eqtworld: I am sure I will be flamed for not knowing this, but why is her husband not a king? If a king marries someone that makes her the queen, why do they have a married queen but no king?

The King/Queen *can* make them a Queen/King. It was tradition but it isn't automatic. She decided not to.

Someone from England probably knows why better than I do.

Well hell, I was really wrong:

In the British monarchy, the husband of a female monarch does not have any recognized special status, rank, or privileges. In actual fact Prince Philip does play a major role in royal affairs, but this is not recognized in terms of his title. Interestingly enough, the wife of a male monarch (e.g. the Queen Mother was the wife of King George VI) takes on her husband's rank and style upon marrying, becoming Queen.

The official British Monarchy web site offers more details about the royal spouse. Prince Philip is the son of Prince Andrew of Greece and was born Prince of Greece and Denmark. Upon his marriage to then-Princess Elizabeth in 1947, Philip was given the title "Duke of Edinburgh, Earl of Merioneth, and Baron Greenwich," and was made a Knight of the Garter. (He became a British citizen around this time and renounced his Greek and Danish titles). Elizabeth II was coronated in 1953, and in 1957, she granted Philip the title "Prince of the United Kingdom."

So, though his current princely title is a gift from his wife, he was really a prince from birth. But only his son, Prince Charles, has a shot at becoming king.

DO NOT WANT

/Please pass the mind bleach, stat
//God save the Queen

Just like in Dragonball Z (my little brother is telling me this) where Vegeta is a Saiyan Prince. His father, King Vegeta, was killed. Vegeta married a human named Bulma and had 2 kids, Trunks and Bulla (Bulla never comes around until DBGT), and yet Vegeta is still a Saiyan Prince.

I think a similar thing happened in the series of books by David Eddings, The Elenium. The King is murdered, his daughter the Princess becomes Queen, and her true love, a Knight, becomes Crown Prince.

Oh, and just because it amuses me:




"Margaret Thatcher, naked on a cold day!"

icemanx_88 Just like in Dragonball Z (my little brother is telling me this) where Vegeta is a Saiyan Prince. His father, King Vegeta, was killed. Vegeta married a human named Bulma and had 2 kids, Trunks and Bulla (Bulla never comes around until DBGT), and yet Vegeta is still a Saiyan Prince.


What are you smoking, boy?

I like her. However you feel about UK politics, that woman is very classy.

Where a queen can be a queen. (new window)

My thought on the King/Queen/Prince is that it's because a King "outranks" a Queen, due to basic sexism (or tradition, take your choice).

IE, a Queen can rule, but only if there is no King. (Just like female heirs vs. male heirs). So if her husband got promoted to King, he would be the ruler, not her. Hence when the Queen gets married, her husband stays a Prince/Duke/whatever.

However, when a King gets married, his wife can become Queen, since the King "outranks" the Queen.

I have no idea if that's right in the case of the UK, but it makes "sense" to me as a reason.

Stirfry: My thought on the King/Queen/Prince is that it's because a King "outranks" a Queen, due to basic sexism (or tradition, take your choice).

IE, a Queen can rule, but only if there is no King. (Just like female heirs vs. male heirs). So if her husband got promoted to King, he would be the ruler, not her. Hence when the Queen gets married, her husband stays a Prince/Duke/whatever.

However, when a King gets married, his wife can become Queen, since the King "outranks" the Queen.

I have no idea if that's right in the case of the UK, but it makes "sense" to me as a reason.

male primogeniture - a queen is merely the wife of the king, so in the rare case that a woman takes power her husband cannot be a king - changed around the 17th century with william and mary co-reigning, had elizabeth I (16th century) married her husband probably wouldve taken power

and that's Queen Elizabeth II subby

Stirfry: My thought on the King/Queen/Prince is that it's because a King "outranks" a Queen, due to basic sexism (or tradition, take your choice).

That's pretty much it. The boys always come before the girls as far as royalty is concerned. So, for instance, the Queen's kids are Charles, Anne, Andrew and Edward in that order of birth, but Andrew and Edward are before Anne in order of possibility of ascent to the throne.

