To Top

Why isn’t Prince Philip King?

A lot of comments we receive on Royal Central raise the question of why Prince Philip isn’t king, despite the wife of a king being a queen. On the face of it, it seems bizarre, almost sexist, though in this post I’ll explain exactly why Prince Philip isn’t king and why the wife of a king is always a queen.

Under English common law, a wife traditionally takes her husband’s name and rank upon marriage and as a title legally forms part of one’s name in most cases, titles within the Royal Family work in much the same way as if an untitled couple were to marry and the wife took her husband’s name as her own.

Perhaps the best example of this in action is with Prince Michael of Kent and his wife. Upon his marriage to the then Marie Christine von Reibnitz in 1978, she assumed the female form of his title and became Her Royal Highness Princess Michael of Kent.

Other titles in the Royal Family work on a similar basis. For example, the wife of The Duke of Cambridge is known as The Duchess of Cambridge. Had Prince William not been granted the Dukedom for his marriage, she would have become Princess William of Wales.

On the other hand, when a female Royal marries, the case is much different. If the woman’s title ranks higher than her husband’s already, she retains this title. This is the case for Her Royal Highness The Princess Royal. If she didn’t hold her own title, she would be styled as Lady Laurence as her husband is a knight though because knights rank (way) below the Royal Family, Princess Anne retains her title.

The instance of Princess Anne also demonstrates how the use of titles by marriage is very much a one-way-street. A husband cannot generally take the male form of his wife’s title on marriage, whatever her rank.

It’s a quirk of common law that goes right the way to the top. Prior to acceding to the throne, The Queen held the title HRH The Duchess of Edinburgh which was the female form of her husband’s title, though as the title of Queen ranks higher than Duchess (and because the Sovereign cannot hold peerages and the like), she no longer used the title of Duchess of Edinburgh, whilst The Duke of Edinburgh – to whom the title was issued – continued without any change to his own title.

Whilst this is not the only reason why the husband of a Queen isn’t a King, it is certainly the main one. There is also the issue of rank. Queen Victoria thought that the title of “Duke” was the ‘proper title’ for a holder of a title, which is why Her present Majesty is known as Duke of Lancaster and not Duchess.

Whether or not the status quo should be maintained in terms of titles is a matter which has reached right into Parliament on numerous occasions. A bill in the House of Lords at the moment, the Equality (titles) Bill seeks to give husbands of female peers their own courtesy title, though interestingly not one in parallel with their wife’s – rather they will receive the title of ‘The Honourable’ as things stand.

The issue of making the wives of Kings, Princess Consorts to equalise the issue was discussed during the Succession to the Crown Act readings in the Commons though never made it into the final bill.

As things stand, The Duchess of Cornwall will automatically become Queen when Prince Charles accedes to the throne – with Clarence House still pushing forward with the idea that legislation will be passed to reduce her to the title of Princess Consort.

The matter of titles and how the use of them is regulated is, however, ongoing and new questions are being raised over their use all the time. Who’s to say future consorts of Queens might not end up as Kings?

Give your view in the comments box below. Should the wife of a king be a queen? Or even, should the husband of a queen be made a king?

photo credit: Mikepaws via photopin cc

  • Lorraine Nunn

    There seems to be no Equality

    • Lily Mathers

      In general or in British Monarchy??

  • Michele Angel Wells

    It seems throughout history that the female monarchs did not grant their husbands the title king for the simple reason that as the rightful successor to the throne they out ranked all others. Therefore granting their husband’s the title of King would put them in a lesser position and give them equal authority. Perhaps that was one of the reasons Elizabeth1 chose not to marry. Even as recently as the 1950s when the current Queen ascended the throne the notion that the wife was somehow inferior, and her father gave her her orders before Phillip so she would out rank him. It appearsthat the specific title is granted by the sovereign and is not automatic. Even Victoria did not grant her beloved Albert the title of King.

    • Anni

      I admire him quite seriously! But frankly he’s lucky to be a prince and a duke. He’d be a long retired navy officer from a disenfranchised royal family, title of prince he had then actually meaning literally nothing, without King George and Queen Elizabeth II. All of his four sisters married Nazi’s and George VI and Queen Elizabeth weren’t all that fond of the idea of Philip marring their daughter. He has been a wonderful consort, however.

      • Glasgow1975

        He was granted the title of Prince of the United Kingdom

        • Lily Mathers

          THat one is unclear. Two different sources just now named William and Charles “Prince of the UK”. Huh, weird. But the Duke of Edinburgh is a good deal and he has been a great husband and support for Her Majesty!

          • Glasgow1975

            What’s unclear? William and Charles are automatically Princes of the UK. Philip renounced his overseas Titles of Greece and Denmark to become a naturalised UK subject, hence being granted the Title of Prince of the UK, otherwise HM The Queen would simply be married to Captain Philip Mountbatten (or whatever Naval Rank he retired at)

      • micmac

        Only three of his sisters married Nazis and they paid heavily for doing so. One was widowed by 1944, another sister’s husband got involved with Claus Von Stauffenberg. Whilst a third was killed in an air crash in 1937 with all her family. Even her daughter, left at home, died shortly afterwards.

    • Dywan Washington II

      Keep in mind, Victoria wanted Albert to be granted the title of King, but the government was very much against it.

    • Glasgow1975

      Although there are always exceptions, Queen Mary granted Philip of Spain the title of King of England, and William of Orange was granted the title of King through his wife Queen Mary II, and continued to rule as King after her death

      • Duncan Scott Bennie

        Queen Mary lived at a time where King Philip had equal rights to her so he was a sovereign king of England and had equal rights in ruling the country on their marriage as for William, he was King in his own right they were both given the crown not just Mary II

        • Glasgow1975

          Philip didn’t have equal rights to the English Throne, she specifically had to grant him the Crown Matrimonial giving them to him, and they ended with Mary’s death. William was only invited BECAUSE he was married to the legitimate Protestant Heir Mary Stuart, they were invited to become Joint Monarchs because of her lineage, not his. His army was what they wanted and sweetened the deal for him.

          • bwvjones

            King William had a legitimate claim to the throne being that in addition to being married to Mary Stuart he was also a grandson of Charles I. Therefore they were first cousins. That’s why he was able to rule in his own right after Mary died.

          • Popperite

            In the case of William and Mary it’s not so much an exception. William III was made king in his own right by Parliament. Philip of Spain however wasn’t. He was king-consort and not a reigning king.

        • micmac

          That is what Parliament – yes there was one then – objected to. Philip of Spain was already King there, but the sovereign in England was Mary I and so he had to defer to her. After James II was deposed as king, his daughter, Mary II was a ruling Queen, married to William III, whose mother, Mary of Orange, was the eldest daughter of Charles I. Therefore William III had a good claim to the throne, himself, and was the military leader Mary could not be. The Netherlands att that stage was a Republic headed by a

      • micmac

        No Queen Mary didn’t. She would have liked to but Parliament wouldn’t let her. Interesting that William III of England was also William III the Stadtholder of the Netherlands.

    • micmac

      You’ve got it in the main, I think. But King George VI only created them Duke and Duchess of Edinburgh, which gave Philip a title, whatever he was called. Just as Camilla still can be called Duchess of Cornwall, whatever else she is called. There were a couple of ruling Queens whose husbands were Kings. Mary 1 did have a husband who was King, but he was already King of Spain. Perhaps Royal central might remind us of how Phillip II of Spain got to be in that position, and what he made of his situation in England? He also proposed to Elizabeth I, who made short work of his offer.

  • Jessica

    The reason the husband of a Queen Regnant is not a King Consort is pure sexism. It assumes that “king” is automatically higher than “queen” because “king” is masculine.

