temptress

[James A. Landau]

In a message dated 2/4/03 8:19:33 PM Eastern Standard Time,
laurence.horn at YALE.EDU writes:

>  you can become a
>  princess (or a queen) through marriage to a prince (or king), but a
>  man can achieve princehood or kinghood only on his own

Not true.  William III became King of England because he was the husband of
Mary, who was the "Queen Regnant" because she was the daughter of King
Charles II (granted there was a coup d'etat involved, but William still
became King through marriage.)  Those sweatshirts that read "College of Mary
and William" know more than does the college itself, which calls itself
"William and Mary".

The English decided that they did not like the precedent set by William III,
and so Parliament passed a law that the husband of a Queen Regnant was not to
receive the title of King but rather that of Prince Consort.  Hence Queen
Victoria's husband was "Prince Albert" and Elizabeth II's husband is "Prince
Philip".

Hence the rule about whether a man can marry into a Kingship is arbritrary.

(It is theoretically possible for Prince Philip to become King Philip I of
the UK.  He is in the line of succession to the throne in his own right,
being a direct descendant of Queen Victoria and Prince Albert.  In practice
however he has a better chance of being declared King of Greece.)

On the other hand, the English custom is that the wife of a King Regnant is
styled "Queen".  The wife of King George VI was Queen Elizabeth.  When George
died she kept the title of Queen Elizabeth, even though her daughter, also
named Elizabeth, was Queen Regnant.  To avoid confusion the Queen Dowager
chose to use the title "Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother" (which in popular
usage became "the Queen Mum").

The Cunard liners were named after the Queen Mother, not the reigning Queen,
and therefore it is correct to refer to "QE2" rather than "QE II" since "QE
II" would imply incorrectly that the ship was named after the reigning Queen
Elizabeth.

Two other examples of men becoming King by other than blood:

King MacBeth of Scotland, of Shakespearean fame, was in real life succeeded
by his stepson Lulach, who was Lady MacBeth's son by a previous marriage.
Lulach was killed in battle by Malcolm, who then became King of
Scotland---Shakespeare took a little dramatic license in ignoring Lulach's
short reign.

Wasn't King Tut (Pharaoh Tutankamen) the son-in-law of Pharaoh Ikhnaton?

Jean Bernadotte, who was a French peasant, became King Charles XIV John of
Sweden by being formally adopted by the preceding, childless Swedish King.
(There is excellent precedent for this in Nerva-Trajan-Hadrian-Antonius
Pius-Marcus Aurelius.  The last was nephew, son-in-law, and adopted son of
Antonius).

Now for a nomenclature problem.  A woman who marries a King becomes the Queen
Dowager.  A man such as William III who marries the Queena and becomes King
is what?  King Dowager?  King Dowagerer?

Then there was the famous (or notorious) Tz'u-hsi (1835-1908), Empress
Dowager of China.  She was one of several wives of the late Emperor and at
one point in her long career shared the posiiton of Regent of China with one
of her co-wives.

Not a Kingship but definitely a dynasty:  unlike most Chasidic dynasties,
which descend from father to son, the position of Lubavitscher Rebbe
descended from father-in-law to son-in-law.

Then there was Henry VII Tudor of England, who was descended by blood from
the Plantagent kings, through two different lines, both out of wedlock.

         - Jim Landau (whose family tree consists exclusively of commoners)

PS Did you know that Prince Charles (the Prince of Wales) is the Protestant
Pretender to the Holy Roman Empire?  He is a direct descendant of Frederick
"the Winter King" who was never actually a King but who was for a short while
Holy Roman Emperor.