Stupid question, but why isn't the Queen's husband the King?

[Very_Boring_Name]

I should probably know this coming from a Commonwealth nation, but isn't the guy who is married to the Queen... supposed to be the King? So why is he only a prince?

[zanana1]

1. Good question...

I've never understood all that British royalty stuff. By the way, does anybody here know who pays for their lavish lifestyle?

[freshwest]

3. British Petroleum?

[hifiguy]

6. The royal family owns

enormous amounts of land in its own right. Likely it was extorted from the peasants at the point of a sword 300-800 years ago, but no one's gonna contest their claim to it after all these centuries. They make money the same way other massive landowners do - charging rents for usage of their land.

IIRC, there used to be a duke who actually owned an enormous chunk of the land comprising the City of London. He collected a pretty penny on those holdings, you can bet.

[freshwest]

11. And is the reasoning behind Thomas Paine's pamphlet, 'Agrarian Justice,' or the social safety net.

[hifiguy]

2. Elizabeth II is the direct heir of her father,

therefore she has the highest royal title. So Philip, husband to Elizabeth, is Prince Consort. "King Consort" simply wouldn't do a he is not a direct heir of King George, E2's father.

In medieval and later times a foreign prince could become king of another country of which he was not native by marrying the daughter of that country's king. That practice sort of died out over the centuries as queens were allowed to reign on their own right. Same went for Queen Victoria and her husband, Albert the Prince Consort.

[freshwest]

5. So, this is their way of being enlightened? Still, too much DNA snobbery.

[Call Me Wesley]

4. Bloodlines. He married into the ruling 'bloddline' but didn't came from them.

On the other hand, when Prince Williams becomes King, Kate will become Queen, but he will still outrank her. :oy:

[Deep13]

7. "King" is always the reigning monarch while "Queen" ...

...can be either the reigning monarch or the wife of the king. QE2's mother was also Queen Elizabeth, yet she was not Elizabeth the First because she was not the ruling monarch. As others have pointed out, QE2 inherited the postion from her father, King George VI, so she is the reigning monarch. Her husband simply married into the family and, therefore, cannot be king.

[sarge43]

8. No title or honor is granted to a husband just because his wife has one, at least in the UK.

For example, when Margaret Thatcher was granted that baronage, her husband remains merely Mr T. Both of the husbands of the past two queens regnant (Anne and Victoria) were princes, never kings.

No, it's not fair.

[redwitch]

34. Margaret Thatcher is married to Mr T.??????

Dayum! I did not know that!

I pity the fool.

[sarge43]

35. I'd pay good money to watch that cage match.

:applause: redwitch.

[LeftinOH]

9. Queen's husband = "Prince Consort": he's the seed provider, not the monarch. n/t

[freshwest]

12. Stud service? Brood mares? What a way to live.

[progressoid]

10. Sooo, that means Kate can't be Queen if William becomes King?

[Demoiselle]

14. Kate will become Queen.

The FEMALE consort of a reigning monarch (ie., a king) gets the title, because all she gets is the title. She doesn't get any reigning power. Kind of like being Mrs. Donald Trump with no prenup. I think maybe MALE consorts of reigning monarchs don't get the "king" title thanks to our centuries old sexist tradition that a king automatically outranks a queen.
Maybe someday someone can explain to me why "Queens" in chess are more powerful than "Kings."
But you don't have to do that today.

[progressoid]

15. OK, here's another one.

Somebody told me that if Charles becomes King, Camilla won't be named a Queen. That right? :shrug:

[sarge43]

18. So they say, but that could change. n/t

[solara]

22. Isn't it because Camilla is divorced? So is Charles but he is the heir to the throne

Besides, the Queen doesn't much like Camilla, not that it has anything to do with anything


:shrug:

[Bucky]

26. You got it right. Of course once Chucky's on the throne, he can ax whatever he likes of Parliament.

Good God, monarchy is a stoopid institution. I'd make fun of them more, but republicanism doesn't seem to work out all that much better.

[ikri]

32. He can ask

But they'll tell him to go away.

Parliament rules Britain, not the monarchy.

[Sequoia]

46. Chuckles will never be the king.

I think it's up to his mother the queen who will say who comes after her and my bets are on William. Charles is a bit nutty these days and his mother is plenty worried about handing the reins to him.

