Why is Prince Philip not known as King Consort?
929704
He was born Prince of Greece and Denmark in Corfu in 1921, but renounced his Royal title when he became a naturalised British subject in 1947. Just prior to his marriage to the then Princess Elizabeth, King George VI created him Duke of Edinburgh, Earl of Merioneth and Baron Greenwich,\n\nSome time after H.M. ascended the throne, she created him a Prince of the Realm.\n\nIMO, he never was given the title "Prince Consort", which had been the title of Prince Albert, the Prince Consort.\n\nIn British Royalty, a "King" has precedence. Also, a King would designate that he was the Sovereign, the Monarch; that he had became such by inheritance.  Since such is NOT the case, therefore he is NOT King (or king consort).  Her Majesty inherited the Throne; since she is the Sovereign, the Monarch, she is designated as Queen Regnant -- Reigning Queen. \n\nNormally the wife of a King is a Queen Consort. Still questionable whether Camilla will get that title or not.\n\nYou asked "He is married to Queen Elizabeth so why is he just a Prince instead of King Consort?"  \n\nIt is because he is married to a Queen Regnant.
352434
This is why there's a line of succession.  The old ruler might not have had children or brothers or sisters - but I guarantee if you go far enough back on his or her family tree there will be cousins somewhere.\n\nThis has actually happened in real life before.  When Queen Anne died childless, Great Britain had to go to Germany to find the nearest (Protestant) successor.  A member of Queen Anne's family had married in to that family years before.  The House of Stuart died with her and King George I became the the first member of the Royal House of Hanover.\n\nSometimes the actual relation of the old king or queen to their successor is miniscule.  When Henry VII became king, the only blood basis he could give for the claim was that his mother was the great-great granddaughter of King Edward III, a hundred years earlier.
562022
Royalty in any non-royal country are not recognized by their state. A duchess or countess is only recognized if she is a first or second generation of the last.
23030
Well he sure is recognised now.  \nBut he didnt get much recognition back then because he never actually completed the voyage around the planet.  He was killed by natives when they stopped in the Philippines Islands and never returned to Spain.  Eighteen of his approximate 250 crew members and one of the 5 ships in his fleet did return to Spain in 1522, and were the first to circumnavigated the globe.
568906
On his wedding day in June 1999, Prince Edward was created the Earl of Wessex and as a result of this, his wife became HRH the Countess of Wessex. Had Edward not been given a title, his wife Sophie would have been known as HRH Princess Edward. \n\nAs the younger son of a Duke, the wife of Prince Michael of Kent, upon marriage, became known as Princess Michael of Kent. \n\nWhen a woman marries into the royal family, she takes the title of her husband. She doesn't become a Princess in her own right, therefore Sophie is not entitled to be called Princess Sophie. During her marriage, Diana, Princess of Wales was inaccurately known as Princess Diana. Her official title upon marriage became HRH The Princess of Wales. \n\nAs for Prince Edward's daughter, Louise, as a grandchild of a sovereign in the male line, IS entitled to be known as HRH Princess Louise. However, it was decided at the time of her parents marriage that any children born would take the title of the children of an Earl and not be known as HRH/Prince or Princess. This decision was made to allow Louise, as a minor royal, to grow up with more freedom and without the burden that royal titles come with. \n\nHowever, it must be noted that Letter's Patent were never issued to officially prevent her from using her royal title. So at some point in the future she could, if she chose, decide to be known as HRH Princess Louise.
709557
She would be France's first female president\nDuring an interview with the French weekly Paris Match, Royal hinted that she might consider running for the coming presidential elections, provoking three kinds of reaction. Her announcement went unnoticed or ignored within the ruling conservative camp. It was disregarded and often mocked by most major figures of Royal’s own party. They were confident that her ambitions were the least threatening of all their party’s contenders for the position of official candidate. \n\nIndeed, Royal does not benefit from a support network within the party, unlike all other prominent contenders, whose clout and influence have them often referred to as “the elephants” of the socialist party. \n\nSome of Royal’s fellow party members went so far as to venture into some sexist reactions. Notably the former Prime Minister Laurent Fabius publicly wondered who in the Hollande - Royal family would look after their four children, and the former Minister for Culture Jack Lang said the presidential elections were not a “beauty contest.”\n\nThe third reaction, that of the public’s opinion, is reflected in the opinion polls that were conducted and published since Segolene Royal’s announcement. All of them show that Royal is the most favored left-wing candidate and that her popularity is gaining momentum. A recent poll gave her a four-point lead against Nicolas Sarkozy, the major contender of the conservative camp, in the second round of the presidential elections.