The only real exception is that a reigning king or queen's kids (whatever gender) come before the king/queen's siblings. So if Charles had had a daughter, she'd be before Andrew.

Yeah, it's complicated.

I know a queen in Jersey that will polish your crown for 20 bucks.

Damn, that woman is sharp. Always in tune with the real world, and always ready to act on what is going on around her.


Indeed, a woman to be both admired and emulated.

I've tasted the Queen. Marmaladey.



/She was quite amused by my relation of the time I persuaded a walrus to come to Wichita to do a street mime act with me. amazing 'walrus trapped in invisible box' act. farker ate my monkey though. So I dressed him like Ted Kennedy and dropped him at a republican convention. LOL, bastard had it coming. He'll probably be president in 2012. Look for Harry O'Donnell rising the gop ranks.

//Everything I say is true.

WolfinPHX: I think a similar thing happened in the series of books by David Eddings, The Elenium. The King is murdered, his daughter the Princess becomes Queen, and her true love, a Knight, becomes Crown Prince.

Hurray for another Eddings fan!

tarquinrainbowtrout: that's Queen Elizabeth II subby

I can think of a few Scottish Farkers who might take issue on that score ;-)

jay_vee: Yeah, it's complicated.

Including the parts where they all kill each other. Elizabeth II wouldn't be Queen if her uncle hadn't decided to fark an American.

tarquinrainbowtrout:
had elizabeth I (16th century) married her husband probably wouldve taken power

I suspect not. I think she would have made her own rules up at that point if it had happened. There was no real suitor equal to her in rank, and by all accounts she wasn't exactly a shy, retiring violet, so I'm sure she wouldn't have given up power to a husband.

Sun God: jay_vee: Yeah, it's complicated.

Elizabeth II wouldn't be Queen if her uncle hadn't decided to fark an American.

To be fair, that was more because the woman was a multiple divorcee (shock! horror! scandal!) and had a really crappy reputation as a gold-digger. Although I'm sure there was a certain amount of "Americans are crass" bigotry added in there too.

jay_vee: tarquinrainbowtrout:
had elizabeth I (16th century) married her husband probably wouldve taken power

I suspect not. I think she would have made her own rules up at that point if it had happened. There was no real suitor equal to her in rank, and by all accounts she wasn't exactly a shy, retiring violet, so I'm sure she wouldn't have given up power to a husband.

It's speculated that it's one of the reasons she DIDN'T marry. She didn't want a husband that would try to seize power from her, and she also didn't want another situation like when her sister Queen Mary married Philip of Spain - a foreigner in a position of power in England.

jay_vee: To be fair, that was more because the woman was a multiple divorcee (shock! horror! scandal!) and had a really crappy reputation as a gold-digger. Although I'm sure there was a certain amount of "Americans are crass" bigotry added in there too.

Maybe. I'm sure that was a tricky time for the monarchy. Maybe she just gave good blowjobs. I honestly don't know, but giving up being a King is a very odd decision in my book. Maybe it was because a young man named Winston Churchill, who was half-American was on the rise.

Sun God:
Maybe. I'm sure that was a tricky time for the monarchy. Maybe she just gave good blowjobs. I honestly don't know, but giving up being a King is a very odd decision in my book.

I think there were better, although in some ways more ridiculous reasons - ie. the PM at the time (forget who) said he'd resign if the wedding went ahead, which would have made the monarchy political, which would be the death knell for them. The only reason they're allowed to exist is that they're politically irrelevant, so do no harm.

Although there's probably a lot to be said for a royal blowjob.

jay_vee: Although there's probably a lot to be said for a royal blowjob.

What's funny is that the current Prince of Wales is divorced, and is also married to a divorcee.

A Child's History of England
By Charles Dickens (new window)

Actually a pretty fun book to read if you never have.

Maybe it was because a young man named Winston Churchill, who was half-American was on the rise.

You just made that statement to point out Churchill had an American mum, didn't you? He was no more half American than I am half Irish. Having one parent from a country doesn't make you half anything. Anyway, he was a Conservative and a fierce monarchist, and was strongly opposed to the abdication.