[sarge43]

50. No, the monarch has no say in the order of succession.

Parliament has that authority and has since 1701 with the Act of Settlement.

He abdicates, predeceases Elizabeth or becomes king.

[Scout]

56. i'm hoping the Queen simply outlives Charles!

then William would be king next!

[sarge43]

31. Complicated.

1. Both are admitted adulterers, still a no-no with the CofE. Divorce is sometimes acceptable (depending on circumstances), but busting up a marriage, not so much Their marriage was only blessed, not officiated.

2. The monarch is the Defender of the Faith, secular head of the CofE.
The church can just hold its nose about Charles (heir apparent don'tcha know), but Camilla as Princess of Wales and especially Queen Consort is beyond the pale. At a coronation the queen consort is also blessed and crowned by the Archbishop.

3. Speaking of princesses of Wales, although it's fading a fair share of the British public weren't thrilled with Milla taking Diana's title; taking her place was bad enough. So when he got Mom and the PM to agree to let him make an honest woman of Milla he had to give it up on her titles. Someone once said that Diana will be the ghost at royal weddings.

4. If and when Charles becomes king, it'll be interesting to see what he will do. (1) Let this particular dog stay asleep and Camilla is a mere duchess. After all he is not going have a long reign or (2) toss the stuff at the windmill and upgrade Camilla to Queen. In theory the monarch has the legal right to grant titles. In practice, parliament and the rest what be in charge can and has gone ugly early about a monarch who gets carried away with the very few royal privileges left. On the other. English common law does not recognize morganatic marriage for kings. So if King Charles III wants to go the mat about this, he could have a solid legal argument.

Hoped that helped

[solara]

51. It did. And it was quite fascinating. Thank you

:hi:

[madinmaryland]

16. "Kind of like being Mrs. Donald Trump with no prenup"

:rofl:

Mrs. Donald Trump gets the fox on Donald's head!!

[hifiguy]

20. Fox??

That's a muskrat that someone found washed up at the edge of a swamp in Jersey.

[Deep13]

17. Capturing the king ends the game.

As valuable as the queen is, the game still goes on if it is captured.

[sarge43]

19. Today is a good day to trivia

The piece was originally known in Persia as the vizier which had the powerful moves. When chess became popular in Europe, its name was changed.

[Demoiselle]

37. You're absolutely right, sarge!

I love this thread. I'm actually learning stuff.
Not that any of it much matters....

[RedCloud]

13. Incest!

[CBGLuthier]

21. gee wouldn't it be great to have a FAIR monarchy

So that allegedly superior people of both sexes could live off the backs of their citizens.

[Bucky]

24. Oh, you've reminded me to go check on my AT&T stocks

[Demoiselle]

38. But what fun would a FAIR monarchy be?

They'd probably ride bicycles to their weddings.
(I'm joking, mostly.)

[Xithras]

23. The simple, legal, and accurate answer:

1. Kings outrank Queens as monarchs.

2. A monarchy usually has one monarch and one named consort. The monarch may bestow any lower title onto his/her subjects, including Queen. When a Prince becomes a King, his wife does NOT automatically become Queen. He MAY name her his Queen if he chooses, but it's not required. It also does NOT bestow hereditary rights...if the King dies before the Queen, she will lose her title unless she is also of the royal bloodline.

3. A Queen cannot name a King, because it is a position of higher authority than hers. If a woman became Queen, and married a man who was in the royal bloodline, she could ask Parliament to name an Accession Council to declare him King. If they determined that he met the legal requirements, they could do so. Requesting it would be entirely her decision, but once made it would be irreversible. Theoretically, he could divorce her, strip her title, and take her kingdom! Because they both have hereditary rights, this would probably cause a huge fight...this was the sort of thing that started wars in centuries past.

4. The Act of Settlement in 1701 states that only descendants of Sofia of Hanover may act as monarch in the U.K. While Parliament could theoretically change the rules, current law prohibits anyone not of this bloodline from taking the hereditary title of King or Queen. Kate or Camilla could be named Queen by their husbands, but as I explained in #2, that title would only persist while their husbands sit on the throne. If they bore an heir to the throne, their title would change to Queen Mother once their husbands died. If they did not bear an heir, their title would simply revert to Lady. Barring divorce or tragedy, Kate will likely become Queen Mother Katherine at some point in the distant future. If Charles named Queen Camilla (unlikely for political reasons), she would simply revert to Lady Camilla upon his death.


