Well, it all depends on what point of history you’re talking about. Until the 1850s, especially in Europe, queens were political pawns, and once at court had very little power or say in anything. Many felt like prisoners of their position.
The kings had officially-sanctioned mistresses, who often wielded far more power at court and in international relations than the queens did. In France, Germany, Austria and England, the position was an official gig that had to be approved not only by the court, but by the queen Weird, right?
Of course, when they reached a certain age, they were penioned off. But the good ones got estates and today’s equivalent of millions of dollars, plus whatever other gifts the king would offer. There were also royal bastards, who were considered fair game by lots of European royalty who wanted any relation of the king in their family.
In England, prefixes like “Fitz” meant the bearer of the name was a royal bastard, and there were similar names throughout Europe. This was not considered a bad thing. William the Conqueror of England was a noble bastard.
Though they were notorious from time to time, the mistresses also got very, very rich, were made titled nobility, and a good chunk of European royalty descends from them. Not so much always for the poor queens.
Unlike the kings, if the queen had a boyfriend, both were liable to charges of treason and execution. So it wasn’t always a great deal to be married to the king.
However, it beat the heck out of being a serf, a servant, a farmer, etc. So there’s that going for the gig. Still, while it’s good to be queen, it’s clearly not as much fun as being king.
