# Could there be a Queen Meghan? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [May 23, 2018, 6:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-there-be-a-queen-meghan/814691 "2018-05-23T18:17:18Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![UDS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecae2f/32.png) [@UDS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UDS)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2018, 6:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-there-be-a-queen-meghan/814691/41 "2018-05-24T06:04:48Z")
> [@thelurkinghorror](#): > > How is one royal but not noble? Well, Harry was royal (i.e. a member of the royal family) but not noble (a member of the nobility) before he married. Now he is both, since he has a title of nobility - namely, Duke of Suffolk. Just to add; British nobility is narrowly circumscribed. Until Lady Diana Spencer married the Prince of Wales, she was a commoner. She was the daughter of an earl but, while an earl is not a commoner, his children have only courtesy titles, and they are commoners. ---
**Author:** ![chappachula](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/d2c977/32.png) [@chappachula](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/chappachula)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2018, 6:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-there-be-a-queen-meghan/814691/42 "2018-05-24T06:36:53Z")
> [@alphaboi867](#): > > The only reason Elizabeth II’s mother was specifically styled “HM Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mother” was because “HM Queen Elizabeth” would\*\* cause too much confusion\*\* with her daughter. Because after all, there’s no other confusion about aristocratic titles, anyway, right? 🙂 > [@Jasmine](#): > > You may need to draw a diagram For my poor Yankee brain, even a diagram won’t help. Ya wanna rule the country, all ya gotta do is win the election, 'mkay? 😃 But I do kinda like the sound of “Queen Meghan”. Would the historians ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2018, 7:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-there-be-a-queen-meghan/814691/43 "2018-05-24T07:18:52Z")
> [@Rick\_Kitchen](#): > > He was second in line behind Anne. He got the throne under the Bill of Rights because he was second in line behind Anne. As **UDS** said, he got it because Mary would not rule as queen alone. To put it another way, he got it the old-fashioned way: he earned it, by invading, chasing the former king (James II) out of the country, and being the clear choice for king of the powerful group of Englishmen that invited him to invade. Military force has often trumped strict hereditary claims. The only reason there was a vacancy on the throne was because of his military invasion, leading James II to leave, taking the Prince of Wales with him. If you went by hereditary claims, William was fourth in line: James II’s heir apparent was James, Prince of Wales; then Mary; then Anne, then William. If you insist on saying that he was second behind Anne, then you’re acknowledging that by invading, William had excluded James II and James, Prince of Wales, from the succession. > [@Rick\_Kitchen](#): > > Mary was of the Teck family. The Tecks were German nobility. Yes, her father was German. Her mother, however, was Princess Mary Adelaide of Cambridge, daughter of the Duke of Cambridge and grand-daughter of King George III. George III and the Duke of Cambridge were both born in Britain. Princess Mary Adelaide was born in Hanover, because her father, the Duke of Cambridge, was serving there as Viceroy on behalf of King George IV and then William IV. That didn’t make Prince Mary Adelaide a German princess, anymore than the children of other officials serving abroad are considered not to be of the nationality of their parents. Mary of Teck was born in the UK and lived there almost all her life, except for when her parents went abroad for a few years to save expenses. Her mother was a member of the British Royal Family and got a parliamentary grant to help cover her living expenses, which was not typically granted to non-British nobility. ---
**Author:** ![SanVito](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sanvito/32/2805_2.png) [@SanVito](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SanVito)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2018, 7:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-there-be-a-queen-meghan/814691/44 "2018-05-24T07:46:07Z")
> [@TruCelt](#): > > The King or Queen is the head of the Church. Prince Charles will become King by right of birth, and this can not be taken away from him. But his extra-marital relationship with Camilla directly resulted in the end of both their marriages. > > The church, therefore, takes a very sour view of their current marriage. It is naught to do with her “being compared” to Diana, and a great deal to do with her having screwed around with someone else’s husband rather than her own. > > While the Church of England lately takes a kinder view of those who were not at fault in the end of their own marriages, they are still not condoning the act of cheating. And yes, it affects everything about Charles and Camilla’s marriage, which therefore occurred at the registrars office, although it was later “blessed” in a chapel. > > And it affects the honors to be bestowed upon her as a result of that marriage. > > I don’t mean to sound personally condemning here, I’m just passing on the church’s views. The church has no say in whether Camilla is Queen or not. As others have noted, Camilla will be Queen, it’s just mooted that they royal family may decide not to refer to her as such, much as they don’t refer to her as the Princess of Wales, even though she is. Prince Philip is not King because, in our sexist world, King trumps Queen, and you can’t have that when the monarch is Elizabeth, not Philip. It’s a ranking thing, is all. ---
