|
|
Why is Prince Philip not a King, is it because he was not a member of the British royal family or because he was a member of no royal family, if you are a member of any royal family do you get the title of King or Queen when your partner becomes the monarch?
Question
#16889. Asked by game-over. (Feb 28 02 4:35 AM)
|
Jack Flash
|
The present Queen, Elizabeth the Second, is Queen in her own right. Her husband is the Queen's consort and is not entitled to be styled King. But when a King succeeds to the throne his wife takes the title of Queen because this is the title bestowed on the King's consort. The same thing happens lower down in the British Peerage. If a man is created Lord XXX, his wife becomes Lady XXX. But if a woman is created Lady XXX in her own right, her husband remains Mr XXX.
|
Brainy Blonde
|
I don't know if this will help you or get you more confused, but here it is
anyway.
Among monarchy titles, King is the highest and has the most authority, at least
when monarchs had authority. That being said, a King can make his wife a Queen,
which is a lower rung on the ladder, but a Queen cannot make a King, because
that would give him more authority over the Queen, who is the successor to
throne, when her husband is not. It all goes back to the days of class status
and the policy of having all inherited by the first born male, royal or
otherwise. That policy is still there, but at a much lesser degree. Things are
changing, slowly, but changing. I think once Prince William becomes King, he
would have reinstated his mother's royal title, if she had not died, and still
may, posthumously. I also think that Prince William's first born will be heir
to the throne whether it is a girl or a boy. If this happens, there is a chance
I could live to see it, and hope I will, since it is something that is long
overdue. It is about time the royal family were pulled out of the dark ages,
even if they are kicking and screaming all the way.
Of course, this is my personal and educated opinion, but I believe the chances
of it happening or not happening, are on the on the side of it happening.
|
Socrates
|
I think the real reason that Mr. Prince Philip is not king is because he's not British. And BB--with all due respect--I think when the royal family is 'pulled out the dark ages' they will be eliminated.
|
Brainy Blonde
|
Prince Phillip's heritage has nothing to do with the fact he does not have the
title of king. As for he second part, absolutely no offence taken, and I think
you are right.
|
ajdale
|
BB is right that Prince Philip's Greek origins have nothing to do with his title, but they have affected his last name. He expected that the Royal household would assume his own family name, Mountbatten, but Winston Churchill advised the Queen against it and she stuck with Windsor, much to Phil's annouance.
|
LiamR
|
Prince Philip is not a king because if he was he would technically rank higher than the Queen in precedence. Usually the husbands of queens are given the title of 'Prince' (e.g: Prince George, husband of Queen Anne, Prince Albert, husband of Queen Victoria). Two exceptions are Philip II of Spain, who was called king of England when he married Mary I, and William III who was proclaimed king when he invaded England along with his wife Mary II.
|
wantstoknow
|
Does any know the origins of this law?
My thoughts are that it may have come from Tudor times, when Elizabeth I didn't marry (one of the reasons was that she didn't want to be over ruled by a husband) and she died with out leaving an heir?
|
celticloon
|
The above answers get near the truth. It is important to distinguish between the King as sovereign (i.e. ruler) and the title of King.
Philip is not the sovereign because he is not King by royal blood but only married (consort) to the Queen, who was heir to the throne.
However, this does not mean that he cannot be styled "King Consort" as was Philip II of Spain (husband of Mary I of England), William III of Orange (husband of Mary II of England) or Henry, King of Scots (husband to Mary, Queen of Scots). The reason he is not styled King Consort, but merely Prince Consort, is that he is a foreigner and such a move would have proved unpopular. This is the same reason why Queen Victoria's husband was Prince consort rather than King consort.
|
celticloon
|
I should clarify that even if Philip was styled "King Consort" this would not "put him above" the queen or even on "the same level" as her. The queen would remain his sovereign by virtue of her royal blood and parliaments say-so.
|
Baloo55th
|
A correction to a post above: one should not include William III in the Kings Consort as he was King in his own right as part of a joint monarchy. William and Mary both were in the line of succession and ruled jointly. He would not have been styled William III otherwise.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_and_Mary As it happens, the only King Consort in England was Philip (of Spain), and the experiment has not been repeated. Foreign marriages were always common in many nations and this would not be a factor, in my opinion. (I have a cousin compiling a vast history of foreign marriages and their effects, for which I have done research....)
|
Find something useful here? Please help us spread the word about FunTrivia. Recommend this page below!
|
Sign up to see all responses!
