The “Queen of England”?
We’ve been through this often enough on these boards: QE2 is the Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The cases of Wales and Northern Ireland may be different, but England has technically the same constitutional status as Scotland. To describe her as the “Queen of England” makes no more sense than describing her exclusively as “Queen of Scots.”
The queen is actually queen of several nations, including the UK, Canada, New Zealand and Australia. The proclamation of Accession dated 6-Feb-1952 titled her as ‘Queen Elizabeth II by the Grace of God, Queen of this Realm and of Her other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith’
Suppose the current queen gives birth to an heir and
then dies. What is her widower’s title? Prince father?
No-one commented on this question posted by Guinastasia:
Question-before Elizabeth II became Queen, was she, technically, the Duchess of Edinburgh?
From the Royal Family’s official website: Shortly before the wedding [of Elizabeth and Philip on 20 November 1947], the bridegroom was created Duke of Edinburgh, Earl of Merioneth and Baron Greenwich with the style of His Royal Highness and appointed a Knight of the Garter by the King. The Queen and Prince Philip had two children before and two after The Queen succeeded to the throne [in 1953].
In the photo of Philip as a teenager at Gordonstoun school he looks strikingly like his grandson, William.
http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/Page437.asp
To add to woolly’s post on the double dissolution in 1975:
From the Australian Electoral Commission’s fact sheet on Double Dissolution (http://www.aec.gov.au/pubs/factfiles/factsheet8.htm)
Double dissolution (Dissolution of both Houses together)
The Governor-General* has, in specific circumstances, the power to dissolve both the House of Representatives and the Senate simultaneously a ‘double dissolution’ prior to elections for the full membership of both Houses.
A double dissolution may occur in situations where the Senate and House of Representatives are unable to agree over one or more pieces of legislation.
The double dissolution in 1975 was unusual. According to The Australian Constitution annotated by Cheryl Saunders, more than 20 double dissolution bills had been stockpiled when the Senate ‘delayed’ three other money bills, including a key appropriation bill. The Governor-General (Sir John Kerr) eventually dismissed the prime minister (Mr Whitlam) and asked the leader of the opposition (Mr Fraser) to take over as Prime Minister on condition that he would advise the Governor-General to dissolve both Houses and call an election (which was held on 13.12.75). (my bolding)
As far as I am aware, QEII had nothing to do with it (except to be informed that it was happening) and certainly the British PM would not have been consulted at all.
Just wanted to clear all that up - we are NOT that dependent on QEII for running our country.
Carry on.
Asked by Grievar
Suppose the current queen gives birth to an heir and
then dies. What is her widower’s title? Prince father?
That would be a bloody miracle, since the present queen was born in 1926, making her 76 years old now.
Hell, I’ll throw in a sidebar issue here…
I heard on NPR last night that the phrase ‘Queen Mother’ while around wasn’t really in popular usage until this century. But when QEII ascended to the throne the world was put in the position (owing to the Queen Mother also being named Elizabeth) of having two Queen Elizabeths still alive. This led to the popularization of the phrase Queen Mother (or Mum, I suppose) to keep it straight.
I know about the ‘Queen Consort’ thing, but I don’t ever recall anyone referring to her as ‘Queen Consort Mum’.
So how 'bout it? More NPR disinformation or what?
Not quite disinformation, but somewhat incomplete. The widow of a King has traditionally, in the UK, been given the title the Queen Dowager. To the best of my knowledge, she would usually remain Queen <Name> in ordinary speech. When George VI died, his widow didn’t like the term “Queen Dowager” and requested instead to be called Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother. Because there was another Queen Elizabeth (with superior rank), the press and the people used “the Queen Mother” as the short form, rather than Queen Elizabeth which would be the traditional short form. “The Queen Mum” was never an official title, just a further and usually affectionate shortening of an already shortened title.
Usram:
"OK, I bet you 50 pounds ( about 75 of your American ‘dollars’) that parliament does not abolish the monarchy. If I’m wrong, Britain becomes a republic, if I’m right, I get 50 pounds. I can’t lose! "
Weeks:
“This American takes your bet. I’ll bring my wife to GB to hand you the money /pick up my money 6 months after the sad day. Gotta place we can crash?”
Thanks for the correction, robinc308. I was thinking that there would be some correct title along these lines, but I didn’t know what it it was. However, I still think that it would be more accurate to describe the queen as “Queen of Jamaica” or “Queen of Australia” than as “Queen of England”.
Each Commonwealth country that has the Queen as the head of state defines her royal style and title for the purposes of that country, as G. Odoreida suggests.
For example, here’s the Canadian statute which defines her title for Canadian purposes, the Royal Style and Titles Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. R-12. The Preamble summarises the constitutional convention within the Commonwealth on this issue:
Now that the queen mum is dead are they going to mummify her?
There is no automatic title for the husband of a Queen Regnant.
Since the United Kingdom was established in 1707, there have been three Queens Regnant: Anne, Victoria, and Elizabeth II.
Anne’s husband was Prince George of Denmark. I don’t know if he was made a prince of the United Kingdom, or brought the title “Prince” over with him from Denmark.
Victoria’s husband was Prince Albert. The Queen gave him the title of “Prince Consort” in 1857, after they had been married for seventeen years.
Philip did not automatically become a Prince on Elizabeth’s accession: she specifically granted him the title, some years later. He does not have the title of “Prince Consort.”
From the Royal Family website
Those “consultations” could get quite complicated, which may be why there doesn’t seem to be much on the topic since it was first broached back in 1998.
