What do you call a queen of Egypt?

Answer 1

Answer

The name "Great Royal Wife" is correct. Ur-Uat is another name given to Queen Mothers in Egypt.

Answer

There are three different titles, which all could refer to the word 'queen'; Hemet Nesw Weret, which was the king´s Great Royal Wife, next the Mwt Nesw, Mother of the King, and then the king´s other, lesser wives, Hemw Nesw. (not helpful)

Answer

Although others may feel the second answer above is "not helpful", limitations regarding the intrepretation of Egyptian hieroglyphs and chronology problems (see below) make it difficult to be particularly or especially "helpful". Technically, the above terms are found in Egyptian literature and they probably do refer to women who were either a wife or mother of a king (Pharaoh), "greater" or 'lesser' as the case may be.

However, only one woman was ever able to really lay claim to being "Queen" as in "Pharaoh" of Egypt. Or "Queen" in one's "own right" and not just 'wife' of the male king (or quasi female as Akhenaten's poses sometimes look like). Moreover, Hatshepsut was "Queen" of Egypt AND Ethiopia. Her name is usually translated "Foremost of noble ladies". In this translation, "H'at" is presumably "foremost". "Sheps" is then translated as 'noble woman' although the translation is strained (see below) because it seems to be based on a picturegram (determinative) for a seated woman which might mean anything from a woman using a bathroom to an administrator sitting at her desk. The 'sheps' is then turned into a plural with the suffix 'ut' or 'ot' similar to the feminine plural used in Hebrew nouns (e.g., mitzvot). The letter 't' is used as a plural in ancient Egyptian as we use 's' in French and English.

However, to say 'ot' or 'ut' is a feminine plural in ancient Egyptian is a bit of a stretch - though not impossible. As discussed below, shep and sut rather than sheps and ut/ot are better distributions of the hieroglyphic alphabet symbols and determinatives. This subtle distinction is overlooked by most commentators who are usually unfamiliar with both Egyptian and Hebrew. Nor does one need to be an expert in either ancient language, one still alive fortunately, to see the distinctions. However, etymology alone merely introduces the issue. Other disciplines such as history, Egyptology-Archaeology with a correct chronological framework backing it up, economics and political science, must come to the party to help decide the issue.

Alternatively, "Hat-shep-sut' could mean: "The Sign (H'at) of the administrator (shep) of the Sut, Suten or South". Josephus Flavius said the Queen of Ophir (mentioned in I Kings chapter 9) who was the queen (malchat) who sheba'd Ophir (i.e., all the Egyptians and Ethiopians), actually came to see Solomon, Israel and the great temple there. A great tribute to Israel. The Gospels record Jesus (Yeshua) as naming her "The Queen of the South". Only "Hatshepsut" could realistically fit that equation just on Egyptian records alone! Certainly on the principle of prima faciereasoning used in courts of law, i.e., whether to bring a case for trial, we should be looking at this.

Egyptian and Biblical records, and J. Flavius, indicate that a queen of Ophir or Egypt and Ethiopia was in itself a very unusual phenomenon. Egyptian records only refer to two other women who came close to being a "Queen in their own right" as British historians might say. They were the last monarch of the 12th dynasty and Cleopatra. Egyptians simply did not believe God chose women to reign. Their neighbours in Israel certainly only had men ruling them except in the case of Athalia the usurper. Thus even 'Queen' Hatshepsut was seen as a usurper by the Egyptians. Although the Ethiopians who again had a queen in Jesus' day (Candace) were not as chauvinistic. But in the extraordinary United Kingdom of the 18th dynasty, Egyptians and Ethiopians were bound by the agreement that the first Thutmosside (perhaps Ahmose or Khamose) signed with his betrothal (probably) to an Ethiopian princess with whom he sired Hatshepsut who in turn was married to Thutmose II a concubine's son. Confusion in ancient Egyptian history is the result of a false chronology that has separated it or cut it off from the histories of other nations. A reconstructed chronology could cast independent light on Egyptian records and claims. That's mainly why Egyptologists are unable to figure out many things including Egypt's apparently peculiar regal or regnalpolicies.

