Can she not be Queen because she's divorced? Were Henry VIII's various wives all queens?

Henry VIII is a very good dividing line, because the problem is with the Anglican church, of which the monarch is head. Orthodox Anglican forbids divorced people to remarry within the church, and the Queen would have to be a good Anglican, therefore a good divorced Anglican would not have remarried. The perks of being King are not what they were.

There are those who say that since Charles is divorced and remarrying outside of the church that it taints his fitness for the throne, which is why the Duke of Windsor (Edward 7/8th) stepped down. Back in the 1930s, marrying a divorced woman outside the church was too big an obstacle. Fortunately, the times have progressed, and the Archbishop of Canterbury is probably just relieved that the future King is actually going to be married and not just having an open mistress--though there is long tradition of that.

Diana would probably be alive today if she could have accepted that the marriages of royalty are not like those of average folks.

It's really stupid.

In theory, she's either the King's wife, or she's not. I don't understand the Archbishop of Canterbury saying a civil union is appropriate. If the Church doesn't disapprove of remarriage, why can't she have a church wedding? If it DOES disapprove, why is it okay if they're living in sin?

All of Henry VIII's wives were queens. Every single wife of a British monarch was queen, with the possible exception of Mrs. Fitzherbert, who married George IV in secret. The marriage could not have been legal by British law, because the heir to the throne cannot legally marry without the Sovereign's consent.

But other than that, the King's wife is the Queen.

I don't understand the Archbishop of Canterbury saying a civil union is appropriate. If the Church doesn't disapprove of remarriage, why can't she have a church wedding? If it DOES disapprove, why is it okay if they're living in sin?

I thought the whole point of the Anglican Church was that divorce/remarriage is okay. What with it being created so that Henry VIII could divorce and remarry and all.

But the Queen's husband is not necessarily the King, right? How do they finesse that?

It's like a logic problem.

How do they finesse that?

My guess is that "King" outranks "Queen," and so if the Queen's husband isn't running the country, he has to be called Prince Consort so there's no confusion over who's in charge. (But that's just a guess -- I really have no idea what the rules are.)

There is a difference between Queen Consort (married the king, like QEII's mother) and Queen Regnant (born to be queen, like QEII). There is no position of King Consort. Damned sexism.

No, the point of the Anglican church is that Henry VIII can do whatever he damned well wants to. Divorce just happened to be the inciting incident.

The Queen's husband is almost never the king (I think the only exception is William III and Mary II), because it was believed that if a Queen's husband became king he would have too much influence over the queen.

Mary I's husband Philip was also legally King of England.

I thought the whole point of the Anglican Church was that divorce/remarriage is okay. What with it being created so that Henry VIII could divorce and remarry and all.

Right. I wanted to say that, but I forgot. my understanding was that the King could be divored but he coulen't, for reasons that remain unclear to me, marry a divorced woman. Or a commoner, maybe. Or a divorced commoner?

Deacons in the Russian Orthodox Church are not supposed to remarry, evn if they are widowed, which is why my grandmother's second husband had to quit being a deacon to marry her. The straightforward remarriage is forbidden I understand. British royalty seems to operate under a muddier set of rules.

Henry VIII's divorce wasn't actually a divorce in modern terms.

He didn't want to dissolve his marriage to Katherine of Aragon; he wanted never to have been married to her at all. In modern terms, he wanted an annulment.