There are LOTS of matriarchal societies, although most are hunter-gatherer level. There are, of course, far more patriarchal societies, and weird mixtures (look at e.g. the Iroquois/Haudonosaunee practice of having men's councils and women's councils, and who made the decision depended on what the topic was, say. And inheritance was matrilineal.)
But getting a society complex and stratified enough to have a Queen/King and still have a full matriarchy would be difficult, I will certainly admit.
There have been exactly zero according to my personal research and from what every anthropology and sociology teacher I've had in college has told me. There are plenty of societies where heritage and inheritance were traced through the mother, societies where women held significant power through traditionally feminine roles (say, spiritual leader), societies where the monarch was a woman instead of a man, even societies where women theoretically had equal access to what we would consider traditionally masculine roles. There has not, however, been any society where women were appreciably more powerful than men as a general and long-term rule, much less a society where men were systematically excluded from the organs of power as happens to women in patriarchies. The closest thing we've had to matriarchy are those societies where certain positions are reserved for females; this does not imply that their women ruled over their men or that no positions existed for the men. To believe that patriarchy, or "rule by fathers", implies a society where men dominate women, while matriarchy, or "rule by mothers", is men delegating some of their power to the women, would be an inexplicable viewpoint and one rather demeaning to females.
Patriarchy in fact appears to be the default for great apes, though we've partially overcome that in certain countries (noticeably Iceland and in Scandinavia). To answer the OP's question, however, the lack of matriarchal societies is only an impediment to a 'queendom' and doesn't have to fully prevent it. There is, I believe, at least one African tribe/culture wherein the monarchy is always passed from the queen to her eldest daughter. They have male elders/nobles etc. who also hold political power, and their relationship with their wives/daughters arguably makes their culture a patriarchy, but the person at the top does happen to be a woman. So, a place that has a queen, most of whose advisors/generals/governors are male. Often when such a situation arises, the queen's function is perceived of in spiritual and moral rather than political and military terms, but you could probably change that with a significant enough POD.
Edit: Wikipedia states that "Most anthropologists hold that there are no known societies that are unambiguously matriarchal ..." with five citations I didn't bother to check because I already know this. It goes on to state that "this reluctance to accept the existence of matriarchies might be based on a specific, culturally biased notion of how to define 'matriarchy': because in a patriarchy 'men rule over women', a matriarchy has frequently been conceptualized as 'women ruling over men', whereas in reality women-centered societies are - largely without exception - egalitarian." That part is nonsense; I entirely reject defining matriarchy in a radically different way than patriarchy has always been defined, because I'm not a chauvinist and to point at egalitarianism as the pinnacle of female 'power' seems incredibly condescending to me. Defining patriarchy and matriarchy by the same criterion isn't bias; it's the opposite of bias.
And sorry to quote Wikipedia to such a large extent - I don't have ready access to other relevant sources at the moment - but it also mentions "matrilinear, matrilocal, and avunculocal societies..." which I think people may have mistaken matriarchies with. They are not the same as a matriarchy (but will almost certainly be source of a "queendom").