Princes and knights

SashaCY

So maybe this question has been already or is too obvious for those who have used this tarot for a while but, why are there no kings? There are queens but no kings, why?
Also, would the prince be somehow equivalent to the king or to the knight?

I know the pages are princesses, that I have seen in other tarots too... But the lack of kings I assume must have a reason, no?
 

Zephyros

The Thoth uses the original Golden Dawn terms for the Court cards with the Knights being highest in the hierarchy. They are the instigators, the robust, violent, untamed energy of the suit. The Princes, which can also be called Kings or Emperors are the combined product of their parents and so are more stable than the knights and more flexible than the queens.
 

Michael Sternbach

The Thoth uses the original Golden Dawn terms for the Court cards ...

Not quite.The Thoth has Knights, Queens, Princes and Princesses, whereas the Golden Dawn has Kings, Queens, Princes and Princesses.

... with the Knights being highest in the hierarchy.

This is correct, as the Thoth Knights are in the position of the GD Kings.

They are the instigators, the robust, violent, untamed energy of the suit. The Princes, which can also be called Kings or Emperors are the combined product of their parents and so are more stable than the knights and more flexible than the queens.

Yes, according to the Book T, the Princes are the Kings of the former decks; Waite employed this old system as well.
 

Zephyros

I have to say that Duquette's chapter on the Courts, their story and behavior is one of the best in the book. Reading it was the first time the Courts clicked for me in any appreciable fashion. He anticipates almost every question a new student might have.

Not that the material is easy by any means. Even after learning the method it still took me months to work out what it actually means for each Court.
 

Richard

Thoth (and RWS) Knights are Golden Dawn Kings. But Thoth Princes are Golden Dawn Princes (and RWS Kings).
The terminology in Book T is inconsistent. In one place, the horseback riders are called Kings, and in another place, Knights. The charioteers are sometimes called Princes, and sometimes Kings.
 

Zephyros

The terminology in Book T is inconsistent. In one place, the horseback riders are called Kings, and in another place, Knights. The charioteers are sometimes called Princes, and sometimes Kings.

And in other places the seated ones are called Emperors. I think what is important is to understand their roles in the big picture. While the sources aren't in agreement about names, their general characteristics are. Except maybe Waite who went perhaps in another direction.
 

SashaCY

Wow... Love your replies. What an interesting conversation!
It makes sense. I felt seeing the images how that the knights were the more powerful ones.
I will read the book you mention, the description of the court cards seems fantastic!
Thank you very much!
 

Michael Sternbach

The terminology in Book T is inconsistent. In one place, the horseback riders are called Kings, and in another place, Knights. The charioteers are sometimes called Princes, and sometimes Kings.

The Book T is referring to the revised Court cards and their older titles in parallel, as I thought my previous posts had brought out. But my main concern was to clarify that Princes are never the Knights of the other decks.