You’ve probably noticed the weird double standard in the British Royal Family. When Charles became King, his wife Camilla became Queen. But for the seven decades that Queen Elizabeth II sat on the throne, her husband was "just" a Prince. Honestly, it feels like a bit of a snub, doesn't it? Especially for a guy who spent 70 years walking two steps behind his wife, opening hospitals, and shaking hands.
Why was Prince Philip not king? Basically, it’s not because the Queen didn't love him or because he did something wrong. It’s because of a centuries-old rule about how "King" and "Queen" are ranked.
In the British system, "King" is the ultimate trump card. It’s the highest possible title. If Philip had been named King, even "King Consort," it would have technically implied he outranked Elizabeth. And in a monarchy, you can’t have someone outranking the actual Sovereign.
🔗 Read more: James Brolin: Why Barbra Streisand’s Husband is Still Hollywood’s Most Interesting Man
The Patriarchal Glitch in the Matrix
British royal titles operate on a strictly patriarchal "upgrade" system that only works one way.
When a man is the monarch (a King Regnant), his wife automatically gets the "Queen" title. This is known as a Queen Consort. It’s seen as a symbolic, supportive role. But when a woman is the monarch (a Queen Regnant), the rules change. The title of King is considered so powerful that it can't be given away as a "plus-one" gift.
Because of this, the husband of a Queen is usually titled a Prince.
Philip wasn’t even a Prince of the United Kingdom for the first few years of Elizabeth’s reign. On their wedding day in 1947, King George VI gave him the title Duke of Edinburgh. He’d actually renounced his Greek and Danish royal titles earlier that year to become a naturalized British citizen. So, for the first five years of Elizabeth's reign, he was technically a Duke, not a Prince.
It wasn't until 1957—five years after she took the throne—that Elizabeth issued a Letters Patent to officially make him a Prince of the United Kingdom.
Why was Prince Philip not king? Historical drama and old laws
The reason this is so rigid dates back to some pretty messy history. Specifically, the reign of Mary I (Bloody Mary) in the 1550s. She married Philip II of Spain. Parliament was terrified that a foreign King would take over England, so they passed a law specifically limiting his power. He was "King" in name while she lived, but he had no right to the throne if she died.
Later, when Queen Victoria wanted to make her husband, Albert, a King, the government flat-out said no. They were worried about a German prince having too much influence.
Victoria eventually got fed up and just invented the title "Prince Consort" for him in 1857.
🔗 Read more: India Hicks Net Worth: Why the Royal Connections Are Only Half the Story
Interestingly, Philip never actually held the official title of "Prince Consort" either. While everyone used the term to describe his role, his official style was "The Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh." He reportedly wasn't a fan of the "Consort" label anyway—he preferred his naval and ducal titles.
The Camilla Comparison
A lot of people get confused because of Queen Camilla. If Philip couldn't be King, why is she Queen?
It’s that "rank" thing again. A Queen Consort is lower than a King. Since Charles is the Sovereign, Camilla taking the title of Queen doesn't threaten his authority. She is "Queen" because she is married to a King. But Philip couldn't be "King" because he was married to a Queen.
Rules are rules.
Even if they feel a bit dusty and lopsided in the 21st century.
How it worked in practice
Philip’s life was defined by this "not-a-king" status.
- The Coronation: At Elizabeth’s coronation in 1953, Philip was not crowned. He knelt before her and swore to be her "liege man of life and limb."
- The Order of Precedence: The Queen had to issue special decrees to make sure Philip was allowed to sit next to her at official events. Without those decrees, he technically would have had to stand behind his own children at certain state functions.
- The Surname Battle: One of the biggest fights they had early on was about the family name. Philip wanted the royal house to be the "House of Mountbatten." The government and the Queen Mother insisted it remain the "House of Windsor." Philip famously grumbled that he was the "only man in the country not allowed to give his name to his own children."
Eventually, they reached a compromise where their descendants who don't have royal titles use the surname Mountbatten-Windsor.
What this means for the future
We probably won't see another situation like this for a long time. The current line of succession is very male-heavy: Charles, then William, then George.
However, the laws of succession were changed in 2013 (The Succession to the Crown Act). Now, the eldest child inherits the throne regardless of gender. If Princess Charlotte had been the firstborn, she would have been the future Queen, and her future husband would have faced the exact same situation as Philip.
He’d be a Prince, never a King.
Actionable Insights:
If you're trying to keep the Royal Family's confusing titles straight, just remember these three things:
- King always outranks Queen. This is why a Queen's husband can't use the title without looking like he's the boss.
- Blood matters more than marriage. Titles gained by birth (Regnant) are "real" power; titles gained by marriage (Consort) are "symbolic" power.
- The Monarch has the final say. Elizabeth could have pushed harder to make Philip a "King Consort" via Parliament, but they chose to stick with the 1857 "Prince" precedent set by Victoria and Albert to avoid a constitutional headache.