I am appreciative of your responses, but it was regrettably necessary for me to spend this time writing clarifications in response to your posts because even now it seems some of the points I am making are being misread. I hope the time I have spent on clarification will assist in explaining my views more clearly.
I agree, there is a lot of room for interpretation!
But in my view, the monarch did not utilize any interpretations or loopholes to exclude Ingolf and Christian from the line of succession or to preserve Frederik and Joachim's places in the line of succession. Paragraph §5 clearly permits the monarch to give
or deny consent; consent was given to Frederik and Joachim and denied to Ingolf and Christian.
This is possibly the core of our disagreement: From my perspective, since 1953, the realities of life/what has happened/how it worked
has conformed to the exact text of the 1953 Constitution, and there is no contradiction between the realities of life and the text of the Constitution. From your perspective (unless I have misunderstood), the DRF has constantly circumnavigated or even bypassed the text of the law.
Your previous examples which highlighted the difference between the two prompted me to try to separate them. For example, it appears we agree that it was the Queen's prerogative to strip Ingolf of his princely title. However, in post #106, you stated that if Parliament had objected, the Queen would not have exercised her legal prerogative – and therefore, while it would be theoretically permissible under the Constitution, it would not be politically realistic in that situation.
As said in post #116, my statements only appertain to the legal prerogatives of the monarch (not the Parliament). A debate over whether the Parliament has the prerogative to override the Constitution with an ordinary bill would be another discussion. In any case, I'm quite sure they would take all necessary measures to remove the poor ax-crazy heir.
Probably, yes. But I have never suggested that there was no way to solve the problem of surplus royals or boot out a member from the line of succession. On the contrary, my posts have stated that the monarch can strip royal titles whenever she likes and can strip succession rights
at marriage using § 5 of the Act of Succession, and that the Parliament could at minimum amend the Constitution.
Our disagreement is that I do not think the monarch (as opposed to Parliament) can simply "boot out" a person from the line of succession
at will without denying consent to their marriage.
I'm not sure what you mean. Given that §5 was used, and §5 is part of the text of the law, what you have written here seems to support my argument that the removals worked in accordance with the law.
Yes, but it was necessary to employ §5 of the Act of Succession to remove them, and he could not have simply removed them anytime he liked, on any basis he liked (or at least that is my understanding).
I am happy that we can agree on one issue.
My response was written before your addition, but I am happy to continue (or not continue) this discussion at a future date if you wish.