**Author:** ![UDS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecae2f/32.png) [@UDS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UDS)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2018, 7:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-there-be-a-queen-meghan/814691/45 "2018-05-24T07:50:45Z")
Mary of Teck was an English woman with strong German family connections (including a German father), but she was a German princess - as in, her princessiness was 100% German; a German title awarded by a German sovereign, and descending to her from her German father. She was also a citizen of Wurttemburg from birth (as the daughter of a father with Wurttemburger citizenship) as well as being a British subject (both by virtue of being born in the UK, and by virtue of being a descendant of Sophia of Hannover, and a Protestant). ---
**Author:** ![SanVito](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sanvito/32/2805_2.png) [@SanVito](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SanVito)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2018, 7:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-there-be-a-queen-meghan/814691/46 "2018-05-24T07:50:48Z")
> [@Isilder](#): > > But the complication is that non-noble non-royal american divorcee Meghan… well thats a different case… there’s no precedent but they are moving to be less strict. There’s no complication. She’s the legally married consort of Harry, and as such qualifies for Queendom, should the occasion arise. Any complications arising from her divorced status would have come up at the engagement, and the Queen could have refused her consent, but she did not. ---
**Author:** ![bob\_2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bob_2/32/3341_2.png) [@bob\_2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bob_2)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2018, 8:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-there-be-a-queen-meghan/814691/47 "2018-05-24T08:14:04Z")
Anyone reading this thread might well come to the conclusion that British Royalty is much like the English language; inclusive and happy to adopt foreign imports whenever it is useful or desirable. ---
**Author:** ![Leo\_Bloom](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/leo_bloom/32/10377_2.png) [@Leo\_Bloom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leo_Bloom)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2018, 8:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-there-be-a-queen-meghan/814691/48 "2018-05-24T08:43:05Z")
> [@Baron\_Greenback](#): > > This comes up fairly often, and I’ve stated the same myself on occasion… It’s good you got this cleared away. But it’s sensible to hold off on buying the stationery. ---
**Author:** ![GreenWyvern](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/greenwyvern/32/2834_2.png) [@GreenWyvern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GreenWyvern)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2018, 9:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-there-be-a-queen-meghan/814691/49 "2018-05-24T09:32:58Z")
As far back as 2005, Prince Charles issued a “pained denial” of the story that he would reign as George VII, and “privately, senior officials were scornful” of the idea. > **[Charles denies planning to reign as King George](https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2005/dec/27/monarchy.michaelwhite)** > > Clarence House yesterday issued a pained denial of claims that the Prince of Wales has held private discussions with "trusted friends" about the possibility of reigning as George VII rather than risk the negative connotations attached to the name... But one of his middle names is Arthur, so perhaps he’ll reign as King Arthur. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![SanVito](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sanvito/32/2805_2.png) [@SanVito](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SanVito)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2018, 10:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-there-be-a-queen-meghan/814691/50 "2018-05-24T10:06:31Z")
> [@GreenWyvern](#): > > As far back as 2005, Prince Charles issued a “pained denial” of the story that he would reign as George VII, and “privately, senior officials were scornful” of the idea. > > [Charles denies planning to reign as King George | UK news | The Guardian](https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2005/dec/27/monarchy.michaelwhite) > > But one of his middle names is Arthur, so perhaps he’ll reign as King Arthur. 😃 I think it would be weird for him to change his name when he becomes King, as we’ve known him as Charles for 70 years. ---
**Author:** ![GreenWyvern](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/greenwyvern/32/2834_2.png) [@GreenWyvern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GreenWyvern)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2018, 10:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-there-be-a-queen-meghan/814691/51 "2018-05-24T10:28:08Z")
> [@SanVito](#): > > I think it would be weird for him to change his name when he becomes King, as we’ve known him as Charles for 70 years. I can understand both Edward VII and George VI not wanting to reign as ‘King Bertie’, but Charles III is fine. ---
**Author:** ![Quartz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quartz/32/267_2.png) [@Quartz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quartz)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2018, 10:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-there-be-a-queen-meghan/814691/52 "2018-05-24T10:35:42Z")
> [@Rick\_Kitchen](#): > > Philip isn’t the King because husbands of ruling Queens are not called King in the UK. The only exception to this was Philip of Spain who was married to Mary I (and that ended badly), Philip of Spain was King in his own right. > [@](#): > > and William III, who was married to Mary II, but was second in line for the throne anyway (behind Mary’s sister Anne), The reign was of William and Mary - he was King in his own right, not because of marriage. ---
**Author:** ![Quartz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quartz/32/267_2.png) [@Quartz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quartz)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2018, 10:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-there-be-a-queen-meghan/814691/53 "2018-05-24T10:39:09Z")
> [@SanVito](#): > > I think it would be weird for him to change his name when he becomes King, as we’ve known him as Charles for 70 years. Charles is a historically bad name for the UK monarchy. ---