    • micmac

      Don’t think so. The trouble is that a lot of men like to be head of their households. Having a ruling queen as a wife can go against the grain. Philip II was a king in his own right, and he was more interested in Mary Tudor for political advantage, which was against what the English wanted. Even William III, who did have a legitimate claim to the throne, tended to give orders. Of the three Prince Consorts, Prince Albert was probably the most influential in his day. Even the Duke of Edinburgh has protested against the limitations placed on him by his position.

      • This Is My Display Name

        “The trouble is that a lot of men like to be head of their households. Having a ruling queen as a wife can go against the grain.”

        So you disagree that it’s sexism by making a sexist generalization that actually proves the other person’s point?


    • Coolj OriginX

      A King Is Higher than a Queen.

  • Marge

    When Mary I married, her husband Philip of Spain was known as king consort. When Mary Queen of Scots married Darnley, he was titled King. It wasn’t until Queen Anne that the English Queen’s husband was not styled king. (Mary II’s husband was actually offered the throne with her.) One (of many) reason attributed to Elizabeth I not marrying was that her advisers did not want any of her romantic interests to become king.

    • Jennifer Clark

      James Stuart, Lord Darnley, was officially King Consort, but had no actual power. Which rather pissed off the impetus lad. He got all hotheaded, and look where *that* got him? Philip of Spain was King Consort of England, but he was enormously unpopular and did little to rock the boat. Thought, he did help keep Elizabeth Tudor alive. Queen Anne husband, Prince George of Denmark and Norway, was a younger son. She wasn’t expected to be Queen, and thus, the marriage contract made no provision for a kingly title. Prince Albert was a second son of a very small German duchy. And not a popular choice. Lord Melbourne advised the Queen not to grant him the title of King Consort, and Parliament wouldn’t grant him a peerage.

      I suppose the reason male royal consorts aren’t kings boils down to; it wasn’t a good idea at the time.

    • Hafidh Wahyu Purnomo

      Philip of Spain was not King consort. He was King jure uxoris.

  • Amanda

    I think we may be starting to see some of these kinds of things phase out, and I certainly expect it to speed up as time goes on. I don’t know how Charles will be as King (though I suspect he’ll be more traditional – in today’s sense – like HM), but William has shown a desire to update these kinds of rules, starting with having the laws of succession changed so that his first born child, whether male or female, would be the heir to throne. I think that’s a fairly good glimpse into how William will run the monarchy.

    • micmac

      There was a push to change succession laws, which started with Gordon Brown’s government, and which was a main topic at the 2011 Perth CHOGM. There was a bit of a sense of urgency before 23rd July 2013, when Prince George was born. But now everything has died down, since this baby is 3rd in line to the throne, whoever else is born . Could we please have an article on the current state of this bill of accession? I’d like to know if it has been ratified across the Commonwealth, for example.

      • Catherine Ferguson

        I thought that it was a done deal but it came to the house at the next sitting to be looked at again. So it is not totally passed. This floored as everyone made the assumption that it was signed and sealed. I would say it would be sure to past because they will be stormed.

    • Anni

      The change in succession was not of William’s doing, actually, though I’m sure he’s happy about it.

    • Lily Mathers

      I think he is going to tick off a lot of relatives he said he wants to do away with the … oh fooey what is that list called, all the people who get money? I Need sleep. But yes, Charles is such an interesting mix of “old-fashioned” and progressive. When my Mum was in high school, in the mid to late 1980s, she said there was this enormous rumor going round about Charles being the Anti-Christ. She said it was so insane! Can you imagine?

  • Jason

    Actually titles are not regulated by law or by Parliament, the monarchy, who is the “font” is in charge of titles, and requires nothing more than to issue Letters Patent in order to be able to decide on titles. For example, when Edward VII abdicated and was retitled “HRH The Duke of Windsor” upon marriage Wallis would have automatically became “HRH The Duchess of Windsor”, but King George VI, under pressure from his wife and his mother Queen Mary issued the letters denying Wallis the use of the HRH before her name but allowed her to be Her Grace instead. Just as Sarah, Duchess of York upon her divorce was for a short period of time still able to be HRH Sarah, Duchess of York, but on the day that Diana and Charles divorced, the Queen issued Letters revoking the HRH of Sarah, and not extending them to Diana, but effectively changed her title then to Diana, Princess of Wales (the first and so far ONLY time in British history of a non-royal title of Princess). Neither of those required the government to do anything. Just as the Queen legally still retains the right and power to issue a title to any person without consent of Parliament. That is her prerogative, and one of her remaining powers and no one can stop that. Just as she remade Philip into a Prince again- he was HRH Prince Philip of Greece and Denmark, he renounced the title to become Lt. Philip Mountbatten, on his wedding day he was given the title HRH The Duke of Edinburg- making him royal again, but not a Prince, after she became Queen, HM issued letters and renamed him Prince Philip the Duke of Edinburgh. A courtesy she also extended to two of her aunts, once their sons had married instead of remaining the dowager duchess of ….. She allowed them to be called Princess Marina Duchess of Kent (which she legally retained the right to be Princess anyway as she was born Princess Marina of Greece and Denmark) and Princess Alice Duchess of Gloucester, both were allowed to use change their name with the Queen’s blessing only.

    • Royal Central

      Whilst you’re right that the Sovereign is the font of all honour, Parliament does regulate titles (as Parliament can regulate for anything) and has done in the past. For example, the title of Duke of Cornwall is legally ascribed the the heir & eldest son of Sovereign, Queen cannot change this herself. The title of Queen Consort is also laid down by law.

      • beth bennet

        If you ever get old demon camilla as queen, I will feel sorry for you all, I notice that you put such nonsense on prince philp page and not on the queen page! old demon camilla parker bowles most had her touchcy friend prince philip to do it. and poor hen peck charles jush follow. most of all charles mistake is because he does what demon camilla tell him to ! He look like he is honor his mother trying to get on the good side but when he get in he will be like a warlock and put both queen elizabeth and prince philp away

      • Anni

        Well, it is a hereditary title. Don’t suppose Parliament can change it either…

        • Royal Central

          Like I said, Parliament can regulate for anything – including titles.

          • Anni

            suppose so.

      • Hydro Homey

        but the law never changed

    • Lawrence

      Wow, quite insightful and brilliantly researched.

    • micmac

      What about Alice, Princess of Greece and Denmark? That is to say, Philip’s mother and Elizabeth II’s mother-in-law?

      • twincitiestodd

        She was a princess in her own right. She was born Princess Alice of Battenberg. She became Princess Andrew of Greece upon marriage. Battenberg is where Prince Philip took his new last name; Mountbatten s the anglicized version of Battenberg.

  • Amanda

    Thank you!

  • S.Behm

    When Charles accedes the throne his wife should be the Duchess of Cornwall.As leader of the Church of England he needs to lead in Church behaviours-. He took Camilla to wife,in the physical sense when his wife, Diana was alive. While recognising that this kind of behaviour seems acceptable these days, the leader of a church….whther queen,pope or whatever,needs to uphold the standards of that church.

    • GunnaHurt

      Oh relax. The only reason he didn’t marry Camilla back then was that his mother wouldn’t allow it and forced him to marry Diana. He didn’t even like her that much and look what a mess that became. Charles should have married Camilla in the late 70s because that’s who he was in love with. They’re clearly soul mates, they’re still together after all this time. the title is ultimately unimportant. They’re not going to be king and queen for very long. Just let them have it and let it go.

      • ANN MORAN

        the reason he could not marry camilla was because she was anot virgin

        • MP


        • GunnaHurt

          I know. We can see how forcing those out-dated ideas didn’t work out. can’t we? You should marry the person you love… not the person half your age your mother chooses for you.

          • Cov Kid

            As long as she’s not the village bike!

