# Why isn't Phillip the King? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [May 6, 2013, 12:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-isnt-phillip-the-king/657608 "2013-05-06T12:35:40Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![APB](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/8e8cbc/32.png) [@APB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/APB)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2013, 4:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-isnt-phillip-the-king/657608/41 "2013-05-07T16:23:44Z")
> [@AK84](#): > > Queen Consort: Is a courtesy title traditionally given to the wife of the King. > Queen Regnant: Is what the title is when a Monarch happens to be female. > > Both are in ordinary usage called “Queen”. The Duchess of Cambridge cannot be the later obviously. Under law she can be given whatever title the King desires. He can give her the title"love", “the old ball and chain” “bed warmer”, its his discretion. While it will be most likely be “Queen Consort”, it does not have to be. Under English law, the wife of a king automatically becomes queen consort. And there have been cases, such as Caroline of Brunswick and Wallis Simpson, when it would have made things so much simpler if this had not been the case. Changing this would require an Act of Parliament. Moreover, the issue is a topical one, as there is no doubt that the Duchess of Cornwall will legally become queen consort when Charles becomes king, even although she has said that she will not want to be referred to as such. Just as she currently doesn’t use the title ‘Princess of Wales’. ---
**Author:** ![AK84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/85e7bf/32.png) [@AK84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AK84)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2013, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-isnt-phillip-the-king/657608/42 "2013-05-07T17:01:10Z")
> [@APB](#): > > Under English law, the wife of a king automatically becomes queen consort. And there have been cases, such as Caroline of Brunswick and Wallis Simpson, when it would have made things so much simpler if this had not been the case. Changing this would require an Act of Parliament. Moreover, the issue is a topical one, as there is no doubt that the Duchess of Cornwall will legally become queen consort when Charles becomes king, even although she has said that she will not want to be referred to as such. Just as she currently doesn’t use the title ‘Princess of Wales’. Statute or caselaw plz. AFAICR while the consort is automatically…the consort, the specific _style_ that is used upto the King. Which is why when Charles married Camilla it was announced that she would upon his accession be known as “Princess Consort”. Remember this and these are “courtesy titles” not titles in their own right, ---
**Author:** ![Catamount](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/catamount/32/2840_2.png) [@Catamount](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Catamount)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2013, 5:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-isnt-phillip-the-king/657608/43 "2013-05-07T17:48:44Z")
> [@AK84](#): > > Both are in ordinary usage called “Queen”. The Duchess of Cambridge cannot be the later obviously. **Under law she can be given whatever title the King desires. He can give her the title"love", “the old ball and chain” “bed warmer”, its his discretion.** While it will be most likely be “Queen Consort”, it does not have to be. I know it would never happen, but I wish it would. “Hello, I’m King Charles III\* and this is my wife, The Old Ball and Chain Camilla.” \*or George VIII, depending on how he feels when he ascends the throne ---
**Author:** ![Shakester](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/shakester/32/437_2.png) [@Shakester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shakester)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2013, 5:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-isnt-phillip-the-king/657608/44 "2013-05-07T17:51:42Z")
> [@SpazCat](#): > > George VIII VII ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2013, 6:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-isnt-phillip-the-king/657608/45 "2013-05-07T18:17:52Z")
Caroline of Brunswick was still Queen Consort. Even though she and George IV were estranged, they never divorced. Wallis Simpson didn’t marry Edward VIII until AFTER he abdicated. Her husband was no longer a king, so she couldn’t be a queen. > [@naita](#): > > The current Norwegian crown princess comes from a perfectly average Norwegian background and met the crown prince at a music festival. > > But Catherine the Great does fit the bill. No, Catherine the Great was Catherine II. She was a princess from a minor German principality. We’re talking about Catherine I. ---
**Author:** ![naita](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/naita/32/5862_2.png) [@naita](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/naita)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2013, 6:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-isnt-phillip-the-king/657608/46 "2013-05-07T18:37:56Z")
> [@Guinastasia](#): > > Caroline of Brunswick was still Queen Consort. Even though she and George IV were estranged, they never divorced. Wallis Simpson didn’t marry Edward VIII until AFTER he abdicated. Her husband was no longer a king, so she couldn’t be a queen. > > No, Catherine the Great was Catherine II. She was a princess from a minor German principality. We’re talking about Catherine I. D’oh! I knew that. I have on my fridge a magnet of the St. Petersburg Bronze Horseman with the inscription “Petro Primo Catharina Secunda MDCCLXXXII”. :smack: ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2013, 6:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-isnt-phillip-the-king/657608/47 "2013-05-07T18:37:56Z")
