Can the person who marries either a King or Queen also adopt the title of Queen/King?
No. Queen Elizabeth II of England’s husband is Prince Philip rather than King Philip. I am not sure how a king and queen can be on the thrown at the same time but it seems to me that in England’s case it is determined by direct ancestry. The spouse is given a lesser honorary title. I will leave it to others to explain in more specific terms.
Yes, but with a caveat.
A person who marries the Queen Regent (such as Elizabeth II) can be called the King. He does not, however, have the authority that the Queen Regent has.
If, however, the husband is not a natural born British national (such as the husband of Elizabeth II, who is a Greek national), he cannot assume the title. He then assumes the title “Prince Consort.”
I couldn’t find anything about a woman who marries the King being called the Queen, but I would imagine that there isn’t any problem with it.
If I’m wrong, I’m sure one of our British national Dopers (LondonCalling are you out there?) will be able to correct me.
Zev Steinhardt
I wanted to make sure on this so I just popped up the road to ask. Liz wasn’t at home but Phil says Zev’s 100% correct – not quite sure why he was wearing riding boots, pj’s and had a riding crop under his arm when he answered the door. But never mind.
Of course the interesting thing is what happens when the Queen turns her toes up and (not definitely but still the most likely scenario) Charles gets the big chair. At the moment his choices as King are:
(1) continue to live in sin with a divorced woman, or
(2) marry the divorced woman (‘Queen Camilla’ – not very likely)
He could stand aside in favour of William but one has to think that on past form, Charles will try to fudge things. He has recently, for the first time, allowed the media to report on and witness Camilla’s presence at an official function.
Each option looks pretty problematic (and much may depend on how public and media sentiment unfolds) but as of last month’s ‘media witnessing’, my hunch is he’s going for option (1). Think that was a very significant move. And at least there’s a rich history of Kings with mistress’s (not quite the same as living together but hey).
.
Interesting days in the world’s leading wholly dysfunctional family.
Let’s see… All my books are still in boxes after my recent move (we bought bookshelves yesterday, but I need to stain and varnish them and then put them together and drag them upstairs before I can unpack the books – all 2000 of them. Urk.), so I’m doing this from memory. I’ll make this as quick and dirty as possible… England’s monarchy IS hereditary, although heredity has often taken a backseat to politics or religon. Anyway, although the wife of a king is styled ‘Queen’ she is actually ‘Queen Consort.’ This essentially means that she is part of a King/Queen set. In other words, after the death of the King, the Queen Consort does not rule alone, but moves aside to make room for the new hereditary monarch. The situation with a ‘Queen Regnant’ is a little less clear cut, probably because there have been fewer of them, and each case was handled differently. Leaving aside Matilda, who isn’t in the official line-up anyway, and who, even if we were willing to count her, never used the title ‘Queen,’ preferring to style herself ‘Empress Matilda, Lady of the English,’ the first hereditary Queen was good old Bloody Mary. Mary I did have a King for a husband. Specifically, King Phillip of Spain. Phillip had no title in England (OK, this is one of those areas I could have used my books for – he may have been given a minor English title upon the marriage, but he was certainly NOT King of England, or even King Consort of England). Next up was the Virgin Queen, Queen Elizabeth I, who may or may not have been a virgin, but who was certainly not married and so adds nothing to our discussion. Queen Mary II was an unusual case – she did, in fact, have a husband who became King of England, and who, unlike a Consort, ruled alone after Mary’s death. This was, as I said unusual. It was one of those cases when religon trumped heredity. Mary’s dad, King James II was a closet Catholic and had a Catholic second wife (his first wife, Mary’s mom, was a good English Protestant). When that 2nd wife produced a boy-child, who would presumably grow up to be Catholic himself this caused an uproar among members of parliament. Parliament called upon Mary and her husband, William of Orange, to come to England and take the throne away from her father. To convince William (who had a country of his own, after all) to do this Parliment made him a co-regent with Mary, and gave him the right to continue as King if she predeceased him. Again, this was a special case and has never been repeated. When William died (he and Mary had no children), Mary’s sister Anne became Queen. Her husband, a minor German (or maybe Danish) prince named, IIRC, George, was NOT made King or King Consort or, even, Prince Consort. He just continued to use his title of birth: Prince George (I think) of Someplace (my books! I wish I had my books!). Queen Victoria also married a minor German prince, in this case, Edward. Victoria would have liked to have had Edward styled ‘King’, however, Parliament wouldn’t allow it – nor even ‘King Consort.’ ‘King’ just sounds more powerful than ‘Queen’ and parliment just didn’t want any misunderstanding about who was actually in charge (or as much in charge as a British monarch is, which ain’t much). Anyway, as a consolation prize they offered ‘Prince Consort,’ which is essentially the same deal as the ‘Queen Consort.’ The husband of the current Queen was born with a title of his own, Prince Phillip of Greece, but he gave that title up voluntarily when he married Princess Elizabeth. In return he was made Duke of Edinburgh by her daddy, King George VI (IIRC). I believe he was still called Prince Phillip as a courtesy title, and this was eventually made official when his wife, after the birth of a couple of kids, made him an official Prince Consort. At any rate (and this is a pretty long rebuttle) Great Britain has never had a King Consort. If I’ve made any errors (and, without access to my library, I probably have) I’m sure someone will correct me.
