In English, a king is always a man. It would be so much weirder to start calling Elizabeth "King Elizabeth II" then to call Prince Phillip "King Consort". This isn't Scandinavia we're talking about. In the common vernacular in English, "King" and "Queen" are equal titles, and should be treated as such. The history of the language doesn't matter. Languages evolve. I can just as easily cite the game of chess as an equally ridiculous reason for why the Queen is more powerful.
The connotation of King (konge) is exactly the same in Scandinavian languages as in English. All Germanic languages are the same in this regard. I am just pointing out it would more sense from a historical perspective if you wanted gender equality.
Also, vernacular is not relevant when it comes to constitutional practice.
"King" and "Queen" are equal titles, and should be treated as such.
They are clearly not given that a King is per definition a regent, while a Queen is his consort. That is the basis. A Queen Regnant is an anomaly (historically something you chose when no male heirs were available) hence the need to specify the "regnant" part.
I understand what the "definition" is, but I'm speaking more on behalf of the vernacular definition, and there's no reason why a constitution couldn't reflect the vernacular.
This kind of sexism doesn't stop at kings & queens. The wives of those who are knighted become ladies, but the husbands of dames do not become lords. I suppose in this case it comes down to the "definition" of lord.
It's all this sexism in the name of tradition that makes it harder for me to be sympathetic towards the monarchy.
Poll