          • GunnaHurt

            Meh. Guys are allowed to ball their way across Europe and be cool, why not women?

          • Cov Kid

            Thats fine, no problem with that as long as they don’t object to being called a slapper and understand why no one wants “shop soiled goods”.

          • GunnaHurt

            I’d much rather have a woman who knows what she wants than some uptight frigid shrew who’s too timid to get it or uptight to enjoy it.

          • Cov Kid

            Good for you, if you prefer promiscuous women then no doubt they will offer you plenty of tips and experience. However I fully understand why any mother, not just the Queen, would want to keep her son away from such women and protect the reputation of the family.

          • micmac

            Again, I say, it wasn’t the Queen. It was the harrumphing courtiers and members of Lords who insisted on this virginal princess stuff. Which is hypocritical indeed. Nobody insists on men being virginal and faithful, let alone Charles. And that is why Diana got away with her own infidelities somewhat lightly.

          • AY

            The insistence is not hypocritical. Neither was the public confession. The failing may make pretenders to the throne of those who are less courageous. Those who do not uphold are not true kings. They are titular at best. Good kings are not amoral. Hypocricy is not a justification for advocacy of becoming either immoral or amoral.

          • ecb

            The whole idea of hereditary priviledge is a bit outdated in the 21st century, self-made people are the best examples of who is capable and worthy.

          • AY

            Right. When you’re a candidate for king let us know.

          • ecb

            Maybe it should all be done by public lottery! Now that’s a novel idea!

          • micmac

            Shows what sexist and vile gossips men can be. If Camilla had not have been known to have had “a history” maybe she could have married Charles without all the problems that came later.

          • Lynnsie

            so then does that make a man whore of a man valueless as well??? because we all know men ARE NOT fulfilling their roles as providers anymore … so what exactly makes you guys in your Oso special dicks so goddamn valuable…??? What exactly do men do for the society other than bitch about women not being good enough…??? Because I don’t know how shit works over there in Europe… But I know right here in America, men are more useless than a 10-year-old little girl… So maybe they should stop sleeping around and start thinking about valuing themselves a little more as well… As these days it is women in the working world, it is women providing for themselves, and therefore women should be able to sleep with whomever they wish whenever they wish… Maybe just maybe when men actually start providing again… They can sit and be snobby little bitches about which women a date, but the whole idea of women only being valuable if they are chaste comes from the fact that women were not allowed to work in the past… Their sole purpose was to bear children, therefore you obviously would not want to woman who sleeps around because you need to know that your child is your child and that you are the father otherwise your child doesn’t hold the keys to whatever you leave behind because they are not your true heir… but in this day and age all of that goes out the window because a woman sole purpose is no longer to provide children for YOU, and to sit at home serving YOUR every need…we can’t possibly fill that role anymore because we must use that time and energy to provide for ourselves since men no longer do. With that said , maybe mentioned start thinking about helping out a little more around the house and if they don’t do anything else… Maybe they should stop sleeping around and being such man whores themselves… Because yeah when you’re the one providing it opens up a lot of doors in terms of options… We no longer have to depend on some stupid man’s opinion of us to ensure that we might one day be loved and get married… Because men don’t hold that kind of respect for women. Anymore so, no point in even getting married… After all, it’s not like we’re having population problems… So again the whole women not being allowed to have sec outside of marriage bs..??? UHMM NO. maybe when men start actually acting like men again… Women will happily fill those roles but for now, we have much to many stresses on our plates to have to sit and worry about what some useless man who helps with nothing has to say about our daily practices … i’m lucky enough to find lab, true love… That’s great… I will give that man absolutely every inch of myself and my soul and my being… But until that day comes I could give a shit less what men think about the way I talk, the way I act, or anything else about me… I work hard for myself and I’ve had to do things that no woman should have to do in any traditional setting… And that’s mostly because men don’t care filled ou i’m lucky enough to find lab, true love… That’s great… I will give that man absolutely every inch of myself and my soul and my being… But until that day comes I could give a shit less what men think about the way I talk, the way I act, or anything else about me… I work hard for myself and I’ve had to do things that no woman should have to do in any traditional setting… And that’s mostly because men && women both no longer care to fullfill the God given roles they have on this planet …. so, idk ,,, I don’t think sleeping around looks good on ANYONE man or women… but I also don’t believe women should have to wait until marriage to have sex… That’s an utterly out rages expectation…

          • Jai Guru

            Jesus christ shut up you feminazi cunt. No one cares you’re ugly, useless and no man wants you for being a loud mouthed whore.

          • ecb

            Maybe men are lying back because of all the BS rules and laws that feminism has imposed on their traditional roles, psychology has proven that if you daily decry someone as being stupid and lazy, that they will assume such a posture whether this is in their nature or not- it is called conditioning and with the decades of male put-downs, you have reaped that which you tongue has spoken – so shut up please!

          • KFoster

            Wow! Sounds like you have some anger issues there. Don’t put all men, or women for that matter, in the same boat.

          • micmac

            I don’t think it was the Queen. Charles met Diana when he was courting her big sister, Sarah, and met her again after Lord Mountbatten was killed. She seemed okay when he took her to Balmoral to stay with the Royal Family. But when he went fishing, taking her with him, a reporter took a photo of them (with long range lenses). The press got to hear of this new girl and what they found out about her ws innocent enough. Prince Philip had a little chat with Charles who was panicked into proposing to Diana rather too soon. To save her reputation. And the rest was history.

          • Paul

            Actually charles and diana had known each other all her life, diana was a childhood friend of andrews and the spencer family even called her duch as they believed she would one day marry andrew, however everyone from the queen mother lady fremoy (dianas grandmother) lord spencer onwards could see the glittering prize in front of them, but none more than diana who could see the prize more than anyone, it turned out to be a tragedy, time people moved on and let diana rest in peace and allow charles and camilla to be what they should have been from the get go… Happy

          • AY

            The children deserve happiness by the same token. What happened was not in their best interest. Is their home life to be a sacrifice to selfishness and made a testament to the nullification of marriage. Loving one’s children means honoring their mother does it not?

          • Lily Mathers

            All of you write like you were there, what are your sources? I always read at least three biographies of any person before even forming an opinion.

          • AY

            Would loyalty, love, honor, and cherishing not pertain to his rightful wife Diana and to their children? If not duty to family, how then duty to God and country? Are they not all one and the same? Did Diana do nothing for him or for her country so meritorious as commiting adultery and betraying the family and the church?

            I think you may confuse true love with romantic love. Charles himself in broadcast interviews during his engagement said he did not know what love was, so arriving at any idea of what true love means to him, or speculating about it as a justification for adultery is really an imposition.

          • Lily Mathers

            What has any of this to do with Why isn’t Prince Philip King?

          • Lily Mathers

            I give up.

        • Hydro Homey


        • YoKasta Martinez

          No, it was because she was already divorced once and the Wallis Simpson/abdication affair was still too recent in memory for it to be brushed aside. Andrew Parker-Bowles was Camilla’s second husband.

          • micmac

            No, Camilla was only divorced once, because of her relationship with Prince Charles. Andrew Parker Bowles was Camilla’s first husband, who remarried shortly afterwards, but his second wife died in 2010. Wallis Simpson had been married and divorced before she met her Mr Simpson, whom she was divorcing when she met King Edward VIII.

          • masande McWERA

            This is simple, the husband of aqueen can not ne a king bbecause he would not be royal blood, hence here in Africa, royalty only goes the male route

          • ecb

            The entire idea of royalty has been destroyed by the last century and the stupid judgement of royals over the last few thousands of years, regular people have proved as adept as the best royals.