> [@Hypno-Toad](#): > > It’s interesting how often he is referred to as “the Duke of Edinburgh” by the press instead of “Prince Philip.” It has always struck me like they’re trying to avoid pointing out his lesser status (re. the Queen) by just concentrating on a different title. It’s common to use a person’s highest title. “Duke of Edinburgh” is a higher title than “Prince Philip.” The same way that “Duke of York” is higher than “Prince Andrew” and “Earl of Wessex” is higher than “Prince Edward” and “Duke of Cambridge” is higher than “Prince William.” Also, “Prince of Wales,” “Duke of Rothesay,” and “Duke of Cornwall” are all higher than “Prince Charles.” (The “prince” in “Prince of Wales” is a different kind of prince than the “prince” in "Prince Charles, like _Fürst_ versus _Prinz_.) ---
**Author:** ![ctnguy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@ctnguy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ctnguy)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2013, 6:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-isnt-phillip-the-king/657608/48 "2013-05-07T18:56:40Z")
> [@AK84](#): > > Statute or caselaw plz. AFAICR while the consort is automatically…the consort, the specific _style_ that is used upto the King. Which is why when Charles married Camilla it was announced that she would upon his accession be known as “Princess Consort”. > > Remember this and these are “courtesy titles” not titles in their own right, I know it’s neither statute nor case law, but according to Blackstone, [Book I Chap. IV](http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Commentaries_on_the_Laws_of_England/Of_the_King%27s_royal_Family): > [@](#): > > The queen of England is either queen _regent_, queen _consort_, or queen _dowager_. […] But the queen _consort_ is the wife of the reigning king; and she by virtue of her marriage is participant of divers prerogatives above other women. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2013, 7:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-isnt-phillip-the-king/657608/49 "2013-05-07T19:27:29Z")
To be entirely accurate, NOBODY is styled “Queen Consort” or, excepting Alfred, Prince Conaort, or anything Regnant for that matter. We use the terms queen consort and queen regnant to distinguishim explanations between two groups that share the style Queen, i.e., kings’ wives and monarchs who are women. ---
**Author:** ![Catamount](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/catamount/32/2840_2.png) [@Catamount](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Catamount)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2013, 8:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-isnt-phillip-the-king/657608/50 "2013-05-07T20:09:52Z")
> [@Shakester](#): > > VII What’s a George between friends? (Misread the Wiki page–I can’t remember how many of which names the monarchs of England have except for the Queens.) ---
**Author:** ![AK84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/85e7bf/32.png) [@AK84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AK84)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2013, 8:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-isnt-phillip-the-king/657608/51 "2013-05-08T08:19:26Z")
> [@ctnguy](#): > > I know it’s neither statute nor case law, but according to Blackstone, [Book I Chap. IV](http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Commentaries_on_the_Laws_of_England/Of_the_King%27s_royal_Family): Which simply states the powers and privileges of the Royal Family. It does not state the _“style”_ that is given to them which is at the monarchs discretion. For example currently by Royal Warrant of George V, the children of a monarch are styled as Princes/Princesses as well as the grandchildren in the **male** line. Which is why Princess Anne’s children are not simply Mr and Miss despite being very much royal family and in the case of Zara Philips, carrying out royal duties. The Queen could by a new warrant, grant Anne’s children a title, but she has not done so (apparently she did want to when Peter Phillips was born, but Anne refused). ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2013, 9:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-isnt-phillip-the-king/657608/52 "2013-05-08T09:15:01Z")
> [@Acsenray](#): > > The “prince” in “Prince of Wales” is a different kind of prince than the “prince” in "Prince Charles, like _Fürst_ versus _Prinz_. Yes. And _Prince_ is a very ambiguous term, having several meanings in English, and also used to translate foreign words of different meanings. Any sovereign ruler is a “prince” (cf. Machiavelli). In English “prince” can also be a generic word for any nobleman of rank Count/Earl or higher (is this meaning obsolescent?). In German, _Fürst_ (Prince) is distinct from _Gefürsteter Graf_ (princely count). All other things being equal, I think German _Herzog_ (Duke) outranked _Fürst_ but German noble ranks are so confusing even the experts disagree on generalities. In England, “Prince of Wales” is a very high rank – higher than Duke. Indeed, before their conquest by England, a “Prince of Wales” was an overlord to whom “Kings” pledged fealty. > [@](#): > > In these straitened circumstances, and with outside observers ridiculing the status of Welsh kings, ambitious native nobles adopted the novel title of prince (W. tywysog, L. princeps) in order to set them apart from their fellow ‘kings’. When Owain Gwynedd consciously adopted this style in the 1160s, he was at the height of his power and still calling himself king of Gwynedd. Owain added the moniker ‘prince’ in order to reflect his position as leader of the wider Welsh nation. ---