WeeKeef: tarquinrainbowtrout: that's Queen Elizabeth II subby

I can think of a few Scottish Farkers who might take issue on that score ;-)

Mightn't a true Scot tell the old half-German bag to fark off with her poncey offspring?

What's funny is that the current Prince of Wales is divorced, and is also married to a divorcee.

Yeah, well, the monarchy is changing, as it has to - maybe not fast enough for my taste. It and the BBC have one thing in common. They're great institutions that need scaling down.

jay_vee: You just made that statement to point out Churchill had an American mum, didn't you? He was no more half American than I am half Irish. Having one parent from a country doesn't make you half anything. Anyway, he was a Conservative and a fierce monarchist, and was strongly opposed to the abdication.

Yes. I think the post-WWI relationship between the UK and the US had a strong influence on the UK monarchy. It didn't hurt that a charismatic guy had an American mother.

Are you half Irish? That's kind of genealogical question. I'm mostly Irish because my Scottish ancestors fled Scotland to avoid being massacred by the English at Culloden. And yet, I'm an American and always have been.

"Maybe. I'm sure that was a tricky time for the monarchy. Maybe she just gave good blowjobs. I honestly don't know, but giving up being a King is a very odd decision in my book. Maybe it was because a young man named Winston Churchill, who was half-American was on the rise."
She was also apparently a Nazi sympathiser. And which young man named Winston Churchill was on the rise in the thirties? Winnie was a friggin' Afghani and Boer War vet, fercryinoutloud. He was a teenager when Gilbert and Sullivan were dishing up their greatest hits.
In fact, by the 1930's, most folks assumed Winston was a has-been- he was in his 60's and bore a lot of the blame for the failed Gallipoli campaign in the First World War. If anything, the time frame when Winston was an "up and comer" was before WW1, and due in no small way to the influence of his mom, who besides being a looker had had a great many lovers while her own husband was dying of syph (she wasn't stupid enough to get into bed with him once they found out) and many of her boyfriends were very well connected. Admittedly, the steady stream of boyfriends dried up when following the death of her husband she took up marrying much younger men as a hobby...

LadyBelgaraHurray for another Eddings fan!

Yup. Used to have all his books. Read them many times growing up, until they fell apart from being thumbed through.

/What circle of Hell you in?

Bonzo_1116: WeeKeef: tarquinrainbowtrout: that's Queen Elizabeth II subby

I can think of a few Scottish Farkers who might take issue on that score ;-)

Mightn't a true Scot tell the old half-German bag to fark off with her poncey offspring?

Aye.

Besides, this announcement was really made to piss off the government by highlighting the state of the economy. That'll teach the left not to mess with the oath of allegiance to one.

Anyone who thinks the Queen is apolitical has simply missed Her subtlety.

dammit, I came here to see Glasgow's Finest post a Daily Fail pic.

Come the revolution these inbred farkwit shiatheads will be first against the wall.

I believe officially he is the consort of Queen Elizabeth.

jay_vee: Sun God: jay_vee: Yeah, it's complicated.

Elizabeth II wouldn't be Queen if her uncle hadn't decided to fark an American.

To be fair, that was more because the woman was a multiple divorcee (shock! horror! scandal!) and had a really crappy reputation as a gold-digger. Although I'm sure there was a certain amount of "Americans are crass" bigotry added in there too.

there's also the nazi stuff, though I can't say how true that all is

either way in the 30s, back when english people still did church, divorce was a bad thing - now we have women and gay vicars so charlie got a much better deal

and on churchill - he was descended from british nobility, there was pretty much no way he could've got into politics without his ancestry back then, he was no yank

daniellynn's real dad: Bonzo_1116: WeeKeef: tarquinrainbowtrout: that's Queen Elizabeth II subby

I can think of a few Scottish Farkers who might take issue on that score ;-)

Mightn't a true Scot tell the old half-German bag to fark off with her poncey offspring?

Aye.

Besides, this announcement was really made to piss off the government by highlighting the state of the economy. That'll teach the left not to mess with the oath of allegiance to one.

Anyone who thinks the Queen is apolitical has simply missed Her subtlety.

the left? what's left?

fenian-: //Everything I say is true.