          • Esclarmonde Massenet

            No, Andrew Parker Bowles wanted to marry his long term mistress Rosemary, hence the divorce. Princess Anne was Andrew Parker Bowles’ mistress until his marriage and after the death of his second wife they have resumed their affair.

          • Nelly

            Parker Bowles was a well known womaniser; he got the Nanny pregnant, and her aristocratic family made him marry her. She was not the first mistress or the last. Camilla and Charles had nothing going on then.Diana, on the other hand , was throwing herself at anything in trousers, she was a sly, mentally challenged idiot.

          • Lily Mathers

            Ooh, now I need to go look into this nanny business. I wouldn’t be surprised, I do know that Andrew PB got all kinds of around the block. Heck, all the blocks.

          • Lily Mathers

            The Parker-Bowles’ were pretty much married in name only, as he was a cheater first. And Wallis Simpson was still very much married to her second husband when she began her affair with Edward nee David (she always called him by his given name). She only divorced for the second time when he was sure that he wanted to marry her.
            Do any of you read books?

          • Lily Mathers

            “Too recent”?
            Right. 1936 was just a few years previous. 😀 Oy, I did just watch a documentary that blames everything that happened or shall happen on David/Edward the brief King. Who in THE WORLD told you that Camilla was married twice? That is bollocks! Not to put too fine a frickin’ point on it. Not a divorcee until 1995. Charles broke up with her back in the ’70s and she was convinced that he would never marry her – so she married a man who, hello irony, was a big ol’ cheater.

      • Hydro Homey

        you are correct

      • Catherine Ferguson

        I he had proposed to Camilla when they were young there probably wouldn’t be a problem. He drug his feet and went away to do his required service to his country and while gone she married Barker-Bowles. She probably thought he didn’t wish to marry her. I think he was still in love with Camilla that’s why he didn’t marry until forced by the family and probably to who. It makes sense that the head of the Church should not have a Queen who is divorced and still has her former husband living. She agreed that she would accept the title of the King’s Consort before they married and this was a part of it being allowed. I clearly remember her saying she was marry him for love not for title.

        • ecb

          Well Charles obviously made a mstake in not telling Camellia to wait for him, at least, he should have offered her an engagement ring and set a long marriage date. Not wanting to ‘wait on the fence’ and with no promise of any prospects from Charles, Camille naturally got on with her life and married someone else. The rest is history and fulll circle as they say.

        • Lily Mathers

          If he had not married Diana, we wouldn’t have William and Harry. I think about that a lot. I quite like them and would not wish them out of existence. But I do understand your thought, truly. Dragged his feet… yeah probably. He wasn’t even thinking of marrying Camilla long after Diana was gone, which makes me think he is a foot dragger when it comes to marriage any way 🙂 When I read that I think I said out loud “HUH?!”. Right, be King and just have her live with you? Yipes.

          • micmac

            What I’ve realised through much reading was that the first time when Camilla and Charles got together, Roman Catholic Andrew Parker Bowles, whom she undoubtedly loved, fancied Princess Anne, who, like, Camilla, was Church of England, but who was in no position to continue that particular relationship. I read that Camilla and Andrew’s fathers got together and announced Camilla and Andrew’s engagement whilst Charles was overseas in the Navy. By the time Charles got back to UK, not only Camilla was married off safely but also Princess Anne was about to gallop down the isle with fellow equestrian Mark Phillips. On Charles’ birthday no less. Camilla did comfort Charles after the death of Lord Louis Mountbatten as did others. But along with those others Camilla took a back step and the bracelet Diana made such a fuss about was only one of many other gifts Charles gave all his little friends on his engagement to Diana. Diana who had been called chubby at school and also by some press people, developed full-blown bulimia during her engagement, under the strain of the attention she got, and neither the attention nor the bulimia really left her until her divorce. She got an obsession about Camilla to the point that when Prince Charles caught her in the comforting arms of her bodyguard, he did go back to Camilla in 1986. There is a strong element of doing the deed that he was already being blamed for at that point. And the reason why he took so long to marry Camilla after Diana’s death, and the horrible time she had both before and after Diana’s death was because in all conscience he could not really have married anyone else, . Diana targetted a bunch of people Charles had been friends with, including his employees and his dog.

      • Dana Marie T. Santos

        He did not marry Camilla because she married someone else before he could. Diana was not initially forced to Charles but when the press started pursuing Lady Diana, the Queen pressured Charles to marry her so that he could also save her from disgrace. Charles and Diana were in love during the first stages of the marriage, but Camilla would just not go away. It is true, Camilla is Charles’s true love, but making her queen would surely offend many people, religious or not. At worse, if called queen, Camilla may spark a dangerous kind of anger among the people. I am a Diana fan, but I am also very happy that Camilla and Charles are happily together at last. Ultimately, I think it is still wrong to call her queen… For the sake of the people, the same ones who did not react violently when they decided to marry despite everything. “Queen Camilla” is pushing it too far, in my opinion. Calling her Duchess of Cornwall is such a nice and sensitive gesture, knowing many people would be angered if she is called Princess of Wales (although in reality she is the Princess of Wales.) She should stick to Princess Consort, I don’t think she would mind, she stuck through much worse than that in the past.

        • micmac

          I think that Camilla was invited in when his marriage to Diana had already bit the dust, sometime after Harry’s 1984 birth, probably in 1985. About that time Diana acquired a lover, herself. And I think that her famed jealousy of Camilla was also due to press interference. There was an incident before she married Charles, when the press alleged Charles took Diana aboard the royal train. The palace denied it, but surely they would say that anyway to protect Diana’s squeaky clean image. But the press were so positive that Charles had been seen with a blonde woman, they hunted around to see who it might be. Thus, even if it had not been Camilla, Diana’s attention would have already been drawn to her as a possible rival, not simply as the wife of Silver Stick in waiting or whatever her husband’s title was.

          • Sarah Hale

            Their loss e affair started in 1975. And has continued til they married

          • Lily Mathers

            Until who married?
            Charles was not involved with Camilla for some time, I truly believe that they – well, we know they stayed friends, they are connected in all kinds of ways, Charles is one of her kid’s godfather or something (sorry, it is really early in the morning and I have so much history in my brain) But I truly believe he, naively, thought that he could make marriage to Diana work. It didn’t. He went outside his marriage and she did as well. That was all wrong and sad but it is in the past and we are soooo off topic 🙂

          • micmac

            No it didn’t. It started in 1973 when Camilla and Andrew married in July and his own sister Anne married Mark Phillips on Charles’ birthday. Andrew was and still is a friend of the Royal family, but Camilla did not resume any relationship with Prince Charles until after firstly Lord Mountbatten’s death in 1979, and then in 1986 about when that bodyguard of Diana’s was transferred elsewhere.

        • Esclarmonde Massenet

          Diana Spencer was determined to become the Princess of Wales since a young girl, the Prince was unimportant as long as she received the title. When the press laid siege to her flat in Cloherne Court we were subject to daily rituals of posing and smiling for the cameras. It was Prince Philip who told his son to marry her for fear her reputation would be tarnished. A very antiquated idea as she had many boyfriends in the past. All this nonsense about checking she was a virgin is utter nonsense as no test will determine if a girl is a virgin but it will tell if she would be able to conceive. I think that as the Duchess of Cornwall has supported Prince Charles during their adult lives and kept him sane whilst trying to cope with the nightmare of living with a girl who was seriously ill and unhinged, she deserves the title of Queen and has always behaved impeccably in the rather derogatory second title of her husband.

          • AY

            I don’t suppose adultery in your marriage would upset you at all then?

          • Lily Mathers

            The cheating got sort of epic, so should we also ask “Is it worse to be cheated on by a spouse who is with one person, or one who had up to half a dozen lovers?”
            All of this is moot though. Charles is remarried, he is the heir, and I think a lot was earned from sad times. How awful that 75% of Her Majesty’s children were divorced, that would be utterly heart-breaking. But it opened the door to allow marriage for nothing but love, and there are wiser, happier Windsors for it.

