The phrase "a commoner"... isn't this rude?

[kareng57]

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.

Here ya go: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_titles_and_honours_of_Prince_Philip,_Duke_of_Edinburgh

You learn something every day - thanks.  Although I knew that his bloodline was Danish rather than Greek, I had no idea that he had ever been considered a Prince of Denmark.

[amandaelizabeth]

Sometimes however, the Queen have have a joint rule.  For instance Wiiliam and Mary, where Mary was the heir married to William of Orange and they ruled jointly

[Lauren]

And Prince Philip has his title because he was aready a prince of the Greek royal family;

No, he renounced his titles when he married (then) Princess Elizabeth. He was a member of both the royal houses of Greece and Denmark. He became Prince Philip (officially) again after he was granted the title by QEII in the 60s sometime.

Queen Elizabeth (the Queen Mum) was coronated when King George IV was.

[kareng57]

And Prince Philip has his title because he was aready a prince of the Greek royal family;

No, he renounced his titles when he married (then) Princess Elizabeth. He was a member of both the royal houses of Greece and Denmark. He became Prince Philip (officially) again after he was granted the title by QEII in the 60s sometime.

Queen Elizabeth (the Queen Mum) was coronated when King George IV was.

I thought he'd renounced his place-in-succession to the Greek throne upon marriage - although it was of course a moot point at that stage anyway.  But I didn't think that this negated his title.

I too thought that Queen Elizabeth (Mum) was coronated at the same time as George VI.

[scotcat]

I too thought that Queen Elizabeth (Mum) was coronated at the same time as George VI.

She was, and was Queen Consort. However, I believe you are not Prince Consort if married to a Queen, as this titile was specifically created by Queen Victoria for Prince Albert, and has not been used since his death. Hence speculation in the British Press some years ago, that our Queen was going to announce that the Duke of Edinburgh was to be Prince Consort, but it came to nothing.

As to the term "Commoner", in this case it is not rude. To call someone "Common" however is generally seen as being so. In the UK, (I am a a British poster) we have the Lords and Commons in Parliament. The Lords are divided into the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, i.e. Bishops and other sorts of Lords, but the other sort are not necessarily moneyed landowners, some time ago, one of them was making a living as a dentist.

[Larrabee]

We now have 'life peers' where people can be a member of the house of Lords without having a title that they pass on to their children. 

[Sara Crewe]

Sometimes however, the Queen have have a joint rule.  For instance Wiiliam and Mary, where Mary was the heir married to William of Orange and they ruled jointly

Wasn't this because there was some argument that William was the rightful heir and this was an easy way of sorting out the mess?

[Barney girl]

No, he was invited to invade because he was protestant and his wife's husband, James VII and II had become Roman Catholic and had just had a son who might become a catholic monarch.

If the king had been dead his wife, Mary, was next in line after her brother. William was James' nephew (son of his sister)

It's described now as the Glorious Revolution, but I read once that it was a good example of history being written by the victors. Apparently it was only a few influential people who invited him and he brought a fairly sizeable army with him.

(James' son became what is known as the Old Pretender and his son was Bonnie Prince Charlie)

[Lynn2000]

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.

This seems sensible to me. Er, you know, for the time it took place in. Not to derail things, but in the children's fantasy series Dealing with Dragons, a female character who becomes ruler is titled "King" because King = #1 and Queen = #2. The titles aren't linked to gender but only to their rank (like in a pack of cards). This series is good about upending various fairytale and social conventions, and I think this is a neat example that's oddly relevant here.

[Twik]

Considering the historical and social derivation of those words, I would consider saying "King = #1, whatever the gender" kind of like saying "women can't, by definition, be #1, so if a woman takes top spot, she must give up her femininity" (sort of like Hatshepsut adopting a Pharonic beard).

[TychaBrahe]

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.

She will be a Queen Consort, like Elizabeth the "Queen Mum," not a Queen Regnant, like Elizabeth II.  Philip is a Prince because there's no such thing as a King Consort.

[Lynn2000]

Considering the historical and social derivation of those words, I would consider saying "King = #1, whatever the gender" kind of like saying "women can't, by definition, be #1, so if a woman takes top spot, she must give up her femininity" (sort of like Hatshepsut adopting a Pharonic beard).

Well, given that I was referencing a dragon in a children's fantasy series--you actually have a good point. Reminds me of another children's series (I have very high intellectual standards for my reading matter)--The Royal Diaries. There's one called "Kristina, the Girl King." I believe she was the heir to the Swedish throne in the 1800's, and once her father was resigned to the fact that she indeed would be the ruler someday, he declared that she wouldn't be "Queen," she would be "King." Somehow I don't think he meant that literally would be her title, but the idea was that she would be educated "like a king" instead of "like a marriage-bait princess." But notice there's no, "like a ruler of either gender" option.

[Ceiling Fan]

Considering the historical and social derivation of those words, I would consider saying "King = #1, whatever the gender" kind of like saying "women can't, by definition, be #1, so if a woman takes top spot, she must give up her femininity" (sort of like Hatshepsut adopting a Pharonic beard).

Well, given that I was referencing a dragon in a children's fantasy series--you actually have a good point. Reminds me of another children's series (I have very high intellectual standards for my reading matter)--The Royal Diaries. There's one called "Kristina, the Girl King." I believe she was the heir to the Swedish throne in the 1800's, and once her father was resigned to the fact that she indeed would be the ruler someday, he declared that she wouldn't be "Queen," she would be "King." Somehow I don't think he meant that literally would be her title, but the idea was that she would be educated "like a king" instead of "like a marriage-bait princess." But notice there's no, "like a ruler of either gender" option.

It is an interesting point. And while it wouldn't take all that much to convice me of a female ruler taking the title of "King", it would have to be a dingdangity good writer to convince me that her male consort was OK with the title of "Queen", just saying


Hmmm... *files this away for nanowrimo*...

[Nurvingiel]

Considering the historical and social derivation of those words, I would consider saying "King = #1, whatever the gender" kind of like saying "women can't, by definition, be #1, so if a woman takes top spot, she must give up her femininity" (sort of like Hatshepsut adopting a Pharonic beard).

Well, given that I was referencing a dragon in a children's fantasy series--you actually have a good point. Reminds me of another children's series (I have very high intellectual standards for my reading matter)--The Royal Diaries. There's one called "Kristina, the Girl King." I believe she was the heir to the Swedish throne in the 1800's, and once her father was resigned to the fact that she indeed would be the ruler someday, he declared that she wouldn't be "Queen," she would be "King." Somehow I don't think he meant that literally would be her title, but the idea was that she would be educated "like a king" instead of "like a marriage-bait princess." But notice there's no, "like a ruler of either gender" option.

It is an interesting point. And while it wouldn't take all that much to convice me of a female ruler taking the title of "King", it would have to be a dingdangity good writer to convince me that her male consort was OK with the title of "Queen", just saying


Hmmm... *files this away for nanowrimo*...

The King in that series never married, so the author didn't have to deal with that particular conundrum.

Except there was the previous Queen... an elderly fellow, but I think he retired and the main character filled most of his duties. Or something. Been a while since I read those books.

[amandaelizabeth]

Its not quite the same, but during the Commonwealth Heads of State conference there was a agenda for partners called 'the Wives Programme"  It is now called The Spouses Programme.  Helen Clark's husband was often the only male attendee by her use to say that the programme was often a lot more interesting than the official one