Victoria's Albert was also a Prince Consort. He was not made King because he was (a) a foreigner from an unpopular country at the time and (b) Because the connotation in her time would have been that he was in charge.
Victoria asked for Albert to be made King Consort at the time of their marriage but Lord Melbourne - the PM - said 'no' because if 'parliament could make a king it could unmake a king'. In otherwords it was not a precedent that Victoria should give to parliament.
Philip was not made a King for the same reasons. The Greek royal house had some taint, and they wanted Elizabeth the undoubted Queen. Also, because the precedent had been set with Prince Albert.
There was never any question of Philip being King Consort as the argument was still the same as it was with Albert. It wouldn't have mattered who she married her husband wasn't going to be King Consort.
It was announced at the time of his wedding that Prince Edward will be named Duke of Edinburgh, which is why he is now only an Earl. Both his parents would technically have to die, but I could see the Queen releasing her rights to the title and handing them over as the Queen Mother did with the York title so Prince Andrew could become Duke of York. The Queen would then take the title Dowager Duchess of Edinburgh as her mother became Dowager Duchess of York.
A number of points -
The Queen AND Philip both have to die for the Edinburgh title to be available for regrant. Currently the line of succession of the Edinburgh title is: Charles, William, George, Harry, Andrew and then Edward. This can't be overtaken on the whim of anyone. When both The Queen and Philip have died, assuming that one of the five men ahead of Edward in the line of succession becomes King, then the title would be available for regrant.
The Queen Mother stopped being HRH The Duchess of York when she became HM The Queen as the York title merged with the crown at that point and was thus available for regrant. A monarch doesn't keep a lower title (other than Lancaster and Normandy but they are special cases and only used in certain times and places - but this isn't the thread to discuss those titles). The Queen could technically still be HRH The Duchess of Edinburgh as the wife of the Duke but she holds a higher title in her own right so wouldn't never use it officially anymore. If Philip predeceases the Queen, Charles becomes Duke of Edinburgh and Camilla would add Duchess of Edinburgh to her other titles.
Prince Harry, no matter how down to earth he is, will probably not have a choice with the HRH for his children. He is 4th in line to the throne and being that close it's possible (though highly unlikely) that if there was some disaster or terrorist plot, which is not all that crazy an idea since 9/11 in America, that he could be King. Just as Prince Andrew's girls are HRHs, so Harry's children will be also.
There is now no reason for the children of minor royals to have HRH. Any children born to Harry in the present reign won't have it under the 1917 LPs and so they will start like as Lord/Lady. A person without HRH can still be in the line of succession e.g. Peter Philips was born 5th in line as Peter Philips - no HRH but if tragedy had struck the HRH could have been given if needed. Why burden Harry's kids with the negativity the York girls suffer due to their HRH's which Peter and Zara don't have?
I don't believe that any royal heir will ever be named Duke of Clarence, since the last Duke of Clarence has the taint of Jack the Ripper about him (there are conspiracy theories). This is why I believe that William was not given the title, even though the last son of a Prince of Wales (Prince Eddy son of Edward VII) was.
Those 'conspiracy theories' have been disproved so long ago as to not be worth discussing and that isn't a valid reason for not using the title. William was given a title that had some meaning for the family as Queen Mary, the Queen's beloved grandmother, was a granddaughter of a previous Duke of Cambridge - so a link to the past.
I don't see them reviving the Duke of Windsor's title either after his Nazi connections were exposed.
I agree Windsor won't be revived but not because of the Nazi visit - bearing in mind that many many aristocrats were sympathetic to the Nazis in the 1930s but because that title was especially created for an abdicating king and would, in all probability be kept for an abdicating monarch in the future e.g. if The Queen did decide to abdicate then I could see her being created Duchess of Windsor as an acknowledgement that she had been The Queen but had stood down (no I don't see her ever doing so but was using that as a possible use of the Windsor title in the future). Windsor is the name of the Castle and so is too closely linked to the monarch person so keeping it for another abdicating monarch makes sense.
My best guess is that they will either revive an ancient title like they did with Wessex for Edward or they'll make up an entirely new one. I'm thinking Duke of Tudor, since Henry VIII, his 6 wives, and Elizabeth I are presently making a comeback with the Elizabeth movies, and the tv shows The Tudors, and The White Queen.
Britisth titles are associated with places not family names so I don't see a Duke of Tudor at all. Duke of Sussex is the favourite at the time but Harry may have it own views - and that may include Sussex - but he may also decide he doesn't want a title at all and remain HRH Prince Harry with his wife being HRH Princess Harry.