I have a question for all my British friends out there. I was just listening to the news and I heard mention of Queen Elizabeth and Prince Philip. and that just started me thinking... if he's married to the Queen, shouldn't he be King Philip?

Can somebody explain what's going on there?

A few reasons for this one:

Under English common law a female usually takes the title of her husband but as Philip was only a Duke the title Queen outranks it.

As the British sovereign is a female her husband is called Prince Consort to highlight the fact that the Queen is the person with the power.

Because Prince Philip wasn't a British citizen before he married the Queen.

https://www.google.com/search?client=ms-android-boost-us&q=why+is+prince+philip+not+a+king&spell=1&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiajZe-8Y_RAhUBjZAKHbKUDvQQvwUIFygA&biw=320&bih=183&dpr=1.5

No. The Queen is the reigning monarch and in a monarchy, a King outranks a Queen. Seeing as he married into the existing monarchy, he has to accept a lesser title, since an "outsider" and a "commoner", to boot, could not become the ruling monarch.

And while we're on the subject...

I see a lot of plain wrong information regarding the way things work over here but in simple terms it's like this:

Although Parliament works in the name of the crown, the reality is the position of monarch is an apolitical figurehead with no real authority. In theory, the monarch could invoke all sorts of stuff but the reality is that it would cause a constitutional crisis and possibly a civil war. Seeing as nobody in particular wants that, the monarch goes along with the wishes of Parliament. It's a kind of convenient legal fiction, which works in favour of the government of the day, since the armed forces serve the monarch, not the current incumbent Prime Minister.

Myself, I favour a republic and as such, do not want a monarchy. But that's another story.

Oh well, others got there before me.

It was the same with Queen Victoria- her husband was always Prince Albert

Sam

A gut reaction is more people would die to save the Queen than any politician. This gets blurry if you take Charles into consideration.

I'd burn all of them, given a choice. A few exceptions where the politicos are concerned but royalty...

The French had the right idea. :)

Hmm, sounds like sedition is fomenting amongst the serfs.

I do see your point about the title, but how is he a commoner? Isn't he from royal blood?

Given the global state of shamocracy a republic would only offer another billionaires beauty contest. Mentioning no names and absolutely do not search youtube for The Bert Shaft Orchestra "Royal Family"

EClark1894 posted at 2:07PM Sun, 25 December 2016 - #4293572

Hmm, sounds like sedition is fomenting amongst the serfs.

I do see your point about the title, but how is he a commoner? Isn't he from royal blood?

He gave up his greek and danish royal titles before marriage to elizabeth. Others did not give up foreign royal titles, like Prince Ernst of Hanover, who became King George I

Here in Netherlands we do not have common law but same system: if the monarch is a male his spouse gets the title of queen. Present king Willem Alexander and queen Maxima. If the monarch is female, her spouse gets the title 'prince'. We had tthis situation under the three previous monarchs Wilhelmina, Juliana and Beatrix. When Beatrix announced her abdication there was a discussion whether to move to consistency and let Maxima just keep the ' princess' title she received when marrying Willem Alexander, but such was not effectuated. Maxima enjoys great sympathy in the country and nobody wanted to rob her of the royal title. Not sure how long this romanticism will hold in modern times. What would have happened if Willem Alexander had been gay and would have married a guy I do not know. Guess his partner would be given the title 'prince'. The first in line of succession now is princess Amalia. She was born in 2003. Same-sex marriage for her would give similar discussion of course. Despite being female and partner of the monarch her title would not be queen but 'princess'.

3Dave posted at 2:04AM Mon, 26 December 2016 - #4293575

Given the global state of shamocracy a republic would only offer another billionaires beauty contest. Mentioning no names and absolutely do not search youtube for The Bert Shaft Orchestra "Royal Family"

Well... they say democracy is the worst form of government... apart from all the others.

I'm not going to open that particular can of worms, though. I reckon everyone here is heartily sick of political discussions.

FVerbaas posted at 4:39PM Mon, 26 December 2016 - #4293584

Here in Netherlands we do not have common law but same system: if the monarch is a male his spouse gets the title of queen. Present king Willem Alexander and queen Maxima. If the monarch is female, her spouse gets the title 'prince'. We had tthis situation under the three previous monarchs Wilhelmina, Juliana and Beatrix. When Beatrix announced her abdication there was a discussion whether to move to consistency and let Maxima just keep the ' princess' title she received when marrying Willem Alexander, but such was not effectuated. Maxima enjoys great sympathy in the country and nobody wanted to rob her of the royal title. Not sure how long this romanticism will hold in modern times. What would have happened if Willem Alexander had been gay and would have married a guy I do not know. Guess his partner would be given the title 'prince'. The first in line of succession now is princess Amalia. She was born in 2003. Same-sex marriage for her would give similar discussion of course. Despite being female and partner of the monarch her title would not be queen but 'princess'.

Learned a lot. I didn't even know the Netherlands was a monarchy.

If Charles ever ends up on the throne, what does Camilla end up as?

icprncss2 posted at 8:41PM Mon, 26 December 2016 - #4293696

If Charles ever ends up on the throne, what does Camilla end up as?

She will be the Princess Consort (not the Queen consort). Depending on occasion, she might be the Duchess of Rothesay (if in Scotland) or "Duchess of Cornwall, the Princess Consort"

I do seriously have a problem with that word, "Consort", though. I suppose it might be just common usage differences between over seas and here in the States. When I hear the word "consort", I think of an unmarried companion or a mistress or gigolo. Certainly, my first thought is not the spouse of a monarch.

