Quote:
Originally Posted by honeychile
The British monarchy may be expensive to the everyday Englishman, Scot, Welshman or Northern Irishman, but they generate more revenue than most other outlays!
|
Fixed your post for you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 33girl
Because theoretically William now has a "suitable" spouse and QEII would feel comfortable excluding him (the technical term) because of his divorce.
Not gonna happen.
|
Agreed, though I predict a relatively short reign for Charles, like Edward VII.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnotherKD
Yes, but the current "King" (Philip) is not a King at all; he is Prince Consort. And I don't think that he gave up the name in a pre-nup. His is a case of not being a King by himself, needing the Queen to have any sort of monarch status.
|
Even with the Queen, Prince Phillip has no "monarch status."
There are two kinds of Queen in British law -- a queen regnant and a queen consort. A queen regnant is a sovereign in her own right; she is in effect a female king. A queen consort is the wife of a king, whose status is totally dependent on the status of her husband and who has no status of sovereign. (When the king dies, a queen consort is referred to as a queen doweger and, if mother of the current monarch by children from the marriage with the king, is "the Queen Mother.")
By contrast there is only one kind of king -- a king regnant or sovereign. Husbands of queens regnant are never styled as "kings"; they are prince consorts, like Prince Phillip, Prince Albert (Queen Victoria's husband) and Prince George (Queen Anne's husband).
The one exception to this has been William and Mary, both of whom were invited by Parliament to exercise coregnancy. That's why she was a Queen Regnant rather than a Queen Consort.