The simple answer is no (not without some significant change to practices related to marriage and titles).Under British common law, a wife takes on the titles, dignities and styles of her husband. A woman who marries an earl thus takes on the style, title and dignity of ‘countess’. A woman who marries a baron = baroness. A woman who marries His Majesty the King becomes ‘Her Majesty the Queen’. The title is held as a courtesy (not a title in their own right), although under common law practice they have a ‘life estate’ in it (and thus retain the dignity after the death of the husband, usually as a ‘dowager’ (although never called such).There is no practice in law or custom for the reverse. The man who marries a Baroness (in her own right) does not get anything extra, he retains whatever titles he brought to the marriage. The man who marries Her Majesty the Queen also gets no special titles. He might be given a dukedom or something else to raise his status, but there is no automatic title that comes as a result of the marriage.Yes, the practice is sexist.In the same way, a same-sex marriage has not been accounted for in common law. When Marjory Smythe marries Lady Jane Miles, Baronness of Coppinghamland, Marjory stays Marjory Smythe. Common law has not ‘caught up’ with marriage equality. There have been some changes to regulations and statutes in regard to the terms ‘husband’ and ‘wife’, but nothing that presently allows a title, style or dignity to be shared by a person within a same-sex union under British legislation.So if William had not married Kate Middleton but married Mr Jeremy Uxbridge instead, Jeremy would still be Mr Jeremy Uxbridge. He might, by special arrangement (usually by Letters Patent or a royal proclamation) be made the Duke of Broodinghamshire or such. Unlike Kate, he does not get a look-in at the Cambridge title, any princely dignity, or later King/Queen. Unless special arrangements are made.Yes, the practice is exclusionary.That said, it opens an important question for marriage equality in general. If we are to take marriage equality to its full extent, an idea situation would be a legal act that requires a person to take on the titles, dignities and styles of their spouse regardless of their gender.Alternatively, to do away with titles altogether.I’m not sure we could say yet which one is more likely….
Han Gaozu and Ming Taizu, the founder of two of the most celebrated dynasties in Chinese history, the Han and the Ming were not born into royalty. Han Gaozu (born Liu Bang 刘邦) was born to a peasant family in present day Jiangsu. He cleared the imperial civil services examination and became a low level provincial official in charge of tax collection and transporting prisoners. A group of prisoners escaped under his watch. Pending execution as per the law of the time, he joined the rebel forces against the ruling Qin dynasty. After the fall of the Qin, he defeated Xiang Yu, the fabled hegemonic warlord of the Chu state in what became known as the Chu-Han contention. In 202 BC, he founded the Han Dynasty (汉朝) that continued with brief a interregnum till 220 AD. China's majority ethnic group still call themselves Han Chinese in reverence to the dynasty founded by Liu Bang.Ming Taizu (born Zhu Yuanzhang 朱元璋) was born into a poor tenant farming family in present day Anhui. His family was killed by a plague following a flood in the Huai river. He joined a Buddhist monastery to become a monk but was forced to leave when the monastery faced a financial crunch. He lived as a beggar for the next few years before returning to the monastery. He subsequently joined and commanded the Red Turbans Rebellion against the Mongol Yuan Dynasty. After overthrowing the Yuan dynasty and capturing Nanjing, he founded the Ming Dynasty (大明), the last ethnically Han dynasty to rule China. He reigned as the Hongwu Emperor from 1368 to 1398. Though not an emperor, I am sure Liu Bei (刘备) qualifies as well. He was the founder of the state of Shu Han, one of the three competing states during the famous Three Kingdoms period, immortalized by Luo Guanzhong's Romance of the Three Kingdoms. Although he claimed to be distant relative of the founder of the Han dynasty Liu Bang, he was born into a poor peasant family and survived by making straw shoes. He rose to prominence after suppressing the Yellow Turban rebellion, led his rebel army against many conflicts with Cao Cao, in alliance with Sun Quan defeated Cao Cao at the Battle of Red Cliffs and ultimately declared the founding of the Shu Han in his conquered territories in 221 BC marking the beginning of the Three Kingdoms period.
British history has numerous instances of Kings marrying non-royal spouses. Ideally they looked for a princess or equivalent, a direct relation to a fellow monarch, and failing that the offspring of an important Duke, but once in a while they married someone from the lower levels of the aristocracy or even a knight’s daughter.The most famous instance was Edward IVs marriage to Elizabeth Woodville, daughter of Sir Richard Woodville, though her mother was from pretty important European noble family and actually Henry VIs aunt.This led to political problems. The new queen saw to it that her low-ranking relatives got titles and lands beyond what the other members of the aristocracy considered their due, arranged for her sisters to marry high ranking Earls, and the King’s closest advisers though he had thrown away a chance of making vital continental alliances by marrying a comparatively lowly born local girl.When Richard III later usurped the throne from his nephew, Elizabeth’s son Edward V, and poor Edward disappeared into the Tower of London never to be seen again, she initially found it hard to find allies among the aristocracy. She ended up a supporter of Henry Tudor who over threw Richard III.
First of all, the majority of people that believe the Rothschild’s run the world are not necessarily antisemites as the previous comment states. Frankly, one can’t stereotype large groups of people as antisemites for a belief that a little known, reclusive rich guy runs the world. Religion plays no part.I think if you look around and perform some very simple due diligence you’ll find that there are extremely wealthy globalists, perhaps as few as 10,000, that hold great power and influence over global events. You’ll also find that there are a very few international corporations involved in extractive mining, petroleum and gas, insurance and reinsurance, banking and finance, pharmaceuticals and agriculture that actually also have tremendous influence over global events.What isn’t plausible or even possible is for one man or one family to have so much power and influence that they can “run the world”. The world is far too big with far too many competing countries.