Speaking in terms of Royalty, which spouse of a King or Queen has had the most impact on ...?

Question

the Rulers actions? Another words has there every been a King or Queen who was basically a puppet for his or her wife?

Answer 1

It depends on the spouse and what role the spouse wants to take. Queen Victoria's husband, Prince Consort Albert was a great help to her. He helped his very young wife with all of her royal responsibilities. He read to her the state papers,they discussed everything,and she was able to make her decisions after lots of preparation time. When he died,she had to learn how to do all of the work by herself.

Queen Elizabeth,The Queen Mother,was also another very helpful Queen Consort. She  used her political power base as spouse of the monarch to do many things that enhanced George VI's work.

I am quite sure that there have been spouses who tried to run things as well,but there are things like Privy Councils and Parliaments to prevent situations like this from happening(if that is possible).

Answer 2

It's not a direct answer to your question, but

Isabella I (April 22, 1451 – November 26, 1504, reigned 1474-1504) was Queen regnant of Castile and León. She and her husband, Ferdinand II of Aragon were both regents of their respective territories. But Isabella was by far the dominant force in their marriage.

Charlotte of Mecklenburg-Strelitz had a lot of power, because her husband, George III, of England was so insane. But there is no evidence that she used him as a puppet.

In the case of William and Mary, Mary was the true heir to the throne, but she openly deferred to her husband always. But that isn't the case of a puppet, because they were given co-regency. William was still king when Mary died.

The idea of the spouse being the true power behind the throne and the ruler being a complete puppet seems very popular in literature. There's a lot of examples of the spouse being the stronger personality, but I can't think of an example of a true puppet.

Of course, there would have been a lot of pressure to keep such a thing quiet. We don't even know how many of the decisions were actually made by Nancy Reagan or Edith Wilson at the end?

Answer 3

it depends.  if the king is the son of the king and queen at the time, then he has more power.  if the queen was the daughter of the king and queen at the time, then she has  more power

Answer 4

Tsar Nicholas II of Russia was very close to being his Tsarina's puppet. Alexandra was, even for her time, a hysterical woman playing with the occult. Their son Alexis was a hemophiliac through her line, and Alexandra was intensely fearful due to his frequent bouts of internal bleeding. Although she had cause for worry, she involved Nicholas in a disastrous relationship with Grigory Rasputin. They lost the respect and support of their people, both because of this symbiotic relationship with a scurrilous peasant and because of their belief in Autocracy. She had a baleful influence on this weak and shallow ruler.

Answer 5

King Moe of Fredonia

Answer 6

It's too bad Charles isn't king yet so Camilla could use him to start wiping up some of her...well anyway...let's hope the Queen will see fit to pass 'it' on to true royalty...Prince Harry (now THAT boy shows spirit...)...

You know...there really doesn't seem to have been much royalty around for the past hundred years or so...the Czar was true blood...Alexandra held the reins though...

My thirty ninth great grandfather, Charlemagne, was a pretty good ruler...from what I understand...

Answer 7

theoreticaally Victoria was to Albert. Also, possibly Charless ii to Catherine, in some respects.