So, yeah...it's sexism. But Parliament could change the rules if they wanted. The royal family hasn't had the power to change the succession rules in centuries.

[hifiguy]

27. Wasn't Camilla given a duchess' title when she married Charles?

And if so, if she outlives him, wouldn't she be Duchess Camilla of Cholmondeley-on-Absurdity (or whatever her title is)?

[Xithras]

33. No.

Technically Camilla's title is "Her Royal Highness, Princess of Wales, Duchess of Cornwall, Duchess of Rothesay, Countess of Chester." Like the title "Queen", however, she has those titles because of her husband. Charles is the Duke of Cornwall, and therefore named his wife Duchess. If Charles died, a new Duke of Cornwall would be named, and it would be up to the new Duke to determine the fate of her title. If the new Duke were single, he might allow her to retain the title as a courtesy. If he were married, he would probably bestow the title on his own wife to eliminate confusion. Because Cornwall is a royal duchy, the title usually passes to the eldest son of the current monarch. If it occurred today, that would be Prince Andrew (Charles younger brother), and the title Duchess of Cornwall would pass to his wife Sarah.

If Charles becomes king, he will be expected to pass his princely holdings on to William, which will remove the titles from Camilla as well, leaving Camilla with only "Princess Consort". If she outlives Charles, her title would become "The Dowager Lady Camilla Parker-Bowles", which would probably be shortened to "Lady Camilla" in common conversation.

As an aside, Camilla does not use the title "Princess" in deference to the memory of Diana, who was more closely associated with that title. She does carry the title "Princess" and the right to its use though. This means, in theory anyway, that Camilla could also use "The Dowager Princess Camilla Parker-Bowles", if she chose. Doing so would be highly unpopular however, and would risk upsetting William...who would be King at that point and could strip her of ALL titles if he chose. My guess is that she'll be content with Lady Camilla.

[hifiguy]

52. Interesting. Thanx for the clarification!

:)

[sarge43]

41. Sorry but a queen consort doesn't revert to a lesser title upon the death of her husband, even

if she isn't the mother of the succeeding monarch. Queen Adelaide, wife of William IV, didn't; William was succeeded by his niece, Victoria. A widow's marriage isn't nullified; she doesn't become Miss or Lady again.

[Xithras]

42. Different situation

The royal household has maintained for years that Camilla will not be crowned Queen Consort if Charles ascends to the throne (though he's sent mixed messages as to his personal desires). If she is crowned Queen Consort, then you are 100% correct. If he dies, she will remain a Dowager Queen until her own death.

My statement was based on the assumption that Camilla will NOT be crowned Queen. Her title, therefore, would be Dowager Princess, which is a problem as she has always eschewed using the Princess title.

I'll actually have to look into the duchy thing a little more though. Now that I think about it, she may be able to use a dowager duchess title, but I'm not completely sure how that part works.

[sarge43]

49. I understand if and when, she'll be titled Princess Consort.

If Charles kicks before her, she may revert to Dowager Duchess of Cornwall or keep the PC title. The Cornwall title automatically goes to the heir apparent.

This whole title rat's nest is probably driving the protocol types and the College of Heralds to drink.

[Bucky]

25. I recall that Philip was angling for that title a few decades ago & got his request denied

Now, keep in mind, my source on this information was a comment somebody made during the question and answer session at the beginning of a 1973 episode of the Carol Burnett Show. I don't know if he made a formal request (it would have had to go through Parliament as a bill because since the Glorious Revolution of 1688 those heathens no longer consider warfare and jousting as appropriate ways of determining the right to rule) or if Prince Phil just bandied the idea about at a cocktail party while his wife was off getting boned by Jack Kennedy. But in the end, Queen Liz the Deuce couldn't even follow Victoria's precedent (she made Albert "Prince Consort") and only dubbed her hubby "Prince" plus Duck of something. He's basically a sperm donor, although it seems that he's had a powerful influence on his sons.

