Death and Funeral of King Michael, 5th & 16th December 2017


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Probably the members of some reigning Royal Houses had their schedule already full and could not attend the Funeral for this reason. The Sovereign was respected by all Royal Families and with his dignity and example of life inspired admiration among the European Royals.
 
For the Danish and Norwegian royals I would say its probably just a case that no one was available.
In Denmark Fredrik and Joachim are away on holidays with families so that only leaves the Queen and Princess Benedikte. I suspect as Anne-Marie was there she may have represented both her husband and sister.
In Norway the King has recently been ill so an event sitting outside in December may not have been the best.
 
For the Danish and Norwegian royals I would say its probably just a case that no one was available.
In Denmark Fredrik and Joachim are away on holidays with families so that only leaves the Queen and Princess Benedikte. I suspect as Anne-Marie was there she may have represented both her husband and sister.
In Norway the King has recently been ill so an event sitting outside in December may not have been the best.

I think it also depends on the personal relationship.

From Monaco only Prince Albert has personally known the former King. The monégasque princesses usually play no role in foreign representation.

From Denmark Queen Margrethe and Prince Henrik have personally known the late King. The Prince has retired. The four other members of the Royal House are from a far younger generation and have probably never met the former King.

From Norway King Harald and Queen Sonja have personally known the late King. The King is in frail health. The two other members of the Royal House are from a far younger generation and have probably never met the former King.

From the Netherlands Princess Beatrix has personally known the former King. The only two fulltime members of the Royal House (King Willem-Alexander and Queen Máxima) are from a far younger generation and have probably never met the former King.

When Monaco, Denmark, Norway and the Netherlands are represented by their Ambassadors, they are "represented" of course. Anyway, we may assume that letters will have been sent, as well floral tributes.

King Juan Carlos and Queen Sofía have personally known the former King.
The same for Archduke Lorenz and Archduchess Astrid (Lorenz was one of the King's counsels).
King Carl XVI Gustaf and Queen Silvia have personally known the former King.
Grand Duke Henri has personally known the former King.
 
Last edited:
I think it also depends on the personal relationship.
From Monaco only Prince Albert has personally known the former King. The monégasue princesses usually play no role in foreign representation.
P.Stephanie coincidently visited Romania only a few months ago to unveil a statue of her father, the romanian RF was represented by mr Duda, so it wasn't that farfetched to think that she might have been here (not to speak of the many representations P.Caroline has undertaken for her country).
But i could imagine condoleances were sent, even if they couldn't participate in person...
 
In reply to posters that keep up with the terms "former" and "current" powers that be in a certain country and the respect shown when a "former" head of state has passed, deposed or not, all I can say is that a "current" form of government and head of state is wise to acknowledge and show respect towards what was as it represents the people they serve. It not only embraces the past and the history but it also gives a tremendous sense of continuity to the people.

The funeral and coverage of King Michael of Romania proves this point eloquently.
 
Do we know if queen Anne-Marie represented the greek or danish courts? Perhaps both, since she was born a danish princess.

Since her marriage queen Anne Marie has represented the Greek royal family. She hasn't been a member of the Danish Royal Family for over 50 years. She gave up her rights when she married Konstantinos. So, unless a clear statement was issued (it wasn't) there is no reason to assume she represented the Danish court.
 
No representation though from the Danish, Dutch and Norwegian courts. I wonder why. Maybe they were worried about antagonizing the Romanian government, but since it was a semi-state funeral anyway, that concern wouldn't make sense, would it ?

The Netherlands was represented by the ambassador.
 
I think it also depends on the personal relationship.

Grand Duke Henri has personally known the former King.

In addition, the queen was his father's cousin, so there is also a close family relationship.
 
The Netherlands was represented by the ambassador.

Yes indeed:

"La Palatul Elisabeta, printre diplomaţii care au sosit vineri să semneze în cartea de condoleanţe a fost ambasadoarea Olandei, D-na. Stella Ronner-Grubačić."

("At the Elisabeta Palace, among the diplomats who arrived on Friday to sign in the condolence book, was the Ambassador of the Netherlands, Mrs. Stella Ronner-Grubačić.")
 
