Queen Camilla but Prince Philip(13 Posts)
I know, it was a different time but does anyone find the discussions about Camilla being queen extremely annoying from a feminist perspective? Putting aside the whole divorcee thing and what is usually acceptable in a queen, the only reason this debate is happening is because she's a woman. So the monarch will be a man so it's therefore possible for his wife to be queen because, by definition, queen is LESS important than king. I know that 60 years ago or whatever we weren't thinking about this stuff so of course Philip couldn't be King, but it annoys me intensely that even if Charles were a woman, I very much doubt (her) husband would be styled King because that would make (him) more senior than Charles, the actual heir/monarch.
This irritating little things that are at least partly to do with language drive me batty. I honestly cannot wait for Charlotte to grow up so that we can HOPEFULLY start to see a shift at the top of the royal family where the lead person can actually be a woman.
The Queen should have done away with that when she made changes before George's birth that the first born no matter the sex will be ruler as surely that means that the King and Queen are equal titles now so Queen should no longer be ranked below king?!
If Camilla was styled Queen, it would be Queen Consort rather than Queen Regnant so not the same as being Queen in her own right.
Apparently Queen Victoria wanted Albert to be King Consort but was advised against it. I don't think there's any reason why the Queen couldn't have made Phillip a King. Consort if she had wanted to.
Yes absolutely the Queen could have made Philip a King if she had chosen. I don't think you mention the issue of choosing as a consort in your post.
Mary II chose to share her reign and made William III King and they equally reigned together. Mary 1 made Philip of Spain King.
It is actually a more powerful thing for a woman not to share the job of "reigning" with a man.
There is the sticky issue that if you reign "together" as in share the "reign" then when, say in the case of Mary II dying - William III reigns in his own right.
by choosing as a consort - I mean that is another option also.
I think the Queen looks stronger for the decisions she made - and also there were rumblings about Philip's relatives of course.
I do think that during Prince Phillip’s life is a good opportunity to discuss the queen consort title. Camilla and Kate won’t get “numbers” either, and their roles are to support their spouse/children like Prince Phillip’s role. King William was different, he was able to rule after his wife’s death, though he has agreed his sil was his heir rather than any of his children from another marriage.
Camilla will never be my Queen.
# Team Diana
Not sure how Charlotte growing up will help - she'll never be head of the family as she's not the oldest (barring anything unfortunate happening to George). I was really hoping their eldest would be a girl for that reason but it wasn't.
In all honesty, I couldn't give a fuck.
This bears no relation to feminism, women or life in general
I thought it was all about preventing the abuse of power by a man.
The role for a Queen was her birth right and not that of her husband. The fear is that giving her husband the title of King he could dominate her and steal the birth right.
In contrast a King doesn't see a woman as a threat to his birth right and his power, so is quite happy to give her the title Queen.
So the tradition is one of mistrust towards men and a feminist way of protecting the Queen's rights.
Red: yes I've never really considered the motivation, but I guess as you say it is about protecting a queen's birthright.
To clarify my point above which is a bit messy - the only two Queens that have shared their reign were Mary1 and Mary 11 and their husbands became Kings.
Philip of Spain didn't reign after Mary 1 died even though he was a King of England whilst she was alive, it was a limited role though. (It was to do with him being a King elsewhere that he could match her status.)
William III did reign after Mary 11 died - so there is precedent for Queens making the decision to share their reigns, although this was done for political stability at the time.
William reigned independently after Mary II death - but the succession was tied up to ensure where the royal line would go after his death.
The Queens that have been created by being married to a King are all Queen consorts - they don't reign after the death of their spouse and don't have administrative powers etc. - they're "support" same as with Prince consort- for Queens Victoria.
Still muddled, but I don't think it's a negative as far as our Queen goes.
Red - EXACTLY. You expressed it brilliantly. My point is that the idea of a King Consort, while theoretically possible, doesn't seem to ever happen because of the fear that she would be overruled by someone who is not in fact the monarch.
My point about charlotte is that she will be a very senior member of the royal family for a while (like Andrew was and harry is now) and as such, her relationships will play out differently to the partners of women who are further down the line of succession. Couldn't agree more that I was hoping George would be a girl!
The whole royalty thing makes no sense so doesn't really matter what they do to tweak it around.
Join the discussion
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, watch threads, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.Register now »
Already registered? Log in with:
Please login first.