort? (talk) 20:50, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

No, he is not. The husband of the Queen of Denmark was granted the title of Prince Consort of Denmark. In my opinion, it would be wise to grant him the title of king consort. Denmark now uses absolute cognatic primogeniture and there will be many queens regnant in the future, whose husbands should be treated the same way wives of kings regnant are treated. After all, the reason Margrethe's husband is not king is that it was thought that the title of king is higher than the title of queen – which is a notion that should've been discarded along with male-preferance primogeniture. Surtsicna (talk) 21:15, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

William and Mary[edit]

What about them?
By Act of Parliament, joint Monarchs, and thus King and Queen. (talk) 01:02, 1 August 2015 (UTC)


Queen Ulrika Eleanor had husband, Frederick of Hesse, whom she wanted to make co-regent and king consort, but the Riksrad opposed. Therefore, she abdicated, so that Frederick would be elected as King. Before her abdication, would it not be correct to regard that Frederick was, at least in practical terms, her prince consort??? 21:46, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Prince consort, yes – king consort, probably not. Oleryhlolsson (talk) 15:23, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Philip II of Spain and William III of Orange[edit]

What is the logic of pretending that pro-Dutch/Orangist bias had nothing to do with the hate for Philip II? The Protestant monarchy in the UK's own official website barely mentions Philip; not even in the same aspect as William to Mary. It is an obvious bias and pov, especially understood by those who are not Protestant. You (Berks) may believe that this Protestant perception and propaganda you push is fact, but let's be clear on whose interests were on the line in the Anglo-Spanish Wars. It was either England or Spain in control of the Rhineland's ports, with control of the textiles by extension. Please don't pretend that the Calvinist interest in Elizabethan England did not exist. IP Address 11:03, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

You are speaking complete rubbish, and are by the sound of it a Catholic with a grudge against Protestant England, you are the one with the POV! I can understand why The Royal website barely mentions him, after marrying Mary he left England after just over a year, and never returned. He played very little role in the English Monarchy. The marriage of Mary to a foreigner was not popular, and making a foreigner King of England was equally unpopular. Bringing in the Anglo-Spanish wars is irrelevant to this page. I will not revert again as I will break the Three-Revert Rule, which you have already broken by the way! --Berks105 11:16, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

So, Calvinist biases by the new Anglican/Tudor aristocracy had nothing to do with opposition to Philip II of Spain's marriage to Mary I of England?! Please, explain to me what happened to the old feudal Catholic aristocracy (e.g. Plantagenet) which disagreed with Henry (his father also) and his Protestant children? Oh, it's all true this "Bloody Mary" and the Protestant POV? Come come, let's stray from making partisan issue seem as triumphalism in the extreme. We all know very well that the newfound Protestants in power over England, had no love for the majority of their subjects. What is recusancy?! Who were the Pilgrims first and foremost? Ever read about the Pilgrimage of Grace, or the Rising of the North? Oh yeah, all "Anglo-Saxons" were/are Protestant Nationalists—who enjoyed the bloodshed and sacking of monasteries! They all agreed willingly, to a war on their own liberator (as Philip was considered in Jesuit circles)? Now, please understand in similar context to the Irish question. Your affirmation would be like saying that the Irish enjoyed and revered the Protestant Plantations, going along as the "voice of the people has spoken". You need to avoid sticking up for parties on contentious issues in regards to history, especially in regards to religion (or race). The government is not the same as the people. IP Address 11:23, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Once again you complete avoid the issue and show you POV for the Catholic side. Get the bee out of your bonnet and realise that Philip was not popular with the people, and thats not me being biased. I am not religious so have nothing to be biased about! I have changed the page and I think we should settle on this. It has no POV either way. Please keep it like this.--Berks105 11:34, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

