Well, there is Princess Michael of Kent,, wife of Prince Michael of Kent, although that seems to be an issue of the style of title rather than a name change.
Her style descends from the same theory that says the wife of the Duke of Kent is styled the Duchess of Kent, and the wife of Mr. John Smith is Mrs. John Smith.
Princess Michael of Kent is the only current member of the family using that style, but mostly because sons of younger sons aren’t automatically called Prince X anymore (witness Archie Mountbatten-Windsor or James, Viscount Severn). In the olden days, it was more common; see Princess Arthur of Connaught, e.g., who was usually known by this style even though she was Duchess of Fife in her own right, or Princess Andrew of Greece (Prince Philip’s mother).
Does it work the other way? Before becoming queen, could the husband of Princess Elizabeth been called Prince Elizabeth?
No, because while women traditionally take their husband’s name on marriage, men don’t take their wives’ name.
Princess Margaret’s husband Antony Armstrong-Jones, a commoner, received the title the Earl of Snowden, and Margaret took her husband’s title as Countess of Snowden (while remaining a Princess).
Nope (at least not in Britain, and not in any other European country–I don’t know much about African or Asian practices). A wife’s identity was subsumed by that of her husband, not the other way around. This applied both socially and legally (coverture in English common law and related concepts in civil-law countries).
Yep.
It happened once after the Amendment’s ratification, when Nixon resigned and Ford became President. I had to read the section to make sure he wasn’t declared “Acting President.”
Interesting read about Princess Michael. So I have to assume you must be of Royal birth/lineage to be entitled to a title? How’d that work for Meghan, then? She wasn’t of Royal blood, but the Wiki article says the Queen conferred Harry some titles, and that . . .
Did the Queen just not confer a title on Marie?
Tripler
Not high enough on the food chain, perhaps? 
The Queen didn’t give a title to Meghan Markle (or to Kate Middleton or Camilla Parker-Bowles either). She gave a title to Harry:
As his wife, Meghan is automatically allowed to use the feminine form of “Duchess of Sussex,” but the title belongs only to Harry.
The Queen could grant a title to Meghan or to Marie-Christine in their own rights; Queen Victoria, for example, gave the title of Duchess of Inverness to her uncle’s sort-of-but-not-quite wife (the marriage was legally void under the Royal Marriages Act), and Charles II granted ducal titles to several of his mistresses. Such examples are quite rare but possible.
The Queen did not grant a separate title (dukedom or earldom) to Prince Michael, however, so his wife uses the feminine form of the only title he has: Princess Michael. (She did not create a separate title for the younger son of her uncle the Duke of Gloucester, either, who was in an analogous position to Prince Michael, so that cousin’s wife was styled Princess Richard of Gloucester early in her marriage. However, the unexpected death of Richard’s older brother left him the heir, and his wife is now HRH The Duchess of Gloucester, again using the feminine form of a title that actually belongs only to her husband.)
Victoria’s first given name was Alexandrina, but she and the court were already using the name Victoria before her accession. I don’t know that she was ever “Princess Alexandrina of Kent,” but if she was, she was “Princess Victoria of Kent” by the time she was a teenager. So she didn’t choose a new name, she just kept using her actual name.
In the court circular and similar official documents she used to feature as “Her Royal Highness Princess Alexandrina Victoria of Kent”. “Alexandrina” came from Tsar Alexander I, who was one of her godparents, and “Victoria” was her mother’s given name. Within the family she was called Alexandrina or 'Drina, presumably to distinguish her from her mother, and this name was used all her life by her mother and I think all her mother’s family. But from her teenage years she encouraged her friends to call her Victoria, and outside her immediate family this was the name used by the (relatively few) people who were on first-name terms with her.
I seem to recall reading that the accession proclamation issued on the death of her uncle actually proclaimed her as Queen Alexandrina Victoria, and it was only a couple of days later that the decision was announced to use Victoria as her regnal name.
I think her choice of name as a teenager seeped out into officialdom too, because by 1832 Parliament was using the name Victoria alone when recording debates about her financial support. (It does also mention “Princess Alexandrina Victoria” once, when discussing the relevant Regency Act.)
There isn’t in Spanish as a title at any level, either, but we add the “consort” behind anybody who acquires a title by marriage when not doing so could lead to confusion. The current Duke of Alba is the Duke of Alba; his mother’s three husbands were referred to as “the Duke Consort” because they were Dukes only by marriage. And the “Prince Consorts” that you mention weren’t kings of other domains in their own right: Philip was.
Most of the Queens of England or of anywhere else have been Queens Consort, but there is no mention of their being queens by marriage because it’s the default.
reported
Um. I read something a while back about them passing a new law to make girls the equivalent of boys, at least, it said if Prince William’s first child was a girl, she would be his heir, and not bumped out of the way by any subsequent male children.
Was that a special law that applied only in the particular case of inheriting the crown, or does it now apply to all inherited titles? If Duke Whoozie has his first child now, would a daughter become Duchess Whoozie in her own right? Assuming she outlives him, of course.
Yes
No. The law in question is about succession to the crown.
Thank you for the fast answer!
So…the patriarchy yields only one grudging millimeter at a time, eh?
Something like that. But since hereditary peerages no longer automatically put people into the House of Lords, they’re losing significant legal status anyway. AFAIK the property and estates don’t automatically go with the title, even if they haven’t already been sold off or passed on to the National Trust.
Actually, at the time the marriage was arranged, Philip wasn’t king of anything. (Interesting trivia: Philip became King of England and Ireland before he became King of Spain.) Philip was married to Mary from July 1554 until her death in 1558. His father Charles V abdicated the throne of Naples and ceded it Philip in order to make him of equal rank to Mary. Charles didn’t abdicate the Spanish throne in Philip’s favor until January 1556. As far as I can glean, the co-regency of Philip and Mary in England was not reciprocal, and Mary was merely Queen Consort in Naples, Spain, and Philip’s other dominions.
As I said, the situation between Philip and Mary was unique and unprecedented as far as the English throne went, and was governed by a special law. The only other husband of a Queen Regnant who was a co-ruler, William III, was able to swing a special deal that he would succeed his wife if he predeceased her (even though he was not next in line by heredity) mainly because he happened to have an army at hand.
You make it sound like he was made King because of the threat of his army, but that’s not the case at all.
He was extremely popular among the great majority of the population of England and Scotland - a great Protestant hero. Far from his army being a threat, it was enthusiastically welcomed by cheering crowds as he marched inland.
You completely misinterpreted my post. I didn’t go into all the political considerations involved. Parliament was happy to make him king, they just were reluctant to give him the right to remain King even if Mary died. He didn’t threaten Parliament with his army, but he did threaten to take his ball and go home if he didn’t get his way, which could have made them vulnerable to a Jacobite restoration. From Wiki:
The fact that he had an army definitely improved his bargaining position in getting the deal he wanted.
Yes, but in that case, the particles are demogenic republicons, rather than kingons.