2007-07-04 04:52:20 · 8 answers · asked by tailwind479 2 in Society & Culture ➔ Royalty
Why is this question asked so often, and answered wrongly so often?
The married partner of a reigning British monarch is called whatever they both want and Parliament will agree to. No other rules exist, and previous answerers have just made up the rules that they think apply.
The wife of a King is usually called Queen, but there have been exceptions in the past, and the Duchess of Cornwall will be another exception some time in the future.
The husbands of past Queens have been called King (King William III, husband of Queen Mary II), nothing in particular (husband of Queen Anne), Prince Consort (Albert, husband of Victoria) and simply Prince (Philip).
So Philip is not a King because he didn't want to be, or because the Queen didn't want him to be, or because they knew Parliament wouldn't agree to it.
2007-07-04 08:35:13 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
The male consort to a Queen who ascends to the throne traditionally does not take on the title of King. Elizabeth II is queen in her own right and not a Queen-consort like most of the other queens. The concept of a King-consort was never entertained as it would have undermined the authority and right of the Sovereign if elevated to the same stature in the male-dominated world. Even with the flexible nature of the British Constitution, there are still some rigidities and this is one of them. William III is an exception to this and was made co-regent. This is not because Parliament wanted it this way, but because he said he would not put up with not being King and he had a massive Army parked up outside London, so there wasn't really a choice in the matter. When it came to Prince Phillip, he only acquired the title in 1957 because Elizabeth II wanted him to have a title. He had disowned his previous Princely titles (Denmark and Greece) prior to his marriage. It was not because of a decision by Parliament (which technically includes the Sovereign anyway). The Queen, after taking advice over the wording, created the title by issuing Letter Patents as she would for any other title.
2007-07-05 08:12:29 · answer #2 · answered by Tim W 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's a matter of hierarchy. The King outranks the Queen. That's not a problem when the throne has passed to a male heir. In this case, the throne went to a woman, so if her husband was entitled King, then he would outrank her.
That used to happen in lower levels of the aristocracy, but the ruling family just isn't going to hand over their crown to an outsider. So Philip has to be a prince.
It's all very complicated and archaic. Priviledges and responsibilities go along with certain titles, so there probably is some reason to follow with the old practices. Or get rid of the system altogether.
2007-07-04 12:13:23 · answer #3 · answered by The angels have the phone box. 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋
There have been very few ruling queens in English history.
Mary 1 was married to Philip of Spain who was given the title King. It is unclear if this was king consort or regnant but it is usually regarded as consort.
Elizabeth I didn't marry.
Mary II married William of Orange and they were co-regnant with him as William III.
Anne was happy with her husband not being King and he wasn't asked.
Victoria wanted Albert to be King but parliament refused. Victoria asked that no further consorts of queens be made king
Elizabeth II followed Victoria's wishes and did not ask.
It is quite within the authority of parliament to declare anyone to be king or queen. The monarch is there at the pleasure of the parliament. They got rid of the monarchy once with Charles I, asked Oliver Cromwell to be king (which he refused) and then reinstated the monarchy with Charles II. They forced James II to abdicate in favour of William and Mary, chose George of Hanover over James Stuart at the death of Anne and forced Edward VIII to abdicate.
If parliament wanted Philip to be king, he would be.
2007-07-05 03:02:49 · answer #4 · answered by tentofield 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I've answered this question so many times,it's rooted in my memory: Philip was not the heir to George VI;His Royal Highness,the Duke of Edinburgh can not have a title higher than his wife, the heir and the reigning monarch so he uses Prince Consort to signify his status as spouse. Queen Elizabeth II is the reigning monarch,so the highest title in the UK is queen;the title of king implies a ruling monarch and is considered a higher title than queen and won't do because no one can bear a title higher than that of the reigning queen.
Philip was a royal BEFORE marrying into the British royals;he's a prince of Denmark and Greece.
2007-07-04 14:03:36 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 2⤋
The queen was a daughter of a king, but Phillip married into royalty. That's just the way it works. The King's wife it automatically called Queen, but the Queen's husband is not automatically a King.
2007-07-04 12:54:24 · answer #6 · answered by catsmeowjrk2000 6 · 2⤊ 3⤋
he was born to princess alice, who is actually the granddaughter of queen victoria. he was not born into the line of succession..or if he was it was way down the line..you can't be king by marriage..now that i think about it, that actually makes him related to his wife...uummmmm queen victoria is the great grandmother of them both..i think..wow that's confusing i just gave myself a headache..lol
2007-07-04 13:21:13 · answer #7 · answered by queenbiddie 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
good question, i would love to answer , but i cant say for sure
2007-07-04 13:28:45 · answer #8 · answered by Stereotypical Canadian, Eh? 3 · 1⤊ 5⤋