|
I hear he's married to the queen, but why is he still just a prince?
He was born a prince. Marrying the monarch does not grant rank in the UK.
Found some interesting stuff here.
It's common practice for all royal families (at least in Europe) to make make the wife of a hereditary king a queen, but the husband of a hereditary queen a prince.
When it comes to royalty, common practice is the only thing that counts.
Yeah, it's sexism. The wife of a king gets called a queen, but the husband of of a ruling queen just gets called by whichever titles he has. (Note that Prince Philip was a prince from birth. When he renounced that title to become a citizen of the UK the queen gave him a new princely title.)
It's unusual for royal titles to spread via marriage. Diana was the Princess of Wales, but not Princess Diana. Sarah became the Duchess of York when she married Prince Andrew, not Princess Sarah.
If you think about it, traditionally the King is dominant over the Queen (due to institutional and non politically correct sexism). If our Queen were to marry someone who then became king, he would be taking over. Since we don't want a foreigner dominating our Queen, he has to be given the lesser title to make it clear he is the junior partner, so to speak.
Hence Prince Albert was the consort of Queen Victoria and Prince Phillip is consort to Elizabeth II.
I hear he's married to the queen, but why is he still just a prince?
Because technically King and Queen are not equivalent ranks. King beats Queen, which is mostly an empty title like First Lady is in the US. Since Philip isn't actually the ruler, he can't be a King or that would imply that he was superior to the queen. She actually is the ruler, but this is a somewhat exceptional circumstance in European royalty.
Or to be more formal:
1) A king is always a ruler, for historical reasons.
2) A king's consort is a queen consort and not a ruler.
3) A queen regnant is a ruler, requiring the separate qualifier for historical reasons.
4) For a queen regnant to have a king would imply at the least some kind of co-regency, which is clearly not the case here.
5) Therefore we need a working title for someone who is the queen regnant's inferior that still has a degree of history and prestige without actually implying power. Hence prince consort, by analogy from queen consort.
Does it reek of hidebound, rock-headed traditionalism and misogyny? Well yes. It would be exceptional when talking about hereditary aristocracy for it to be anything but.
It should be noted that the issue of titles and precedence is a lot tidier in the UK than it is on the other side of the channel.
I heard there were some whiggish numbskulls roundhereabouts. May Jove, Britannia, and John Bull have mercy on their miserable souls...
If you think about it, traditionally the King is dominant over the Queen (due to institutional and non politically correct sexism). If our Queen were to marry someone who then became king, he would be taking over. Since we don't want a foreigner dominating our Queen, he has to be given the lesser title to make it clear he is the junior partner, so to speak.
Hence Prince Albert was the consort of Queen Victoria and Prince Phillip is consort to Elizabeth II.
Poor old Phil the Greek - he is a bit of a dufus and certainly not politicaly correct.
Blackadder sums it up perfectly
Captain Darling: I'm as British as Queen Victoria!
Captain Blackadder: So your father's German, you're half-German and you married a German?
|
|
It's kind of funny, the British Royal Family is really like the European Royal Family. They're related to everyone, including Russian Czars, Byzantine Basileus', German Kaisers, French Roi, and numerous others.
Britain has been invaded is ruled by a Foreign Monarch. As the Rigntful High Lord of Terra i do here in declare war on the Current Monarch and challenge her to a brutal beat down using 100 lb hammers.
I thought it all had to do with keeping the Winsor royal line on the throne.
I thought it all had to do with keeping the Winsor royal line on the throne.
...which is in truth the Sachsen-Coburg-Gotha line. They just did not want to be reminded of their German origins after 1917. Elisabeth II. decreed that their family is named Mountbatten-Windsor, Mountbatten being the English form of the German Battenberg.
European nobility is interrelated in many ways, as the potential marriage candidates befitting the nobilities ranks were not available in abundance, especially for the higher nobility.Stefan
It should be noted that Phillip could become King, but only if like 400 other people in front of him died. Because he is descended from Queen Victoria he is in the line of succession, just pretty far down on the list.
Come on Double P! Get crackin'! There's a crown in it for ya!
Actually England had a King Phillip..Phillip II of Spain who was married to 'Bloody Mary' (sister of Elizabeth I). The Spanish Armada was a lot to do with Phillip wanting his other crown back.
Phil the Greek(who is actually German by ancestry..like all the rest off Europes Royals outside Spain) is usually referred to as the 'Duke of Edinburgh'
Phil the Greek(who is actually German by ancestry..like all the rest off Europes Royals outside Spain) is usually referred to as the 'Duke of Edinburgh'
And the Spanish royals are French.
|
Phil the Greek(who is actually German by ancestry..like all the rest off Europes Royals outside Spain) is usually referred to as the 'Duke of Edinburgh'
I thought he was danish? Wiki agrees with me.
Phil the Greek(who is actually German by ancestry..like all the rest off Europes Royals outside Spain) is usually referred to as the 'Duke of Edinburgh'
The father of Juan Carlos I. was named Juan de Borbon y Battenberg, so there is some German ancestry there as well.
I thought he was danish? Wiki agrees with me.
Phil the Greek(who is actually German by ancestry..like all the rest off Europes Royals outside Spain) is usually referred to as the 'Duke of Edinburgh'
Check his line of descent..the Danish royals are imported Germans from Oldenberg. Don't you just love Dynastic relationships.
Actually while we are on the subject of titles..one thing that constantly annoys me is the habit some people have of referring to knights as Sir<Surname>. A knight is commonly referred to by his Christian name or his full name. Ie if Robert Macdonald became a Knight he would be referred to as Sir Robert MacDonald or Sir Robert..not as Sir MacDonald.He might also be referred to as 'Lord of the Manor of<Somewhere> Only if he was a Baron or above would he be referred to purely by surname..ie Baron MacDonald of<Such and Such> or Macdonald, Earl of<So and So>
|
|
I thought he was danish? Wiki agrees with me.
Phil the Greek(who is actually German by ancestry..like all the rest off Europes Royals outside Spain) is usually referred to as the 'Duke of Edinburgh'Check his line of descent..the Danish royals are imported Germans from Oldenberg. Don't you just love Dynastic relationships.
He's from the house of Glucksburg... a city on the border of Denmark.
Edit: They're the present ruling family of Denmark and Norway. They're descended from king Christian III of Denmark.
Liz 2.0's title in Australia is
"Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God Queen of Australia and Her other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth."
Bit of a mouthful - I believe Australia should become a republic (Its my Scots, Irish and French heritage).
There was a suggestion a few years ago that we boot the GG and replace the office with Prince Andy and make him the King that way would make Australia "independent" of the British monarchy... That idea was rejected for a whole host of reasons.