She married Albert (but the oversight is easy to understand given your’ offthe top of the head’ knowledge).
I’m still of the view that an English born husband or wife of the hereditary monarch would be entitled (logically and quite reasonably) to the title ‘King/Queen Consort’ - abbreviated to King or Queen ? You don’t seem to be disputing that, Jess ?
Actually, Philip became a British citizen before he married the Queen…he took the name of Philip Mountbatten. THEN he was made a Duke on his marriage to the princess Elizabeth.
And as far as I know, he is not titled Prince Consort.
Albert…most people would say he was King in all but name, since Victoria mostly depended on him for everything.
Also, when the Regent dies, his consort, the Queen, is styled either Queen Mother or Dowager Queen, although Queen Mary was just referred to as good ol’ Queen Mary.
Where you may have been confused, Jess, is that Victoria’s son was King Edward VII, although his real name was Albert Edward, and he was called Bertie by everyone. Victoria wanted her son to take either Albert or Albert Edward as his official name, it wasn’t a very popular choice in England, and so he didn’t. (Also, Victoria’ father’s name was Edward, the Duke of Kent).
Don’t forget the bits about marrying catholics and those lacking noble birth 
Queen Elisabeth I and King Phillip of Spain was a big deal in the British rules for the aristocracy.
and
The Princess Royal and her first husband, Mark phillips, a commoner.
Damn there’s a lot of philliping hereabouts !
Not to mention poor Princess Margaret and Peter Townsend, only that wasn’t because he was a “commoner”, rather that he was divorced and the Church of England was against it.
Then she married that Earl of Snowden, and he turned out to be gay…which isn’t a BAD thing, except if you’re married to him. He also turned out to be a TOTAL asshole.
On a related note, why is the heir to the English throne called the Prince of Wales? Was there a time when he ruled Wales as sovereign? How about a brief history vis-a-vis any Welsh royal line?
Was Elizabeth II called the Princess of Wales before the death of George VI?
Bunch of details on London_calling’s dissertation, and on the Wales question:
First, William and Mary: As L_c notes, William refused to be Mary’s consort without being King himself. However, he did have more than a little justification in claiming this: After Mary and her sister Anne, he himself was the next Protestant heir to the throne (and they’d just decided not to allow Catholic heirs). So the deal was that W&M got the throne jointly, with Anne agreeing to drop down one in the line of succession, so that whichever of William or Mary outlived the other (it was William, as it happens) would reign until he/she died and be succeeded by her – there was strong likelihood that they’d never have a child by the time they took the throne.
As I understand it, “Queen Mother” is a bit of a solecism as far as the Royal Family is concerned. You use it when necessary to clarify which Queen Elizabeth you’re talking about, but try to avoid it. Customary usage in veddy proper circles is that EIIR is “the Queen” with “Queen Elizabeth” meaning her mother, widow of George VI. (And, by the way, the world’s only surviving Empress, thanks to the fact that George was Emperor of India until 1947 – though her using the title would cause an international incident, she does retain the right to it.)
The deal with Prince of Wales is that Wales was rarely united under one prince (gwledyg), there being three main principalities: Gwynedd in the NW, Powys in the central mountains, and Dyfed in the SW. (There had been several others, but Marcher lords from western England had taken them over and sworn fealty for them to the King in London.) Llewellyn II of Gwynedd was the last native prince, and held most of the other two principalities as well as his native Gwynedd. When he was defeated and killed by Edward I, the people demanded of Edward that they have a prince “born in Wales who knows no English.” And he gave them one, his newborn son who had been born at Caernarvon Castle while Ed and Llew were duking it out. While the Welsh were not impressed with Edward’s little joke, it started a tradition, and we all know what England does with traditions. The last two Princes of Wales (the later Edward VIII and Duke of Windsor and Prince Charles) were invested with the title at Caernarvon Castle after studying in Wales, and Charles at least took the job as seriously as the Royal Family takes anything.
The rule is that only the firstborn son of the monarch can be Prince of Wales, his wife when there is one being Princess. Firstborn daughters would seem not to qualify, the present queen being the prime example. However, while the firstborn is automatically Duke of Cornwall and a couple of other titles, the Wales title is the gift of the sovereign, individually, and if bestowed at all is usually something done around the heir’s 18th birthday as a sort of coming-of-age thing.
Britain is in for an interesting new question if Elizabeth dies before Philip – what do you call the King’s father?
My understanding is that the title, “Queen Mother”, was invented for the present incumbent. She didn’t like the established style, “Queen Dowager”.
