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.
https://www.aftenposten.no/meninger/debatt/i/Rrxpga/en-dronnings-ektemann-boer-kalles-konge
Trond Norén Isaksen is a reliable historian, and his article is worth the read.
It is very questionable that commenters usually plead tradition regarding gender-discriminatory titles of European consorts, but willfully exclude the hundreds of years of tradition which were set by kings consort prior to the recent trend begun by the UK.
In terms of titles, Kings traditionally are the highest title. Including higher then queen. If a husband was given the title king it was believed he would out rank his wife.
The perception that King is a "higher title" than Queen only seems to emerge in discussions of titles of consorts, and never elsewhere.
Nowhere in the many discussions I have read on royal websites and social media have I ever heard admirers of Queen Elizabeth II of the UK or Queen Margrethe II of Denmark bemoan that they were given "lower titles" than their fathers and other male monarchs.
Royal watchers to my knowledge have never argued that monarchies whose constitutions strictly regulate the powers and duties of a King will provoke a constitutional crisis if and when Princess Elisabeth of Belgium, for example, accedes to the throne as a Queen. On this issue, royal watchers easily accept that a Queen is precisely the same thing as a King, and therefore the constitution's regulations for reigning Kings will extend to a reigning Queen.
As for consorts, it is frequently brought up in conversations about the British royal family that under British common law, a wife has the right to take the rank and title of her husband and morganatic marriages are impossible for female consorts. But no one has claimed that if the future King Charles's wife Camilla is styled Queen, it would introduce morganatic marriages for female consorts as Queen is a "lower title" than King.
Many husbands became Kings
jure uxoris. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jure_uxoris
Pure king-consorts were rare cases.
If you are inferring that historically most kings consort had a role in government, I believe that is correct, but it was likewise correct for princes consort. It was assumed for most of European history that regardless of his title, a male consort would actively participate in affairs of government, or "co-rule", if you prefer. Indeed, even recent historians have castigated the husband of Queen Anne of Great Britain for choosing to be politically inactive.
I also disagree with the claim in the article that the term "jure uxoris" is not equivalent to the term "consort". "Jure uxoris" translates to in right of a wife, and that is I understand the term "consort" to imply.