          • sillystrings

            agree with you completely. Diana was NOT in love with Charles. she wanted the title. and her family encouraged her in this foolishness.

          • Bren W

            If Diana was really in it just for the title she would have stayed married to him and hung on to it and tolerated his infidelity just like all other royals have in the past.

          • sillystrings

            no. she was also obsessed with the media and wanted to play the victim. at that point, the marriage was over and she wanted to move on to her many men.

          • WolfHawk

            That is exactly why lineage should be matrilinear; there is absolutely no question about who gave birth to a child.

          • micmac

            Except that it is men who fight the battles, and they want to have a say in not only which battles they fight in, but also to ensure that they dominate who gets to rule after they die. In UK’s history over and over again, they didn’t want women rulers either, until after Henry VIII, when they absolutely had no choice, and when England got the best monarch it ever had.

          • ecb

            ‘For fear that her (Diana) reputation would be tarnished’, now that is a bad reason to get married and let us be frank, if Charles did not marry Diana, some other guy would have, it’s not as if she was an international sensation in her own right before anyone ever knew about her.

          • Lily Mathers

            Um, ouch.
            I am not one of those who thinks Diana is a saint, but please tell me your source for this:
            “Diana Spencer was determined to become the Princess of Wales since a young girl, the Prince was unimportant as long as she received the title”.

            Why would she have even thought at a young age that this was possible? Heck, her older sister dated Chas first and was much more age appropriate. There are no saints v sinners here – I will say it again, Charles and Diana were just not a good match. They do have have lovely sons though, so that is a good thing.

        • sillystrings

          i don’t believe that Charles and Diana were ever in love. saw it then, and believe it completely now.

        • Lily Mathers

          The original plan was for the DOC to be called queen or Princess Consort, but because of how the long-standing rules (and they are very well laid out in the above article) state, she takes the female version of his title – so she will automatically be Queen. I really like you and anyone who can be a Diana fan and also be happy for Charles and Camilla. It is nice to see people happy. It sucks that it didn’t aso happen for Diana. There will always be a cloud, the sadness for William and Harry, but I know that Diana would be so thrilled that her “boys” are very able to marry for love. I think that is her long lasting legacy, really!

      • Sarah Hale

        Actually he didn’t marry her then was because she was married

        • ElenorRigby

          Wasn’t she already divorced?

          • Lily Mathers

            Once Again With Feeling.
            Camilla Shand dated Charles, he wasn’t into marriage so she married his buddy Andrew Parker Bowles. He cheated on her, she resumed a relationship with PC circa 1985. The Parker Bowles were divorced in 1995, and in ’96, the marriage of the Waleses ended in divorce after legal separation in 1995. Prince Charles wed Camilla in 2005. Her ring belonged to his Grandmother, which to me is a blessing from Queen Elizabeth II – she would never let her Mum’s ring be given to someone she found odious. (It is a dang good ring, I encourage everyone to take a gander. Art Deco, emerald cut, gorgeous!)

      • Nora James

        Not quite true, he was sent to Australia to hopefully make his mind up, and while he was away Camilla married someone else

      • Angela Tamayo

        he couldn’t marry camilla bc shall we say “loose”…..

        • Lily Mathers

          Durrrrrr…. nope.

      • David Goodwin

        That is very far from the truth. Charles met Camilla in 1970 and after a year together went into the Navy and to sea. He couldn’t decide on marriage and Camilla met and Married Andrew Parker Bowles. He had many girlfriends after Camilla including both of Diana’s sisters !

      • Lily Mathers

        Well, that is a bit off the mark (his Mother in no way forced him to marry Diana and Mrs Parker Bowles was married already) If one must have one reason for the … for why that marriage did not work, and why both Charles and Diana went outside the marriage for physical intimacy is that they were just a terrible match. She was very young and had romantic notions about life with him, he sort of had his interests and liked staying in… I can say more, but I really think it is, as you wrote, time to “let it go”. But I will not say how long anyone will reign – it might not be treason but I think it isn’t nice. (I also agree that Charles and Camilla are a true love match and I think they look very happy together)

    • Hydro Homey

      well it doesn’t matter what you want, the law is very clear , she will be Queen

      • AY

        They are both divorced. If they abide by God’s unchanging rules, neither qualifies to become King or Queen. Similar to Edward who abdicated for Wallace, the divorcee, Prince Charles gave up his right to be king when he not only divorced, but married a divorcee. Perhaps he never wanted to be king. He did state in a televised interview broadcast to millions across the globe that the idea gave him “a ghastly and inexorable sense.” It would seem that he soundly disqualified himself.

        I believe the previous comment by S. Behm is quite commonly understood. Becoming king entails holding the title of Defender of The Faith. Charles cannot hold the title.

        His father cannot be king because he is of German descent, so he cannot receive it as a foreigner. I believe he is considered Queen’s Consort in their view.

        I suppose if he wished, Charles could have his marriage to Camilla annulled. Since the church would not recognize the marriage, it would be a matter of obtaining a civil annulment. He could rescind the divorce from Diana which was entered prior to her death. Perhaps he might then be considered qualified.
        I suppose then resurrection theology, or some such, would give him to Diana who was rightfully in that position. Camilla has no rightful place in their lives, nor did her grandmother in his grandfather’s, certainly not in the eyes of the church. Adultery has never been the standard of worthiness in the church and they have published their shortcomings world wide. It is terribly sad it defeated them and scandalized them. If it was undue influence, I am sure it could be removed. I am sure the the prayers of the faithful are with them.

        Popular opinion may differ about the current situation, but I don’t think it overrules the church. The covenant and ordinance does not change. Their coronation and endowment is contingent on being faithful to it and God’s will.

        I think you can view Elizabeth’s coronation on BBC archives and something of what kind of willingness is requisite if you are a party to that covenant. I stumbled upon it by accident and realizing how private it was I did not view it in its entirety. I am not a party to it.

        I am sure your feeling and consent matters if you are subject. Mine does not. We have kings of a sort where we are but none of them wants to rule the world. I think they are content to rule their own lives in their own right by God’s grace and let everyone do the same.

    • micmac

      Yes, but for how long do you expect prisoners of misdoing to serve their sentence? Does he get a life sentence for something that happened nearly twenty years ago? Diana has died. Even Camilla’s ex-husband’s second wife has also died. There is a place for repentance for past sinful behaviour for even UK’s sovereign, though it doesn’t have to involve sackcloth, ashes and walking barefoot through the snow to Canterbury Cathedral. However the press might refer to Camilla, she will be on most formal occasions be acting as Charles’ consort therefore she would be his queen consort as this article points out. However you regard Charles, he is scarcely the worst Prince of Wales to have ever been crowned. That title would have to belong to George IV who simply debarred his legally married wife, Caroline of Brunswick, from being his Queen, because he simply did not like her.

      • Lily Mathers

        YOU are my favorite commenter. I should have just upvoted you and stopped there LOL

    • Cat Figueroa

      I totally agree with you!

    • Lee Miller

      Charles should uphold the standards of the church only when the church begins upholding its own standards. The church’s treatment of divorced persons has been shameful. No moral person can emulate it, and every moral person is obliged to oppose it. Being King will not free Charles from that moral responsibility.

      • Lily Mathers

        The Church has changed or relaxed many of its less than (IMHO less than Christ-like) laws and rules in the past few years. The Church of England, in case anyone was confused, I should have started with that sorry.

