I just want to say I didn't read any thing in this thread and my comments here was in another thread but I take advice of lillia to write it in the right thread so I hope it is the right thread .
Originally Posted by Lillia
You are welcome. :)
The description 'king' or 'queen' or any other title for 'royalty' is certainly not new; as you already know. But that was not the question as was asked originally.:p
I believe (but am not totally certain) that KA and QR had no say over their 'titles'.
Many people are also aware that the idea of a ruler/representative for a group of people and their lands that they claim -- as you already clearly know -- goes back certainly well before the time of the emporers and pharoahs.
If you are implying a question about the relevancy of a 'King' or 'Queen' or monarch or any such position related to that -- I think that issue is in play on another thread already.:)
thanx Lillia again , in fact the reason behind my question that , the monarchy in any country represent or that what i think the traditional face of the country even if they rule the country and you can see that in most of arab monarchy ( and I don't talk about them as good example to follow ) but I noticed that K and Q of Jordan try to show the modern face of their country ( or that what I hear ) any way after reading the posts of our friends from Jordan for months I noticed that the K and Q don't get alot of support for their action it seems that people from different country espchially westren country understand or like their action more than the poeople who should do in the first place and those people are their people .
personally I think they should represent both of traditional and modern because for sure Jordan is mix of traditional and modern .
in the end if we agree with the K and Q or not no one can say that ruling a country is easy .