Titles of Royalty and Nobility within the British Monarchy: King

Tags

Head of State, King, King Consort, King Regnant, Monarchy, Nobility, Personal Union, queen, Queen Consort, Queen Regnant, Royalty, Sovereign

Today begins a new series examining the titles of Royalty and Nobility within the British Monarchy.

I will begin by defining what a monarchy is and also the role of the sovereign King or Queen. Although this definition of monarchy can also fit that of an Emperor, reigning Grand Duke or Prince, in this instance it defines a King or Queen Regnant.

King is the title given to a male monarch. The English term king is derived from the Anglo-Saxon cyning, which in turn is derived from the Common Germanic *kuningaz. The Common Germanic term was borrowed into Estonian and Finnish at an early time, surviving in these languages as kuningas.

King George VI of the United Kingdom

A monarch is a head of state for life or until abdication, and therefore the head of state of a monarchy. A monarch may exercise the highest authority and power in the state, or others may wield that power on behalf of the monarch.

Usually a monarch either personally inherits the lawful right to exercise the state’s sovereign rights (often referred to as the throne or the crown) or is selected by an established process from a family or cohort eligible to provide the nation’s monarch. Alternatively, an individual may proclaim themself monarch, which may be backed and legitimated through acclamation, right of conquest or a combination of means.

If a young child is crowned the monarch, then a regent is often appointed to govern until the monarch reaches the requisite adult age to rule. Monarchs’ actual powers vary from one monarchy to another and in different eras; on one extreme, they may be autocrats (absolute monarchy) wielding genuine sovereignty; on the other they may be ceremonial heads of state who exercise little or no direct power or only reserve powers, with actual authority vested in a parliament or other body (constitutional monarchy).

King Edward VII and Queen Alexandra of the United Kingdom

A monarch can reign in multiple monarchies simultaneously. For example, between 1603 and 1707 the monarch ruled England and Wales, Scotland and Ireland. Although the monarch was the sovereign of these states they were not politically united and they continued as separate states, they shared the same monarch through personal union.

There are two types of Kings. A King Regnant and a King Consort. Regnant is a term that means reigning and holding sovereign power. In a Constitutional Monarchy sovereign power is vested in the reigning monarch even if that power is executed by other governmental figures such as a Prime Minister.

In British history there has been only one instance of a King Consort in England; that was King Felipe II of Spain the husband of Queen Mary I of England.

In Scotland King François II of France and Henry Stuart, Lord Darnley, were King Consorts to Mary I of Scotland.

When Queen Mary I of England came to the throne as the first Queen Regnant of England, under the English common law the doctrine of jure uxoris, the property and titles belonging to a woman became her husband’s upon marriage, and it was feared that any man she married would thereby become King of England in fact and in name.

That is what happened. Felipe II of Spain was technically a “King Consort” but under the terms of Queen Mary’s Marriage Act, Felipe II was in practice a joint sovereign to be styled “King of England” in all official documents (including Acts of Parliament) were to be dated with both their names, and Parliament was to be called under the joint authority of the couple, for Mary’s lifetime only.

Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom

That’s one of the reasons Elizabeth I never married, she did not want to share power with her husband. William III was a joint sovereign with his wife Mary II. George of Denmark, not an ambitious man, didn’t push to be made King Consort.

This was challenged with Queen Victoria who wanted to make Albert her King Consort but Parliament squashed that idea. In 1858 Queen Victoria created the title Prince Consort for Prince Albert and this is the only time so that this title was used for the husband of a Queen Regnant.

That brings us to Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh. Jure uxoris had long ceased to being a factor and tradition had evolved to where a Consort of a Queen Regnant wasn’t made a King Consort. Philip was created Duke of Edinburgh on the eve of his marriage to Princess Elizabeth and, as Queen, created him a Prince of the United Kingdom in his own right, making the title Prince Consort unnecessary.

When it comes to addressing either a King Regnant or a King Consort there is absolutely no difference, no distinction, whatsoever and both are simply refered to as “His Majesty the King” despite the differences.

As there are two types of Kings there are also two types of Queens.* The first type of Queen is called a Queen Regnant. A Queen Regnant is a female monarch who rules in her own right and usually becomes queen by inheriting the throne upon the death of the previous monarch.

Some examples of Queen Regnants are: Queen Elizabeth II (1952 – 2022), Queen Victoria (1837 – 1991) and Queen Mary II (1689 – 1694).

The next type of Queen is a Queen Consort. Simply, A Queen Consort is the wife of a reigning king. Let me state further, all wives of reigning Kings in British history have been a Queen Consort.

King Felipe II of Spain and England

A Queen Consort usually shares her spouse’s social rank and status. She holds the feminine equivalent of the king’s monarchical titles and may be crowned and anointed, but historically she does not formally share the regnant’s political and military powers, unless on occasion acting as regent.

When it comes to addressing either a Queen Regnant or a Queen Consort there is absolutely no difference, no distinction whatsoever, and both are simply refered to as “Her Majesty the Queen” despite the differences.

* There is also a Dowager Queen and a Queen Mother. A Queen Dowager is a former Queen Consort who is the widow of a king, and a queen mother is a former Queen Consort who is the mother of the current monarch. Queen Elizabeth II’s mother was a former Queen Consort who didn’t care for the title Queen Dowager and instead took the title of Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mother.

His Majesty the King

Queen Adelaide, wife of King William IV and was known as a Dowager Queen (or Queen Dowager) after his death in 1837. Queen Alexandra and Queen Mary were the wives of King Edward VII had King George V respectively and despite being Queen Mothers neither formally took that title.

Just to restate when addressing a monarch of the United Kingdom whether they are a King Regnant, King Consort or a Queen Regnant or a Queen Consort they are addressed as His/Her Majesty the King or Queen and no distinction is made between a Regnant or a Consort.

Blog Update & Schedule. My Rant.

Tags

British Royalty, Facebook, Misinformation, Nobility, Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, Twitter

From the Emperor’s Desk:

Im taking several days off and will be back on Tuesday, September 27. The passing of HM Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom has been a huge emotional rollercoaster for me. Ive been doing a lot of writing on various subjects related to the Queen and the British Monarchy in general. In the days after the death of the Queen I was very active on my Twitter Account that was connected to this blog and related Facebook page.

It was extremely stressful! The amount of misinformation is staggering! Not only that there are many people that refused to listen to the accurate information. I posted several times my article “The Princess of Wales is not Princess Catherine”. One person on Twitter said “You can post as many articles on the proper usage of titles all you want, but since the press called Diana, Princess Diana I am going to give Catherine that same honor and call her Princess Catherine”. Another person, a few actually, call the Duchess of Sussex “Princess Meghan” or Queen Meghan. This is what I am up against.

On my Facebook page that is connected to this blog I made a post on how the then Duke of Cambridge was also now the Duke of Cornwall. In that post I mentioned that the Duke of Cambridge and Cornwall was now “the heir to the throne “.

Some follower of the page viscously attacked me for saying that Prince William was now heir to the throne. He said that William has always been the heir to the throne since birth! I mentioned that Prince William had been second in line to the throne since birth but was now first in line to the throne.

The follower said I was wrong and that there was no excuse for my mistake and that the knowledge was not secretive and that my mistake showed my ignorance about royalty and that I am an insult to the Royal Family and my followers.

It’s very strange and ironic. In any topic of study or occupation being accurate is a necessity. My job as an historian is to be accurate. However, with Royalty people have an issue with historians being accurate.

What I will do concerning issues of historical accuracy, such as the proper usage of titles, is to write about it here on my blog and role model proper usage of titles and other information.

Also on Twitter my news feed was flooded with hatred toward the Duchess of Sussex. I try and stay out of the drama. First of all there is a lot of gossip and misinformation on this topic and since it is a semi private matter there is much that goes on behind closed doors that we don’t know about. For me not enough to choose sides and form an opinion. As an historian I try to remain neutral and will observe as it plays out.

But one thing does bother me is the vitriol and the massive amount of hatred that boils down in nothing but extreme cyber bullying. I don’t want to be involved in that and I cannot fix it.

But you know what? I don’t care anymore. I will no longer correct misinformation concerning royalty on social media. It’s a toxic environment. Yesterday someone, referring to the Imperial State Crown, said it was made in the year 1400. No it was not. The frame of the Imperial State Crown was built in 1937 for the Coronation of King George VI. The jewels used in the crown are of various ages, some older than 1400.

A couple of people refered to the late Queen as HRH Queen Elizabeth instead of Her Majesty but I just kept moving along.

Prior to being on the internet and starting this blog and related Facebook page in 2012 I used to do all of this on my own, privately for my own enjoyment, since 1977. I did go to college and got advanced degrees in European History where I focused on European Royalty, but I miss those days of just enjoying this subject on my own.

I have toyed around with shutting down my European Royal History Facebook page but as long as there are no longer personal attacks I will keep it open. Personal attacks on this blog are very rare and I don’t want to close it down because I also want to keep open the access to all the articles I wrote.

Thanks for reading my rant.

Before the Queen passed away I was in the midst of a series of articles on the various pretenders to the French Throne. But I have more things I want to write on the British Monarchy before I get back to that subject.

Some of the subjects I will write about starting next Tuesday are:

1. A series on the British titles of Royalty and Nobility, thier history and proper usage

2. I will write a blog post on my thoughts on the passing of the Queen

3. My support for the principle of Constitutional Monarchy

On Twitter I ran into some anti-monarchists views and calls for the monarchy to be abolished…mostly by Americans…so I want to address those issues.

Thanks for reading and I’ll see you next week!

Liam

Why is the wife of an Earl called a Countess?

Tags

Count, Countess, Countess of Wessex, Earl, Earl of Wessex, Jarl, Nobility, Title

The other day I was asked why is the wife of an Earl called a Countess, just like the wife of a Count is called a Countess?

First some historical background on the title of Earl.

Earl is a rank of the nobility in Britain. The title originates in the Old English word eorl, meaning “a man of noble birth or rank”. The word is cognate with the Scandinavian form jarl, and meant “chieftain”, particularly a chieftain set to rule a territory in a king’s absence.

The word is cognate with the Scandinavian form Jarl, and meant “chieftain”, particularly a chieftain set to rule a territory in a king’s stead.

An Earl was the highest rank amongst the nobility below the king in pre-Norman England, and there was no female version of the word. Indeed, the only female noble who had a title at all was the cyninge (queen).

In fact, a female equivalent of Earl never developed in England and therefore the title of Countess was borrowed from the title Count, a title that never caught on with the English nobility.

The word Count came into English from the Norman-French comte, itself from Latin comes—in its accusative comitem—meaning “companion”, and later “companion of the emperor, delegate of the emperor”. The adjective form of the word is “comital”. In the English nobility the title Earl developed as an equivalent to the title of Count.

The Norman-derived equivalent “count” was not introduced following the Norman Conquest of England though “countess” was introduced at the time and was used for the female title. As Geoffrey Hughes writes, “It is a likely speculation that the Norman French title ‘Count’ was abandoned in England in favour of the Germanic ‘Earl’ […] precisely because of the uncomfortable phonetic proximity to cunt”…I kid you not!

Since the title countess is derived from the male form of count it was possible a female equivalent for Earl could have developed along similar lines. For example, “ess” is a suffix from French; where the title Count originated as previously mentioned,

However, English has more in common with the Germanic language where the most common Germanic suffix is -“in”, so if there were an inherited feminine form of Jarl/Earl it would probably be Jarlin. One can speculate that this would have come into English as Earlen.

In Scandinavia, Jarl/Earl could also mean a sovereign prince. For example, the rulers of several of the petty kingdoms of Norway had the title of jarl and in many cases they had no less power than their neighbours who had the title of king.In Scandinavia, the title Jarl/Earl became obsolete in the Middle Ages and was replaced by Duke. After the Norman Conquest of England, an Earl became the equivalent of the continental title of Count. Prior to the times of England post Norman Conquest, during the Anglo-Saxon period, the title of Earl was more akin to a Duke.

Let me fill you in on the title of Duke for perspective.

Duke is a male title either of a monarch ruling over a duchy, or of a member of royalty, or nobility. As rulers, dukes are ranked below emperors, kings, and grand dukes. As royalty or nobility, they are ranked below princes of nobility and grand dukes. The title comes from French duc, itself from the Latin dux, ‘leader’, a term used in republican Rome to refer to a military commander without an official rank (particularly one of Germanic or Celtic origin), and later coming to mean the leading military commander of a province. In most countries, the word duchess is the female equivalent.

Now back to the title of Earl:

In Scotland, the title Earl assimilated the concept of mormaer. A mormaer, also spelled Mormaor, (from Gaelic mor, “great”; maer, or maor, “steward,” or “bailiff”), was a ruler of any of seven provinces into which Celtic Scotland (i.e., the part of the country north of the Forth and the Clyde) was divided.

For the simplest answer to the question why the wife of an Earl is a Countess is simply due to the fact that a female equivalent title, or word,, never developed.

The above picture is Thier Royal Highnesses The Earl and Countess of Wessex and Fofar.