King of a Place vs King of a people
Sister Morphine said:
I'm not sure. I would surmise that "Queen of the Belgians" refers to the people and "Queen of Belgium" refers to the country [obviously], but I don't know whether one is more appropriate than the other.
That is correct. A King or Queen of "a place" (Queen of Great Britain, King of France, King of the Congo
) all would in theory loose their title if they were to loose their land - meaning, if there was some sort of revolution or the royal family needed to be exhiled.... this ofcourse is in "theory" since exhiled kings (such as those of England during Cromwel's tyranny, did mantain their claims to the title based on the fact that the overthrowing of the monarchy was illegal and therefore nul and void...)
All this goes from the sense of "kingship" developed during feudal times, when all titles were attached to the land, even that of king: reason for which one took the name of the place one had authority over and made it part of the title.
Earlier than feudal times, however, there weren't really definate "borders" to define the confines of the kingdoms, duchies, or whatever other jurisdiction. I speak of the time of the migrating tribes in Europe, "shortly" before and after the falling of the Roman Empire. Most of this tribes centered their sense of "nationality" basen on who they descended from, not on what land they were born on. The court, in turn, was centered around the king - wherever he may be. (This custom of not having a "capital city" but rather having the court "be" where-ever the king may be himself, was vestigial of those early histories, well into the 16c. in Engalnd, for example, if one recalls the fact that Queen Elizabeth I's court existed only where she happened to be, during her "progresses throughout her reals, albeit it being a feeudal system....)
So because there was no real safe, secure, or permanent "territory" for each of these migrating tribes, their Kings were refered to as "Kings of "their people" (e.g. King of the Angles, King of the Britons, King of the Goths, King of the Franks, King of the Swedes, etc.).
Following with that thought, do remember that eventually, all, or at least the most powerful of these "migrating tribes/kingdoms" did settle in pieces of land of what had once been the demesne of the Roman Empire (the smaller tribes were often conquered and swallowed up by the larger ones, thus disapearing, or merging into the identity of larger ones).
Once they did settle, however, is when pieces of land become asociated with certain tribes/kindoms/peoples.... The Goths settled in what is today Portugal, Spain, and southern France; the Franks settled in what today is northern france; The Burgundians in what is today also France; The Ostrogoths and later the Lombards settled in Italy; The Alemanni in Germany; the Bavarians in Bavaria.... well, you get the point... certain pieces of land became asociated with certain tribes and eventually that led to the feudal system in which it was the land that defined who one was - sort of 'till this days, in which one speaks of one's "nationality" as the country or land in which one is born (or naturalised in) rather than one's ancestry: thus one finds, for example "Americans", "Swedes", "Germans" etc. who are of african, asian, european or aboriginee characteristics....when Americans would really otherwise be the natural inhabitants of America before "the discovery" or Sweded would be only those people descendants from the original Swedes...etc.
All of this is mostly to prevent racism, factions within countries forming from migrant minorities (which can become majority...) into separate entities etc. It's for the sake of the peace if you will. The aculturation and adoption of a new nationality is a utopian "solves all evils" sort of solution though, because even many generations down the line, the descendants of someone who came from China will still look chinese, those of some one who came originally from Africa will still look african, anf of those who came from Europe will still sunburn like there's no tomorrow in the sun.... the secret is in accepting each other - that's the ultimate step, albeit it seemingly is a hard one to a lot of people as can be seen on the News every night.... but back to our topic: King of the Belgians:
After the French Revolution, the Orleans branch of the Bourbons, when it regained the throne, there was a whole constitution written and a new parliamentary system in the lines of the British one set up and the whole shabang (tryng to prevent being overthrown again by changing their ways in accordance to the people's demands...) but anyways, the King of France, it was stated in the constution, would henceforth be known as the King of the French. This wasn't an inovation, since before being called Kings "of France" they were termed Rex Francorum (in latin, in all official documents) which literally translated into "King of the French-people".... (technically they were also sort of imitation the Napoleonic model, but Napoleon was in itself, imitating some of the early-history models, so that's all I'll say of Napoleon's contribution to this shabang.)
Anyways, it was around that same time in history (correct me if I'm wrong) that the Belgian monarchy (more or less as it stands today) was formed, and they followed I would assume the model imposed by the Orleans-kings of France... Really the last sentence was the only answered to the question, but I took the liberty of writing about the 'historical' stuff because I think (or at least hope) it helps it all make a little more sense.
