Talk:Queen consort

message: I have just been having a very interesting discussion, which I was hoping for some clarity. What legislation stipulates that the wife of a King is a Queen? I haven't been able to find any source which stipulates this in writing.
Surely, it can't just be a matter of tradition? There must be something which regulates and specifies in law that the wife of a King is a Queen. If not, how can we make articles listing people as Queen's when there's nothing at all that specifically states that they are. An assumption is not law. A tradition is not a law. Prince Philip had to be ennobled as Prince because King George VI had erroneously assumed that granting the style HRH would make him a Prince. The Queen had to correct her Father's mistake later in her reign. If something needed to be specified in the case of Prince Phillip, then I would assume that something needs to be specified with regards to who holds the title of Queen. Or is the title just an assumption with no legal standing whatsoever.... I'd be very interested to read any thoughts on this? 
11  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.0.29.40 (talk) 15:38, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Queen Consort - Legal status? 

message: Hello all.  I've been working on making lists of European queen consorts over at User:John Kenney/Queens.  I wonder if this might be useful as an actual wikipedia article, either on this page or linked from it.  any thoughts? john k 20:29, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Impressive list! It most certainly should be its own article, and not part of this one, as it's quite simply huge. Simply put it at list of queen consorts in Europe or something like that? —Nightstallion (?) 16:06, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [Untitled]

message: It has to do with the fact that Camilla is divorced. Charles is also divorced, but if one does not recognise his divorce, then he is widowed. Camilla is, however one looks at it, divorced. 
So she is not a "suitable" Queen of England, even as Queen Consort.  If, when her husband accedes the throne, she is to become his consort, a suitable title must be found. "Princess Consort" seems like a good way to go, because it then creates a hierachy which acknowledges that princess is less than king without confirming the old (nowadays artificial and somewhat offensive) hierarchy that queen is less than king. The term "princess consort" follows the same form as "prince consort". 
And any question of having a divorced queen is simply sidestepped by a technicality. 
--Amandajm 07:29, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A: 

message: Isn't "A queen consort is the wife and consort of a reigning king." redundant? According to wicktionary, consort already means wife of a king. --MarSch 11:41, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the redundancy yesterday without noticing this conversation. --Justanother 11:42, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  redundant? 

message: Is the plural form of "queen consort" "queens consort"? One of the sections of this article  uses "queens consort".
Is "consort" in "queen consort" a noun or an adjective? If the plural form of "queen consort" is "queens consort", it perhaps looks like an adjective. However, I find "queen consort" in an English-Korean dictionary, it is written as the stress is "quéen cónsort", that means it is  in RP and  in GA. (Most of English dictionaries written in Korean and published in the Republic of Korea is using the acute accent ( ´  ) as the primary stress and the grave accent ( ` ) as the secondary stress.)  and  are not the pronunciations as an adjective but as a noun.
Briefly, my questions are below:
# Is the plural form of "queen consort" "queens consort"?
# Is the part of speech of "consort" in "queen consort" a noun or an adjective?
#* Is the pronunciation of "consort" in "queen consort"  in RP and  in GA?
:The latter, the latter, and "con" (like a scam) then "sort" (like to put in a specific order) DBD 17:00, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Plural Form of "Queen Consort" & The Part of Speech of "Consort" in "Queen Consort" 

message: In my view, the expression "dying without issue" is not widely understood. A very brief explanation would be helpful. Richard Myers (talk) 14:03, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It's very clear and widely used. "Dying without issue" means dying without children. Surtsicna (talk) 14:29, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "dying without issue" 

message: Why are so many periods and commas being placed outside quotation marks these days? Don't they ALWAYS go inside?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.181.52.193 (talk) 15:49, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: They don't in British English - the period is placed outside when it punctuates the whole sentence, and inside when it punctuates only the quoted material. Surtsicna (talk) 15:53, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Punctuation does go inside quotations.Cebr1979 (talk) 09:39, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, for Commonwealth English, including English (British English), the full stop or comma does NOT always go inside the quotation marks.  Just because Americans do it, doesn't mean we all follow American style rules. 110.147.168.137 (talk) 10:44, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: punctuation

message: the phrasing "usually ... Most of the time, however" is confusing/contradictory.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.8.189.243 (talk) 02:00, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  confusion in the opening paragraph 

