Originally Posted by Heavs
King is still an automatically higher title than Queen, which is why husbands of a Queen Regnant are usually Prince Consort, so it's actually a case of gender bias in the opposite direction which means men have to take a lower title than their female consort counter parts.
I personally do think it would be awkward to say "here come the King and Queen" when it is the Queen who is Regnant, or at least in English it would be.
I understand your point, but I must say that such awkwardness is mostly a cultural perception. As mentioned before in TRF, the husbands of reigning queens in Spain and Portugal, and earlier even in Scotland, held the title of king (consort), but did not outrank their wives.
It is unfortunate that Spain has now abandoned that tradition and switched to a British-like system where, under the terms of the Royal Decree 1368/1987, future husbands of reigning queens (e.g. Leonor's husband) will be titled Prince with the style of Royal Highness.
In the case of same-sex royal couples, which I agree will happen eventually, maybe sooner than expected, I am pretty sure that Prince/Princess will be the title of choice for consorts and I would be very surprised otherwise.
Originally Posted by JR76
Norwegian royal journalist and writer Trond Norén Isaksen has written an article in Aftenposten about the title of a potential future husband of Princess Ingrid Alexandra stating that "if the Princess marries a man he should have the title of king". He goes on writing that it was the custom in European monarchies until Queen Anne ascended the throne of England etc in 1702 and that there are nothing in the Norwegian Constitution stopping it from happening.
The article was written as a commentary on a piece by "language reporter" (?) Kristin Storrusten that I unfortunately haven't been able to read because of a paywall.
I haven't read the Norwegian constitution in Norwegian, but the English translation uses the word "King" to refer to the monarch/ head of State/ (nominal) holder of the Executive power. In Denmark, where the constitution is similarly worded, that has been used in the past as an excuse, see our friend Mr. Muhler's posts, to argue against the reigning queen's husband (e.g. Prince Henrik) being called "King".
The modern Swedish constitution, which appears to have been written already envisaging a possible future transition to a republic, avoids this problem as the monarch is mostly referred to simply as "the Head of State" or, alternatively, in the form "the King or Queen who occupies the throne", or "the King or Queen who is the Head of State", which is a very clever wording in my opinion to avoid any ambiguity.