I heard in a documentary that he is of royal blood lines , so I wanted to know why he wasn't granted the title of King?Thanks for answering! -Southwest Texas gal :)
2007-08-07 14:04:18 · 17 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Royalty
The Chinese had the same problem as the americans- they couldn't understand how a female could be more important than a male. To get round the problem, when Her Majesty The Queen visited China for the first time, She was described to the Chinese People as "a female King".
The Chinese seemed to understand this.
The King (the monarch) can have a Queen (consort)
The Queen (the monarch) cannot have a King consort.
If the situation is that there is a Queen and a King, it means that there are 2 monarchs - very rare in Britain. Only William and Mary were monarchs in their own right.
Mary Tudor and King Philip of Spain were wife and husband but only Mary was Queen of England. Philip was King of Spain only. Complicated? Not if your British!
2007-08-09 08:05:13 · answer #1 · answered by Raymo 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because there is no such thing as a "King Consort". That's just the way it is in the UK - succession passes through the male line where possible, and "King" outranks "Queen". A King therefore can have a "Queen Consort", as the Queen Mum was, but a "Queen Regnant" (like Elizabeth) cannot have a "King Consort", as this would amount to passing the succession over to another family.
Prince Philip does have royal blood, being a prince (of Greece) in his own right, and being descended from Queen Victoria. He was created Duke of Edinburgh when he married Princess Elizabeth, to give him a British title.
2007-08-07 16:57:12 · answer #2 · answered by Martin 5 · 4⤊ 1⤋
Its because a King is a higher rank than Queen, and Phillip wasn't born directly into the Windsor Royal Family. He is actually a descendant of the Greek Royal Family, although most of the European Royal Families can be linked.
Queen Victoria's husband was also a prince, Prince Albert, but he had the title of Queen consort.
Elizabeth was the firstborn child of the last king, George VI, but had she had a younger brother, he would have become King, since the British Royal Family favours the male line.
2007-08-07 14:20:06 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 1⤋
The Queen is the regent of England;she was heir to her father,King George VI,while Philip was the son-in-law.No one can bear a title that is higher than that of the reigning monarch.Philip,although of Royal birth(Danish-German-Greek royal houses)and a cousin to his wife,is not the reigning monarch and can not have a title higher than his wife's.The title king implies a monarch,but Elizabeth,as Queen Regent,holds that position.Philip makes do with the title of Prince Consort;Prince Consort and Queen Consort are the titles that spouses of a monarch use.
2007-08-09 06:22:16 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
In royalty, it was a given that the female of the same title was lower in rank than the male (i.e. queen ranks lower than king). If Philip were to be called king, it would mean that he is of royal blood of the line of the heirs to the throne of England. Since Queen Elizabeth is of that bloodline, but Philip is not, he cannot claim the title of king, only the title of prince.
2016-04-01 04:42:39 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The British throne descends to the first born male of the present encumbent through primogeniture. If there is no male, then the first-born daughter. Thus Elizabeth inherited from her father. Philip, were he to be granted the title "king", would usurp his wife because of primogeniture, making nonsense of inherited titles; Albert would have usurped Victoria, and we would have become part of the German Empire ruled by the Kaiser!
Queen Elizabeth has agreed to end the system of primogeniture so that if William's first-born is a girl she will inherit despite the fact that she may have a younger brother.
2007-08-07 21:37:10 · answer #6 · answered by Duffer 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
On two occasions, the husband of the Queen Regnant has been made a King. Mary I married Philip of Spain in 1554. Philip was a prince of Spain and became Philip II, King of Spain, in 1556. Philip left England never to return in 1555 but throughout his marriage, he was referred to as the King. Whether he was considered King regnant, I am not sure.
Mary II, the daughter of James II became Queen in 1688 when her father abdicated. Her husband, William of Orange, was made co-regnant as William III. There is no difference in rank between a Queen regnant and a King regnant.
When Mary's sister Anne became Queen on the death of William, her husband was not invited to be King.
Victoria wanted Albert made King but parliament refused and made him Prince Consort instead. I have a feeling Victoria asked that no future consorts of Queens be made King in respect to Albert and the current Queen complied.
There is a precedent for the consort of a Queen regnant to be made King and of the six Queens regnant of the UK, it happened with two of them.
2007-08-07 20:25:11 · answer #7 · answered by tentofield 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
HM Elizabeth II in 1954 asked Winston Churchill to make Philip "Prince of the Commonwealth." Churchill liked "Prince Consort" better while Anthony Eden preferred "Prince of the Realm." Philip himself at that time asked HM to drop the matter, and as more countries within Britain's rule objected, it was dropped.
The matter was recalled in 1957 by a reporter which prompted HM make a new request for "Prince of the Commonwealth." She even tried to further limit the realms he was prince of but the end result became "HRH The Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh."
In 1960 it was ruled that all male descendants of HM and Philip must have a surname of Mountbatten-Windsor in response to Philip's supposed complaint that he could not pass his name onto his children. All of the children use this surname/
HM has never granted the title of "Prince Consort" to Philip. The last Royal husband to have the title was Prince Albert, HM Victoria's husband. There is a rumor however that this title will be conferred by HM on their 60th anniversary.
From his own lineage, Philip was a prince of Greece and Denmark until his wedding when he was made the Duke of Edinburgh.
2007-08-07 14:16:29 · answer #8 · answered by Cate Rice 3 · 4⤊ 3⤋
because he was the prince of greece and he married The Queen of england Elizabeth II when she was a queen.
A king can only become a king when a throne is left to him - by a father, uncle or wotever.
while a princess can become queen by it being left to her or by marrying a king...its a very unfair rule hehehe
2007-08-07 21:26:35 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
He is not part of the Royal blood line.
He would not be King unless ALL the Royal family was dead.
The Queen is the Monarch because of the blood line, Philip is just her husband, and made an honourary Prince.
The same would apply if a King was on the throne, only a King has a Queen, a Queen has a Prince.
2007-08-07 14:12:14 · answer #10 · answered by tattie_herbert 6 · 1⤊ 7⤋