In most countries the spouse of an active queen becomes a prince. “Here Prince, come along now, two feet behind me.”
John,
I did a bit of poking around, and I think it’s a bit more complex than that.
Mary did seem to be a retiring sort, who relied primarily on William to take the active “manly” role. However, there was also some high-level politics involved.
One of the reasons William got involved in English politics was that he wanted England to intervene on the side of the Dutch in the wars against France. If Mary were the sole Queen, and he would simply be her consort, and would not have had any independent political authority. Whereas, by being King in his own right, he had the authority to get England inolved in the continental war.
There was also William’s own ego - in one book, he was quoted as saying he was not content to be “His Lady’s Usher of the Chamber,” or words to that effect. After all, he was the grandson of Charles I, with his own claim to the English throne (although ranking behind the various descendants of James II (VII)).
John,
I did a bit of poking around, and I think it’s a bit more complex than that.
Mary did seem to be a retiring sort, who relied primarily on William to take the active “manly” role. She appears to have been unwilling to take the throne without his joint participation. Once they were proclaimed as joint monarchs, she left all the executive duties to William, except when he was out of the country.
However, there was also some high-level politics involved.
One point was that Mary was sensitive to accustations that she was usurping her father’s throne. Having William as joint monarch, under a parliamentary act of succession, created a counter-argument.
William’s political goals also came into play. One of the reasons William got involved in English politics was that he wanted England to intervene on the side of the Dutch in the wars against France. If Mary were the sole Queen, and he were simply her consort, and he would not have had any independent political authority. Whereas, by being King in his own right, he had the authority to get England inolved in the continental war.
One of the earlier suggestions to solve the problem was that William should be declared by Parliament to be Regent, on behalf of his absent father-in-law, James II (VII). This proposal failed in the House of Lords by 51-49.
There was also William’s own ego - I found one reference quoting him as saying that he was not content to be “His Lady’s Usher” for the rest of his life. After all, he was the grandson of Charles I, with his own claim to the English throne (although ranking behind the various descendants of James II (VII)).
JTI posted:
Close, but no cigar.
The inherited possessions, like the title, were entailed and passed to the first-born son, as stated. The other possessions were within the royal or noble person’s disposition by will, and could go to whomever he saw fit. Ordinarily this was the offspring other than the first-born son, since they were not otherwise provided for.
Apropos of nothing, Charles is Duke of Cornwall as heir apparent to the throne of England. When Elizabeth dies and he succeeds, Prince William automatically becomes Duke of Cornwall. (Prince of Wales is a gift of the sovereign, not an automatic inheritance.) This is, I believe, the only case where an English title passes from one person to another on the death of a third person.
William and Mary came to the throne, technically at least, as joint monarchs, as a result of “The Glorious Revolution” sometimes also referred to as “The Bloodless Revolution” (not hardly!).
Charles I was the king who lost his head to Oliver Cromwell’s crowd. His sons were Charles II and James II. Charles II (“the Merry Monarch”) died without legitimate issue, and James became king. Problem with James: he was VERY Catholic. I think his second wife was a princess of France (writing from memory here, not research), which only increased the nervousness of the now-very-Protestant English.
Mary was a daughter of James II by his first marriage, and was very Protestant. She was also married to the very Protestant William of Orange. James II’s Catholic wife gave birth to a son who would be raised very Catholic, and the English decided they didn’t want him or his dad and all their popishness to rule England. Accordingly, they offered the crown to William (well, he WAS the man, after all! :P) if he would come and take it. IIRC nary a shot was fired (sword drawn?); William was deemed king by “right of conquest” as it were, and Mary deemed Queen by right of birth (placating those who thought the line should follow lines of descent – so long as it skipped the Catholics). William and Mary were jointly regnant, at least in theory. Mary died first, and without offspring. After William died the crown went to Anne, Mary’s sister, and a (Protestant) daughter of James II.
James II’s little boy went on to become “The Pretender” to the throne. The Scots considered him their rightful king, and manny a battle was fought over the succession, culminating at Culloden (::moment of silence: 
when the Scots resistance was finally crushed, as was a whole way of life involving the clans.
Disclaimer: written from memory of books long past, without refreshing my research.
-Melin
(returning to lurk mode)
Only one teensy quibble, Melin --the second wife of James II was Mary of Modena. Modena was a minor Italian Duchy. James’ MOTHER (the wife of the ill-fated Charles I) was Henrietta Maria of France. Damn good job without looking it up, though!