The position of Philip with Mary was comparable to Geoffrey of Anjou with the Empress Matilda. You are adamantly adhering to Whig history and Protestant prejudice, because the Protestant rulers won and perpetuated their propaganda. They are the ones who sacked the monasteries and furthermore assassinated the remaining Catholic royals and nobles. Just because the State said it was true or right, doesn't mean WIKIPEDIA is supposed to dance to the tunes of the STATE. How dare you infect Wikipedia with Orwellian nonsense?! So the Catholic recividists who died for their beliefs and the old ways are just superstitious rubbish to cast away as the Tudors like Henry/Edward/Elizabeth did? Are you in love with the Tudor era, or can you step outside it and perhaps be objective? Who was Guy Fawkes? He was a native and Catholic Englishman, who rebelled against the Protestant British usurpation of his land and people. You see, it is best to not take sides. By the way, all I did was mention the rising English interest in monopoly of the Flemish/Dutch woolens industry—which Philip was losing control of due to the Calvinists in Elizabeth's time. Ever hear of Sir Francis Drake? Well, he was just the opposite of Charles Neville, 6th Earl of Westmorland. Not everybody was pro-Elizabeth, even in the Armada era. You have failed to address this. Should Wikipedia deem Neville a traitor, just because he in his own mind was convinced that the Pope was right? Should we relegate political adversaries to chaff, with no regard for their distinct differences to the prevailing regimes and court historians? The whole reason why I brought up the Dutch treaty was because of the precarious comparison between Philip and Mary with William and Mary—we know very well that the Whigs were trying to dignify their own machinations by mimicking the joint-reigns. They are explicitly connected! IP Address 11:44, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, I hope we can agree to keep the page how it, I think this is best. I do not know why you are bringing in Elizabeth's time, he was not widely popular in Mary's time, and flat. You have a massive bee in your bonnet about the Whigs and Protestants, which to be honest is absolutley out of this World. You say "You see, it is best to not take sides" – which is so ironic when you write a whole essay on your side of the argument!! Listen to your self! I am not taking sides, I was stating what is thought to be history, you are stating your opinion. Anyway, again I suggest we leave the page totally neutral on the issue. --Berks105 11:50, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

How can you omit the obvious Catholic/Calvinist conflict in regards to these two joint reigns? How can you rip-out the truth behind the conscious copycatting of Phil and Mary with Bill and Mary? You know very well what the Whigs were up to; they were in the process of nation-building. England and its old Catholic form ceased to exist, with a new Protestant Great Britain. The Age of Aristocracy in the UK was marked by severe oppression of Catholics and the Catholic past, which all went back in time to the support of Dutch rebels against Philip—by a minority clique in power. Just because the oppressors have triumphed, doesn't mean that they were right or that we should present history with omissions of their crimes and only say what THEY want to hear. Fuck that. It's not Wikipedia's purpose to make peoples' reputations clean. Wikipedia is to report all knowledge and intelligence on historical occurrences. It is indeed an indisputable fact, that the Dutch question laid in the balance of Anglo-Spanish affairs. Doubt history not, nor be the mouthpiece for "consumer history". We come to Wikipedia for hard facts, not what sounds good. You are just happy supporting the Orangist victories, if only and just because they have succeeded and it seems simple to represent their POV—without thinking on the issue. You merely repeat their version of history. The fact is, these things are still contentious. I should condemn my own ancestors for being in error, in error for not fitting the perception you'd like them too. I am now happy to look upon my Papist ancestors with perfect love, even revealing the nature of my ancestors as classic/cliche Catholic Royalists—with no fear in the present day. (I believe London's Protestant Kingdom and Dublin's Catholic Republic to be oxymorons—astute examples.) I will not toe-the-line and accept what you consider a moot point, because I have a greater respect for all points of view. Wikipedia is a venue for FREEDOM OF INFORMATION, with full representation to make NPOV supreme and no omissions. Who cares if it is a touchy subject? Wikipedia is not censored either. I may wear my feelings on the sleeve, but this issue is obvious to all sociologists and history students. We have the Old Catholic England of Philip and Mary, vs the New Protestant (Calvinist) Great Britain of William and Mary. Like it or hate it, but this stuff is real. I hate it, but at least I can face the facts and admit it openly. If you continue to erase the direct comparisons between these two joint reigns, then it is clear that you wish to sweep the dust under the rug/carpet for another time. Others will come here to explain how this topic is pertinent, but you think you've had the last word. So just don't reply; let problems of religious inequality fester by mere misinformation. IP Address 12:22, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Once again a very long diatribe on how you are right and how your view is correct. Listen to your yourself! There was no need for the above diatribe at all, the page now omits referance to how liked Philip II was. All that belongs on this page is the fact he was the only English King Consort, and this is now all it says. Indeed whether he was popular or not (and in the eyes of who etc etc) should be on his page, not this page. And please don't reply with another stupidly long diatribe – this is Wikipedia not the Debating Society! --Berks105 12:31, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Your defence of omitting the direct relation to King consort status of both the Spaniard Philip and Dutchman William, really doesn't make sense. In essence, you have ignored my reply—which directly answered your actions. You are content with leaving out pertinent info about the Catholic vs Calvinist nature of the status for King consort, with disrespect to this very obvious subject matter. Wikipedia readers are looking for insight and aren't pussies who can't brave the storm, so allow bolder editors who can stomach things like this to do so. You are definitely not equipped to handle this issue of contention. You haven't addressed the parallels between the statuses of Philip and William, nor the struggles to define the monarchy on a Catholic or Protestant basis. How come you think that you are right, when it's clear you have not done your homework to be editing? IP Address 12:44, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I have looked up your other edits, and you are a troll so I shouldn't have bothered to argue! By the way, "Dutchman William" wasnt King consort he was King regent, and I think you need to do your "homework". This page looks at the differant countries and their King Consorts, England has had one, and he had been mentioned no more needs to be said. There is no Catholic vs Protestant debate that is relevant to this page, you are making it up! Philip II of Spain was England's only King Consort – thats all that can be said that is relevant on this page. --Berks105 12:50, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

