Author Topic: The phrase "a commoner"... isn't this rude?  (Read 12063 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Yvaine

  • Super Hero!
  • ****
  • Posts: 8941
Re: The phrase "a commoner"... isn't this rude?
« Reply #60 on: April 30, 2011, 02:19:26 PM »


I thought Anne Boleyn was a commoner? I know she was given titles prior to marrying Harry, but I can't recall if they were needed so they could marry, or if it was just a token of his esteem and a promise of his intentions.


Indeed she was. Her dad was a businessman. I think the titles were mostly to reassure her of his intentions (since the divorce dragged on for many years) and to give him an excuse to provide her and her relatives with money. It's not at all unusual for a royal mistress to find that she and her siblings and her parents and her half-cousin's stepdog are suddenly barons and baronesses, with the resultant income from the lands.  ;)

General Jinjur

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1679
  • This is serious business!
Re: The phrase "a commoner"... isn't this rude?
« Reply #61 on: April 30, 2011, 02:26:42 PM »
Consorts don't have coronations because only the monarch has one,regardless of gender and there is only one monarch at a time, right at the top of the pile.

Henry VIII had coronations for at least one wife, or at least planned them, so was that OK because the wife would be queen and hence of lower rank no matter what? And for a present-day example, when William takes the throne and becomes king, Kate will be queen - will there be a two-person coronation, or will it be just William?

Larrabee

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4749
Re: The phrase "a commoner"... isn't this rude?
« Reply #62 on: April 30, 2011, 02:34:54 PM »
Consorts don't have coronations because only the monarch has one,regardless of gender and there is only one monarch at a time, right at the top of the pile.

Henry VIII had coronations for at least one wife, or at least planned them, so was that OK because the wife would be queen and hence of lower rank no matter what? And for a present-day example, when William takes the throne and becomes king, Kate will be queen - will there be a two-person coronation, or will it be just William?

I think just William will be crowned, the last two coronations (Elizabeth and her father) only crowned the actual monarch despite the fact that they were married.  I think.  :-\

General Jinjur

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1679
  • This is serious business!
Re: The phrase "a commoner"... isn't this rude?
« Reply #63 on: April 30, 2011, 02:36:57 PM »
But Kate will still be Queen Katherine, and not a step down like Prince Philip? Interesting!

I'm pretty knowledgeable about the royalty on the whole, but this has always perplexed me.

Larrabee

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4749
Re: The phrase "a commoner"... isn't this rude?
« Reply #64 on: April 30, 2011, 02:38:04 PM »
But Kate will still be Queen Katherine, and not a step down like Prince Philip? Interesting!

I'm pretty knowledgeable about the royalty on the whole, but this has always perplexed me.

Well, she is a step down, queen is a step down from king, its a patriarchal system!

Its like royal top trumps, king beats queen.

General Jinjur

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1679
  • This is serious business!
Re: The phrase "a commoner"... isn't this rude?
« Reply #65 on: April 30, 2011, 02:40:44 PM »
But Kate will still be Queen Katherine, and not a step down like Prince Philip? Interesting!

I'm pretty knowledgeable about the royalty on the whole, but this has always perplexed me.

Well, she is a step down, queen is a step down from king, its a patriarchal system!

Its like royal top trumps, king beats queen.

But she won't be Princess to his King, though. But I guess since Queen is always lower than King, then being Queen is the equivalent of Prince Consort? Ah, a lightbulb has gone on!

Larrabee

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4749
Re: The phrase "a commoner"... isn't this rude?
« Reply #66 on: April 30, 2011, 02:42:06 PM »
But Kate will still be Queen Katherine, and not a step down like Prince Philip? Interesting!

I'm pretty knowledgeable about the royalty on the whole, but this has always perplexed me.

Well, she is a step down, queen is a step down from king, its a patriarchal system!

Its like royal top trumps, king beats queen.

But she won't be Princess to his King, though. But I guess since Queen is always lower than King, then being Queen is the equivalent of Prince Consort? Ah, a lightbulb has gone on!