The chronology is such a mess that Hatshepsut is dated to circa 1450 BC when actually she was the Sheba of Solomon's time (950 BC). The Jewish scribes certainly used the word malchat to indicate she was 'queen'. Although they may have done so nervously if they knew about the internal ructions going on in Egypt over the existence of a queen ruling the country after Thutmosis II died prematurely. This '500 year error', taken in the context of a period of no more than 2000 years (circa 2500 BC to 500 BC) of secure Egyptian records (kept by the Ra Shepses or Recorder of Ra), is huge from a statistical point of view. But the magnitude of this error only serves to underscore how vague answers in Egyptology often are. More than anything else, simple sensible questions in Egyptology emerge precisely because the narrative of the modern Egyptologists is so strange. (Hatshepsut was surely a 'shep of the sut' as in "shepses" rather than a 'sheps-ut'). The answers by necessity have to be vague or 'unhelpful'. By restoring the chronology so that the histories of second-, third-, or even fourth-party nations' accounts can be used to triangulate or quadrangulate Egypt's historical accounts, much more sensible answers begin to emerge (Hatshepsut was 'shep-sut' not 'sheps-ut'). New answers, for example from revised chronology, may still not be the correct answers but by examining them in the light of the confusing or vague answers from the orthodox framework, a much better view of ancient Egypt's history might emerge and then in turn the histories of those second-, third- or fourth-parties might also be improved.

[Actually, the revised chronology does deliver some wonderful answers and helps the warring peoples of the Middle East to understand their current predicament. Sadly, the all-powerful but really bankrupt Western Academy perpetuates a false history that destroys people in the Middle East today. Really, it's that important to reconstruct the history but the Academy will not even discuss the matter].

Getting back to the specifics in the above question, and summarising matters, Egypt really had no term for "queen" because they did not expect to have queens! For the King (Pharaoh) there was a "Great Royal Wife". Actually, for ancient Egyptians, "queen" was like the word 'evolution' in English. There is no such thing as 'evolution' in observational science, apart from genetic distribution within a species, or micro-evolution a misleading term at best. Micro-evolution is actually devolution (tendency to lose genetic information) which is what is actually observed. Just like "Evolution" is merely a theoretical concept, so, equally, "queen" in Egypt was a theoretical consideration never expected to be observed. That is possibly why "Hatshepsut" used the same term Ramesses II did for his official record office i.e., "Shepses". "Ramesses" is itself a Greek transliteration of the Semitic Ramoshe so "Shepses" is probably a Greek transliteration of Shep or Sheb as well. Thus shepa or sheba was the functional title Hatshepsut adopted. She was the Scribe, Administrator or Ruler-Administrator. Interestingly, the Bible uses the Hebrew word sheb to describe important administrators such as King David's Yo-sheba-dech and Hezekiah's Shebna. "H'at" can mean "the sign" or even "THE" stressed. So "Hatshepsut" also quite possibly means: "The Sheba (ruler) of the South (= 'Egypt and Ethiopia' or Mitzraim and Cush in Hebrew, the two chief nations of Ophir-Aufirah-Africa)".

The only real queen of Egypt (Hatshepsut) seems to have labelled herself 'administrator-scribe-lawmaker (shep/b)' to avoid upsetting her Egyptian subjects. She was so careful not to upset the Egyptian hierarchies that she used all the ancient Egyptian royal insignia, even in her great temple at Deir el-Bahari that seems to be modelled on Solomon's "Thou art in the clefts of the rock in the secret places of the stairs" (Song of Solomon 2:14). However, she knew that anyone reading Solomon's evocative and provocative song would see the clue when they viewed her temple against the cleft-filled cliffs behind the structure so unlike anything else in Egypt. "Enigmatic" because its 'secret' tunnels seem to serve no other purpose other than to be enigmatic or mysterious. "Readers of Solomon's song would understand", she presumably surmised. Her contemporaries who preferred the Egyptian gods to Israel's Jehovah would be left none-the-wiser by her architectural riddle or blinded to the obvious. Her successor, Thutmose III, buried the temple soon after its completion. This only served to preserve it for 3000 years from vandals so that in 1948 it emerged intact from the hands of British and French Egyptologists and restorers to tell the story of Punt-Israel in the year (1948) when Israel itself emerged from the Holocaust and UN Declaration in 1947. Israel and Hatshepsut's temple emerged from burial (resurrection so to speak) in 1948. And that gives a raison d'etre for, or points the way to, reasons why Hatshepsut's and Egypt's history were corrupted. To draw attention away from the Bible's veracity.

But Egypt and Africa did have a famous queen even if she did start out as Thutmose II's "great royal wife". Her name was Hatshepsut. According to Jesus, if our research is correct, she will resurrect, live in His Kingdom and send Jesus' own detractors to a place terribly unheavenly. According to the Bible, modern detractors face the same fate if they do not change their minds (= repent).

Answer 2

Answer

The name "Great Royal Wife" is correct. Ur-Uat is another name given to Queen Mothers in Egypt.