[hifiguy]

28. Philip is Duke of Edinburgh, IIRC

pronounced Edinborough. Though he was actually a prince (of Greece and Denmark) in his own right prior to marrying Elizabeth, so I believe he is Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh... see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_Philip,_Duke_of_Edinburgh

Man, this gets complicated quickly.

[WinkyDink]

44. Phillip, as a descendant of Queen Victoria, would NEVER HAVE MADE SUCH A REQUEST.

THIS IS PURE BALDERDASH.

[Yavin4]

29. Let's Just Say, He Just Doesn't Measure Up to be King

If you catch my drift.

[LynneSin]

30. Because in general we are a sexist world where it's assume that Kings rule and Queens serve the king

And I think it's been traditional in England that when the Queen inherits the throne that her husband, out of respect to the queen's position of being the leader of the monarchy, takes a lesser title.

[Lucian]

36. Elizabeth is the direct heir and he's not.

Simple answer really.

[Arugula Latte]

39. This thread just broke my brain.

:crazy:

[El Supremo]

40. He wasn't born in the UK!

He was born in Kenya Greece.

[WinkyDink]

45. Yeah, um, neither was KING George I.

[WinkyDink]

43. THE answer: NO-ONE MAY OUT-RANK THE SITTING MONARCH.

"KING" is a higher rank than "QUEEN."

If the sitting monarch is a QUEEN, she cannot be out-ranked. Thus, her spouse CANNOT be named "KING."
E.g., Queen Elizabeth II/Prince Phillip.
E.g., Queen Victoria/Prince Albert.

HOWEVER, BECAUSE "KING" out-ranks "QUEEN", if the sitting monarch is a KING, his wife can be and will be given the LOWER rank of "QUEEN."
E.g., King George V/Queen Mary.
E.g., King Henry VIII/Queen Catherine of Aragon.

[TheCentepedeShoes]

47. What happens here?

QE2 has four children
Charles - Anne - Andrew - Edward
The males all outrank Anne in order
QE2 is on her "death bed" and Charles says
- You know Mummy, I AM going to make Camilla queen
2 summons all her strength and beans Chuck on the head with a cricket bat, declaring
- I have wanted to do that ever since he married that cow !
The attending docs rush to the prince and pronounce him dead
Since Chuck pre-deceased QE2 (and as 2 is not brought up on charges, due to justifiable homicide)
Does the line fall to Andrew ?
I would say yes, because Charles would need to inherit before any of his heirs could

[WinkyDink]

48. Perhaps you have heard of Prince William?

You are incorrect that Charles would have to rule before his son could. William is second in line, period. His uncles would not supercede his position, ever.

[hifiguy]

53. The only way Andrew could ever become King is if

Charles, William and Harry all die before Andrew. In which case Andrew would be the eldest male heir of QE2. Charles' position as heir apparent to the throne would automatically pass immediately to William upon Charles' death.

[TorchTheWitch]

54. Royal sovereignty is solely a birthright

You can't marry your way onto the throne and thus into the position of ruler especially since the people in line for succession can - and often did - marry a foreigner, and you certainly can't have a foreigner marry into the line of succession and ever be in a position to rule England considering their ultimate loyalty is to their home country (marriages were business and political transactions in the time of England's royal rule).

Until Henry VIII broke with the Christian church (which at the time was only Catholic and headed by the Pope in Rome) had the ultimate decision as to who was next in line as the ruler of the realm, and the church had much more strict requirements such as no illegitimate children and no women, which was exactly Henry's reasoning in wanting to ditch his first wife - they could produce no living sons to succeed him as heir to the throne. Naturally, any king wanted his own progeny to inherit the throne upon their death rather than some more distant relative determined to be next in line and ultimately decided on by the church.

Who was next in line was for centuries a vexing problem as the church believed only the Pope could make such determination and the royal family believed rules of succession should be determined by themselves. Since only the Archbishop of Canterbury could crown the next ruler of England, the church had ultimate authority over England's royal sovereignty. The church had this ultimate authority over any Christian country throughout the world making the Pope even more powerful than any king in any Christian country. And naturally, the church would want to back those royal family members who would be most beneficial to the church (meaning money and power, which the church liked to call "supportive" of the church). This caused many wars and unrest due to battling royal family members for the throne... in England the most notable of which was the period called The Anarchy after the death of Henry I.

