Why doesn't Queen Elizabeth's husband have the title of King when her mother had the title of Queen?

Answer 1

In Britain the word "queen" has two meanings in connection with the monarchy. It means (1) the wife of the king (or late king); (2) a woman reigning in her own right (like a king). Elizabeth II is a queen in sense (2), and if one wants to be extremely precise one could use the expression "queen regnant" ("reigning queen") in such cases. The word "king" in connection with the monarchy only has the meaning of "reigning monarch." One can only become a king by succession (i.e. by birth), NOT by marriage. In other words, if one is married to a queen regnant one doesn't become a king. The husband of Queen Victoria (reigned 1837-1901) was her "consort" (that is, "marriage partner") and was often referred to as the "Prince Consort" or "Prince Albert." Answer: When a man marries a woman who is queen regnant he is not be styled as 'king' unless he holds this title in his own right i.e. if the king of one country marries the queen of another. It is normal, though not mandatory, for a man who marries a queen to be styled "Prince Consort" and there are two examples in Europe other than Britain: Henrik the husband of Margrethe II of Denmark and Claus the (deceased) husband of Beatrix of the Netherlands. When Victoria of Sweden becomes queen, her soon-to-be-husband (Daniel) may well be styled "Prince Consort" though this is not automatic. The reason for this practice is uncertain, though it may be due to the commonly-held belief in the past that men were better suited to positions of power and authority (women being the 'weaker' sex and 'less intelligent' than men) and that kings took precedence over queens in processions. Thus, if a man married a queen regnant, and received the title of king he would, in terms of protocol, be superior to her; this, of course, would have been unacceptable to any dynasty.