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.

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.

Well, but still. Divorce was pretty explicitly part of the package.

[eta:

In modern terms, he wanted an annulment.

Ah, I guess that does make a difference. But still. t does hand-wavy gesture of non-understanding