|
|
Why could Princess Diana of England have become queen someday, whereas Prince Phillip can't become Queen Elizabeth's king?
Question
#20911. Asked by Justin.
|
mk2norwich
|
Had she still been alive, Diana could have been Queen, because she was British by birth, whereas Prince Philip, who was born in Corfu and so is of Greek descent, can not inherit the title of King. That's how the system works here.
|
Brainy Blonde
|
I was always told a King can make a Queen, but a Queen can't make a King because in the days of yore, a King had more power than a Queen did. It also explained why you had to run out of sons before your daughter, first born or not, could accede the throne.
|
Gnomon
|
The wife of the reigning King is called Queen. For example, the mother of the present Queen Elizabeth was also called Queen Elizabeth, because she was married to King George VI, the reigning King.
But the husband of a reigning Queen is not called King. He is called Prince. Presumably, because a King would be more important than a Queen in the old days, this system was adopted.
|
Senior Moments
|
Western monarchy is not merely, as Max Weber observed, institutionalized charisma: it is institutionalized male chauvinism as well. Whether priest or magician, philosopher or warrior, sovereigns are expected to be men, and in most cases they are. The Kingdom of Heaven is ruled by a God not a Goddess, and the Kingdom of the Jungle by a lion not a lioness (or by Tarzan not by Jane.) In some countries, the Salic law made it impossible for women to accede to the throne, and even where it did not, women have always been severely disadvantaged in the succession stakes. If a king's first child is a son, he is ipso facto heir apparent, and will accede automatically; but if the child is a daughter, she is merely heir presumptive, and will only accede if no son is subsequently born. A king is by definition king regnant, and his consort is therefore queen; but the husband of a queen regnant is not therefore king. And so, with inexorable if superficially paradoxical logic, it is always better to be the woman playing the role of the man (with correspondingly increased scope as queen regnant) than to be the man playing the role of the woman (with much diminished opportunities as prince consort.) Kings usually reign, and queens occasionally rule: but gender always governs.
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/article-preview?article_id=5670
|
Create a Free
FunTrivia ID to add
to,
request more/new answers, or
edit this entry
Other Similar Questions & Answers
Suggested Related FunTrivia Quizzes - 90,000 currently online
 |
Become a "Friend"
|
See what it's like to live as a "Friend" would!
|
|
'Friends' Mix- Average Q-Z
|
Average
10 Q
|
sariahcapri
Jul 22 03
5133 plays
|
 |
Become a Better Writer
|
Everyone needs to write sometimes. You might have to dispute a bill in writing or compose a self-evaluation. Or, you just might want to write a quiz at FunTrivia! Learn a few basics to becoming a better writer.
|
|
English
|
Average
10 Q
|
Pagiedamon
Dec 28 08
2046 plays
|
 |
England's 'Virgin Queen'
|
The reign of Queen Elizabeth I, from 1558 to 1603, is known as England's Golden Age because of all the political, scientific and artistic advances made during this era. Here are some questions about the Elizabethan Age.
|
|
Elizabeth I
|
Average
10 Q
|
chessart
Mar 13 00
4938 plays
|
|
"Ask FunTrivia" is for entertainment purposes only, and answers offered are unverified and unchecked by
FunTrivia. We cannot guarantee the accuracy or veracity of ANY statement posted. Feel free to post an updated
response
if you feel that an answer is inadequate or incorrect. Please
thoroughly research items where accuracy is important to you using multiple reliable sources. By accessing our
website, you agree to be bound by our terms of service.
|