    • Patrick Oneill

      When Charles is king Prince William will become Duke of Cornwall and His Wife Catherine Will be The Duchess of Cornwall,

      • Lily Mathers

        I swear, I must stop beating my head against this wall……
        No. The heir is Prince of Wales. Cornwall is Charles’s duchy thing. I do not want to even think of HM not being around but no, right now Charles is STILL and always has been Prince of Wales. His wife is DOC out of respect for Diana and the people who would try to put heads on spikes if Camilla had been made Princess of Wales. She doesn’t even care about titles, she said it’s all sort of weird to her. I don’t think she cares about titles, honestly.

    • What’s the problem? The Church of England herself was founded because of someone who couldn’t keep his marriage vows…

      • Lily Mathers

        Thank you, I was afraid no one knew any history at all.

    • ecb

      Diana, although a grwat and nice lady, was never the proper match/mate for Prince Charles, let’s give Camilla her due when the time comes. Life is too short to be making a grand argument about silly titles, which it seems, now stands at the mercy and existetence of the whims of the House of Commons (Britain really does need a bicarmel Upper Chamber worthy of the name and powers that make uo a true upper chamber and one with specific inherent rights and powers that are equal with the Commons).

    • Lily Mathers

      I wish people would read real biographies of the Royal Family, of Queen Elizabeth II and of Prince Charles before assuming Prince Charles is this vile cheater who wounded the greatest saint of all time. Diana cheated too. They both made bad choices. But one must have all the facts and remember, there are motives and at least two sides to every story. Is it your job to punish Charles and Camilla? Or anyone? This is how it works. Charles also believes that all faiths lead to the same place, which is not in line with Christian teachings or the Bible, shall we just skip him altogether, throw him in the Tower for that? No. Charles, Prince of Wales knows how to do the job. Why? He has literally had the best example in both his Mother and Father! It is about an hour past time to quit punishing people and not getting our own acts together.

  • nomoO

    British Idiots
    F the queen that ugly old bat

  • scubear

    “Whilst this is not the only reason why the wife of a Queen isn’t a king, it is certainly the main one.”

    The jump to same sex marriages was sudden.

    I would have thought the wife of a Queen would be a Queen however this wouldn’t be the case. However the husband of a King would have to be a King – this could get complicated as it could mean two houses being in power at same time.

    • Catherine Ferguson

      She is Queen through her bloodline and her husband can not be King because he is not of a higher blood line to her. She was in line to be monarch.

      • AY

        Her bloodline to whom? The conquerors?

    • twincitiestodd

      It’s a typo. it should read the husband of a Queen isn’t a king…

    • This Is My Display Name

      “However the husband of a King would have to be a King”

      Based on what?

      The husband of the Sovereign is never the King. That’s what this article is explaining.

      The sex of the Sovereign & the sex of the spouse is wholly irrelevant to that fact.

  • scubear

    A bit more serious observation is that I believe the husband of Queen Mary I was known as King Philip although I believe that was because he already had the title King Philip II of Spain. Elizabeth I was never married, Queen Anne’s spouse was Prince George and Queen Victoria’s spouse was Prince Albert. It is an eccentricity in the law that needs to be corrected at some point.

  • Jose Elizabeth Allen Hawkins

    The reason that Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh is not “King” is merely because his wife is “King”. That sounds strange to a PC generation .. but it is a fact. The sovereign can be male or female but the office remains the same.

  • Michael Steven Chavez

    First of all, HRH The Duchess of Cornwall, who is also legally The Princess of Wales, should be styled as HM The Queen, should her husband accede to the throne. All this public rancor over what should be a private matter between Diana, Charles, Camilla and Tom is silly and accomplishes nothing. Their marriage received the blessing of the Church of England following the civil marriage, so that settles any religious questions. If previous monarchs had been held to the strict morality so many seem to want to impose on HRH The Prince of Wales, the UK’s last monarch would have been Victoria, assuming we excuse the sexual peccadilloes of her predecessors on the throne.

    Secondly, Scottish tradition allowed for Lord Darnley to become King Henry, but only in right of his wife. Upon her death, he would have ceased to be king, unless she granted him the crown matrimonial, for which he hankered, but which Mary denied him (smartly).

    • Catherine Ferguson

      Camilla is not the princess of wales because only the person who is to become Queen can take that title. When William becomes Prince of Wales, Catherine will be the Princess of Wales exactly as Diana. Charles and Camilla had a Civil Ceremony and then walked the isle together to have the marriage blessed but it was not a Royal Wedding. This really didn’t give her any higher title. She was tremendously happy to marry the man she loved.

      • John Mills

        It is important to recognize that Camilla carries all the associated titles that Prince Charles carries. That being said, Camilla is Princess of Wales, as well as the Duchess of Cornwall and other titles. These titles pass on to the next in line for the throne once Charles becomes king. No exceptions.

        • AY

          She does not carry the title anymore than stealing makes one the rightful owner of that which was stolen. Diana carries the title and in the Christian faith she has no rival. Eros is not ascending the throne.

      • Lily Mathers

        It was an aisle (isle refers to an island. That thing in a church is an aisle. also in the grocery store) and they are fully married. I should start betting people a hundred dollars that Camilla will be Queen. But in my mind, the Queen will live forever. I Can’t stand the thought of her being gone.

    • AY

      The Church of England now blesses and glorifies adultery? When did they forsake the ecclesiastical law? Thank God we are not in the grasp of such corruption.

  • Chris

    She should be queen that is the proper protocol regardless of the church of England! Religion is a choice unlike being born a royal. Theoretical the church of England doesn’t agree with me my husband and child and look we are living a perfectly good life. So yes why should she have to resort to a lower title. If Charles had married as a widow the we wouldn’t be having this conversation!

    • AY

      Then they have the choice to abdicate. Kingly power comes by rite of the Christian church. They do not have the option of claiming to be something they are not for temporal or spiritual gain. If so, none are subject to them. They pledge to defend the faith. An apostate is not a Defender of the Faith. If they have renounced the church they have renounced the monarchy.

  • queenjuliana

    My question is, if a man becomes king because of his wife’s title as queen, would they be of equal standing?

    • Lily Mathers

      Did you read the article??? Go do that, please!

  • Dave Frith

    Doesn’t a Princess outrank a Duke or Duchess? If so, before ascending to the throne, why was Princess Elizabeth HRH The Duke of Edinburgh?

    • bwvjones

      Before her ascension, she was titled HRH The Princess Elizabeth, Duchess of Edinburgh

    • Scrap Iron

      Not always. Duke/Duchess is also the title of a sovereign (and sovereign is the highest rank) just like King/Queen in a Monarchy/Kingdom when the country is consider a duchy. The Queen of England is also the Duke/Duchess of Normandy. In Normandy not being part of England, the Queen is the Duchess (Duke) not the Queen in a manner of speaking. It is confusing because the title Duke is used for a rank less than sovereign in a Monarchy/Kingdom. Its kind of like asking which is higher King or Emperor (or Archduke)?

  • janice schaub

    It was my understanding that there are two forms of “queen” a queen in her own right is in fact King (using the female version Queen) a consort is queen but subject to her King.

    • twincitiestodd

      There is Queen Regnant (Queens Elizabeth I and II, Queen Victoria) and Queen Consort (Elizabeth the Queen Mother, Queen Mary, Queen Alexandra). Camilla will be Queen Consort, as will Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge, when their husbands ascend the throne.

  • Great post with wonderful insight. Thank you! xo

  • snl626

    there is only one real KING that believe in – King Lebron James, or “King James”….and if he marries, the wife will be called, “Lifetime Ticketholder” to the King’s games.

  • David Foot

    It is correct that Prince Philip should be Prince Consort, and he has done a wonderful job supporting the Queen. I can’t see this a problem.
    I wouldn’t like to see the Duchess of Cornwall as Queen, there are a lot of problems that come with Prince Charles and for the good of the Monarchy I wish there was a way to make William the next King as it is much less controversial and world wide the Monarchy would go down a lot better.