It is sooo much easier to avoid handling the truth about your own fallacies, once you decide to cast the opponent as a "troll". I have not "dug dirt" on you, because I'm dealing with you here and now. It is obvious that you prefer personal attacks, to a workable solution. I am into inclusionism, not exlusionism. If King Billy wasn't Consort, then why is he on this page in the first place?! Why not fix that problem, instead of call me names? You are now pushing your own personal pov on the article in respects to Philip and William. You will march in step with the Protestant revisionism, casting aside the former glory that was Catholic. It's not my doing—I'm just reporting what you apparently do not object to, because you object to putting the whole issue in recognisable context. You prefer a blur in history, where nobody truly learns about the issues if it upsets the establishment. IP Address 12:57, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Read the page. William is mentioned (twice) on the page to say that he wasn't King Consort, otherwise people may think he was. Philip II was King Consort, William King Regent. And I did not call you a name, I just repeated what other people have said about you. --Berks105 12:59, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Then William should be on a "King Regent" page, not this one. I'll let you stir in your own pot of Protestant revisionism and technicalities of rather false value, especially in an era when a man dominated his woman's dowry/title (etc). It goes back to the Calvinist sentiment, in opposition to the King himself. Did those new capitalists in power represent the majority feudal population of England, in personal sentiment? Oh, you love to repeat what others say and don't think for yourself...especially if it is "nasty". Look at me; I have not looked for any about you. IP Address 13:05, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I was mostly upset because you were opposing the Catholic perspective on events; only reverting for the other side in this argument or declaring neither side important. Everybody who has studied the monarchy knows, that there is a direct correlation between Philip and William—that the latter's increase to King Regnant was a form of Calvinist triumph over the preceding Catholic failure and purported insignificance. Where the Liberals wouldn't support a foreign dynasty in the case of Philip, they did so of William. Think again on what I have already written here. Think hard. IP Address 13:24, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm hard pressed to find error in the presentation of Philip as less than fully co-sovereign. Philip and Mary impaled the royal arms side-by-side, just as William and Mary decided to do later on. Does that not mean anything? Why have you nothing to say? IP Address 13:30, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Meanwhile there is not a single reference. And such phrases remain as "Except for before..."--Wetman 16:15, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Just a few facts:
  1. official documents were dated by the regnal years of both Philip & Mary, in that order;
  2. charters &c were issued in the names of Philip & Mary, K & Q, in that order;
  3. coins were stamped with the names of Philip & Mary, in that order;
  4. Acts of Parliament stated they were enacted by the King & Queen, Lords &c, in that order.
King consort or king regnant? Peter jackson (talk) 10:46, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Scottish kings consort[edit]

"In England, while Mary I's husband, the future Philip II of Spain, was named king, no English, Scottish or subsequent British queen regnant's husband has been named king"

This part needs to be fixed; Mary I's husbands, Francis II of France and Henry Stuart, Lord Darnley were kings consort of Scotland. The second paragraph also needs to be fixed – men who became co-monarchs by the rights of their wives were not kings consort, because kings consort (just like queens consort) do not have a regnal number. Eg. John III of Navarre was Navarrese monarch, although he became monarch by the right of his wife. Surtsicna (talk) 17:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Done. (How that self-contradictory sentence stood for so long—"While Mary…'s husband… was named king, no English… queen regnant's husband has been named king."—I can't see.)—Dah31 (talk) 18:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

The title does not exist[edit]

I get that people formed this by analogy to "queen consort", but it is simply not in use. Apparently its use was briefly considered in the 1840s, but rejected. Husbands of queens regnant are sometimes known as "king", and sometimes as "prince consort", and perhaps sometimes they get yet other titles, but we cannot deal with this under a title that was coined for Wikipedia without being in actual use. --dab (𒁳) 10:11, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

"Queen consort" does not exist as a formal title either. Formally, it's just "the queen". "King consort" is merely descriptive, like "queen consort". It does not appear to be invented by Wikipedia. Surtsicna (talk) 10:39, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
Even if this title does technically exist somewhere (I haven't investigated myself) there is no reason to have this as a separate article. I support merging this into prince consort.
--MC (talk) 16:01, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
  ☑Y Merger complete. Klbrain (talk) 16:13, 20 January 2019 (UTC)