Jess
Full of 'satiable curtiosity
Melin, I respectfully disagree with your description of the respective claims of William and Mary. While both had hereditary claims, and William came over with armed force, their claim to the throne was based on an Act of Parliament: the Bill of Rights.
After James fled, a convention was summoned (not a Parliament, since it was not summoned by the King). The Convention offered the throne jointly to William and Mary, provided they would accept the conditions set out in the Bill of Rights. They accepted those conditions, and gave royal assent to the Bill of Rights. In essence, it was a constitutional amendment, changing the line of succession.
p.s. - welcome back.
here’s a cite for the English Bill of Rights: http://wwlia.org/uk-billr.htm
melin (I second jti; welcome back, even if only in passing) writes:
As much as it pains me to do so on the occasion of your stopping by, I have to point out that the Scots and Irish might well disagree with that statement.
Incidentally, I have heard (i.e., no evidence whatsoever) that, after the Battle of the Boyne between James Stuart and William of Orange, a soldier in the (losing) Irish army called out: “Switch kings with us and we’ll fight you again!” (William was a bad general, but not nearly as bad as James). Any truth to this, or merely a story too good to be questioned?
“Kings die, and leave their crowns to their sons. Shmuel HaKatan took all the treasures in the world, and went away.”
::grins:: Well, true, which is why I made the ironic “not hardly” comment after calling it the “Bloodless Revolution.” And Culloden, which is where things more or less ended up, was hardly “bloodless.” Guess I should have been more clear – thanks for the clarification.
-Melin
I recall hearing/reading somewhere that he has not sought the title of Prince Consort.
Evidently it’s still associated very strongly with Albert (who AFAIK is the only person to have actually held it), and either he doesn’t feel comfortable assuming it or he doesn’t feel that it would go over well if he tried.
Speaking of royalty, what is with these groups of teenage and slightly older girls accompanying the princes on vacation trips? Does the queen approve and they properly chaperoned?
I just now noticed that I posted an early draft and the final draft of my comments to John W. Kennedy - my apologies. (But they really shouldn’t have the “Clear Fields” button so close to the “Submit Reply” button.)
Of course this all depends on what country you’re talking about. I remember that there was one case of a Polish girl, the only surving heir probably, being crowned king.
They couldn’t let a queen rule the country, now could they?
So far as I know, and can discover, the only female head of state in Polish history was Queen Jadwiga, born in 1373, the daughter of Louis of Hungary, and grandniece of Casimir III (the Great), who was the last of the Piast dynasty to rule Poland. Louis had been granted the crown in Poland in return for a grant of privileges to the Polish nobility. His younger daughter was Jadwiga.
She ascended to the throne in 1384 at the age of 11, and was married two years later to Jagiello of Lithuania, who agreed to be Christianized and took the name of Wladislaw.
In all my research, I didn’t see anyone say anything about Jadwiga being ‘king’ not ‘queen’ except for one site that called her ‘King (sic.)’ of Poland. No explanation was made.
Does anyone know more?
I don’t know but have a hunch that the King Jadwiga thing is a case of a legal fiction, at which the Middle Ages were at least as good as modern lawyers are. I do know that Elizabeth II, like Victoria, Anne, the two Marys and Elizabeth I before her, is Duke (not Duchess) of Normandy, albeit the distinction only applies to the Channel Islands. The logic here is that the Duchy of Normandy is 1. subject to the Salic Law, which prevents inheritance by or through females, and 2. irrevocably tied to the English inheritance laws, which do not object to them. So Elizabeth is considered legally male insofar as her right to inherit the sovereignty of the Channel Islands goes.
Rich: I think the girls have to virgins to go on those free princely vacations.And they have to come back virgins too. Otherwise no allowance for the prince for 2 weeks.
Now this is interesting, and something that I didn’t know. How come they didn’t employ that same legal fiction when Victoria became Queen so as to allow her to inherit Hanover, instead of having that title pass to her uncle?
-Melin
Probably because Hanover was completely independent of the U.K. The British Parliament had no authority to legislate for Hanover, unlike the Channel Islands, which had been under English control since 1066. The U.K. and Hanover just happened to have the same person as monarch, until their different laws of inheritance separated their royal lines.