why isnt the queen married to a king

[Vortex-98]

why is it that Queen Elizabeth is married to a Prince ,Prince Philip,shouldn't he be called King Philip or is this a way of saying who really wears the pants in the family.bit confusing
I thought when a Queen marrys her husband ithen becomes a King. a prince is usually the son.
An at 95 Prince Philip doesn't look like becoming one any time soon.
And what do they do exactly they don't rule over there countrymen like the old days so what power do they have...an further why do we still pledge allegence to the Queen ,she has even less sway here..we don't care what she says we do as we like now

[.:4:.]

Because. That's why.

[yakcam]

A King is higher ranking than a Queen. If she made him King then she loses the "power"

[JAJH]

The queen became the queen because she was 1st born and 1st in line to the throne. Her father was King George vi and his wife was known as the Queen, however when the Queen is on the throne, her husband is not known as the King, only a Prince.

[FormulaFG]

He married into that family. Therefore he cant ascend to higher level than the queen because he is not blood.

[kcodezd]

So on that reckoning Prince William should become King William and Queen Kate?

[FormulaFG]

Originally Posted by kcodezd

So on that reckoning Prince William should become King William and Queen Kate?

Correct.

Kate is entitled to become a queen as William will be a king and will be higher up.

[Franco Cozzo]

Hopefully we become a republic by then

[M&Ms]

And Phillip wasn't born in England, he was born in Greece, so he can never become King of England

[Tonz]

Thank gawd for small mercies, imagine Phillip as king, just about every time he opens his mouth some crazy comment comes out.
And then Charles hells bells I am a monacist, but if that inbred idiot comes to the throne I am jumping ship.

[FairmontGS]

Originally Posted by Franco Cozzo

Hopefully we become a republic by then

[Jastel]

Originally Posted by kcodezd

So on that reckoning Prince William should become King William and Queen Kate?

After King Charles...but probably not Queen Camilla...due to Diana's incident.
I think most people hope they skip straight to William.

They are mainly ceremonial figureheads...and bring in millions of tourism dollars for the UK. The Queen can overrule Parliament in the UK but rarely does.

[monzie]

Charles might have had to agree to step aside for William as part of the deal to marry Camilla

[Mercury Bullet]

Originally Posted by FormulaFG

Correct.

Kate is entitled to become a queen as William will be a king and will be higher up.

Harry would be a stick in the mud.

Would the royal family tolerate him? If something happened to William the family lineage would be out the window.

It would be interesting to see whether it would be swept under the carpet.

[Jastel]

After William comes his son Prince George, then daughter Charlotte...Harry (and all the others) go down with each of Williams children.

Of course due to their age Harry could rule "in their name" for a while if everyone above him was dead and they are still minors...this is usually the stage in history where the kids "have an accident" and Harry keeps the Crown.

[FormulaFG]

Originally Posted by Mercury Bullet

Harry would be a stick in the mud.

Would the royal family tolerate him? If something happened to William the family lineage would be out the window.

It would be interesting to see whether it would be swept under the carpet.

If it came to that I think you'll find Harry would only be there long enough for little George to take over. George is 3rd in line Harry is 4th.

[Jastel]

Originally Posted by FormulaFG

If it came to that I think you'll find Harry would only be there long enough for little George to take over. George is 3rd in line Harry is 4th.

Harry is now 5th...and will go down again if William has more kids.
Girls count too nowadays...

[zoesgift]

wow lots of knowledge on the royal family!?

[scoupedy]

What is interesting is the Royal families of Europe are all related during WW1 the kings of England, Germany and Russia were all cousins.

[Tickford.]

Originally Posted by zoesgift

wow lots of knowledge on the royal family!?

Ironic that most "Australians" with all this knowledge of the Royal family and their history, have no idea about Australia and it's history.

[zoesgift]

yep couldnt agree more....the national anthem is a challenge for many under the age of 30

[Vortex-98]

So we've all heard of how they do it.. the heir (William) an the spare (the other one),but getting back to gronky Charles who will be King Charles someday even tho he's blood we only ever called Diana a Princess...why was she never mentioned as the next Queen we always referee to her as a princess Di...(no pun intended)that kinda opens door for Camilla to be referred to as a Queen doesn't it...or coz she's not blood only ranks a princess..