I'll have some of what he's having.

jay_vee: Stirfry: My thought on the King/Queen/Prince is that it's because a King "outranks" a Queen, due to basic sexism (or tradition, take your choice).

That's pretty much it. The boys always come before the girls as far as royalty is concerned. So, for instance, the Queen's kids are Charles, Anne, Andrew and Edward in that order of birth, but Andrew and Edward are before Anne in order of possibility of ascent to the throne.

The only real exception is that a reigning king or queen's kids (whatever gender) come before the king/queen's siblings. So if Charles had had a daughter, she'd be before Andrew.

Yeah, it's complicated.



I also think that if Andrew and Harry had had a sister, she'd rank with them, ahead of Anne. I also thought that it was a matter of being born into the royal family vs marrying into it. I could be wrong, though.

^ add "after Charles" - ahead of Anne, after Charles.

/too early to think

it goes

charles-william-harry, then andrew and his two daughters, then edward and his son and daughter, then anne and her son and daughter

if charles had a daughter she would be fourth, behind harry - but the line should continue down william's kids presuming he has some

interestingly prince philip is actually in line to the throne - he's 480th, a result of inbreeding between royal families

This deep into the thread and no one has posted a King Ralph reference?

In terram Salicam mulieres ne succedant!

I'm sorry. Could you repeat the question?

Does Phillip have to ask her permission for a Royal roll in the hay? Can he grope the Royal naughty bits at will, or only when she approves? Or commands?

I can just imagine her saying "We are not amused" if his timing's off.

tarquinrainbowtrout: male primogeniture - a queen is merely the wife of the king, so in the rare case that a woman takes power her husband cannot be a king - changed around the 17th century with william and mary co-reigning, had elizabeth I (16th century) married her husband probably wouldve taken power

and that's Queen Elizabeth II subby

Actually,
Philip of Spain, husband of Elizabeth I's older sister Mary, was basically a consort, since he wasn't allowed any real authority in England, despite being given the title "king."
Elizabeth never had any intention of marrying, but if she had she certainly wouldn't have given up power. That would have been a precondition of the marriage. She felt her primary "marriage" was to England. She's a fascinating person -- there are several good biographies out there.
Empress Matilda (mother of Henry II) also had a consort, Geoffrey Plantagenet.
/history nerd

jay_vee: Stirfry: My thought on the King/Queen/Prince is that it's because a King "outranks" a Queen, due to basic sexism (or tradition, take your choice).

That's pretty much it. The boys always come before the girls as far as royalty is concerned. So, for instance, the Queen's kids are Charles, Anne, Andrew and Edward in that order of birth, but Andrew and Edward are before Anne in order of possibility of ascent to the throne.

The only real exception is that a reigning king or queen's kids (whatever gender) come before the king/queen's siblings. So if Charles had had a daughter, she'd be before Andrew.

Yeah, it's complicated.

Also, no. Queen Elizabeth II abolished gender preference in the succession.

Tenebreux: In terram Salicam mulieres ne succedant!

I'm sorry. Could you repeat the question?

...the land Salique lies in Germany!

Her highlighting of the dire state of the economy will not be welcomed by the Prime Minister

Don't call Elizabeth II a figurehead, she knows how to do politics. Charles as well, he really cares about Britain. If he was born here, he'd be POTUS, Reagan said it, not me.

Gwendolyn: But only his son, Prince Charles, has a shot at becoming king.

Just to show how inbred that family are, however - although he can't become King by members of his immediate family dying (like Charles can), he CAN become king if about 480 members of his extended family die.

Linkage (new window).

Stirfry: My thought on the King/Queen/Prince is that it's because a King "outranks" a Queen, due to basic sexism (or tradition, take your choice).

IE, a Queen can rule, but only if there is no King. (Just like female heirs vs. male heirs). So if her husband got promoted to King, he would be the ruler, not her. Hence when the Queen gets married, her husband stays a Prince/Duke/whatever.

However, when a King gets married, his wife can become Queen, since the King "outranks" the Queen.

I have no idea if that's right in the case of the UK, but it makes "sense" to me as a reason.



That's some good thinking there, Lou!