the king of England

[GoodTaste]

Should the article "the" be removed from the phrase "the king of England"? If I remembered correctly, grammar books say that if there is/can be one and only king, then don't use "the"(like we say "president of the United States" without the). The use of the makes it sound as if there are many kings in the land and the king is one of them. I am not sure.

=========================
I: Are you willing to be the king of England?
Siri: I don't have an answer for that.

Source: It is a practice by me of randomly talking to Siri to see whether Siri can correctly show what I say (Here, Siri showed 100% correctly).

 

[Rover_KE]

You'll see both versions, but if Siri is aware of her gender, she's more likely to say 'I'd rather be (the) Queen'.

 

[emsr2d2]

If you remove the article, "king" would need to be capitalised.

1. Are you willing to be the king of England?
2. Are you willing to be King of England?
3. Do want to be the president of the United States?
4. Do you want to be President of the United States.

In 2 and 4, you are using the official title of the role. As such, the relevant words must be capitalised.

 

[PeterCW]

Not so. The king is the one and only king.

Joint rule is out of fashion but there are plenty of historical precidents both in England and elsewhere.

To be pedantic the English monarchy ceased to exist with the Act of Union in 1707. All monarchs since have been Kings or Queens of Great Britain.

 

[emsr2d2]

Joint rule is out of fashion but there are plenty of historical precidents both in England and elsewhere.

To be pedantic the English monarchy ceased to exist with the Act of Union in 1707. All monarchs since have been Kings or Queens of Great Britain.

Are you talking about, for example, King James I of England who was also King James VI of Scotland? I'm not clear what you mean by "joint rule" unless you mean a married couple, who would both be the monarchs of the relevant country as long as it was the king who had actually taken over the throne. (The wife of the king is the queen but the husband of the queen is just a prince.)

 

[Charlie Bernstein]

. . . I know of no joint kings of England.

No kings of England in this joint!

 

[Tdol]

No kings of England in this joint!

Not since the ones Mark Twain called the unspeakable Georges.

 

[jutfrank]

To get back to the question ...

I'm not certain what your question to Siri is supposed to mean, but I'm guessing that you're referring to the official status as the monarch (see also post #3) rather than to a specific individual, in which case you should omit the definite article.

 

[PeterCW]

Are you talking about, for example, King James I of England who was also King James VI of Scotland? I'm not clear what you mean by "joint rule" unless you mean a married couple, who would both be the monarchs of the relevant country as long as it was the king who had actually taken over the throne. (The wife of the king is the queen but the husband of the queen is just a prince.)

Willian and Mary held the crown jointly. Joint rule was also practised occasionally in Anglo-Saxon kingdoms where the son might be crowned and rule alongside his father and, of course in the Roman Empire, where there could be up to four Caesars. In Norway Harald Hardrada shared the throne with nephew Magnus the Good. It sometimes didn't end well, as with Cleopatra VII and Ptolemy XIV in Egypt.

 

[GoesStation]

I've always found joint rule with my wife to be the most satisfactory arrangement.

 

[Charlie Bernstein]

I've always found joint rule with my wife to be the most satisfactory arrangement.

Same here. My wife rules the joint.