Where does the term "belted Earl" come from in the english nobility?
Until the 17th century an earl was invested by the Sovereign with the sword he wore at his waist - hence the term 'a belted earl'
Could lower class families marry into noble families and become nobles in 17th century England?
First, define your categories. There was a hierarchy within nobility. ‘Nobles’ weren’t a single group.In England, the bottom & most numerous tier wasn’t even called nobility, but gentry. A commercially successful commoner could buy his way into the gentry, & had no title other than gentleman. But they were legally defined. Consider Shakespeare. Born a commoner, son of a manual worker - but one who was well off enough to employ others. His father was formally recognised as gentry late in life (I wonder how much that cost him) & Will inherited that.So - make money, buy your children an education (including social graces) & marry ‘em off to the children of impoverished gentry. As long as they continue to prosper, repeat at the next level up. Use some of your money to buy land, as land ownership was one of the marks of the gentry, & even more the nobility.
Am I related to King William the Conqueror of England?
On Ancestry.com I traced back my ancestry to find that I was related to WIlliam the Conqueror in the 1000's. Those of you that know of King William and his descendants, the family tree consisted of: -The Hadley family line- I'm positive they are my ancestors, and I traced them from the Revolutionary War (Captain Simon Hadley) all the way back to Alexander Hadley, who was born in England and came to Ireland. Then there is a 220 or so year break where I could only find about 3 generations of these Hadleys. If this is correct, Sir John Hadley (b. 1320 in England) is my ancestor on that same Hadley family line. His father was William Harelege (b. late 1200s) which I believe was changed to Hadley, and thus the origin of the family surname. -His wife, Seburga Perevell, also brings another time break of about 100 years. Her grandfather was William the Conqueror and William's wife's name was Maud? Does any of this sound familiar to you King William experts?
Was Princess Diana a Commoner?
Commoner is misunderstood by those from other countries. Anyone not born to a member of the royal family is a commoner. However, Diana was an aristocrat from birth. Her marriage to Charles elevated her to the royal family, and her divorce returned her to the ranks of the aristocracy. The person who believes her family doesn't have inherited titles is incorrect. Her father was an Earl, her mother a Countess. On Diana's father's death her brother, Charles, became the new Earl Spencer. She was Lady Diana Spencer from birth because her father had a title. The knighthoods bestowed by the Queen on people these days are not hereditary so they die with the person.
Why is there a Queen of England but no King? Shouldn't the Queen's husband be the King? or what am I missing?
In the British monarchy, the husband of a female monarch does not have any recognized special status, rank, or privileges. In actual fact Prince Philip does play a major role in royal affairs, but this is not recognized in terms of his title. Interestingly enough, the wife of a male monarch (e.g. the Queen Mother was the wife of King George VI) takes on her husband's rank and style upon marrying, becoming Queen. Prince Philip is the son of Prince Andrew of Greece and was born Prince of Greece and Denmark. Upon his marriage to then-Princess Elizabeth in 1947, Philip was given the title "Duke of Edinburgh, Earl of Merioneth, and Baron Greenwich," and was made a Knight of the Garter. (He became a British citizen around this time and renounced his Greek and Danish titles). Elizabeth II was coronated in 1953, and in 1957, she granted Philip the title "Prince of the United Kingdom." So, though his current princely title is a gift from his wife, he was really a prince from birth. But only his son, Prince Charles, has a shot at becoming king. Another explanation says In terms of precedence a King is higher than a Queen, which means that in every case where there is a King and a Queen, the King would outrank the Queen. When it is a Queen who holds the throne in her own right (a Queen regnant, like the present Queen Elizabeth II), her consort has been referred to as a Price to make the point that it is she that takes precedence. Therefore, the Queen Mother was Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth (Queen to King George VI), but Queen Victoria's husband was Prince Albert and Queen Elizabeth II's husband is Prince Philip. The only example where both a King and a Queen have held the throne is with King William and Queen Mary at the end of the 17th century. This was because they held the throne jointly. Note: the same thing happens with lower ranks. If a man is created Lord Smith, his wife becomes Lady Smith. But if a woman is created Lady Smith in her own right, her husband remains Mr Smith.
British Monarchy: Why is Prince Phillip not a king?
Elizabeth was HEIR to her father King George VI. Philip is simply a spouse of royal birth(the Danish prince is form the Royal House of Schlesweig-Holstein- Sonderburg-Glucksburg) who was not in direct line of succession to the throne. In the United Kingdom, the spouse of the reigning queen is called "Prince Consort."He is not called "King Consort" because the United Kingdom does not use that title. The reasoning is that the title of king assumes the monarch and this won't do because the monarch is a queen.And as long as there is a Queen Regent,no one can bear a title that is as high as her's;the title king is considered a higher title. William's wife will wear her husband's titles upon marriage.It doesn't matter if she was a born royal,a woman simply takes her husband's titles upon marriage. If William were to marry a princess,the chances are that she'd be foreign-born,like Philip,and would have to assume British titles. And yes,she becomes Queen when he becomes King.