Err…where to start. Thing is: the origins of this trace this way back - at least 1200 years. There were Welsh Kings (at one time the Welsh Celts were more organised and conquest orientated than the English) but not many, maybe 5. Offa was the King (within historical knowledge) who first organized the Welsh tribes and led them into England. But then there was Alfred and, before that, who knows where Arthur and the Round Table sat. In short, there is no Welsh Line - it probably got lost in battle and/or the mists of time as the Celts retreated homeward and to a more tribal (Clan) society after the Danes and assorted other Scandies began moving west across England.
Why is he the Prince of Wales - he has to have Prince of somewhere and convention says the future King is Prince of Wales - slightly better than Prince of Darkness. Don’t know the origins of that but the Royal Family have an excellent resource on all things Royal, **including a comprehensive history section **at: http://www.royal.gov.uk/
Prior to being crowned, Elizebeth 11 was plain Princess - as is customary for all the women (a special title was created for Princess Ann at the Queen’s behest ‘The Princess Royal’ but it has no antecedence)
Sheesh! Albert! {smacks self in head} So stupid – I confused the Daddy (Prince Albert) with the son (Bertie = King Edward VIII). Duh.
Certainly I’m with you on the Queen Consort (styled just ‘Queen’) part. Where we diverge is on the King Consort question. As I pointed out, there has never been a King Consort – even William III was a special caseand was nevere called ‘King Consort.’ I’m not of the opinion that English-born or non-English-born would make a difference to the debate. After all, the vast majority of Queen Consorts have been non-English-born. Personally, I’m still of the opinion that ‘King’ just seems to outrank ‘Queen’ and for that reason we’ll never see ‘King Consort’ used. But, hey – what do I know. Hell, I thought Queen Victoria was married to Edward!
Guinastasia wrote:
> Not to mention poor Princess Margaret and Peter Townsend,
> only that wasn’t because he was a “commoner”, rather that
> he was divorced and the Church of England was against it.
> Then she married that Earl of Snowden, and he turned out
> to be gay…which isn’t a BAD thing, except if you’re
> married to him. He also turned out to be a TOTAL asshole.
First, Antony Armstrong-Jones’s title was Earl of Snowdon. The Snowdens were a different aristocratic family. Second, where do you get the idea that he was gay? He remarried after divorcing Princess Margaret. A year or so ago, at the age of 69, he had a baby with his girlfriend.
Many people could see that the marriage between Armstrong-Jones and the Princess was going to be a disaster. They were married in 1958. He’d been a fairly famous photographer, well known in London bohemian circles. It was pretty obvious that he would be chafing under the restrictions of being married to a member of the Royal family. Their marriage was a sham long before they finally got divorced in 1978. They had both been having numerous affairs.
OH, I know that. No, I just read The Decline and Fall of the House of Windsor, where it says that Tony was bisexual, at least. Not that it’s for certain, but that’s what I read.
As far as “Princess Royal”, I don’t know when it was FIRST used, but Queen Victoria’s first child, her daughter, also named Victoria but called Vicky, was The Princess Royal.
When she died in 1901, King Edward VII gave it to HIS eldest daughter, Princess Louise, the Duchess of Fife.
When Louise died, sometime in the early 30s, I believe, George V’s daughter Mary was given the title of Princess Royal. Anne obtained it in 1988, I think.
Also, I think there was one PrinCESS of Wales-Princess Mary Tudor, ie Bloody Mary. But her father stripped her of the title when he married Anne Bolyn, I believe.
I think the main reason Lilibet wasn’t made princess of Wales is because she was only the Heiress Presumptive, instead of Heiress Apparent. Techinically, if her parents had given birth to a boy, he would’ve been the Heir Apparent and Prince of Wales.
Too bad the Queen didn’t stand down 15 years ago. Her troubled offspring might have been much better off with
more to do. As it is they are the world’s oldest children…it seems you can never fully grow up until you
start your destined life’s work, which in Charles’s case
is being king. As it is, he probably won’t hop up onto the
big chair until he’s past the usual retirement age.
By tradition, anywhere along the spectrum of nobility and
royalty, doesn’t a wife, regardless of background, automatically assume the parallel title of her husband, e.g., Mrs Entrail divorces Mr Entrail, marries the Duke of Marlborough, and automatically becomes Duchess of Marlborough? About the only exeption I can think of is if the bride in question is a foreigner, and comes from a country like the United States where accepting a title might
jeopardize her citizenship. Still it would hardly seem to matter.
That’s what I thought. I figured that a King’s wife is automatically the Queen (but without any royal power – especially after the King’s death. See the Queen Mother, for example).
Zev Steinhardt
Depends. In the past, if it was a morganatic marriage, meaning a marriage to one below one’s rank, the person did not assume the title of her husband, nor did their children.
Royals who married morganatically:
Grand Duke Mikhail Alexandrovich of Russia, married twice-divorced noble woman, Nathalia Wulfert. In fact, quite a few members of the Romanov dynasty married morganatically…Tsar Alexander II married a minor princess after his wife died.
Of course, Edward VIII, Duke of Windsor and Wallis Simpson.
The Archduke Franz Ferdinand married Countess Sophie Chotek.