832663
is it the little husband king of the Queen of Hearts?
977628
The monarchy is larglely symbolic, so what does it matter if she is there or not?  As a matter of historical pride I don't think it would be a good thing to get rid of her.  They still have a democracy so what is the problem?
309963
His position as Prince is exclusively because of his birth and as such is largely symbolic. He does not actually have a stipulate position of authority, such as his father who is the Pince of Wales, or his uncle who is the Duke of York or his mother who is the Queen of England and Defender of the Realm.
885415
Since his active period overlaps the time when Elizabeth I was on the throne, definitely yes.  You might say late Elizabethan, as he was active after her death as well.
58076
Firstly, England hasn't had a Queen, or a King for that matter, since Queen Anne back in the 1700's.  The present Queen of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland is also Queen of the Dominion of Canada.  She is not above the law.  There are a great many constraints on Her power.  Members of the Royal Family can be prosecuted if one is accused of a crime.  However, the public relations scandal of a Royal committing a crime prevents that from happening.
874551
King George II. Here's a website. Pay attention to the last sentence of the first paragraph).\n\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_II_of_Great_Britain
113012
King George V.\n\nHe was part of the house of "Saxe-Coburg" (Queen Victoria married a German Prince) until they changed the name of the "house" to House of Windsor. This was actually due to the fact we were at war with Germany at the time and the name was changed in 1917.
1132102
When the monarch dies or abdicates, the crown passes to the next in line.\nIf the outgoing monarch has one, the first in line is the eldest son (so Prince Charles is currently first in line), or the eldest son of the eldest son (Prince William is second in line).\nWhen the previous King died in 1952, he had no sons. First in line was his eldest daughter, Princess Elizabeth, so she became Queen Elizabeth II.\n\nBecause sons have priority over daughters, there have been more Kings as monarch than Queens.\nHowever, the wife of a King is also called a Queen, whereas the husband of a Queen is not called a King, but a Prince-Consort.\nHence Elizabeth II is Queen, and Phillip is Prince-Consort.
394965
Some of the preceding answers have been incorrect. Elizabeth II's surname is Windsor.  She did not take husband Phillip's surname, Mountbatten, when she married.  \n\nThe queen's grandfather George V changed the family surname to Windsor because their proper surname, Wettin, sounded too German for English public sentiment during World War I.  Wettin had become the surname of the monarchs after Queen Victoria married Prince Albert.  Albert's surname, which he passed on to his children, was Wettin.  Because Albert was from the noble family of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, the royal household was known as Saxe-Coburg and Gotha until 1917, when, along with the surname Wettin, George V changed the name of the British royal household to Windsor.
697183
George IV, formerly the Prince Regent, had only one daughter, Princess Charlotte.  She died young in childbirth.  \n\nIt was quite amazing that he managed to have her at all, as he loathed his wife, Caroline of Brunswick, on sight!\n\nThere was then a mad scurrying of all George's brothers to marry and impregnate their wives; it was well lampooned at the time.  William managed to catch Adelaide, and became William IV; they had two daughters who died young.  After him came Victoria.
194955
There is currently NO Duchess of York.  Under British law, a female takes the title and style of her husband.  Upon divorce the female loses the "THE" in her title.  Hence, it is now only Sarah, Duchess of York NOT Sarah, THE Duchess of York.  Camilla (by law) is currently THE Princess of Wales, THE Duchess of Cornwall, THE Baroness of Renfrew and THE Countess of the Isles -- as she legally takes all the titles of her husband -- but in the female term.  Out of respect for the late Dianna, Princess of Wales (not "THE" Princess of Wales upon her death) it was decided not to use her highest legal title.  They therefore reverted to her second highest title which is THE Duchess of Cornwall.