1

I mean, sure, he wanted to be King of Duloc, but since he married the Princess of Far Far Away, surely he should be King of both Duloc and Far Far Away. I mean, in Shrek 3, King Harold says,

This kingdom needs a new king. You (Shrek) and Fiona are next in line for the throne.

Now, if he married Fiona and they went to meet Fiona’s parents and if events led to King Harold still being turned into a frog and dying, would Farquaad be King of Duloc and Far Far Away?

  • He might be a prince of FFA, but that is no guarantee that he would be king. See Prince Philip (Consort to the reigning Queen) as an example. – JohnP Jun 26 '18 at 17:28
3

Generally, no. The only way Farquaad would become king of Far Far Away, given the events described above, is if King Harold were to designate him as the heir-apparent after his marriage to Fiona (a move unlikely to meet resistance, unless someone else had a prior claim by lineage).

Otherwise, either Fiona would become queen and Farquaad be her prince consort (as with Elizabeth and Philip in present-day England), or the kingdoms would have to be combined in some way to make Farquaad king of both (likely to lead to trouble unless Farquaad was well loved in Far Far Away -- which itself seems unlikely).

Also, don't forget Charming, who had a prior legal claim to Fiona's hand, by way of the contract between Harold and the Fairy Godmother Corp. He and his magical mother would be likely sources of trouble either way (as they were for Shrek and Fiona in the events we remember).

  • But in real medieval history a man who married a queen regnant often became King by marriage - king consort - of the realm. This didn't happen in Britain until the 16th century, when the first 2 husbands of Mary Queen of Scots and the husband of Queen Mary I of England became kings consort. But there were many medieval examples in Castile, Aragon, Navarre, Sicily, the other Sicily, Jerusalem, Cyprus, etc., and the Latin Empire. – M. A. Golding Jun 27 '18 at 17:46
  • @M.A.Golding Am I correct in recalling, however, that neither Mary gave up her throne in favor of her husband -- that is, king consort had essentially the same position and function that prince consort does in today's England? The queen still ruled, and her husband had title only? – Zeiss Ikon Jun 27 '18 at 17:57

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.