**Author:** ![SanVito](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sanvito/32/2805_2.png) [@SanVito](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SanVito)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2018, 10:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-there-be-a-queen-meghan/814691/54 "2018-05-24T10:39:54Z")
> [@Quartz](#): > > Philip of Spain was King in his own right. > [@Quartz](#): > > The reign was of William and Mary - he was King in his own right, not because of marriage. Well, quite, it’s properly called King Regnant, as opposed to King Consort. Act of Parliament - because Parliament can make this stuff up whenever they like - meant they became King Regnant. ---
**Author:** ![SanVito](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sanvito/32/2805_2.png) [@SanVito](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SanVito)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2018, 10:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-there-be-a-queen-meghan/814691/55 "2018-05-24T10:42:48Z")
> [@Quartz](#): > > Charles is a historically bad name for the UK monarchy. I think you’ve said this before, but I see no reason why. So we’ve had one bad Charles (there was nothing particularly bad about Charles II), you could say that about any number of other monarch’s traditional names… Henry, William, Edward, Mary. They always knew Charles was going to be King, so if it bothered the monarchy, they’d have picked something else when he was born. ---
**Author:** ![GreenWyvern](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/greenwyvern/32/2834_2.png) [@GreenWyvern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GreenWyvern)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2018, 10:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-there-be-a-queen-meghan/814691/56 "2018-05-24T10:50:13Z")
> [@Quartz](#): > > Philip of Spain was King in his own right. > > The reign was of William and Mary - he was King in his own right, not because of marriage. Actually Phillip only became King of Spain in 1556 - well after his marriage to Mary - but he was granted the title of King of England in 1554. William of Orange also wasn’t a king previously. His previous title was ‘His Highness The Prince of Orange, Stadtholder of Holland, Zeeland, Utrecht, Gelderland and Overijssel’ until he became King Regnant of England and Scotland. ---
**Author:** ![alphaboi867](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alphaboi867/32/3898_2.png) [@alphaboi867](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/alphaboi867)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2018, 11:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-there-be-a-queen-meghan/814691/57 "2018-05-24T11:27:23Z")
IIRC Phillip’s father made him the nominal King of Chile when he got engaged so he’d rank equal to his wife. Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk ---
**Author:** ![APB](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/8e8cbc/32.png) [@APB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/APB)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2018, 11:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-there-be-a-queen-meghan/814691/58 "2018-05-24T11:30:32Z")
> [@GreenWyvern](#): > > Actually Phillip only became King of Spain in 1556 - well after his marriage to Mary - but he was granted the title of King of England in 1554. Technically, Philip was already a king when he married Mary because Charles V had made him King of Naples and Jerusalem, specifically so that he would be of equal rank with his bride. > [@Quartz](#): > > Charles is a historically bad name for the UK monarchy. Hang on a second, the Royal Collection has in recent months mounted two major exhibitions at the Royal Academy and the Queen’s Gallery in London to show how wonderful both Charles I and Charles II were. It was almost as if it was a deliberate ploy to prepare the way for a Charles III. ---
**Author:** ![Nava](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/da6949/32.png) [@Nava](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nava)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2018, 11:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-there-be-a-queen-meghan/814691/59 "2018-05-24T11:34:56Z")
> [@APB](#): > > Technically, Philip was already a king when he married Mary because Charles V had made him King of Naples and Jerusalem, specifically so that he would be of equal rank with his bride. Heck, technically, he was never King of Spain. The first King of Spain to actually have that as an official title was José I Bonaparte, but we do our best to forget it. ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2018, 1:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-there-be-a-queen-meghan/814691/60 "2018-05-24T13:04:46Z")
Charles has repeatedly denied he’d choose George as his regnal name. If he ever does become King - his mother has a shot at outliving him, she appears to be invincible - I am pretty sure he’ll be Charles III. I have to agree it would be very weird for a man who’s been world famous as Charles for well over half a century to suddenly go by George for the 10-20 years he _might_ last as King. His name is practically a brand now, affixed as it is to any number of charitable endeavours. I just can’t see that happening due to Charles I being a doofus. The situation with his grandfather was rather different, in that 1. For really obvious reasons, Albert / George VI found himself in a position where the monarchy was in bad straits and a return to some semblance of tradition was really important, so tying his name to his father’s was wise 2. While he was publically known as Albert, he hadn’t been in the public eye for as long or as prominently as Charles has; it’s kind of like if Prince Andrew had unexpectedly become King around twenty years ago. 3. There is, to some extent, a reluctance to use the name Albert, due to either Victoria’s wishes, the perception it’s unlucky, or both, or maybe just that it’s been forever since a ruling King had a new first name. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-there-be-a-queen-meghan/814691.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-there-be-a-queen-meghan/814691.md?page=4)