    • Catherine Ferguson

      Did not Edward the 3rd have to abitate the thrown to Wallis Simpson a twice divorced woman? King George had to step into his place with no training and this is how Princess Elizabeth became Queen. I don’t understand how Prince Charles should not have had to do the same thing to marry the divorced Camilla.

      • twincitiestodd

        It was Edward VIII, and there were many reasons why he abdicated. But it was his choice to do so. Laws, church teaching, and social acceptance have changed a lot since 1936. Charles will be King if he is still alive when his mother passes away, and regardless of which title she may use, Camilla will be Queen Consort.

        • AY

          God forbid. It isn’t a corporate soap opera. The head of the church sustained in adultery? No thank you. Not on the watch of any good Christian.

  • Aura

    You can not compare the Queen with Prince Charles. Yes he will become king but Camila should be Princess Consort. She is the second wife and therefore should not be entitled to the title of Queen. That title was for Princess Diana. I only hope parliament thinks the same way. Camila booted out Princess Diana by making Charles an adulterer. Camila was no better in her role in this either.

  • Christine Marie A. Sagemoen

    I think you should define the differense between a Female King anf a Queen,

  • Hydro Homey

    very interesting , thank you for clearing this up.

  • Ana Maria Pedroza

    In my opinion, Camila doesn’t deservr to be a queen, because she es a divorce woman, she was the lover fir many years, not the wife. Diana deserved to be the queen !!!!

    • Lily Mathers

      Diana slept with about 6 men that we know of, so you might want to back off that soap box.

  • Isabel Rogerson

    Sincerely hope that Charles never becomes King because I could not stand Camilla being queen. If the queen lives long enough she might outlive Charles. Yes, he should have married her and not Diana but he did marry Diana and he should have been faithful to her and let his horsey Camilla go. I have no respect for either of them.

  • Paula Longworth

    No to Camilla becoming our Queen, the rules need to be changed and she should be Princess Consort I hate to think of her taking over the title from our wonderful Queen.

  • Michael Looman

    1 (?): Not necessarily 2 (?): No

  • John Mills

    There is a line of succession and Prince William is second in line for the throne, not first. Prince Charles will be king and, whatever title Camilla has, she will be the King’s consort. It’s not our choice… it’s law!

  • ben

    The husband of a queen can not and shouldn’t be king. Comilla should never be a queen as she is a devorsee and also, no one really likes her anyway and would ruin Charles as a kightful king.

  • Sarah Hale

    the reason he didn’t marry her back then was because she was already married to Lord Albert her first husband, it wasn’t that his mother didnt approve or allow it, she was married, when she was divorced after Lord Albert learned of the affair he was married to Princess Diana. the duchess of cornwall can’t not become Queen as England still has that law where a divorced woman can’t hold the title of Queen, i t is why the Queen’s uncle gave up the throne so he could marry his divorced girlfriend.

    • twincitiestodd

      I’m sorry Sarah, but pretty much everything you have stated is wrong. Camilla was never married to anyone named Albert, and there are no laws banning divorced women from becoming Queen Consort.

      • AY

        Have you never read church history? Or just forgotten it?

  • Dianne Wood

    Camilla does not deserve to be queen she caused Dian’s divorce

    • twincitiestodd

      Diana and Charles caused their own divorce. Can’t blame it on anyone else, regardless of the circumstances.

      • AY

        Christ the Lord Omnipotent. Remove adultery and there is no divorce.

  • vegastearoom

    Camilla should become Queen Consort when her ex-husband dies. Untill then HRH the Princess Charles, Dutchess of Cornwall.

    • AY

      Vegas, as in las Vegas, the land of legalized prostitution, drugs, and gambling propositions? Perhaps not a surprising coincidence. Taking a position on the same side in England? Such things ought not to be.

      • vegastearoom

        After ten months you post? Las Vegas is exempt from legal prostitution, just like London. We have recently legalized medical marijuana but half the civilized world has done so. And the UK predates any and all gaming in Nevada. I believe you have no point but I will reiterate, the CoE sees Charles as a widower and Camilla married, in the eyes of the Church to her civilly divorced husband. The Church has chosen to bless this adulterous union. We do not have any problems like these in Nevada as we do not have a civil servant who has more than one job description. Either Charles should be Defender of the faith or the Royal heir but not both. One would have thought that marrying another man’s wife would have made him the Defender of Ancient Judaism.

  • James Walter Legate Jr

    If Queen Ellizabeth has somthinggood a Lady can’t give a tittle to no man but if she was/is protected when her dad died and made her Queen of Great Britain because that is how we all know her so when her father died she was protected as as if she has a King because she is protected good in other word’s King Phillip now become’s king due to the protection of Queen Ellizabeth if she is protected and has a husband Phillip he is protected as as King Phillip

  • Giannis L

    The only case in the British islands where there was s provision of co sovereignty of the Queen and her husband was the Crown matrimonial of Scotland . I would suspect that the provisions of this case must have been incorporated in the British crown after the act of union . Henceforth should the parliament felt that the Duke of Edinburgh should co reign along the Queen there is legal basis for that . Crown matrimonial was restorted to Francis of Lorraine to co reign along with his spouse Maria Theresa of Austria and Hungary , and before in the kingdom of Jerusalem.
    Regarding the title of a Queen Consort vs princess consort , I would say that for the duchess of Cornwall is more appropriate the princess consort as she already uses an inferior title to that of her husband’s. As such to keep up with current arrangement the Queen consort could not be an option . This however must not apply to HRH the Duchess of Cambridge who shares her husband’s position at par and as such HM Queen Catherine the Queen Consort is the most appropriate style .

  • teresa dawn wright

    I wished Prince William got it I don’t won’t Charles and Camilla doing it but oh well I don’t live there in the country

  • Cat Figueroa

    NO! She is not Queen Material.. First of all not fair that she would get that high of a title when Queen Elizabeth’s husband is called Prince Philip,Duke of Edinburgh and does not bare the King title! What has she done to earn the title Queen really??? When Charles accedes the throne his wife should be the Duchess of Cornwall and that’s that!!!

  • SuzAnne Keifer

    I believe that Camilla should be queen to help HRH Charles during these new and advancing times. I truly think she is a kind soul.

  • lucy

    I thin he is sorepost to be king know

  • Mitford

    What about William III and Mary II? He was more or less king because he was married to the previous king’s daughter, no? Yes, there was a lot of other things, the Glorious Revolution, but they were offered to be co-regents by Parliament. A very special case, agreed.

  • henry

    My understanding of why Phillip isn’t called King is because (a) he is not the ruler/sovereign of his own country & (b) because he wasn’t granted the Crown Matrimonial. The only instance of when the Crown Matrimonial was granted to the husband of a Queen Regnant was when Mary of Scotts granted it to her husband Henry Lord Darnley. He became King in name and co-ruler of the Kingdom of Scotland. That ended in disaster because the nobles of that realm couldn’t handle someone of their caste to be placed above them, also because Henry often didn’t take full responsibility for his role as King.
    If Prince Phillip was granted the title of King, he would be ranked as higher as the Queen and be given full powers in the governing of the country. Elizabeth i herdelf proclaimed that “there is only one mistress here, & no master” which leads me to make thr assumption that any man who marries a Queen Regnant automatically takes precedence over his wife. William iii was King and co-ruler of Brittain because he was invited to the crown by Parlaiment after the Glorious Revolution & because he was married to Mary ii. I don’t knos if George of Denmark had any say in the governing of the country. Albert, the Prince Consort, helped Victoria govern up until his death, but was never offered the title of King, eventhough Victoria wanted to give it to him.
    thats my 2c

  • Sara voakes

    Should be king philip and queen camilla

  • Katka Sor

    Camilla is an evil woman; she should never become a Queen – that would be blasphamy!