By constitutional convention, all 16 Commonwealth countries that recognize the Queen as head of state have to agree to any changes to the rules of succession. That convention isn’t binding law, and if the U.K. really wanted to change the succession unilaterally for its own purposes, it could do so, but that unilateral change would not be effective to change the succession in the other Commonwealth countries. If the Brits want to change the succession and have the other Commonwealth countries change their successions, it could take a while. (Just by way of example, to change the succesion under the Canadian Constitution would require unanimous consent of the federal Parliament and all ten provinces.)
Close-he died in 1916, and his great-nephew, Charles became the Emperor, but he was deposed in 1918.
The title, Queen Mother-I believe Queen Alexandra, wife of Edward VII, was often referred to as Queen Mother, although her correct title would have been then, Queen Dowager, Alexandra of Denmark. One problem, however, was that Alexandra was very pushy and loved the limelight. Mary, her daughter-in-law and the new Queen Consort should have had precedence over her mother-in-law. But Alexandra’s sister, Maria Feodorovna, the Dowager Empress of Russia, encouraged Alexandra to stay in the first place. See, in Russia, a Dowager Empress has precedence over the current Empress Consort. Weird. Mary was very reserved and polite, but there is no doubt she often tired of Alexandra-who, while a sweet, kind and generous person, was notoriously self-centered and flighty.
Queen Mary, even after the death of her husband, in 1935, was always called Queen Mary, even though she was now the Queen Mother, or Queen Dowager. Interestingly enough, she also survived her 2nd son who was King, so she was still around when her granddaughter succeeded to the throne. Speaking of look-a-likes, look at a picture of Queen Mary sometime-Elizabeth II looks a LOT like her!
Here’s a dumb-ass question. Why was the Queen Mum known as a Queen when her husband was alive (George V ?) and Prince Phillip is only a Prince. Why is he not known as King Phillip ???
sigh
If you read the rest of the thread, it’s been answered-several times. There was even a link to a column by our Beloved Uncle Cecil.
The OP is offensive. It smacks in the face of stupidity. How much does one have to tolerate?
Now that the President is still alive, does that mean that all the Kings of America will be stupid?
(Please tell me if there is no such word as ‘alive’. I don’t know much about these things)
And if the USA had never achieved independence, she’d have been the Queen Mom. :eek: 
Most of the Scottish people I know would just as well she wasn’t referred to as their queen.
Ok, most of the points have already been answered, so this is just an attempt to clear up the remaining omissions and confusions. I’ll deal with them roughly in the order they were raised.
Diceman, there has been much speculation over the years that the Queen will abdicate to allow Prince Charles to become king and some have suggested that it was only the continued survival of the Queen Mother that was preventing her from doing so. The concensus, however, remains that she will not abdicate, mainly because there is no need for her to do so - most of her public duties are ones which, as it is, other members of the Royal Family can take over. There is no reason why, so long as she remains sane and interested, she cannot continue to exercise her minimal political duties.
C K Dexter Haven is correct about the reasons for the customary delay in holding a coronation. It is only in recent centuries, when the preparations have become ever more complex, that this delay has become necessary. Before then coronations were usually held while the period of court mourning was still in force. In 1953, the last time a British queen consort died, mourning for Queen Mary was terminated early to allow the coronation of her granddaughter, the present Queen, to go ahead as planned.
To answer Guinastasia’s question, the present Queen was (and indeed still is) Duchess of Edinburgh. I even think that she was sometimes referred to as such before she became queen, although, of course, she was usually just referred to as Princess Elizabeth.
The question as to what discussions have taken place about changing the rules of succession rises two separate points. The first is that attempts were made to introduce a Private Member’s bill in the UK Parliament to bring about such a change. In other words, that was an unofficial backbench initiative without the formal support of either the Queen or the Government. However, it is customary for Parliament to ask the Queen’s permission before considering bills which will affect the royal prerogative. On that occasion, the Queen did grant permission. (She usually does.) The Government also indicated that it was sympathetic. Strictly speaking, all that the Queen had done was to give permission for Parliament to discuss the subject, but it was widely assumed that this was a signal that she would approve such legislation if it was passed. (As one would expect, the Guardian article posted above missed the nuances of all this.) The bill ran out of time (as Private Member’s bills usually do) and it has not been resurrected, partly because its leading supporter, Lord Archer, is now serving time at Her Majesty’s pleasure. The second point however is that there has been speculation that the Queen has independently agreed that she will herself ask that Parliament legislate should the issue arise as an immediate problem in the near future. (My source for this is Robert Lacey’s latest book, Royal - Lacey is one of the better royal commentators, his work draws on sources within the Royal Household and this particular claim sounds plausible.) Prince William’s marriage would be the obvious time to take such an initiative.
woolly and Eggles are correct about the Queen’s non-involvement in the Whitlam dismissal. Whitlam did attempt to appeal to the Queen over the head of Sir John Kerr, but that was firmly rejected by Buckingham Palace on the grounds that it was entirely a matter for the Governor-General. Whitlam may also have tried to involve the British Prime Minister, Harold Wilson, to bring pressure to bear on her to reconsider her refusal to become involved, but, again, Wilson made it clear that it would be highly inappropriate for him to do so.
The title ‘Queen Mother’ has a longer history than is sometimes supposed. As Guinastasia says, it was sometimes used by Queen Alexandra, and I have a vague feeling that it was also used by Queen Adelaide, the widow of William IV, even although she didn’t have any surviving children. One reason why the late Queen Mother adopted the title in 1952 was that there was already a Queen Dowager, her mother-in-law, Queen Mary. As flodnak says, it became widely used to avoid confusion with the other Queen Elizabeth, her daughter, the present Queen.
As I’ve pointed out any number of times before, Prince Philip’s titles will remain exactly the same if he survives his wife. None of them are official titles derived from his position as the Queen’s consort (although, of course, that was, in practice, the reason he was given them) and he will keep them all until he dies.