Quote:
Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction
I read up a little bit on it, and it isn't completely unprecedented for divorcees and 2nd wives to not get the higher title. It does seem kind of dumb.
|
A divorced king is pretty much unprecedented. (Henry VIII's many failed marriages were
annulments, or he had them executed.
) Charles was the first heir apparent to get a divorce.
Quote:
|
I read also that giving the ruling Queen's husband the title of Prince Consort over King Consort is more a tradition than a law, but the source wasn't an academic one, so I don't know if that is actually true.
|
Of course, it's all "tradition". "Tradition" is about 95% of what the monarchy is! :P
As such, there's never been a (widely acknowledged) "king consort" in the UK or England. All the previous queens regnant's husbands were not kings except William III, who co-ruled with his wife Mary II, and Mary I's husband Philip, who was separately King of Spain and Portugal. Anne's husband George and Victoria's husband Albert were both princes, never kings.
Quote:
|
I do find it ridiculous that the Queen had to give her blessing for the marriage of her adult son, but technically, the Queen is religious head of the state as well as the ruling monarch. Not having an Anglican marriage is a big deal for a monarch apparently.
|
Being that the monarch is also the head of the Anglican Church, it's a pretty big deal if their own marriage isn't actually kosher within the rules of the church. It was only about 20 years ago that the Church allowed divorced people to remarry while the former spouse was still alive.