Poll: When Charles becomes King should Camilla get the title of Queen Consort?

[Lincoln Republican]

When Charles becomes King should Camilla get the title of Queen Consort?

Please vote and discuss if you wish.

[Indy Texas]

I don't see why the wife of the "incoming" king wouldn't always be titled Queen Consort as a matter of course. So, yes.

Conversely, I think it's kind of sexist that a regnant queen's husband is almost always relegated to the title of prince rather than King Consort.

[politicus]

I don't see why the wife of the "incoming" king wouldn't always be titled Queen Consort as a matter of course. So, yes.

Conversely, I think it's kind of sexist that a regnant queen's husband is almost always relegated to the title of prince rather than King Consort.

A King is per definition a monarch so that is a no-go. A Queen is normally a consort and other languages than English use some form of "reigning Queen"  for a Queen who is a monarch herself.

[Indy Texas]

I don't see why the wife of the "incoming" king wouldn't always be titled Queen Consort as a matter of course. So, yes.

Conversely, I think it's kind of sexist that a regnant queen's husband is almost always relegated to the title of prince rather than King Consort.

A King is per definition a monarch so that is a no-go. A Queen is normally a consort and other languages than English use some form of "reigning Queen"  for a Queen who is a monarch herself.

If we're going to continue to have monarchy as an institution in the 21st century, I think we can accept that a country will not always have a man be its head of state and that if a queen can be regnant, as is the case in most European monarchies at this point, you can just as easily have a non-regnant king.

[politicus]

I don't see why the wife of the "incoming" king wouldn't always be titled Queen Consort as a matter of course. So, yes.

Conversely, I think it's kind of sexist that a regnant queen's husband is almost always relegated to the title of prince rather than King Consort.

A King is per definition a monarch so that is a no-go. A Queen is normally a consort and other languages than English use some form of "reigning Queen"  for a Queen who is a monarch herself.

If we're going to continue to have monarchy as an institution in the 21st century, I think we can accept that a country will not always have a man be its head of state and that if a queen can be regnant, as is the case in most European monarchies at this point, you can just as easily have a non-regnant king.

Virtually everyone in Europe accepts that a Queen can be regnant, but the title of King is not and has never been a consort title. Queen and King are not similar titles. If you want to make the terminology gender neutral it would make more sense to allow a woman to become King.

Polish female regents were called King (Rex) and Christina of Sweden (1633-54) was crowned as King (although titled Queen at the court), so the concept of a female King is not unheard of. It is less odd than a King Consort, which is just a terrible ahistorical and silly title.

[Indy Texas]

I don't see why the wife of the "incoming" king wouldn't always be titled Queen Consort as a matter of course. So, yes.

Conversely, I think it's kind of sexist that a regnant queen's husband is almost always relegated to the title of prince rather than King Consort.

A King is per definition a monarch so that is a no-go. A Queen is normally a consort and other languages than English use some form of "reigning Queen"  for a Queen who is a monarch herself.

If we're going to continue to have monarchy as an institution in the 21st century, I think we can accept that a country will not always have a man be its head of state and that if a queen can be regnant, as is the case in most European monarchies at this point, you can just as easily have a non-regnant king.

Virtually everyone in Europe accepts that a Queen can be regnant, but the title of King is not and has never been a consort title. Queen and King are not similar titles. If you want to make the terminology gender neutral it would make more sense to allow a woman to become King.

I don't know the etymology behind "king" versus "queen" in Germanic languages.

The Latin "rex" and "regina" both come from the same root word. They essentially are the same word gendered differently. So I don't see why there would be any inherent implications in the male version of the word that would not be in the female version, apart from social/cultural assumptions that are no longer relevant in the modern era.

[politicus]

I don't see why the wife of the "incoming" king wouldn't always be titled Queen Consort as a matter of course. So, yes.

Conversely, I think it's kind of sexist that a regnant queen's husband is almost always relegated to the title of prince rather than King Consort.

A King is per definition a monarch so that is a no-go. A Queen is normally a consort and other languages than English use some form of "reigning Queen"  for a Queen who is a monarch herself.