**Author:** ![Malden\_Capell](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/malden_capell/32/5274_2.png) [@Malden\_Capell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malden_Capell)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2013, 12:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-isnt-phillip-the-king/657608/53 "2013-05-08T12:41:32Z")
Quite simply, the Royal Sovereignty is indivisible (British constitutional history tends to try and forget the exception of William III and Mary II). Elizabeth II is Queen Regnant - she is Queen by being the eldest child (in the absence of sons) of Her father, George VI, so sovereignty passed to Her alone. Prince Philip married Elizabeth II, and has no claim to royal Sovereignty. So he remains merely Her companion - Her Consort. If, however, it had been the other way round, and Philip had been the son and heir of the previous monarch, then he would be King, and his wife Elizabeth would be Queen Consort. But through centuries of use and lots of sexism there are connotations to the world King different from those of the word Queen. A King is assumed to be the superior of the partnership; a Queen is assumed to be inferior. To make it abundantly clear who’s in charge, a Consort to a female monarch cannot be called a King. ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2013, 2:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-isnt-phillip-the-king/657608/54 "2013-05-08T14:35:56Z")
Note that in some countries, women were never allowed to be high title-holders. A German Duchess, for example, was _always_ a wife (or other relative) of the title-holding Duke, never a “Duke” in her own right. This is why one of Queen Elizabeth’s auxiliary titles is _Duke_ (not Duchess) of Normandy. I’m not sure, but the title may be more than a pretense – Her Majesty is sovereign of the Bailiwicks of Guernsey and Jersey – residues of Normandy – which are not part of the U.K.: they even have their own high-level Internet country codes. ---
**Author:** ![LavenderBlue](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e95f7d/32.png) [@LavenderBlue](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LavenderBlue)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2013, 3:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-isnt-phillip-the-king/657608/55 "2013-05-08T15:23:54Z")
Was the Queen Mum the first to hold that title? What was Queen Victoria’s mother called? ---
**Author:** ![ctnguy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@ctnguy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ctnguy)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2013, 3:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-isnt-phillip-the-king/657608/56 "2013-05-08T15:42:01Z")
> [@AK84](#): > > Which simply states the powers and privileges of the Royal Family. It does not state the _“style”_ that is given to them which is at the monarchs discretion. Have previous kings had to issue warrants granting their wives the title of “Queen”, or has it just been assumed? ---
**Author:** ![Filbert](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/filbert/32/3433_2.png) [@Filbert](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Filbert)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2013, 3:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-isnt-phillip-the-king/657608/57 "2013-05-08T15:50:29Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > Note that in some countries, women were never allowed to be high title-holders. A German Duchess, for example, was _always_ a wife (or other relative) of the title-holding Duke, never a “Duke” in her own right. > > This is why one of Queen Elizabeth’s auxiliary titles is _Duke_ (not Duchess) of Normandy. I’m not sure, but the title may be more than a pretense – Her Majesty is sovereign of the Bailiwicks of Guernsey and Jersey – residues of Normandy – which are not part of the U.K.: they even have their own high-level Internet country codes. She’s also Duke of Lancaster, which is very much part of the UK. ---
**Author:** ![SanVito](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sanvito/32/2805_2.png) [@SanVito](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SanVito)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2013, 3:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-isnt-phillip-the-king/657608/58 "2013-05-08T15:51:36Z")
> [@ctnguy](#): > > Have previous kings had to issue warrants granting their wives the title of “Queen”, or has it just been assumed? It’s automatic. Queens have long been titled thus by virtue of being married to a King, and are normally crowned alongside the King, if they were married before he ascended the throne. Let’s not forget that the idea of a Queen ruling in her own name was virtually unimaginable for long periods of history, with extremely rare exceptions. A Queen was always the wife of a king. ---
**Author:** ![Malacandra](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Malacandra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malacandra)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2013, 3:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-isnt-phillip-the-king/657608/59 "2013-05-08T15:52:39Z")
> [@LavenderBlue](#): > > Was the Queen Mum the first to hold that title? What was Queen Victoria’s mother called? She wasn’t the [first](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_mother#Recent_British_queen_mothers), but is probably the most memorable since she, like the sovereign, was Queen Elizabeth and needed to be distinguished from her. ---
**Author:** ![Malacandra](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Malacandra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malacandra)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2013, 4:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-isnt-phillip-the-king/657608/60 "2013-05-08T16:05:20Z")
> [@LavenderBlue](#): > > What was Queen Victoria’s mother called? Further: Victoria’s mother was not the Queen Mother because she was not a Queen - she was the wife of one of the King’s younger brothers, and all the elder brothers died without (legitimate) issue, leaving Victoria to inherit (since her father was also dead). [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-isnt-phillip-the-king/657608.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-isnt-phillip-the-king/657608.md?page=4)