message: In order to avoid an edit war, this is why I reverted the change to my edit;
I know there has been discussion of Camilla becoming Princess Consort, but there has been, that I can find, NO  "declaration" from either Parliament or Clarence House that this WILL be the title used.
Further, while there is no "law" that would prevent Camilla from using the title "Princess Consort", she can not use a Title that does not exist.  Thus, there is "something" that keeps her from using such a title.
She uses Duchess of Cornwall now as that *IS* one of her subsidiary titles that DOES exist.
The plain fact of the matter is that the change I made is simply the truth of the matter.  In order for her to be known as Princess Consort in the United Kingdom, the Parliament of the UK *WILL* need to pass an act to deal with the issue.  It is also possible that Charles could issue a letter patent to deal with the situation, but this is unlikely as changing the title used by a Queen Consort will likely set a precedent, rather than a one off change by a patent. This also opens up issue as to if the Commonwealth Realms need to also consent to such a change in keeping with the linear "ideals" of the Statute of Westminister.  Having a Princess Consort of the United Kingdom and a Queen Consort of Canada (etc) is not in line with the spirit of the Statute. Dphilp75 (talk) 15:51, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You are certainly right that "there has been discussion of Camilla becoming Princess Consort" in the media for several years. However the basis for this article's reference to the expected future use of that title by Camilla is the announcement on 10 February 2005 by Clarence House of the re-marriage of the Prince of Wales, which stated that "Mrs Parker Bowles will use the title HRH The Duchess of Cornwall after marriage. It is intended that Mrs Parker Bowles should use the title HRH The Princess Consort when The Prince of Wales accedes to The Throne. The wedding will be a largely private occasion for family and friends." Currently? Both the official websites of the British Monarchy (in the section on the Duchess of Cornwall) and of the Prince of Wales still state, "It is intended that The Duchess of Cornwall will use the title HRH The Princess Consort when The Prince of Wales accedes to The Throne." Note that on the Prince's website that statement is given in reply to the oft-asked question "Will The Duchess become Queen when The Prince becomes King?" and is included in the website's FAQ -- clearly for the purpose of resolving rather than evading clarity in this matter. Of course, plans may change, at which time this article should do so. Meanwhile, Wikipedia is forbidden to speculate about the future, although Britain's present and future sovereigns are free to do so -- and to be quoted here on their stated agenda without our editorializing. With reference to Camilla eventually using the title Princess Consort, you state that "she can not use a Title that does not exist." Please state the legal basis for this assertion? I can think of at least two ways in which Camilla could use the title Princess Consort without breaking the law: 1. as a courtesy title, just as the daughter of a marquess is known as "Lady Firstname Lastname" by customary usage (as established, e.g. in the Court Circular); or 2. by an explicit expression of the Royal Pleasure (as Lady Gabriella Windsor uses the prefix Lady pursuant to the 1917 letters patent granting that style to male-line great-grandchildren of British sovereigns}. Although you contend that it is unlikely letters patent would be issued to make Camilla Princess Royal because "changing the title used by a Queen Consort will likely set a precedent, rather than a one off change," again this is speculation on your part -- and contradicts known precedent: The letters patent issued by George VI unilaterally recognizing the right to the style of Royal Highness for the Duke of Windsor but withholding it from his wife the Duchess of Windsor, certainly alienated the Duke but has never been successfully challenged. Your suggestion that such an action by the Sovereign might require "the Commonwealth Realms need to also consent to such a change in keeping with the linear 'ideals' of the Statute of Westminister," is also not relevant. This article's wording was not suggesting that Camilla would not hold the same legal title and status as previous queens consort -- on the contrary, it explicitly affirmed that she would -- rather, King Charles III, as the fount of honour of the UK and Commonwealth Realms, would simply be adding a new title, Princess Consort, to which Camilla would be entitled. If the people of one or more Commonwealth realms so objected to this that they refused to refer to their Sovereign's wife in the way he and she prefer, I'm confident that King Charles would know his constitutional role well enough to make no public protest. Since we are talking here about what title is used rather than changed there would be no implications for the Statute of Westminster. But frankly, I'm inclined to believe that this matter was vetted with the appropriate representatives of the Commonwealth realms or it would not have been put forth. If they can accept change (and already have, viz. "Her Grace the Duchess of Windsor" and "HRH the Duchess of Cornwall"), so can Wikipedia. FactStraight (talk) 08:25, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section on Camilla 

message: Does anybody know if the term "queen consort" originated as a word-for-word translation of a foreign (perhaps french?) phrase? Because it seems unusual that it would be "queen consort" rather than "consort queen"; usually in english the modifier comes first  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.121.6.113 (talk) 16:58, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this a calque of a foreign phrase 

message: I'm new to editing, but want to adhere to the norms. I think it's suggested as best practice to share the editing points I plan to make on the page. I have found research that suggests another role of queen consorts were as tools of cultural transfer by means of introducing new traditions, asthestics and interests through travel and change of environment. Because women were often married off very early in life, some were found (through letters, documents of travel and the like) to have influenced leaders and nations of their new families by keeping the traditions and practices of their homelands even after marriage and travel.
I would also like to add under Titles the example of Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, husband of Queen Victoria, as Prince Consort. Klb89 (talk) 19:58, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Queen Consort and Cultural Transfer Roles 

message: A discussion is taking place to address the redirect :Royal consort. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 14#Royal consort until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  MB 15:01, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Royal consort" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: The first paragraph under the section on Titles states "The title of prince consort for the husband of a reigning queen is rare. Examples are Henry Stuart, Lord Darnley, in Scotland; Antoine of Bourbon-Vendôme in Navarre; Francis, Duke of Cádiz, in Spain; and Ferdinand of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha in Portugal." Yet the Wikipedia article on each of these men specify them as King Consort jure uxoris
Darnley was officially proclaimed King (Consort) of Scotland the day after his marriage on 30 July 1565, a title never confirmed by Scotland's Parliament but never challenged either. Ferdinand was legally made King Consort of Portugal. Francis retained his King Consort title even after his wife abdicated. And this is all detailed in the linked article Prince Consort. In fact, the only actual Prince Consort listed there is Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha.  
So other than Albert, why are these men listed as Prince Consorts? Do we remove their names or correct their titles to King Consort and list Albert in a separate sentence? History Lunatic (talk) 16:29, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prince vs King Consort 

message: "Queen consort" has never been and is till not a title. "Queen" is a title. There is so much silliness going on since E2R died - such as "Queen Consort Camilla" or "the King and the Queen Consort". Wikipedia should always be careful not to support and legitimize silliness. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:58, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Correct. Good for you, a sane one. 2600:4040:5D30:4800:409D:E39A:51F1:8B26 (talk) 20:19, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Not a title