If we're going to continue to have monarchy as an institution in the 21st century, I think we can accept that a country will not always have a man be its head of state and that if a queen can be regnant, as is the case in most European monarchies at this point, you can just as easily have a non-regnant king.

Virtually everyone in Europe accepts that a Queen can be regnant, but the title of King is not and has never been a consort title. Queen and King are not similar titles. If you want to make the terminology gender neutral it would make more sense to allow a woman to become King.

I don't know the etymology behind "king" versus "queen" in Germanic languages.

The Latin "rex" and "regina" both come from the same root word. They essentially are the same word gendered differently. So I don't see why there would be any inherent implications in the male version of the word that would not be in the female version, apart from social/cultural assumptions that are no longer relevant in the modern era.

Queen means wife. The Nordic konungr and German König means one who belongs to a noble lineage/of noble ilk. King is derived from the same root.

You got König/Königin as male/female pair in German. Nordic dronning is a female version of drot, which means lord or chieftain, so that is a "ruler" title.

The point is King is so closely associated with being a ruler that it would always feel strange and unnatural to use it for a mere consort and prince works fine.

[Famous Mortimer]

I don't see why the wife of the "incoming" king wouldn't always be titled Queen Consort as a matter of course. So, yes.

Conversely, I think it's kind of sexist that a regnant queen's husband is almost always relegated to the title of prince rather than King Consort.

A King is per definition a monarch so that is a no-go. A Queen is normally a consort and other languages than English use some form of "reigning Queen"  for a Queen who is a monarch herself.

If we're going to continue to have monarchy as an institution in the 21st century, I think we can accept that a country will not always have a man be its head of state and that if a queen can be regnant, as is the case in most European monarchies at this point, you can just as easily have a non-regnant king.

Virtually everyone in Europe accepts that a Queen can be regnant, but the title of King is not and has never been a consort title. Queen and King are not similar titles. If you want to make the terminology gender neutral it would make more sense to allow a woman to become King.

I don't know the etymology behind "king" versus "queen" in Germanic languages.

The Latin "rex" and "regina" both come from the same root word. They essentially are the same word gendered differently. So I don't see why there would be any inherent implications in the male version of the word that would not be in the female version, apart from social/cultural assumptions that are no longer relevant in the modern era.

Queen means wife. The Nordic konungr means one who belngs to a noble lineage/of noble ilk. Dunno if King is derived from that, but they are related.

Nordic dronning is a female version of drot, which means lord or chieftain, so that is a "ruler" title.

The point is King is so closely associated with being a ruler that it would always feel strange and unnatural to use it for a mere consort and prince works fine.

It feels strange and unnatural using non-gendered pronouns but there's a move towards that.

[politicus]

I don't see why the wife of the "incoming" king wouldn't always be titled Queen Consort as a matter of course. So, yes.

Conversely, I think it's kind of sexist that a regnant queen's husband is almost always relegated to the title of prince rather than King Consort.

A King is per definition a monarch so that is a no-go. A Queen is normally a consort and other languages than English use some form of "reigning Queen"  for a Queen who is a monarch herself.

If we're going to continue to have monarchy as an institution in the 21st century, I think we can accept that a country will not always have a man be its head of state and that if a queen can be regnant, as is the case in most European monarchies at this point, you can just as easily have a non-regnant king.

Virtually everyone in Europe accepts that a Queen can be regnant, but the title of King is not and has never been a consort title. Queen and King are not similar titles. If you want to make the terminology gender neutral it would make more sense to allow a woman to become King.

I don't know the etymology behind "king" versus "queen" in Germanic languages.

The Latin "rex" and "regina" both come from the same root word. They essentially are the same word gendered differently. So I don't see why there would be any inherent implications in the male version of the word that would not be in the female version, apart from social/cultural assumptions that are no longer relevant in the modern era.

Queen means wife. The Nordic konungr and German König means one who belongs to a noble lineage/of noble ilk. King is derived from the same root.

You got König/Königin as male/female pair in German. Nordic dronning is a female version of drot, which means lord or chieftain, so that is (also) a "ruler" title linguistically.

The point is King is so closely associated with being a ruler that it would always feel strange and unnatural to use it for a mere consort and prince works fine.