Answer

There are three different titles, which all could refer to the word 'queen'; Hemet Nesw Weret, which was the king´s Great Royal Wife, next the Mwt Nesw, Mother of the King, and then the king´s other, lesser wives, Hemw Nesw. (not helpful)

Answer

Although others may feel the second answer above is "not helpful", limitations regarding the intrepretation of Egyptian hieroglyphs and chronology problems (see below) make it difficult to be particularly or especially "helpful". Technically, the above terms are found in Egyptian literature and they probably do refer to women who were either a wife or mother of a king (Pharaoh), "greater" or 'lesser' as the case may be.

However, only one woman was ever able to really lay claim to being "Queen" as in "Pharaoh" of Egypt. Or "Queen" in one's "own right" and not just 'wife' of the male king (or quasi female as Akhenaten's poses sometimes look like). Moreover, Hatshepsut was "Queen" of Egypt AND Ethiopia. Her name is usually translated "Foremost of noble ladies". In this translation, "H'at" is presumably "foremost". "Sheps" is then translated as 'noble woman' although the translation is strained (see below) because it seems to be based on a picturegram (determinative) for a seated woman which might mean anything from a woman using a bathroom to an administrator sitting at her desk. The 'sheps' is then turned into a plural with the suffix 'ut' or 'ot' similar to the feminine plural used in Hebrew nouns (e.g., mitzvot). The letter 't' is used as a plural in ancient Egyptian as we use 's' in French and English.

However, to say 'ot' or 'ut' is a feminine plural in ancient Egyptian is a bit of a stretch - though not impossible. As discussed below, shep and sut rather than sheps and ut/ot are better distributions of the hieroglyphic alphabet symbols and determinatives. This subtle distinction is overlooked by most commentators who are usually unfamiliar with both Egyptian and Hebrew. Nor does one need to be an expert in either ancient language, one still alive fortunately, to see the distinctions. However, etymology alone merely introduces the issue. Other disciplines such as history, Egyptology-archaeology with a correct chronological framework backing it up, economics and political science, must come to the party to help decide the issue.

Alternatively, "Hat-shep-sut' could mean: "The Sign (H'at) of the administrator (shep) of the Sut, Suten or South". Josephus Flavius said the Queen of Ophir (mentioned in I Kings chapter 9) who was the queen (malchat) who sheba'd Ophir (i.e., all the Egyptians and Ethiopians), actually came to see Solomon, Israel and the great temple there. A great tribute to Israel. The Gospels record Jesus (Yeshua) as naming her "The Queen of the South". Only "Hatshepsut" could realistically fit that equation just on Egyptian records alone! Certainly on the principle of prima faciereasoning used in courts of law, i.e., whether to bring a case for trial, we should be looking at this.

Egyptian and Biblical records, and J. Flavius, indicate that a queen of Ophir or Egypt and Ethiopia was in itself a very unusual phenomenon. Egyptian records only refer to two other women who came close to being a "Queen in their own right" as British historians might say. They were the last monarch of the 12th dynasty and Cleopatra. Egyptians simply did not believe God chose women to reign. Their neighbours in Israel certainly only had men ruling them except in the case of Athalia the usurper. Thus even 'Queen' Hatshepsut was seen as a usurper by the Egyptians. Although the Ethiopians who again had a queen in Jesus' day (Candace) were not as chauvinistic. But in the extraordinary United Kingdom of the 18th dynasty, Egyptians and Ethiopians were bound by the agreement that the first Thutmosside (perhaps Ahmose or Khamose) signed with his betrothal (probably) to an Ethiopian princess with whom he sired Hatshepsut who in turn was married to Thutmose II a concubine's son. Confusion in ancient Egyptian history is the result of a false chronology that has separated it or cut it off from the histories of other nations. A reconstructed chronology could cast independent light on Egyptian records and claims. That's mainly why Egyptologists are unable to figure out many things including Egypt's apparently peculiar regal or regnalpolicies.

