You would think that once you marry the heir to the throan, you automaticly become their counter title
2007-08-13 01:25:42 · 16 answers · asked by Gina L 1 in Society & Culture ➔ Royalty
I've answered this question so many times! The Queen was heir to her father,King George VI and Philip was not an hereditary heir to the THRONE,just a son-in-law.Since the Queen is regent,no one can bear a title higher than hers,which is "Queen Regent";the title "King" implies the regent and this won't do because the regent is Queen.Philip,of royal birth(Danish-German-Greek Royal Houses) must use the title for consort of a ruling queen,which is Prince Consort."Consort" is what a person who marries an heir can get in England;England's rule is hereditary,thusly,the wife of the Prince of Wales will never reign but wear the title of Queen(or Princess as they claim) Consort.The same rule apples to a male who marries an heir to the throne;he can never reign automatically,but becomes a "Consort." It would take an act of Parliament for Philip to become king.
2007-08-13 05:57:45 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Q 1: I use it when I think that it's necessary. Like if the name is Princess, Sparkle, or Royal for examples. Q 2: See question 1 for examples. Q 3: Actually I do... I was made fun of because of my name. I think a lot of children are, some more than others though. Q 4: Because my name is uncommon and I hated it being so, I'm choosing to name my children more common names. My first child is David and my second (due in March) will be named Adam. Both names are in the top 100. David and Adam are names that I really can't imagine getting made fun of. They are very "normal" names that have withstood the sands of time.
2016-05-21 05:15:22 · answer #2 · answered by hester 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
haha, only in spain does that happen, but even then the guy is only "titular" king of spain... meaning it's just a title.
the reason for this is that the blood heir to any throne who then becomes crowned is the highest titled person in the country.
In the case of Queen Elizabeth II, she is the blood heir to the throne of England and has been crowned.
what the only thing higher than a queen?
a king.
that's why Prince Philip isn't King Philip.
His wife is the figurehead of the nation not him.
If a guy was the blood heir to the throne then he becomes King, not a titular king or prince but the King regal.
He is then the Highest (truly) titled person in the nation.... if a woman was to marry him she would become a queen.
2007-08-13 01:40:52 · answer #3 · answered by Björn 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
In the British monarchy, the husband of a female monarch does not have any recognized special status, rank, or privileges. In actual fact Prince Philip does play a major role in royal affairs, but this is not recognized in terms of his title. Interestingly enough, the wife of a male monarch (e.g. the Queen Mother was the wife of King George VI) takes on her husband's rank and style upon marrying, becoming Queen.
2007-08-13 01:32:36 · answer #4 · answered by Sal*UK 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Because a Queen Regnant (who rules in her own right) in the UK is married to a Prince, the UK has Prince Consorts not King Consorts. When Scotland had a separate Monarchy they had King Consorts, Lord Darnley, husband of the Mary, Queen of the Scots and father of James I and VI was King Consort of Scotland.
2007-08-13 03:07:04 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
in the royalties, when a woman is Queen, her husband receives other tittle (prince, duke...), because a king is more powerful than a queen. when a woman turns into queen ( married) se receives the tittle of Queen consort. so the husband of the queenis a prince no a king. in Spain for exmple the husband of the queen is Prince of Spain and the crown prince is prince of Asturias. the same happenswith the english monarchy, the husband of the quuen is prince of england and the crownprince is prince os wales
2007-08-13 05:53:34 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
A King would automatically have the highest position of authority. Since Elizabeth II was the eldest child born to a King, she became Queen upon her father's death. If the oldest child would have been male, that son would have been King and his wife would have been Queen, or Queen Consort.
Also, because of his divorce, if Charles becomes King, then Camilla will only be Princess Consort.
2007-08-13 01:32:36 · answer #7 · answered by RayeKaye 6 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Because he is not heir to the throne. He married Elizabeth, thus he married into the royal family and not part of the blood line. That is why throughout English History you see women who are queens, ultimate rulers such as Victoria, or Elizabeth the first. Their fathers or mothers were desendants, part of the royal blood line
2007-08-13 01:34:43 · answer #8 · answered by Kevin S 1 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Doesn't work that way. If Prince Charles ascends to the throne, then Camilla will be Queen Consort, not Queen.
2007-08-13 01:31:33 · answer #9 · answered by kja63 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Nope, you only get the title if you are in a DIRECT descendant line, not married to it. Prince Charles would become King Charles, if the old bat ever kicks off.
2007-08-13 01:30:49 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