It feels strange and unnatural using non-gendered pronouns but there's a move towards that.

1) The difference is that everything involving monarchy is rooted in tradition and history, without that royalty becomes pointless. Language evolves more freely and does not loose its purpose by being cut off from its historical roots.

2) If you wanted to breach with tradition to create more gender equality allowing a woman to become King, would be more logical and less unprecedented than having King Consorts.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

An alternative:

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Yes, because people hate Camilla and think she's a witch.

[politicus]

Queen is from Anglo-Saxon cwēn, cwǣn (woman; wife, consort - and thereby also royal consort) derived from from Proto-Germanic kwēniz (woman).

[Indy Texas]

Traditions have to evolve to stay relevant, or else they will be abandoned altogether.

The British monarchy has made a lot of far more consequential changes over its history.

[politicus]

Traditions have to evolve to stay relevant, or else they will be abandoned altogether.

The British monarchy has made a lot of far more consequential changes over its history.

Possibly, but this is a completely unnecessary and silly change. Prince Consort works fine and there is no reason to devaluate the title of King. Again, if you for some reason wanted gender equality in this area allowing a woman to become King instead of Queen Regnant would make more sense.

It is the sort of idea someone from a country without a monarchy would come up with. If you have a royal family stuff like that just feels plain wrong. Just try to imagine the husband of a female president being President Consort. Like a President a King is a head of state and it just doesn't work adding consort to such a title.

[Hatman 🍁]

In English, a king is always a man. It would be so much weirder to start calling Elizabeth "King Elizabeth II" then to call Prince Phillip "King Consort". This isn't Scandinavia we're talking about. In the common vernacular in English, "King" and "Queen" are equal titles, and should be treated as such. The history of the language doesn't matter. Languages evolve. I can just as easily cite the game of chess as an equally ridiculous reason for why the Queen is more powerful.

[politicus]

In English, a king is always a man. It would be so much weirder to start calling Elizabeth "King Elizabeth II" then to call Prince Phillip "King Consort". This isn't Scandinavia we're talking about. In the common vernacular in English, "King" and "Queen" are equal titles, and should be treated as such. The history of the language doesn't matter. Languages evolve. I can just as easily cite the game of chess as an equally ridiculous reason for why the Queen is more powerful.

The connotation of King (konge) is exactly the same in Scandinavian languages as in English. All Germanic languages are the same in this regard. I am just pointing out it would more sense from a historical perspective if you wanted gender equality.

Also, vernacular is not relevant when it comes to constitutional practice.

"King" and "Queen" are equal titles, and should be treated as such.

They are clearly not given that a King is per definition a regent, while a Queen is his consort. That is the basis. A Queen Regnant is an anomaly (historically something you chose when no male heirs were available) hence the need to specify the "regnant" part.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

Other (Camilla should become King).

[Hatman 🍁]

In English, a king is always a man. It would be so much weirder to start calling Elizabeth "King Elizabeth II" then to call Prince Phillip "King Consort". This isn't Scandinavia we're talking about. In the common vernacular in English, "King" and "Queen" are equal titles, and should be treated as such. The history of the language doesn't matter. Languages evolve. I can just as easily cite the game of chess as an equally ridiculous reason for why the Queen is more powerful.

The connotation of King (konge) is exactly the same in Scandinavian languages as in English. All Germanic languages are the same in this regard. I am just pointing out it would more sense from a historical perspective if you wanted gender equality.

Also, vernacular is not relevant when it comes to constitutional practice.

"King" and "Queen" are equal titles, and should be treated as such.

They are clearly not given that a King is per definition a regent, while a Queen is his consort. That is the basis. A Queen Regnant is an anomaly (historically something you chose when no male heirs were available) hence the need to specify the "regnant" part.

I understand what the "definition" is, but I'm speaking more on behalf of the vernacular definition, and there's no reason why a constitution couldn't reflect the vernacular.

This kind of sexism doesn't stop at kings & queens. The wives of those who are knighted become ladies, but the husbands of dames do not become lords. I suppose in this case it comes down to the "definition" of lord.

It's all this sexism in the name of tradition that makes it harder for me to be sympathetic towards the monarchy.