The chronology is such a mess that Hatshepsut is dated to circa 1450 BC when actually she was the Sheba of Solomon's time (950 BC). The Jewish scribes certainly used the word malchat to indicate she was 'queen'. Although they may have done so nervously if they knew about the internal ructions going on in Egypt over the existence of a queen ruling the country after Thutmosis II died prematurely. This '500 year error', taken in the context of a period of no more than 2000 years (circa 2500 BC to 500 BC) of secure Egyptian records (kept by the Ra Shepses or Recorder of Ra), is huge from a statistical point of view. But the magnitude of this error only serves to underscore how vague answers in Egyptology often are. More than anything else, simple sensible questions in Egyptology emerge precisely because the narrative of the modern Egyptologists is so strange. (Hatshepsut was surely a 'shep of the sut' as in "shepses" rather than a 'sheps-ut'). The answers by necessity have to be vague or 'unhelpful'. By restoring the chronology so that the histories of second-, third-, or even fourth-party nations' accounts can be used to triangulate or quadrangulate Egypt's historical accounts, much more sensible answers begin to emerge (Hatshepsut was 'shep-sut' not 'sheps-ut'). New answers, for example from revised chronology, may still not be the correct answers but by examining them in the light of the confusing or vague answers from the orthodox framework, a much better view of ancient Egypt's history might emerge and then in turn the histories of those second-, third- or fourth-parties might also be improved.

[Actually, the revised chronology does deliver some wonderful answers and helps the warring peoples of the Middle East to understand their current predicament. Sadly, the all-powerful but really bankrupt Western Academy perpetuates a false history that destroys people in the Middle East today. Really, it's that important to reconstruct the history but the Academy will not even discuss the matter].

Getting back to the specifics in the above question, and summarising matters, Egypt really had no term for "queen" because they did not expect to have queens! For the King (Pharaoh) there was a "Great Royal Wife". Actually, for ancient Egyptians, "queen" was like the word 'evolution' in English. There is no such thing as 'evolution' in observational science, apart from genetic distribution within a species, or micro-evolution a misleading term at best. Micro-evolution is actually devolution (tendency to lose genetic information) which is what is actually observed. Just like "Evolution" is merely a theoretical concept, so, equally, "queen" in Egypt was a theoretical consideration never expected to be observed. That is possibly why "Hatshepsut" used the same term Ramesses II did for his official record office i.e., "Shepses". "Ramesses" is itself a Greek transliteration of the Semitic Ramoshe so "Shepses" is probably a Greek transliteration of Shep or Sheb as well. Thus shepa or sheba was the functional title Hatshepsut adopted. She was the Scribe, Administrator or Ruler-Administrator. Interestingly, The Bible uses the Hebrew word sheb to describe important administrators such as King David's Yo-sheba-dech and Hezekiah's Shebna. "H'at" can mean "the sign" or even "THE" stressed. So "Hatshepsut" also quite possibly means: "The Sheba (ruler) of the South (= 'Egypt and Ethiopia' or Mitzraim and Cush in Hebrew, the two chief nations of Ophir-Aufirah-Africa)".

The only real queen of Egypt (Hatshepsut) seems to have labelled herself 'administrator-scribe-lawmaker (shep/b)' to avoid upsetting her Egyptian subjects. She was so careful not to upset the Egyptian hierarchies that she used all the ancient Egyptian royal insignia, even in her great temple at Deir el-Bahari that seems to be modelled on Solomon's "Thou art in the clefts of the rock in the secret places of the stairs" (Song of Solomon 2:14). However, she knew that anyone reading Solomon's evocative and provocative song would see the clue when they viewed her temple against the cleft-filled cliffs behind the structure so unlike anything else in Egypt. "Enigmatic" because its 'secret' tunnels seem to serve no other purpose other than to be enigmatic or mysterious. "Readers of Solomon's song would understand", she presumably surmised. Her contemporaries who preferred the Egyptian gods to Israel's Jehovah would be left none-the-wiser by her architectural riddle or blinded to the obvious. Her successor, Thutmose III, buried the temple soon after its completion. This only served to preserve it for 3000 years from vandals so that in 1948 it emerged intact from the hands of British and French Egyptologists and restorers to tell the story of Punt-Israel in the year (1948) when Israel itself emerged from the Holocaust and UN Declaration in 1947. Israel and Hatshepsut's temple emerged from burial (resurrection so to speak) in 1948. And that gives a raison d'etre for, or points the way to, reasons why Hatshepsut's and Egypt's history were corrupted. To draw attention away from the Bible's veracity.

But Egypt and Africa did have a famous queen even if she did start out as Thutmose II's "great royal wife". Her name was Hatshepsut. According to Jesus, if our research is correct, she will resurrect, live in His Kingdom and send Jesus' own detractors to a place terribly unheavenly. According to the Bible, modern detractors face the same fate if they do not change their minds (= repent).

Answer 3

they called the quens majesty and higness but as always called the kings pharoah.

Answer 4

A Egyption Name For A Queen Is A Non Of Your Buiessness

Answer 5

just queen i think... because the Pharaoh is always a man...