There's no Prince Consort current either. The Duke of Edinburgh is a Prince and he is the consort of the Queen, but he is not the Prince Consort.
This is a different situation, for a couple of reasons.
First of all, men do not derive titles from their wives. So no matter what, Philip would have needed a title created for him, which is why he was created DoE on his wedding day; by that point it was pretty clear that Elizabeth was going to be on the throne sooner or later.
Second, Queens Regnant are a relatively rare occurrence in the UK: Elizabeths I and II, Anne, Victoria. One could make an argument for Maud, I suppose, but it's not really germane. As such, there is less precedent for how one should title and style the husband of the Queen. Elizabeth I, of course, never married; Anne's husband was a Prince (of Denmark, coincidentally enough) in his own right and was later created HRH Duke of Cumberland; Victoria's Albert, of course, was created a Prince, and later Prince Consort. Similar to Anne's husband, Philip was a Prince in his own right, though he renounced all his titles when he entered the Royal Navy--which is why the title needed to be created for him.
Third, one could reasonably argue that given Victoria's massive presence in British Royal history that it is unlikely that any future Prince consort will be titled as such, in deference to the memory of Albert.
Fourth, the difficulty of titling the husband of a Queen is this: morganatic marriages are not permitted in the UK. But, and here's the problem, the husband of a Queen cannot be called King (or even King Consort) as under rules of precedence in the UK, males outrank females of the same rank. (I'm not sure how that works with
suo jure peeresses; perhaps someone else can enlighten). Thus, even with EIIR as Sovereign, titling Philip 'King' (consort) would in a very technical sense imply that he outranked her.
However.
None of these issues apply to Camilla. Here's why:
1) Wives derive titles from their husbands. That will make her Queen.
2) Kings Regnant are not an unusual occurrence in the UK; it's the usual thing. And the subject of their wives' titles has long been established: Queen.
3) There is no similar situation in all of history, let alone an example of loving devotion such as Albert, for any precedent to be set to deny the wife of a King her rightful title. That will make Camilla Queen.
4) A marriage between a King and a Queen is not morganatic, and is therefore not only allowed but required. That will make Camilla Queen.
And there are probably a great number of people who, having been born since 1952, don't remember a time where the monarch's spouse was equal in style and title to the monarch.
True.. but see above for why that happened and why it won't happen again unless William only has girls (or one of his descendants does, or they move to strict primogeniture).
