On 27-Jan-98, Neil Barnes (nb4769@bristol.ac.uk) wrote about Re: [BIRTHRIGHT]
- - circular vassalage:
- ->On Mon, 26 Jan 1998, Trizt wrote:
- ->> The husband of a ruling Queen is usually titled as Prince, if he had
- ->> been titled King, then it would imply that he would rule and
- ->> not the Queen.

- ->I believe this has changed since the time of Mary & Elizabeth I -
- ->neither of whom married because it would mean that their husbands would
- ->rule England. Although I understand Mary was considering marrying the
- ->King of Spain.

It can be that it has been another rules in england, but those few time there
have been a queen as ruler here in northern europe it has been so that if she
had married she would have been the ruler. I think Elizabeth II is the first
one who married of the european ruling queens, so we haven't seen how would
have been the ruler, but I guess that if Mary had got the King of Spane to
husband the english nobles had demanded that she would have been the ruler in
england and not the spanish King. But the main rule here has been that if the
Queen had married she would have been the ruler while the husband would only
been tittled as prince.

After reading Brendas reply on Neils post, I tought about the rules off
marrage during the old times. There was something called "left marrage" (a
word to word translation from swedish), the husband to be had his bride to the
left and in this way he declared that she and none of their common childs
would inherit title or land. I guess it would have been possible for a higher
noble woman to do tha same thing while married a low nobled man, with the
exeption that the childs would inherit the titles.

//Trizt of Ward^RITE

E-Mail: trizt@iname.com URL: http://www.ukko.dyn.ml.org/~trizt/
Nick : Trizt IRC: irc.kuai.se:5278 Channel: #Opers
MUD: callandor.imaginary.com 5317