EClark1894 posted at 1:27PM Tue, 27 December 2016 - #4293709

I do seriously have a problem with that word, "Consort", though. I suppose it might be just common usage differences between over seas and here in the States. When I hear the word "consort", I think of an unmarried companion or a mistress or gigolo. Certainly, my first thought is not the spouse of a monarch.

Doesn't help that the verb means to associate with undesirable characters , guess the royals do mix with the peerage.

ironsoul posted at 2:38PM Tue, 27 December 2016 - #4293713

EClark1894 posted at 1:27PM Tue, 27 December 2016 - #4293709

I do seriously have a problem with that word, "Consort", though. I suppose it might be just common usage differences between over seas and here in the States. When I hear the word "consort", I think of an unmarried companion or a mistress or gigolo. Certainly, my first thought is not the spouse of a monarch.

Doesn't help that the verb means to associate with undesirable characters , guess the royals do mix with the peerage.

So, undesirables mixing with undesirables? Sounds about right.

Sam, remove the politicians and you'd leave a huge void, who else would provide us with so much tragic comedy?

If you want a republic, then you'll have to elect a President. Considering how awful the most recent choices have been (mentioning no names, but Tony Blair would have loved to be President) I think we're better off staying as we are. Though we could do without the hangers-on and minor Royals.

deleted

deleted

with you there A_Sunbeam.

Also don't forget the old pomp and ceremony. Take the state opening of parliment, other nations would invest in a doorbell. We make an old bloke beat up a door with a stick and we make that look darn good.

So as much as we might moan about the minors, we Brits do kinda have a soft place for those kinda things and wouldn't like to lose them. A lot of tourists, especially Americans, like this as well.

The advantage of a parliamentary/constitutional monarchy is that you get the head of state to get all the ceremonial stuff that people like, while the elected politicians have something from letting them get delusions of grandeur.

You see the problem in the US: they might elect a president, but when you look at all the ceremonial stuff, you'd be forgiven for thinking they're just an elective monarchy. "No one sits when the President stands up" and all that other nonsense: palace guards, pomp and ceremony, theme music. A few years ago, Canada's former Prime Minister Harper, just after he first won, tried to put that rule in place and his own staff told him to get stuffed. If he wanted to be treated like royalty, he could get himself into the vice-regal (and pretty much powerless) position of Governor-General and enjoy the trooping of the guards and the fancy salutes and all that jazz. Mere Prime Ministers aren't eligible for that cool stuff, they're supposed to work for a living.

Okay, the President isn't a "monarchy" no matter how much some of them might think they are or want to be, and most of the time people here will happily remind them of that.

As far as I know, there's no overarching rule that a republic has to have a President. If the office of First Minister of the Treasury (to give the PM the proper title) becomes vacant, the next senior minister can stand in until a replacement is found.

Even so, I'd rather have a President than Liz and her bunch.

Actually, for the US, the overarching rule is spelled out in the Constituition. There's a line of succession from President to Vice President to Speaker of the House. The 25th Amendment deals with who's in charge after that. That's why the President's cabinet picks are so important.

Even so, I'd rather have a President than Liz and her bunch.

I'm not so sure, I';d rather have an old lady into corgis and horses, than a dodgy geezer who overcharges mexicans for some unwanted DIY :)

Better than the d**k we've had who puts every other country on the planet before the one he's supposed to.

I guess that depends on what country your in and how good the healthcare is. Which is where us brits are really lucky with the NHS.

mrsparky posted at 1:19AM Sun, 08 January 2017 - #4294638

I guess that depends on what country your in and how good the healthcare is. Which is where us brits are really lucky with the NHS.

If you say so. I understand that Prince Charles is probably going to have change his name when he becomes king. So he might actually become King Philip himself, or King George?

Charles has suggested he might be George VII - but I can't see why he shouldn't just be Charles III. After all, Prince George is more entitled to be George VII when he gets there. George VI's name was actually Albert (after the Prince Consort) but there was no tradition of King Alberts in England.

A_Sunbeam posted at 8:10PM Sun, 08 January 2017 - #4294656

Charles has suggested he might be George VII - but I can't see why he shouldn't just be Charles III. After all, Prince George is more entitled to be George VII when he gets there. George VI's name was actually Albert (after the Prince Consort) but there was no tradition of King Alberts in England.

I read somewhere that it was because one of the previous Charles ruled over a particularly bloody time in the monarchy.

Charles I - English Civil War ... Charles II - restored monarchy - presided over rebuilding of London after the Great Fire no reason why Charlie can't be no. 3, really.

He'd be forever known as King Spaniel if he keeps Charles :)

I always liked the thought of having another Ethelred, assuming we really have to have a monarch, or possibly a name that really reflects his family, their background and so forth... You know, something like Wolfgang or Heinrich.

Can Queen Elizabeth overstep Charles and put William on the throne in his place?

Only by invalidating Charles right to the throne somehow that didn't also invalidate William. The rules of succession are laid down in the law which she must obey.

SamTherapy posted at 1:53PM Tue, 17 January 2017 - #4294845

I always liked the thought of having another Ethelred, assuming we really have to have a monarch, or possibly a name that really reflects his family, their background and so forth... You know, something like Wolfgang or Heinrich.

George would be a fitting name then. Georg is a german name, actually a really popular one in the Hannoveran royal family.

Good point, mate. I never thought of it before.