Henry I's only legitimate son and heir drowned at sea leaving his only daughter, Maud, and an illegitimate son, Robert of Gloucester, who Henry I loved and treated as a legitimate son. After the untimely death of his legitimate son and heir, Henry I had the nobility swear allegiance to his daughter, Maud, as she had recently birthed a legitimate son who should be next in line to the throne as Henry I was already old and knew that the church wouldn't want Maud's child (Henry II) to be crowned with his mother as Queen Regent because the church didn't think Henry I or any of his children were sufficiently "supportive" of the church. And he was right as the church backed Henry I's nephew, Steven, as heir to the throne because Steven was "supportive" of the church. Upon Henry I's death, the church very quickly crowned Steven as king before Maud and her half-brother Robert could muster an army to dispute the line of succession. As a result, 16 years of war between Steven and Maud on behalf of her son, Henry II, and backed by her half-brother Robert ensued. It was a long and bloody period of unrest with sovereignty going back and forth between Maud and Steven. Eventually, Steven died with no living son to inherit the throne, and the crown then passed to Henry II as by then he was plenty old enough to become king with no overseer.

Henry VIII was in terror of such a scenario coming to pass upon his own death as with his first wife, Katherine, no living sons were produced, and he decided to find a way to get rid of her and acquire himself a new queen who could provide him with the heir he desperately wanted when it became apparent that Katherine was no longer capable of producing any more children. Hence the reason for Henry VIII breaking with the church eliminating the church's ultimate power over English sovereignty. And thus, the Church of England was born which was not answerable to the Pope and whose head was the English king himself, and he could chose for himself who he wanted as Archbishop (who of course would be favorable to him alone). This gave Henry and his successors extremely expanded authority as there was no longer any check on English sovereign authority through the church. This also gave Henry VIII the ultimate power to decide the line of succession as he saw fit, and since at the time he neared death, the only legitimate children he had were his son, Edward, by his third wife, Jane Seymour; his daughter, Mary, born to his first wife, Katherine; and his daughter, Elizabeth born to his second wife, Anne Boleyn. As his only legitimate son, Edward, was quite young and also rather sickly as Henry VIII approached the time of his death, he eliminated the requirement of the church that no female could inherit sovereignty as he feared Edward would not rule long (and he was right about that)... thus, Henry VIII chose the line of succession to be Edward, then Mary and then Elizabeth, all of whom did rule England in that order for various time spans.

Other actual titles (peerages) aren't acquired by marriage either. The title of Duke or Duchess, for example, bestowed by marriage is only a title one is addressed as... only the children inherit the title along with the peerage (lands, structures and power) associated with nobility as just like with king and queen, nobility and royalty is solely a birthright. It does get a bit confusing as one can be an actual Duchess who inherited the title and the peerage, or one can be a Duchess merely because they married a Duke, and therefore, the title is only a courtesy title. As far as I know, if you marry an actual inherited Duchess you would be addressed as Duke but only as a courtesy title much like a woman who marries a Duke is then known as a Duchess but only as a courtesy title as it wasn't and won't ever be inherited by her. However, as I understand it if you marry a Duchess who is only a Duchess through marriage (as in marrying the widow of an actual Duke of a peerage who then acquired only the courtesy title of Duchess) you aren't given a courtesy title of Duke and are referred to as Mister (Mr.). Again, titles can either be mere courtesy titles through marriage or inherited titles along with the peerage through birthright.

Interestingly, Anne Boleyn was given the actual title and peerage of Marquess (Marquess of Pembroke specifically) by Henry VIII before they married along with the lands and structures which she held in her own right for herself and her descendants... the very first time a hereditary peerage title was granted to a woman. Rather interesting is that the patent for the granted title and peerage concerning who of her descendants could inherit did not specify only legitimate sons as was standard language for such patents. Therefore, any son she might have had that was illegitimate could inherit it. However, Anne never did have any sons - legitimate or otherwise - which is mostly the reason she lost her head.

[hifiguy]

55. Fascinating history lesson and an excellent post

:applause:

[sarge43]

57. One exception - William III, husband of Queen Mary II, the daughter of James II

He was granted the crown matrimonial, a dual monarchy. She predeceased him and he continued to rule until his death.