[Vortex-98]

[QUOTE=scoupedy;5848583]What is interesting is the Royal families of Europe are all related during WW1 the kings of England, Germany and Russia were all cousins.[

That's incredible...what did they all escape from Tasmania..lol
And how did ALL white people originate from Britain or the Mother Country, we white Australians all have pommy or euro heritage
but where did the first white fella originate when the only races were Black 1st race on earth..Eskimo..no ,asian...um no..Egyptian..?
no clear explaination how white people evolved....Eskimo prob would be the closest,clearly our skin color hasn't adapted over generations to have darker pigments like the Native races of Africa and,Australia have evolved to..
probabale alien intervention ???

[Feathers]

Originally Posted by Vortex-98

So we've all heard of how they do it.. the heir (William) an the spare (the other one),but getting back to gronky Charles who will be King Charles someday even tho he's blood we only ever called Diana a Princess...why was she never mentioned as the next Queen we always referee to her as a princess Di...(no pun intended)that kinda opens door for Camilla to be referred to as a Queen doesn't it...or coz she's not blood only ranks a princess..

Had they stayed married, then she would have been entitled to become Queen. I'm sure at the time, people in the media would have stated that she would become Queen when Charles became King, but of course that wasn't to be...

The titles used are decided on by the Queen, and it's been stated that though legally Camilla is the Princess of Wales, that title is still very much associated with Diana, and in an attempt to avoid ill-feelings with the public who loved Diana and hated Charles and Camilla, she is known as the Duchess of Cornwall.

A quick search on Google came up with this: "Her full title is as follows: Her Royal Highness The Princess Charles Philip Arthur George, Princess of Wales, Duchess of Cornwall, Duchess of Rothesay, Countess of Chester, Countess of Carrick, Baroness of Renfrew, Lady of the Isles, Princess of Scotland, Dame Grand Cross of the Royal Victorian Order."

At the time of their wedding, Camilla agreed to the Queen's demand that she never take the title of Queen (though, again, legally she would be), and instead be known as Princess Consort (as Prince Phillip is known as Prince Consort now).

Also from Google:

"A prince consort is the husband of a queen regnant who is not himself a king in his own right.
In recognition of his status, a prince consort may be given a formal title, such as Prince, Prince Consort or King Consort, with Prince being the most common."

"Mrs Parker Bowles will use the title HRH The Duchess of Cornwall after marriage. It is intended that Mrs Parker Bowles should use the title HRH The Princess Consort when The Prince of Wales accedes to the Throne."

[98TLS]

The laws re child abuse these days may well have something to do with it,good job to didnt seem to work out well in Europe.

[jpblue1000]

[QUOTE=Vortex-98;5848762]

Originally Posted by scoupedy

What is interesting is the Royal families of Europe are all related during WW1 the kings of England, Germany and Russia were all cousins.[

That's incredible...what did they all escape from Tasmania..lol
And how did ALL white people originate from Britain or the Mother Country, we ...,clearly our skin color hasn't adapted over generations to have darker pigments like the Native races of Africa and,Australia have evolved to..
probabale alien intervention ???

Not sure if serious...but most probably modern human evolved near the equator in Africa. As migrations occurred over eons the lighter skinned variants did better further from the equator. Their skin colour better able to process low sunlight levels into vitamin D, an important process in our bodies for our health. The trade off that lighter skins were more susceptible to skin cancers than darker tones.
If you've ever seen a european royal up close you'll notice they are quite white, perfectly adapted to life in Europe! And having never spent a day in the fields working they have no red neck tan lines!
JP

[jpblue1000]

Originally Posted by xxxg

Ironic that most "Australians" with all this knowledge of the Royal family and their history, have no idea about Australia and it's history.

I'm a republican, but since white occupation the royal family has been part of Australia's history!
What part if history, and who's expression if that history do you propose Australians know in lieu of the royal relevance to Australian history?
JP

[mike_nofx]

Gotta love some of the Prince Philip Quotes.

To Aborigines: "So, do you still throw spears at each other?"

[monzie]

Yea, Phil the Greek is famous for his off the cuff gaffs.

[xtremerus]

Originally Posted by mike_nofx

Gotta love some of the Prince Philip Quotes.

To Aborigines: "So, do you still throw spears at each other?"

Wouldn't get away with it now in todays PC world.