http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_consort
Basically, while the granting of the crown matrimonial was somewhat up to the queen, there was no such thing as a prince consort before Prince Albert in 19th century. A husband who did not become King Consort (or Emperor Consort) would not automatically become Prince Consort either, as that title too requires a specific grant. He would simply only hold his own titles.
Now there is some difference between a king consort (Jagiello of Poland, although he had full powers; Philip II of Spain didn't while being "King" of England by Mary Tudor) and a iure uxoris king (Guy de Lusignan of Jerusalem), who was a normal king in right of his wife. But at any rate there shouldn't be prince consorts. On the other hand, husbands of duchesses and countesses should be differentiated from real dukes and counts (they'd normally become iure uxoris counts or dukes rather than mere consorts).
Basically, while the granting of the crown matrimonial was somewhat up to the queen, there was no such thing as a prince consort before Prince Albert in 19th century. A husband who did not become King Consort (or Emperor Consort) would not automatically become Prince Consort either, as that title too requires a specific grant. He would simply only hold his own titles.
Now there is some difference between a king consort (Jagiello of Poland, although he had full powers; Philip II of Spain didn't while being "King" of England by Mary Tudor) and a iure uxoris king (Guy de Lusignan of Jerusalem), who was a normal king in right of his wife. But at any rate there shouldn't be prince consorts. On the other hand, husbands of duchesses and countesses should be differentiated from real dukes and counts (they'd normally become iure uxoris counts or dukes rather than mere consorts).
Upvote
0
