Female royal succession.

Watch
Dheorl
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 6 years ago
#1
A while ago it was decided that a woman should be in line to the british throne ahead of her younger male sibling. This, to me, seems perfectly reasonable.

One thing I'm wondering though is it has always been the way that a kings wife is a queen (well, queen consort technically), whereas a queens husband is never a king. Has this changed or is there any indication of it changing? If not then why not?
0
reply
EdmundWoodstock
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#2
Report 6 years ago
#2
This has not always been the case. Mary I of England was heir to Henry VIII and her husband, a Spanish King, consequently became King of England also.
0
reply
crozibear96
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#3
Report 6 years ago
#3
If I, let's call me Miss Crozibear, were to marry some poor dude, we wouldn't become Mr and Mrs Crozibear. We would be Mr and Mrs Poor Dude.

Idk, that's how I've always seen that second thing.
0
reply
Dheorl
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#4
Report Thread starter 6 years ago
#4
(Original post by EdmundWoodstock)
This has not always been the case. Mary I of England was heir to Henry VIII and her husband, a Spanish King, consequently became King of England also.
Ok, in the case of a king already being a king the title seems to hold, but it's not given upon marriage like queen consort is.
0
reply
Dheorl
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#5
Report Thread starter 6 years ago
#5
(Original post by crozibear96)
If I, let's call me Miss Crozibear, were to marry some poor dude, we wouldn't become Mr and Mrs Crozibear. We would be Mr and Mrs Poor Dude.

Idk, that's how I've always seen that second thing.
This is seemingly becoming less and less common, and many don't agree with it because it's seen as sexist. The reason royal succession rules were changed was due to a desire for equality between the sexes, so why is the same equality not applied to titles?
0
reply
EdmundWoodstock
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#6
Report 6 years ago
#6
(Original post by Dheorl)
Ok, in the case of a king already being a king the title seems to hold, but it's not given upon marriage like queen consort is.
He was king of a different country though, so I don't see why that would apply to him being king of England. He very easily could have been King of Spain and Prince Consort of England.
0
reply
Dheorl
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#7
Report Thread starter 6 years ago
#7
(Original post by EdmundWoodstock)
He was king of a different country though, so I don't see why that would apply to him being king of England. He very easily could have been King of Spain and Prince Consort of England.
He could have been, you're right.

Maybe I should have said why is it not standard practice for the husband of a queen to be a king consort?
0
reply
EdmundWoodstock
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#8
Report 6 years ago
#8
(Original post by Dheorl)
He could have been, you're right.

Maybe I should have said why is it not standard practice for the husband of a queen to be a king consort?
Perhaps because traditionally a king wielded power, whereas the role of a queen was largely ceremonial? So if it was actually the woman who was heir to the throne, her husband becoming king may have effectively rendered her powerless?
0
reply
Dheorl
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#9
Report Thread starter 6 years ago
#9
(Original post by EdmundWoodstock)
Perhaps because traditionally a king wielded power, whereas the role of a queen was largely ceremonial? So if it was actually the woman who was heir to the throne, her husband becoming king may have effectively rendered her powerless?
And traditionally male heirs took preference in regards to succeeding the throne. Seeing as they are now equal in that respect I'm just curious to see if they will be in other ways.
0
reply
KingStannis
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#10
Report 6 years ago
#10
(Original post by EdmundWoodstock)
This has not always been the case. Mary I of England was heir to Henry VIII and her husband, a Spanish King, consequently became King of England also.
No he didn't.
0
reply
EdmundWoodstock
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#11
Report 6 years ago
#11
(Original post by KingStannis)
No he didn't.
Yes he did, he reigned as King of England and Ireland from 1554-1558

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_II_of_Spain
0
reply
User1214833
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#12
Report 6 years ago
#12
The whole notion of royalty screams inequality. Gender equality is the very least of it.
1
reply
KingStannis
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#13
Report 6 years ago
#13
(Original post by EdmundWoodstock)
Yes he did, he reigned as King of England and Ireland from 1554-1558

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_II_of_Spain
Not in the conventional sense. He was not above Mary like a King would normally be.
0
reply
EdmundWoodstock
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#14
Report 6 years ago
#14
(Original post by KingStannis)
Not in the conventional sense. He was not above Mary like a King would normally be.
I know, he wasn't above Mary, iirc they were joint monarchs although in practice he was in Spain most of the time and didn't really have anything to do with ruling England.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Do you think receiving Teacher Assessed Grades will impact your future?

I'm worried it will negatively impact me getting into university/college (94)
38.68%
I'm worried that I’m not academically prepared for the next stage in my educational journey (27)
11.11%
I'm worried it will impact my future career (18)
7.41%
I'm worried that my grades will be seen as ‘lesser’ because I didn’t take exams (57)
23.46%
I don’t think that receiving these grades will impact my future (30)
12.35%
I think that receiving these grades will affect me in another way (let us know in the discussion!) (17)
7%

Watched Threads

View All