  • Gigi

    It was announced in 2012 that Camilla will not be W=Queen Consort Camilla but instead Princess Cons=ort Camilla. Don’t take my word for it. Look it up. She will never be Queen Camilla.

  • dew

    Philip of Spain was indeed co-ruler of England with Mary I and held the title King Philip of England. Coins were struck with both portraits on them. The English like to forget this because they don’t like Catholics, Mary or Spaniards.

    • Lily Mathers

      POS was a POS. The Tudors are fascinating and bonkers. Mary was bonkers and smitten with him – he thought he would be King of Spain and England when she died so…. well, do the math.

  • Ryszard Borowiak

    I like The Gueen and I don;t know The king?then I will must change Great Britian anthem.”.God’s save The king…..” I like that sentence “God’s save The Gueen”I read book History of England,Regards:)

  • Ryszard Borowiak

    I mean you will change Anthem sorry for me english…

  • Esclarmonde Massenet

    The Queen was always against the marriage of Prince William to a girl who pursued him, didn’t have a proper job and with a family who present many problems for the Royal family. Prince William is emotionally immature and appears to have inherited his mother’s genetic make up, which is and will become an even greater problem on becoming king. I am convinced the monarchy will end during his reign.


      Don’t forget Prince George.

    • ecb

      Geez, this sounds like the dowery that many others have brought to the Thrown/Palace as well! No names please, but I am sure that a few spring to mind.

  • Cindy

    Doesn’t anyone remember how the Queen’s father became King??? His brother was King and wanted to marry a “Divorced” woman which was NOT allowed, so he gave up being King and his brother became King. Come on people learn about things before you make a comment. The “SPARE” took over so brother could marry. Divorced women were NOT allowed & I think it should stay that way.

    • Lily Mathers

      Sucks to be you!

  • Michael Steven Chavez

    How presumptuous of many of you to assume you know the state of the Prince of Wales’s relationship with God! When Jesus died for our sins, did he exempt adultery? When confronted with the adulterous woman, he said “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.” And if adultry disqualifies one from holding the throne, then why did no one object to Edward VII, who has at least 7 mistresses, from becoming King? No one stopped the accession of Edward VIII, either, who was notoriously carrying on with married women. As to the “Defender of the Faith” title, that is conferred by Parliament on the monarch, as it lost its original meaning once Henry VIII broke with Rome. What a bunch of moralising, judgmental people!

  • Nelly

    The reason why the Duke cannot ever be King, goes back centuries. Queen Anne married the Prince of Orange, a Dutch Prince. She made him King and he proceeded to take over.Used English armies and Navy to fight his battles in Europe, interfered in Ireland, spent money that he had no right to. This is why Protestants in Ireland were called Orangemen. Parliament passed a law that no foreign Prince who marries a future Queen will be allowed to assume the title of King.All you need to do is read up on history, instead of making generalities such as this article.

  • Nelly

    The reason why the Duke cannot ever be King, goes back centuries. Queen Anne married the Prince of Orange, a Dutch Prince. She made him King and he proceeded to take over.Used English armies and Navy to fight his battles in Europe, interfered in Ireland, spent money that he had no right to. This is why Protestants in Ireland were called Orangemen. Parliament passed a law that no foreign Prince who marries a future Queen will be allowed to assume the title of King.All you need to do is read up on history, instead of making generalities such as this article.

  • Lee Miller

    Could you explain what you mean by “the Sovereign cannot hold peerages and the like”?

  • patricia williamson

    Camilla is a divorced woman,prince that stops her being queen she does not hold a proper title and is only a commener. Prince Edward abdicated because of his love for his wife ,she was a commener and divorced woman, what is the difference between the 2 of

  • Debbie Shaw-Burke

    This is such an old question. I’m tired of reading about it.

  • Kpopist

    In Portugal, there were specific conditions for a male consort be a consort king: to produce a royal heir. Before that he would be styled Prince Consort. Such happened with Peter III and Ferdinand II.

  • Karla Seidita

    Seeing this from an American point of view, I see this as protection for the titled female… I.e. That a male consort can not marry a queen, become king and then oust the queen as head of state which, in my opinion, is more likely than a female consort trying to oust a king and take the throne. We, here in Virginia, have/had a law that rings similar to me….. When a woman marries, whatever assets she has remain hers while she gains half of her husband’s assets…. An old tradition stemming from colonial & plantation days when land holdings were enormous. It’s purpose was to prevent women from being taken advantage of by scheming men who married them to gain control over land they may have inherited. Our old law and your titles seem to have a similar purpose…..

  • M. Tindale

    King ranks higher than Queen, therefore, when a man becomes King, his wife is automatically Queen. But when a woman becomes Queen, her husband cannot become King, otherwise he would rank higher than her. Simple!

  • Bronte Segard

    Any Queen that is in position from birthright sbould NEVER raise her husband to status of King essentially giving him rank above her and taking her ruling position away from her. Our beloved Queen was placed in this position from birth by God’s will and therfore it is her’s and the kingdom’s duty to support the monarch of true position. Not the person married into it!

  • krystal

    Husbands should become king and wife’s queen BUT but but but the actually heir should remain in charge, so husband can’t take the wife’s right to rule just because he married her.

  • Howard T

    The Monarch is either a King or Queen NOT the person they are married to. To say that Prince Philip should be called King is to deny the traditional inheritance and accession upon the death of the Monarch. A King’s wife should properly be described as Queen Consort. A female Monarch’s husband is whatever title he brings with him or one that the previous Monarch granted him e.g. Duke of Edinburgh on marriage to the heir presumptive.

  • ecb

    Commoner, aristocrat or royal – it does not seem to matter much as to the character and nature of a person, generations of royal-only marriaes proved that there was no hereditary superiority in this blood lineage and World War I proved and ended this nonsense once and for all, yet a stupid few still believe in this breeding fallacy.

  • Lily Mathers

    Excellent explanation, thank you! I have to say, I saw it and thought, “Are people really still asking this, I know it, why don’t they?” and then had to eat a big plate of crow when I read things that were, yes, new to me 🙂 So again, thank you. It is a bit silly and rather illogical at times, but in the Monarchy, things are just different to people who perhaps grew up in the States and were not interested. Then we have TV shows that are not terribly accurate historically, but bring up a question I am asked often – by people who watch “Reign” – “Why doesn’t Prince Phillip have ‘that Crown Matrimonial thing’ that Mary of Scots husband demanded?” I really didn’t know. Everything I have read about that seems to send me back to Queen Mary.
    I quite like the Duke of Edinburgh. It takes a very strong man to stand in his shoes, and that is a marriage I very much admire.

More in Insight

  • A Quick Look At Royal Dogs

    The British love of dogs is, of course, well established – the royal affection for them as faithful companions being no...

    Elizabeth Jane Timms9th November 2017
  • A Little-Known Royal Plaque in Portsmouth

    A plaque can be found in the garrison walls at Portsmouth, at the location of the old ‘Sally Port’. Its strongly...

    Elizabeth Jane Timms1st November 2017
  • A Christmas Carol at Windsor Castle

    Nine performances of Charles Dickens’ beloved classic novella in prose, A Christmas Carol will take place at the State Apartments at Windsor Castle...

    Elizabeth Jane Timms31st October 2017
Royal Central is the web's most popular source for the latest news and information on the British Royal Family and the Monarchies of Europe.

Subscribe via Email

To receive the latest Royal Central posts straight to your email inbox, enter your email address below and press subscribe.

Join 30,594 other subscribers.

Copyright © 2017 Royal Central, all rights reserved.