Again, this thread is about Prince Henrik of Denmark and his absurd plans to punish his wife for not breaking the long-established tradition of not making spouses, royal, noble or commoner alike, a King-Consort.
The Prince is making it clear through his latest interview that he is far more preoccupied feeling sorry for himself and punishing his wife for an institutionalized discrepancy that is harder to change, due to the inherent rank of the title 'King' in comparison to 'Queen'.
Just as a side comment, I don't think there is a legal discrepancy anymore in inherent rank between the titles of 'King' and (reigning) "Queen" . Specifically, when the 2009 amendment to the Danish Act of Succession
repeatedly inserted the words "
eller en regerende dronning" after "
konge", it implied implicitly that the word "King" in the Constitution Act should be interpreted as meaning "reigning Queen" if the person who occupies the throne under the Act of Succession is a female.
The Swedish constitution was even more explicit in that regard. The 1974 Swedish Instrument of Government refers mostly to "the Head of State" rather than "the King" , but an amendment to the Instrument of Government passed in 2010 clarifies that
5 § Konungen eller drottning som enligt successionsordningen innehar Sveriges tron är rikets statschef. Lag (2010:1408).
Likewise, the amended Swedish Act of Succession makes it clear that provisions applying to the "King" also apply to the "Queen" when the head of state is a Queen.
2 § Vad i denna successionsordning är stadgat om Konungen skall, om Drottning är statschef, gälla henn
In other words, since now both "King" and "Queen" can mean "Head of State" in the constitution, the same objection to the reigning queen's husband being called "king" could be raised against calling the reigning king's wife a "queen". Personally, however, I don't think there is any conflict at all as "king/queen consort" is different from "reigning king/queen ", but that is a different discussion altogether.
PS: It is also worth noting that both the Canadian Constitution Act 1867 (formerly the
British North America Act 1867) and
The Commonwealth of Australia Act 1900 use only the word "Queen" rather than "King" (as they were written when Queen Victoria was the British monarch), with the remark though that references to "the Queen" in the text also applied to her heirs and successors in the sovereignty of the UK. That didn't prevent, however, Queen Alexandra, or Queen Mary, or Queen Elizabeth (later the Queen Mother) from being called "queen" either in the UK, or in Australia, or in Canada, so the point is moot to me.