Since her marriage queen Anne Marie has represented the Greek royal family. She hasn't been a member of the Danish Royal Family for over 50 years. She gave up her rights when she married Konstantinos. So, unless a clear statement was issued (it wasn't) there is no reason to assume she represented the Danish court.

Queen Anne-Marie's title and style in Denmark between her marriage and the overthrow of the Greek monarchy was

Hendes Majestæt Anna-Maria, Hellenernes Dronning, Prinsesse af Danmark;

Nowadays, I believe she is referred to as

Hendes Majestæt Anna-Maria, førhen Hellenernes Dronning. Prinsesse af Danmark

The title Prinsesse af Danmark as opposed to Prinsesse til Danmark, as she was titled before her marriage, indicates that Anne-Marie is no longer in the line of succession to the Danish throne, so technically, I guess she is not a member of the Danish Royal House. She is still a member, however, of the Glücksburg dynasty as a direct descendant in male line of King Christian IX.
 
Last edited:
Prince Philip and Queen Helen were first cousins, making Prince Charles and King Michael second cousins, and Prince William and King Michael second cousins once removed. I hope that makes sense!
 
Could someone, perhaps post the video of Nicholas M-M leaving Curtea de Argeș? I've tried to find it, but cannot, and would be interested to see it .

Thank you
 
The National Museum that keeps the original Royal Steel Crown had not received from the organizers if the Funeral of the King a request to borrow and use this Crown during the funeral:

https://www.stiripesurse.ro/contre-...torii-funeraliilor-regelui-mihai_1238113.html

I understood a copy of the Crown was used for the funeral. The original Crown could only be loaned by special permission from the minister and of course, like any artefact from the museum, it needs to be insured etc.

Interesting that no such request was made. And interesting that there was a copy. But it is not a valuable crown and possibly there are copies made to crown crests, armorials or canopies.
 
I find it very interesting that the original Crown was not requested.The King would have deserved the original for His funeral.
 
Surely if there was ever a reason to use the original it would be this? I understand if it was too fragile to use, but it appears no request was even made and they just happened to have another on hand...a little odd.
 
Surely if there was ever a reason to use the original it would be this? I understand if it was too fragile to use, but it appears no request was even made and they just happened to have another on hand...a little odd.



It’s made from a cannonball, so it cannot be that fragile, one would imagine.
 
It’s made from a cannonball, so it cannot be that fragile, one would imagine.

There are, it seems, very tight legal restrictions on the use of the orginal crown, it being such an important historical artefact. Perhaps a request was not made either because it was understood that there were strong legal grounds for such a request to be refused or because the bureaucratic and legal processes necessary for approval would have taken too long.

The symbolism of the crown resting on the King's coffin and travelling at the head of the cortège was extremely potent and most beautiful.
 

Without wishing to take anything away from the grief of Nicholas, which is, I am sure, profound and sincere, others were crying in that clip and over the last few days, images of all the family members crying have been seen.

Highlighting the grief of one above the others is just propaganda.
 
The symbolism was there without any doubt even if I am sure the original Crown would have been granted if requested.
 
Without wishing to take anything away from the grief of Nicholas, which is, I am sure, profound and sincere, others were crying in that clip and over the last few days, images of all the family members crying have been seen.



Highlighting the grief of one above the others is just propaganda.



A lot of programs about the royal family are propaganda-like.

It’s all about PR.

You’ve surely seen Ora Regelui.
 
Not only in Romania I fear ;).

I read that the train was very symbolic indeed. In january 1948 it was used to transport King Michael and his mother out of the country & into excile. Now the very same train was used to bring the king to his final resting place, in Romania. The train was made in Italy in 1928 for King Ferdinand.

--

Hans Jacobs -GDP press journalist and owner of royalblog- reminded us: it was a missed chance for the house of Orange. In the spirit of Queens Wilhelmina & Juliana and Prince Bernhard they could have paid tribute to a man who courageously brought his country into the camp of the Allies during WWII.
 
Last edited:
A lot of programs about the royal family are propaganda-like.

It’s all about PR.

You’ve surely seen Ora Regelui.

"Ora Regelui" is not as it used to be at the beginning.
 
Back
Top Bottom