[The Mikado]

In English, a king is always a man. It would be so much weirder to start calling Elizabeth "King Elizabeth II" then to call Prince Phillip "King Consort". This isn't Scandinavia we're talking about. In the common vernacular in English, "King" and "Queen" are equal titles, and should be treated as such. The history of the language doesn't matter. Languages evolve. I can just as easily cite the game of chess as an equally ridiculous reason for why the Queen is more powerful.

Eh, even in English Hedwig/Jadwiga of Poland is King Hedwig in all the things I've seen, and I'm sure the same applies to references to Christina of Sweden, though I haven't gone out of my way to see any.

[politicus]

In English, a king is always a man. It would be so much weirder to start calling Elizabeth "King Elizabeth II" then to call Prince Phillip "King Consort". This isn't Scandinavia we're talking about. In the common vernacular in English, "King" and "Queen" are equal titles, and should be treated as such. The history of the language doesn't matter. Languages evolve. I can just as easily cite the game of chess as an equally ridiculous reason for why the Queen is more powerful.

The connotation of King (konge) is exactly the same in Scandinavian languages as in English. All Germanic languages are the same in this regard. I am just pointing out it would more sense from a historical perspective if you wanted gender equality.

Also, vernacular is not relevant when it comes to constitutional practice.

"King" and "Queen" are equal titles, and should be treated as such.

They are clearly not given that a King is per definition a regent, while a Queen is his consort. That is the basis. A Queen Regnant is an anomaly (historically something you chose when no male heirs were available) hence the need to specify the "regnant" part.

I understand what the "definition" is, but I'm speaking more on behalf of the vernacular definition, and there's no reason why a constitution couldn't reflect the vernacular.

This kind of sexism doesn't stop at kings & queens. The wives of those who are knighted become ladies, but the husbands of dames do not become lords. I suppose in this case it comes down to the "definition" of lord.

It's all this sexism in the name of tradition that makes it harder for me to be sympathetic towards the monarchy.

Yes. A lord belongs to the peerage. It is a much higher title than a dame. A lady is the wife of a knight, baronet or lord. Again, not equal titles.

[Lief 🗽]

of course not keep that murderuos whore as far away from buckingham palace as posisble

[windjammer]

They're still together?

[ingemann]

I don't see why the wife of the "incoming" king wouldn't always be titled Queen Consort as a matter of course. So, yes.

Conversely, I think it's kind of sexist that a regnant queen's husband is almost always relegated to the title of prince rather than King Consort.

A King is per definition a monarch so that is a no-go. A Queen is normally a consort and other languages than English use some form of "reigning Queen"  for a Queen who is a monarch herself.

If we're going to continue to have monarchy as an institution in the 21st century, I think we can accept that a country will not always have a man be its head of state and that if a queen can be regnant, as is the case in most European monarchies at this point, you can just as easily have a non-regnant king.

Seeing as no one who live in a monarchy ask for this change, I really would find it a weird way to join the 21st century, it would be like a European suggesting that the American constitution should be updated to the 21st century by rewritting it with beatnik slang terms.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

NO CUZ PRINCESS DI STILL LIVES WITHIN R HERTS

whatever you think of the monarchy, the idea that the sole anachronistic feature of it is the, err, gender-based semantics is ... odd.

[Linus Van Pelt]

In fact, there is an old tradition of non-regnant Kings consort in Britain. In Scotland, both Lord Darnley and Francis II were known as King while married to Mary, Queen of Scots, although Mary was regnant. In England, Mary I's husband Philip of Spain was King of England. Granted, both Francis and Philip were regnant kings in their home countries but they were also non-regnant kings of Scotland and England respectively.

When Anne took the throne in 1702, there was some controversy, discussed in Parliament, about whether her husband Prince George of Denmark would be made King Consort, but in the end he wasn't.  And when Victoria married Albert, she wanted to make him King Consort but the government refused out of concern for his foreign origins, making him Prince Consort instead. Elizabeth II then continued this newer precedent with Philip.

But in light of Tudor practice, King is arguably the older and more traditional title for a non-regnant male consort, and they were certainly aware of the possibility in the 18th and 19th centuries.