Why could Princess Diana of England have become queen someday, whereas Prince Phillip can't become Queen Elizabeth's king?

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. Jul 26 02, 7:33 PM

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. Jul 26 02, 8:41 PM

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. Jul 26 02, 8:55 PM

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 Jul 26 02, 10:39 PM