THERE is speculation regarding the title to be conferred upon the consort of the next monarch, but little attention is paid to the more general question of titles for future consorts.
The Cameron-Clegg reform of the royal succession secured gender equality for the first born children of monarchs and established that we have no preference for a king over a queen.
In so doing it rendered untenable our convention that the consort of a reigning king is a queen while that of queen is a prince.
Equality is a two-way street.
More specifically, the convention needs to express the subordinate role of the consort and it achieves this only given the presumption of a lower status for the female.
We have just rejected any such presumption.
This suggests that we resolve the problem by demoting female consorts to the rank of princess rather than by elevating male ones to become kings.
If instead we opt for the latter we must expect eventually to have not only a King Consort but also a King Father. That option would further mean that when, in consequence of another Cameron-Clegg reform, if there is a monarch in a same-sex marriage we shall simultaneously have two kings or two queens.
John Riseley, Harrogate
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel