Talk:List of British consorts

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Biography / Royalty and Nobility (Rated List-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
 List  This article has been rated as List-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Royalty and Nobility.
 
WikiProject British Royalty (Rated List-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject British Royalty (a child project of the Royalty and Nobility Work Group), an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to British Royalty on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you should visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
 List  This article has been rated as List-Class on the project's quality scale.
 

No consort[edit]

Has there been anyone besides Eliz. I who did not have a consort. A mention of this would be good in the intro. Rmhermen 21:03, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Done Sotakeit 21:01, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Lord Guilford Dudley...[edit]

Should he really be included here? Lady Jane Grey's status as a monarch is highly controversial and of itself. —Cuiviénen, 21:13, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

  • I agree. Sotakeit 21:48, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. We have discussed the legitimacy of Jane as Queen ad nauseum over the last few years and current consensus is she was a Queen regnant deposed by revolution. Dudley is as legitimate as any other person on this list. User:Dimadick

  • Lady Jane was never queen. She had no claim to the throne and wasn't to secure possesion of it. She is not known as Jane of England. Lord Dudley should not be listed as a royal consort, but it should be mention that there is a dispute over him. (Alphaboi867 18:22, 16 March 2006 (UTC))

Wrong at that. Jane was the appointed heir of Edward VI of England who removed both of his sisters of succession. She had a short reign but calling Mary as a queen for those few days is a historic fiction. User:Dimadick

  • Edward VI had no authority to remove his sisters from the succession. He was a minor, England was under regency, and his (invalid) will violated an act of parliament. Since he had no issue Mary was his lawful heir. (Alphaboi867 01:32, 18 March 2006 (UTC))


Please stop edit warring about this! It really does not matter; Jane, Edward IV and Mary I have all been dead for hundreds of years. If you two keep edit warring, I may be forced to put this on WP:LAME. —Cuiviénen, Saturday, 18 March 2006 @ 02:38 (UTC)

According to the Royal Family's website, [1], Jane was Queen. William Quill 10:55, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

If Guildford Dudley is to be included, let me suggest that the following also merit inclusion:
* Geoffrey Plantagenet, husband of Empress Matilda, a strong contender for the rule of England against King Stephen;
* Marguerite of France, wife of Henry the Young King, a crowned though not reigning King of England
* Blanche of Castile, wife of Louis VIII, who ruled much of England from May 1216 to 11 September 1217.
* And, who knows, maybe Lady Catherine Gordon, wife of Perkin Warbeck...
There are a lot of claimants to the English throne in history. Many of them had both better legal standing and more real power than Jane Grey.
RandomCritic 12:30, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Scotland[edit]

Should Scottish royal consorts be added as well? Also I suggest that the dates each person served as royal consort be added to the chart in addition to their birth/death dates. Agree or disagee? (Alphaboi867 03:26, 12 March 2006 (UTC))

  • I think they're both good ideas, but will adding the scottish consorts make the article to long? Other than that I agree that they should be added... Sotakeit 10:27, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Either Scotland should be incorporated (I see it largely has been) or else England and Scotland should both be removed elsewhere. Given that Scotland is incorporate to a large degree, the title of the article "Royal Consorts of the United Kingdom, Great Britain and England". It should be changed to "Royal Consorts of the United Kingdom and predecessor realms". And you might want to include Wales, though I don't know how much knowledge there is about consorts of regnant Princes of Wales.
    • Now that the majority of scots queens have been added, I think that your points are excellent.

Ok, well done all for being bold, but, what do we think of the new title? I'd prefer by far Royal Consorts of the British Isles - what do you all think of that as an alternative? DBD 02:34, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Information[edit]

The introductory information needs to be changed now to include information about Scotland. Sotakeit 22:23, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that you will find there is already a good article about the Royal Consorts of Scotland here. It is also more correct ie. the Kingdom of Scotland did not end in 1603 with the accession of the Scots to the empty English throne but in 1707 with the Union of the Parliaments. Furthermore the first King of Scots dates from around 840AD, and the first reliable consort we have date from 1030's, not at the accession of the Stewarts. Brendandh 19:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

The only good thing about that article was the name -- otherwise, it was inferior to the list in this article and that in List of Queens of Scotland. However, I've taken steps toward merging all of those, so it might actually end up as a good article... one of these days. RandomCritic 15:50, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


Arms[edit]

I have recreated the arms of all the British consorts and many of the English ones. I still have a few left to complete. Does anyone thinks they might be a useful addition to the chart? Just a thought. I am not really familiar with chart construction. I've put the appropriate arms on the consorts' pages, and for my convenience in my wikicommons sandbox, here: [[2]] 125.238.19.57 (talk) 03:45, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Prince Phillip[edit]

If Prince Phillip, husband to Queen Elizabeth II, does not have the title Prince Consort, why is he listed here? And why does the Prince Consort article (and his own Wikipedia article) say he does? --MicahBrwn (talk) 03:18, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

  • Whilst listing Prince Philip as an example of a Prince Consort, the article goes on to say "In recognition of his status, the prince consort can be given a formal title, such as prince, Prince Consort (see below) or king consort... However, most monarchies do not have formal rules on the styling of princes consort...". Furthermore, this is a list of consorts, not queen consorts or prince consorts etc., being that in Britain male consorts to not automatically receive any official title. Sotakeit (talk) 22:34, 26 September 2010 (UTC)