Prince William to marry girlfriend Kate Middleton

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/22/20101116/tu ... 6b408.html

Ah, OK UK gossip, but he probably is going to be King one day... so she will be Queen..

"The wedding will take place in the spring or summer of 2011, in London

Let's hope Charlie gets a run beforehand (not the wedding, the ascension ).

I think a lot of 'experts' think that Charles standing aside would possibly be the best way forward for the Constitutional Monarchy. I am not sure... he has waited a hell of a time to get a job full of risk & which he is possibly not exactly ever filled himself with glory whenever he has been in the public eye....
28 is young to take on that sort of job, which is more show that action...although, of course, Her Majesty was only 26 when she had to do so...

Bob,

On your first post can you explain to me if Kate will be queen, when William taes the throne why isnt the present Queens husband the King? Im Irish so ive never taken much of an interest n the Royal family but that question Ive asked does interest me as It came up a few yars ago with a friend.

Cheers

Hi Dermot, maybe this helps.
Among monarchy titles, King is the highest and has the most authority, at least
when monarchs had authority. That being said, a King can make his wife a Queen,
which is a lower rung on the ladder, but a Queen cannot make a King, because
that would give him more authority over the Queen, who is the successor to
throne, when her husband is not. It all goes back to the days of class status
and the policy of having all inherited by the first born male, royal or
otherwise. That policy is still there, but at a much lesser degree.

Not a question that I can answer with certainty, sorry Dermot.
There have not actually being that many females who have acceded to the throne of England or (after the Union) Britain. I suppose the first one (for more than a few weeks, anyway ) was Henry 8's daughter Mary.
As she was married to Philip, King of Spain, he was a King in his own right. However he also did not speak a word of English & was not exactly a popular figure amongst the aristocracy either. Hence Parliament actually wrote into the constitution that Philip would only be considered the ruler of England for as long as Mary was alive.
Mary died, Elizabeth 1st. took over as Queen. Philip & Elizabeth (& so Spain & England) became quite the worst of enemies. As Elizabeth did not marry, she did not have a partner to call anything.
The next female to reign was Mary 2nd. with her husband William. This is a bit of a difference in that her husband was actually called King William 3rd. - also known as William of Orange. However this was not an inherited assent to the throne. The PAIR were offered the 'job' by Parliament who had overthrown James 2nd. The couple were offered the position because they were both grandchildren of Charles 1st. & both staunchly Protestant, rather than Catholic like James.
They (or rather William who ruled for 8 years on his own when his wife died) were succeeded by another female Queen Ann, Mary's sister.
However William, Mary & Ann all ascended to the crown under Acts of Parliaments - for the first time ever.
Specifically the Bill of Rights 1689 & Act of Settlement 1701. These 2 Acts of Parliament contain most of the law concerning who can, and can't, rule Britain.
I would think that the convention that the husband of the Queen is not entitled King is probably contained somewhere within these acts. However, I am not sure if it is actually written anywhere or if it is just something that has never previously happened & so is unlikely to in the future, or is as Seahawk's logical reply.

..Or to put it all more simply, - the current Queen is the direct descendant of the Monarchy and thus became the female Monarch - a Queen. The man she married - from outside the Monarchy, - the Duke of Edinburgh, doesn't become the King, though their offspring can become the next King or Queen.

Thus my understanding is if William became King, (because he is the son of the next in line to the throne), his wife Kate would be a queen consort, which means she is only a queen because she is married to the King. Queen Elizabeth, on the other hand, is a queen regnant, which means she inherited the throne in her own right.

As a queen consort, Kate Middleton would have the title Queen Catherine, but she would not hold any of her husband's powers.

Hopefully he don,t wear pink trousers on his big day

I like willy !! and Harry for that matter both will hopefully give the monarchy a more modern edge - Tho IMO young H is a dead ringer for lady Dis bit on the side Mr Hewitt and nowt like Charlie boy .

A little caution may be called for here.

My understanding is that the draconian Thai LM laws also apply to royal families of other countries.

I,m talking about a fact, Not a insult!

Photo's of this evening are published in every news paper around the globe, A member of the royal family visit the troops in a pink trousser

By the way, Even in my country insulting a member of the royal famile, A politician or even a ordinary habitant could be prosecutet fore insulting.

And I am not referring to your post.

Thanks Guys, the question is answered! Makes sense to me!

Khun Helm, you neglected to mention the beloved Queen Victoria, and Prince Albert.

After all of the insults and bad press she has received, I would like to see Camilla become Queen, including Queen of Canada, one day although that might be more than the British press and public could endure.

Laan Yaa Mo wrote:Khun Helm, you neglected to mention the beloved Queen Victoria, and Prince Albert.

You are correct, but it was rather deliberate as I thought my history lesson had gone on far enough...
As far as I can understand the law on succession for UK remains as it was made by the two acts. The reign of Victoria did bring a number of additional acts but I believe they were pertaining to the situation in places like Canada, Australia & New Zealand rather than changing the basic rules ...