Gordon Posted November 17, 2010 Share Posted November 17, 2010 It is not abnormal for the passing on of this type of jewellery amongst the 'upper'classes, (read aristocracy), in this country. Amongst members of that 'class', they are classed as 'heirlooms' and so begins a legend. Think of that extremely large blue diamond named the 'Hope', presently in a certain American museum. Think of the fables wrapped around that--think of the history of it. You are possibly watching the start of a similar fable here. First given to a woman who didn't love and was not loved by her husband---the following tragedy---and here it is again. What next one wonders. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
vince14 Posted November 17, 2010 Share Posted November 17, 2010 There are sooooo many jokes I could make about this. But I won't, seeing as they'd get me banned from ARC. Vince Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Wayne S Posted November 17, 2010 Share Posted November 17, 2010 Um, no. When he becomes king, she becomes queen. It doesn't work the other way round - when a princess takes the throne, she becomes queen, but her husband remains a prince because if he were a king he'd outrank her, and we can't have that. I do not know where people get this from. The person would either be Consort or Regent, a consort in Britain has no right to the throne. The possible reason why Prince Philip the queen's husband is not known as king is since she did not appoint him as one, even if she did appoint him as king he would still be a consort just like the queens mom was. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Icehound Posted November 18, 2010 Share Posted November 18, 2010 Its like the National Enquirer in here. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Wayne S Posted November 18, 2010 Share Posted November 18, 2010 Its like the National Enquirer in here. Whats the National Enquirer :lol: Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Wayne S Posted November 18, 2010 Share Posted November 18, 2010 I dont know many women who have worn a dead person engagemnet ring, even if they are FAMOUS ! What other way would they get it? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
tornado64 Posted November 18, 2010 Author Share Posted November 18, 2010 (edited) I do not know where people get this from. The person would either be Consort or Regent, a consort in Britain has no right to the throne. The possible reason why Prince Philip the queen's husband is not known as king is since she did not appoint him as one, even if she did appoint him as king he would still be a consort just like the queens mom was. she will be a queen !! they have already said although they have been told she will have to use her full name cathrine as queen kate sounds wrong !! Edited November 18, 2010 by tornado64 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
GreyGhost Posted November 18, 2010 Share Posted November 18, 2010 she will be a queen !! they have already said although they have been told she will have to use her full name kathrine as queen kate sounds wrong !! What if her given name was actually Kate ? Gregg Quote Link to post Share on other sites
pigsty Posted November 18, 2010 Share Posted November 18, 2010 I do not know where people get this from. The person would either be Consort or Regent, a consort in Britain has no right to the throne. The possible reason why Prince Philip the queen's husband is not known as king is since she did not appoint him as one, even if she did appoint him as king he would still be a consort just like the queens mom was. Sorry, still no. The reigning monarch always outranks the monarch's spouse, and a king always outranks a queen, so a reigning queen can't appoint her husband a king or the system collapses. There have of course been very few reigning queens (male primogeniture usually takes care of that) but I guarantee that not one has ever been married to a king*. The correct term is Prince Consort, to denote a prince who is more than just a prince, he's the queen's husband. That's all that "consort" means - it has no bearing in its own right on whether you can inherit the throne, because the concept only comes into play after someone has already done that. And there's no such thing as a King Consort. A regent is entirely different: someone who effectively acts as monarch in the place of the true monarch. There has been only one Prince Regent, the future George IV who had to step in while George III had his problems with porphyria. Other regents (much further back in the past) have been nobles who hold the throne temporarily while the monarch is too young, and steps aside when (s)he comes of age. Or not, if they're the wicked sort. Believe it or not, I'm a republican. * William III and Mary are generally thought of as a joint reign, but he was king in his own right; she didn't inherit the throne and bring him with her. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Wayne S Posted November 18, 2010 Share Posted November 18, 2010 Sorry, still no. The reigning monarch always outranks the monarch's spouse, and a king always outranks a queen, so a reigning queen can't appoint her husband a king or the system collapses. There have of course been very few reigning queens (male primogeniture usually takes care of that) but I guarantee that not one has ever been married to a king*. The correct term is Prince Consort, to denote a prince who is more than just a prince, he's the queen's husband. That's all that "consort" means - it has no bearing in its own right on whether you can inherit the throne, because the concept only comes into play after someone has already done that. And there's no such thing as a King Consort.A regent is entirely different: someone who effectively acts as monarch in the place of the true monarch. There has been only one Prince Regent, the future George IV who had to step in while George III had his problems with porphyria. Other regents (much further back in the past) have been nobles who hold the throne temporarily while the monarch is too young, and steps aside when (s)he comes of age. Or not, if they're the wicked sort. Believe it or not, I'm a republican. * William III and Mary are generally thought of as a joint reign, but he was king in his own right; she didn't inherit the throne and bring him with her. Read your black bold to your self a few times. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
loftycomfort Posted November 18, 2010 Share Posted November 18, 2010 I think this thread calls for a cameo appearance by RandomCatFacts. Just around now... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
pigsty Posted November 18, 2010 Share Posted November 18, 2010 Read your black bold to your self a few times. ??? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
tornado64 Posted November 18, 2010 Author Share Posted November 18, 2010 Read your black bold to your self a few times. you are of course correct , but a king does outrank a queen , therefore she will still be a queen !! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ByronLeal Posted November 18, 2010 Share Posted November 18, 2010 I can understand this being news in England, but here in the US, why? Well, you may recall that we have our own Middleton in this site, and maybe we will have to call him Sir from now on, so we are in some way involved. :) Happy Modeling Byron :) Quote Link to post Share on other sites
HOLMES Posted November 25, 2010 Share Posted November 25, 2010 Its like the National Enquirer in here. Totally ! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
peebeep Posted November 25, 2010 Share Posted November 25, 2010 I am just going outside and may be some time. peebeep Quote Link to post Share on other sites
HOLMES Posted November 25, 2010 Share Posted November 25, 2010 I am just going outside and may be some time.peebeep Talk to the hand TOTALLY !!! :D Quote Link to post Share on other sites
GreyGhost Posted November 25, 2010 Share Posted November 25, 2010 Talk to the hand TOTALLY !!! :D -Gregg Quote Link to post Share on other sites
peebeep Posted November 25, 2010 Share Posted November 25, 2010 Talk to the hand TOTALLY !!! :D Precisely my dear fellow. peebeep Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ElectroSoldier Posted November 27, 2010 Share Posted November 27, 2010 She will be queen but not the monarch. there is a difference, a very large difference between her when Billy sits on the throne and Queen Eliz II. this from wiki Current monarch: HM Queen Elizabeth II (born 1926) daughter of King George VI HRH The Prince of WalesB (The Prince Charles; b 1948) son of Queen Elizabeth II HRH Prince William of WalesB (b 1982) son of The Prince of Wales HRH Prince Henry of WalesB (b 1984) son of The Prince of Wales HRH The Duke of YorkB (The Prince Andrew; b 1960) son of Queen Elizabeth II HRH Princess Beatrice of YorkB (b 1988) daughter of The Duke of York HRH Princess Eugenie of YorkB (b 1990) daughter of The Duke of York HRH The Earl of WessexB (The Prince Edward; b 1964) son of Queen Elizabeth II James, Viscount SevernB (b 2007) son of The Earl of Wessex The Lady Louise WindsorB (b 2003) daughter of The Earl of Wessex HRH The Princess RoyalB (The Princess Anne; b 1950) daughter of Queen Elizabeth II She will have no right to the throne once Billy dies, the line of succession is clear, if Harry is dead it will pass down until a new monarch is found from the list. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.