If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Quick monarchy question
BillieTheBot
Posts: 8,721 Bot
Why does a woman who marries a King become Queen whereas a man who marries the Queen does not?
As it appears to be the case with Camilla & Charles (if they end up marrying), and the Queen and Prince Phillip...
As it appears to be the case with Camilla & Charles (if they end up marrying), and the Queen and Prince Phillip...
Beep boop. I'm a bot.
0
Comments
As King, he would outrank the Queen, which is why husbands of Queens are generally known as Prince Consort and not as King. The wife of a King can be called Queen without this issue, since her husband would still have the higher rank.
from
http://www.lakenheath.af.mil/Jet48/discoverbritain/britain0926.htm
Mind you, in Spain the heir to the throne can only be male. Prince Felipe was not the first born child and yet he'll get the 'position' when King Juan Carlos dies.
Not very pc. I wonder if Princess Elena could sue the monarchy for sexual discrimination...
Plus the bloke is really down to earth. For instance he does not have a man to squeeze toothpaste on his toothbrush (unlike Charles). He also carries cash and has a habit of losing his bodyguards, jumping on his bike and going downtown for a drink or two.
Its almost the same in the UK - its the eldes male who gets to become the ruler - you only get a queen if there are no male children.....
I don't think the royal family can be sued because they are 'above the law' (Why the fuck are they? :mad: ) If you remember the incident awhile back where a worker at the royal mint was killed in an accident but nothing could be done because the royals cant be prosecuted.
I wonder why it is that British monarchs must abdicate if marrying outside royal blood and Spanish monarchs do not?
I know some people in Spain are not terribly chuffed with Felipe's choice but after being paired with a number of Princesses he made his choice and said 'this is who is going to be so take it or leave it'. Good on him for it. A commoner, and a divorced one at that!
Almost as good as the prince of either Holland or Norway who last year married a single mother.
As for who makes the rules, I have always presumed that was a power of national Parliaments to establish the guidelines.
I was thinking about Edward VIII who early last century (circa 1910 or so i believe) was forced to choose between the throne and his beloved (an American divorcee) and he chose his bride, giving way to his younger brother George VI.
I can only suppose the rules havent been altered significantly from that day to this, but I'd be interested to hear from someone who might know.
The Dutch crown-princess is/was Catholic. But to make matters easier the Catholic church acknowledged the wedding ceremony even though it was protestantic.
Either way, I doubt that William would have to abdicate if he found a regular girl.
All of the monarchies of Europe are experiencing a change being that the last weddings have been kind of controverse (except from the Danish one, though she has no title and comes from a regular background
Spains crownprincess is previously divorced, Norways crownprincess has a child from a previous marriage, her kid's father has had jail-sentances, her brother has been to jail some years ago, and she herseld had a fling with drugs in her younger days, then there's the Dutch crownprincess who's dad wasn't exactly a saint.
So they have pretty much laid the ground, and as complicated as the British royalties are, I think that William is respected enough to get his way in the end.
If it was based on that, you would have had a chance a long time ago.
Common knowledge that royalties are most often cokeheads.
Rumour has it that the Danish queens husband is gay, and has an apartment (near me actually, though I've never seen him) where he invites men for company.
And then there's Charles who said something along the lines of "I am not going to be the first to break the tradition of having a mistress in this monarchy".
They have done on some occasions.
Under WW2, the government in Denmark was highly influenced by the Danish king, who had demands on some of the people and the politics.
No the monarchy is badly out of date and just represents how someone can attain power just by birthright without being elected. Personally I dont see a point in the royals now.
Similar here, male child will take precendence even if he is born second. The only reason we have a quenn is because the previous monarch had no sons...
I thought that this was also true in the UK and the only reason we now have a Queen is because there was no direct Male heir...or am I wrong?
Works like that in most monarchies.
Currently they're trying to change that rule here.
And in Sweden, Crownprincess Victoria, was only officially teh crownprincess at the age of 5, until then her younger brother had the title of Crownprince.
i think it was cause she was a divorcee