Why is Prince Philip not know as King Philip as he is married to the Queen?
- Thread starter Felann
- Start date
Because he is married to the QUEEN, not the other way around.
A KING is the superior to the queen. Elizabeth was the MONARCH, She is a Queen Regnant, and her husband can NOT have a title superior to hers.
Why didn't you check the other 500 times this question has been asked before posting it?
A KING is the superior to the queen. Elizabeth was the MONARCH, She is a Queen Regnant, and her husband can NOT have a title superior to hers.
Why didn't you check the other 500 times this question has been asked before posting it?
AdamKadmon
New member
Its a mans world, and King always trumps Queen, at least when both are on the same Throne (married to each other). The only joint rulers England has had are rare, like that of William and Mary and had to be agreed upon at the time of the marriage as part of the marriage pact. However, there were circumstances that required such a deal at that time. However, when Princess Elizabeth married there was no need for a strong King to help uphold his wifes right to rule and Phillip was man enough not to require such a dispensation. He was Prince Consort, like his great-great-grandfather Prince Albert. In many ways, men get to make the rules in life, however, in this instance, for Queen Elizabeth it paid off as she's Queen and Phillip is her Prince.
At the moment, Elizabeth II is the Sovereign, not her husband. So that he is not given a title that is 'higher' than the actual ruler, in the UK his position is called a Prince Consort.
Simply put, male monarchs take precedent over female monarchs, so therefore a "King" would theoretically out-rank a "Queen", hence why the first-born male is always the first in-line to the thrown, even if he had a sister who was born before him. If he dies (or is unable for whatever reason) before becoming King, then his sister becomes Queen (unless there was another brother in line).
This is because, historically, male monarchs would go into battle, whereas women were discouraged from combat. As Britain was usually at war with some nation or another, a King naturally would be atop the monarchy, as the people would respect and hail a fighting monarch who is seen to defend the realm.
A King in the UK is a male sovereign; a man who inherits the throne. In practise, a male can only gain the title "King" by being born into the position.
Hope it helps
Simply put, male monarchs take precedent over female monarchs, so therefore a "King" would theoretically out-rank a "Queen", hence why the first-born male is always the first in-line to the thrown, even if he had a sister who was born before him. If he dies (or is unable for whatever reason) before becoming King, then his sister becomes Queen (unless there was another brother in line).
This is because, historically, male monarchs would go into battle, whereas women were discouraged from combat. As Britain was usually at war with some nation or another, a King naturally would be atop the monarchy, as the people would respect and hail a fighting monarch who is seen to defend the realm.
A King in the UK is a male sovereign; a man who inherits the throne. In practise, a male can only gain the title "King" by being born into the position.
Hope it helps
Carrie And James
New member
well, I guess it's because she married him and she was the heir to the throne and if you think of a king and a queen you always think of the king being the one in charge and the most powerful while the queen is just there - that's usually how they are portrayed in films and stuff and i think of it like that so really its just about status
Hope this helped xx
Hope this helped xx
Posh Pooch!
New member
Because a King is higher than a Queen and he can not be higher than the monarch, obviously!
Elizabeth was crowned Queen for the duration of the reign of her husband shortly after her husband George VI. But she wasn't Queen in her own right. That is why she had to give way to her daughter, the present Queen Elizabeth II. "Queen Elizabeth" doesn't appear anywhere as reigning Queen in the history book because she wasn't.
And to everybody thumbing me down regarding the coronation: you can even see it on DVD that she had been crowned after George VI (you can obtain it at Buckingham Palace).
Philip was a Prince in his own right but of Greece and Denmark. He is not direct blood line to the Royals. He married Elizabeth but had nothing (or very little) to do with the line for the throne. So he can't be King.
It's like Albert and Victoria. Albert was Queen Consort, not King. It would have been different if Victoria had gone to Germany to marry him. She wouldn't have been Queen of Sachsen-Coburg in her own right and would had to give way to her son after Albert's death.
Just to explain. We know the history facts.
And to everybody thumbing me down regarding the coronation: you can even see it on DVD that she had been crowned after George VI (you can obtain it at Buckingham Palace).
Philip was a Prince in his own right but of Greece and Denmark. He is not direct blood line to the Royals. He married Elizabeth but had nothing (or very little) to do with the line for the throne. So he can't be King.
It's like Albert and Victoria. Albert was Queen Consort, not King. It would have been different if Victoria had gone to Germany to marry him. She wouldn't have been Queen of Sachsen-Coburg in her own right and would had to give way to her son after Albert's death.
Just to explain. We know the history facts.
Queen Victoria's husband was Prince Albert too.
Marry a king and you are called a "Queen".
Marry a queen, Na d you are called the "prince-consort" or just "prince'.
Kings have to succeed to the throne. They can't get the title through marriage.
There is no reason for it. Just the way it has always been.
Marry a king and you are called a "Queen".
Marry a queen, Na d you are called the "prince-consort" or just "prince'.
Kings have to succeed to the throne. They can't get the title through marriage.
There is no reason for it. Just the way it has always been.