Why isn't Prince Philip, King?

[Kendodd]

I know because he always has his foot in him mouth but apart from that. I'm not suggesting he should be the monarch, just wondered why he doesn't have the title of King. If/when Prince William come to the throne his wife will have the title of Queen, won't she?

Tradition.

The monarch can be either King or Queen (Regnant), and spouse is Queen (consort) or Prince. Set our formally like that for Queen Victoria - hadn't arisen before.

Because king beats queen in the hierarchy.

A King's wife is Queen consort. You can't have a king consort so the husband of a reigning queen (xxxxx Regina) is a Prince consort.

Because if he was King that would insinuate he was better than the Queen. The monarchy is a hot bed of sexism.

Yes - there's no such thing as a king consort. Does any country/tradition have this?

If the royals could only have titles if they could avoid making appalling gaffes, we might have abolished them centuries ago :)

I only found out about this very recently (I am not British) and was just gobsmacked .

If Prince Philip was King, he'd automatically be monarch. Him having no claim on the throne means he can 'only' be Prince without knocking Lizzie off same.

Can you tell I don't have much time for the concept of royalty??
And don't get me started on Queen Cat or whatever she'd be called officially...

Well yes except Philip can't be King because he isn't in the line of succession to the throne (actually he probably is somewhere in his own right but like 940th or similar). So when he married the Queen (although she was a princess then .. still with me?) he could only ever be Prince. Only a male ruler (human or lion, obviously) can be called the King. A consort can be Prince or Queen.

It certainly would be more consistent if a queen consort was called Princess but we have had so few queens regnant in Europe as a whole it's never been a big issue - until the pesky Euros adopted crazy ideas like 'let the oldest child inherit the throne even if she is a girl'.

So now here's a question. What if we had a gay woman queen and she got married?

tribpot, go and wash out your mouth - NOW!!!

Tribpot - we'd be too busy listening out for the 4 Hoofbeats of the Apocalypse to worry about mere earthly concerns, should such a smiting come to pass

tribpot: I nearly posted on the same issue!

I would of course require an amendment to the Royal Marriages Act to allow for a CP. Assuming that happens, then King and Prince would be no problem, but Queen and Queen would be problematic. I think it would have to be Queen and Princess - up to the monarch of the day to decide on royal styles (and then it all gets ossified).

Ah, but that could not happen because a Queen cannot be gay.

Lesbianism was not, I think, been criminalised in the way male homosexuality was, because the reigning Queen did not believe it existed. More precisely, Queen Victoria did not believe any woman would do anything so 'un-natural'

I'm going to let whoever-it-is who has to worry about such things deal with the issue of what to do if William and Catherine's first child is a girl. Then when that's been addressed and all x bazillion members of the Commonwealth have agreed that she can inherit, then I shall pose my lesbian queen question. One thing at a time!

I tell you another title that's weird: Queen Mother. Does it mean you are the mother of the current ruler, or does it literally mean the mother of the queen? Can you be a King Mother? (Or, dunno, Queen Father?)

Queen Mother is an alternate style for a dowager Queen Consort.

'Only a male ruler (human or lion, obviously) can be called the King'

I think it is important to correct this. Elvis was the King. Of that there can be no doubt.

Oh dear, so no King Father for dear [extremely] old Phil then.

Claig - which leads to another interesting question. What if Elvis had married the Queen? Strictly speaking, he was never known as King Elvis, but rather 'the King' so would he, in effect, have been Prince Elvis the King?

There have been many pretenders to Elvis's throne. One such they call Prince. But he knew his place and didn't call himself King. Prince Elvis is an oxymoron, it would not stand; the public would have demanded a change in protocol. Elvis was simply "the King", head and shoulders above kings of any dominion. Pilgrims still travel to his residence years after his death and they will for a thousand years to come. There are many kings and queens, but there is only one King (and it's not King Creole).

I see, claig. But having pilgrims and such suggests he is more akin to a saint so would he have been Saint Prince Elvis the King? (I'm thinking of people with more than one title like Professor Sir [whatever]) or Saint Elvis the King (aka Prince)? I fear in royal circles he could have ended up being known simply as 'that guy' as courtiers got fed up of announcing 'The Queen and Saint Prince Elvis the King (but not the artist formerly known as Prince, another guy)' at every function.

Yes I see what you are saying. No words can do him justice. That is why he is simply knows by one word only - Elvis. Without Elvis there would be no Glastonbury festival today. He was rock's first megastar. His arrival on the world's stage was similar to what scientists study and call the "Big Bang". But like a flaming star across the heavens, he has vanished into the night, and no artist will ever recreate that thrill, try as hard as they might.

claig...Phil could pretend to be king Creole and sing 'Oh Annie,I'm not your daddy'

crazynanna, I have heard tell that that is exactly what he does. He is desperate to surpass the King, and has indeed hired the top vocal coaches in the land. Cowell and all the rest are working with him day and night. His courtiers clap and applaud as he makes to preen and pose, but there is one brave boy who cried that the Emperor has no clothes.

and apparently they say that Tony Blair is on guitar, that's why it's best advised to remain afar.

As Blair plays maracas in the band, his demands that his acolytes call him El Presidente. Let's hope his dreams never come true and the people never live to see that day.

As an aside, prompted by pacific's post, can one be a feminist and a monarchist?

I think not, it is such an intrinsically misogynist institution.