Exactly! 

She'll be his queen consort, she won't get a number or be a monarch herself, she won't be head of state or of the church but she'll be called queen.


Nurvingiel

  • Super Hero!
  • ****
  • Posts: 12404
Re: The phrase "a commoner"... isn't this rude?
« Reply #67 on: April 30, 2011, 02:42:49 PM »
But Kate will still be Queen Katherine, and not a step down like Prince Philip? Interesting!

I'm pretty knowledgeable about the royalty on the whole, but this has always perplexed me.

Well, she is a step down, queen is a step down from king, its a patriarchal system!

Its like royal top trumps, king beats queen.

But she won't be Princess to his King, though. But I guess since Queen is always lower than King, then being Queen is the equivalent of Prince Consort? Ah, a lightbulb has gone on!
Yeah, that's why the Queen's husband is Prince Phillip, not King Phillip.

..... Not sure why we need such a system in this modern age honestly.
If I had some ham, I could have ham and eggs, if I had some eggs.

Yvaine

  • Super Hero!
  • ****
  • Posts: 8941
Re: The phrase "a commoner"... isn't this rude?
« Reply #68 on: April 30, 2011, 02:43:17 PM »
I think it goes back to traditional gender roles in which the woman was assumed to be subservient to the man unless her rank was higher (king is higher than queen, but queen is higher than prince), and especially when a queen regnant married a foreigner, there was always a lot of fear about whether the queen's husband, being the male half of the couple, would predominate and make the country just another colony of whatever country he'd come from. (Bloody Mary and the politics surrounding her marriage are a good example of people worrying about this.) So if the king marries some woman, it's "safe" to call her queen, because the king is still in charge. But if the reigning queen marries some man, he gets a title that places him lower than the queen, to counterbalance the fact that, as the man, he was assumed to be the dominant partner. Or at least that's what I think the thought process was.

Larrabee

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4749
Re: The phrase "a commoner"... isn't this rude?
« Reply #69 on: April 30, 2011, 02:45:17 PM »
But Kate will still be Queen Katherine, and not a step down like Prince Philip? Interesting!

I'm pretty knowledgeable about the royalty on the whole, but this has always perplexed me.

Well, she is a step down, queen is a step down from king, its a patriarchal system!

Its like royal top trumps, king beats queen.

But she won't be Princess to his King, though. But I guess since Queen is always lower than King, then being Queen is the equivalent of Prince Consort? Ah, a lightbulb has gone on!
Yeah, that's why the Queen's husband is Prince Phillip, not King Phillip.

..... Not sure why we need such a system in this modern age honestly.

We don't remotely need it, and frankly I think its inhumane to the people born into it, but I can't see it changing anytime soon, people are weirdly attached to the idea of the country having a 'pet' family to look in on and get out to play with every now and then.  :(

General Jinjur

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1679
  • This is serious business!
Re: The phrase "a commoner"... isn't this rude?
« Reply #70 on: April 30, 2011, 02:49:13 PM »
Mary I's husband was referred to as the King, but did not have a coronation, so he was essentially a Prince Consort with a different name to assuage his ego. Am I remembering this correctly? In all the books I've read about this, Mary and others called him King.

But back to the coronation question: could Mary have had her husband crowned? If so, he would have automatically outranked her, and so become much more powerful? I dimly recall that he wanted to be crowned, and the lack thereof was one of the things that sent him snitting back to Spain.

Snowy Owl

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1207
Re: The phrase "a commoner"... isn't this rude?
« Reply #71 on: April 30, 2011, 03:00:27 PM »

I think Mary's husband was called King Philip because he was King of Naples when they got married and then became in addition King of Spain and it was in part in reference to that.

In addition, wikipedia lists him as being King of England jure uxoris meaning King of England by right of his wife so implying that his title as king of England only lasted for the duration of their marriage.    I should imagine that the marriage was preceded by a lot of negotiation, discussion of titles, rights etc as it was a political negotiation. 

When she died he stopped being King of England and had no residual right to the throne. 

