Humanities desk
< August 15	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	August 17 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

August 16

Prince Consort

The wife of a king is called a queen. But the husband of a queen is not called a king, but called a prince. Why?

Desklin (talk) 04:20, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't quite true. The titles as a result of high-level royal or noble marriage is often negotiated and worked out on an ad hoc basis, as such marriages are rare, and often the result of careful diplomatic negotiations and quid-pro-quos between the negotiating countries. There are many spouses of queens who became kings. See jure uxoris. Famous examples of husbands of queens who were titled King include:

Philip II of Spain, who was King of England and Ireland through his marriage to Mary I of England
William III, Prince of Orange was also William III, King of England solely by right of his marriage to Mary II of England
John of Gaunt claimed (but failed to enforce) his right to the title King of Castile by right of marriage.
Władysław II Jagiełło became King of Poland because he was married to the rightful heir of the throne, Jadwiga.
Francis I, Holy Roman Emperor gets special consideration because he got named Emperor by marriage to Maria Theresa, Hapsburg Heir (see Pragmatic Sanction of 1713, War of Austrian Succession. etc.)

Some spouses of Queens Regnant were not named kings, but that is usually because the Queens in question "married down", and the spouse in question did not merit the title of King by their birth (a form of Morganatic marriage), or because of political or diplomatic reasons (Prince George of Denmark was not particularly well liked or respected by his British subjects, he also had little interest in being involved in British politics, which is why he never sought, nor was granted, a Kingly titled as his brother-in-law William of Orange had). Also there's probably some historical sexism clearly at work here in the sense that Kings always outrank Queens, so while a Queen may rule in absence of any King, once a man has been named King, it's expected he will have real power in the stead of his wife. In England, for example, many of the treaties agreed to when Philip II of Spain married Mary I were carefully worded because it was feared that Philip would actually exercise his kingly powers in England, rather than just being a mute spouse to Mary, who was the rightful monarch. See Act for the Marriage of Queen Mary to Philip of Spain, which grants Philip the title of King, but makes it clear such title was purely honorary and had no real powers. This was felt necessary because, while it would be expected that a Queen Consort would keep her mouth shut and be a dutiful, quiet wife; a King Consort may actually expect to rule. Women were clearly not considered equal partners, and in cases where the woman in a relationship was to be granted supremacy, it was SO out of the ordinary that it had to be spelled out in detail lest anyone get confused. --Jayron 32 04:46, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well put Jayron. Just to confirm the above, see The Monarchy and the Constitution by Vernon Bogdanor (pp. 51-52), which includes a telling quote from Albert, Prince Consort: "A very considerable section of the nation had never given itself the trouble to consider what really is the position of the husband of the Queen Regnant. When I first came over here, I was met by this want of knowledge and unwillingness to give a thought to the position of this luckless personage". Alansplodge (talk) 09:16, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be simpler than that. If a duke marries his wife will become a duchess, but if a marchioness (in her own right) marries her husband will not become a marquess. William would not become king by virtue of his marriage to Mary (who I believe was a daughter of James I) but was offered the throne by parliamentarians who thought he would be a strong Protestant monarch. Victoria wanted her husband to be king, but when she learned that was not possible she gave him the highest title possible. 86.138.233.41 (talk) 13:11, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

William III of England is not a simple case of jure uxoris; Mary's succession was irregular anyway. Both Mary and William were grandchildren of Charles I, and that must have been a boost for him. —Tamfang (talk) 19:20, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]