English sure has some odd features, one of which is the -s, which serves as the ending on third person singular present tense verbs, the ending for the possessive, and the ending for plurals. Not one of those uses, historically, is related to any of the others, except that they fell together by analogy. The plural in OE was formed in quite a few ways, depending on the noun; the most common was probably the -as ending on certain masculine and neuter nouns, for nominative and accusative plural: tha weras, the men; tha thegnas, the servants. The genitive in Old English was -es for most masculine and neuter singular nouns; not for feminine nouns, and not for plurals. The ending for third person singular verbs in the present tense was -th, not -s; the -s crept in through northern influence, via the Danes and other Scandinavians. Now we have -s for all three, and for plural genitives and for feminine nouns.

Re. the ‘s after King of England. It is as if King-of-England were one word, with the ‘s appended at the end. We English-speakers are quite clever! But we are clever enough to add the plural ‘s’ to the original noun (e.g. Kings of England, Secretaries of State, Attorneys General). I think adding the ‘s to the end of the noun phrase makes it easier to distinguish the possessive from the pural.

Thank you for your post – it reminds me that ‘In the beginning was the WORD!’

The Latin would be:

filius regis Angliae

But it isn’t the same. I don’t believe there is a way to make a whole noun phrase genitive in Latin.

How about Latin? Isn’t it the same?