I think it's fair to say that because Mary was the first successful Queen Regnant and the situation was fairly unusual for the time, there was a lot of diplomatic and political scurrying around to ensure that foreign princes were not able to take too much authority over the UK.   ;D

I also think that in part due to the influence that Philip was considered to exercise over her (with him being blamed for encouraging the burnings of Protestants), the situation of being king jure uxoris was not something the UK wanted to experience too much more often.
And we should consider every day lost on which we have not danced at least once.

Friedrich Nietzsche

violinp

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 3602
  • cabbagegirl28's my sister :)
Re: The phrase "a commoner"... isn't this rude?
« Reply #72 on: April 30, 2011, 03:02:57 PM »
Mary I's husband was referred to as the King, but did not have a coronation, so he was essentially a Prince Consort with a different name to assuage his ego. Am I remembering this correctly? In all the books I've read about this, Mary and others called him King.

But back to the coronation question: could Mary have had her husband crowned? If so, he would have automatically outranked her, and so become much more powerful? I dimly recall that he wanted to be crowned, and the lack thereof was one of the things that sent him snitting back to Spain.

Well, I think he was called King because he was already King of Spain. He would have automatically been ahead of her if he were King of England, and the English would never endure being under Spanish rule, because that's what would have happened - Spain and England would be one country because the same ruler had them.
"It takes a great deal of courage to stand up to your enemies, but even more to stand up to your friends" - Harry Potter


Nurvingiel

  • Super Hero!
  • ****
  • Posts: 12404
Re: The phrase "a commoner"... isn't this rude?
« Reply #73 on: April 30, 2011, 03:03:50 PM »
But Kate will still be Queen Katherine, and not a step down like Prince Philip? Interesting!

I'm pretty knowledgeable about the royalty on the whole, but this has always perplexed me.

Well, she is a step down, queen is a step down from king, its a patriarchal system!

Its like royal top trumps, king beats queen.

But she won't be Princess to his King, though. But I guess since Queen is always lower than King, then being Queen is the equivalent of Prince Consort? Ah, a lightbulb has gone on!
Yeah, that's why the Queen's husband is Prince Phillip, not King Phillip.

..... Not sure why we need such a system in this modern age honestly.

We don't remotely need it, and frankly I think its inhumane to the people born into it, but I can't see it changing anytime soon, people are weirdly attached to the idea of the country having a 'pet' family to look in on and get out to play with every now and then.  :(
I think you've nailed it. But I find it so strange, and like you said, unfair to the people born into it.

From my end of things, it's none of my beeswax what British people want to do with their government but I do think that our Head of State should be Canadian. Currently, the Queen rubber-stamps the Prime Minister's recommendation for the post. So only two changes would be needed: the Prime Minister directly appoints his/her choice and the Governor General is the Head of State.

But... I'm derailing my own thread. However, my original question has been answered: "a commoner" is not rude, but it is classist. Also Pimms is delicious and this song is awesome.
If I had some ham, I could have ham and eggs, if I had some eggs.

kareng57

  • Super Hero!
  • ****
  • Posts: 12310
Re: The phrase "a commoner"... isn't this rude?
« Reply #74 on: April 30, 2011, 03:29:38 PM »
But Kate will still be Queen Katherine, and not a step down like Prince Philip? Interesting!

I'm pretty knowledgeable about the royalty on the whole, but this has always perplexed me.

Well, she is a step down, queen is a step down from king, its a patriarchal system!

Its like royal top trumps, king beats queen.

But she won't be Princess to his King, though. But I guess since Queen is always lower than King, then being Queen is the equivalent of Prince Consort? Ah, a lightbulb has gone on!

Exactly! 

She'll be his queen consort, she won't get a number or be a monarch herself, she won't be head of state or of the church but she'll be called queen.



And Prince Philip has his title because he was aready a prince of the Greek royal family; he didn't become a Prince simply by marrying Elizabeth.  Her father did give him the title of Duke of Edinburgh upon their marriage though.  He does have other titles; I'm not clear as to whether they were all bestowed on him at the same time.