General Questions and Information about the Danish Royal Family

I’m sure it is a consequence of each royal patronage lasting for only 5 years at a time. Then the organisations that wants to keep a royal patron will have to apply again…

The new system (wich is already implemented in Norway) gives room for more organisations getting a time-limited royal patron… That way, i’m sure the royals will have more time to spend on their specific patronages, than what would have been the case if they took on hundreds of new patronages, who would have barely seen their patron.

I wonder what affect the physical assault on the Danish Prime Minister while out and about in Copenhagen … on Friday evening … may have on the Royal Family.
When Mary and Frederik were here in Sydney the security around them was quite astounding.
Even the removal of the metallic rubbish bins in the street … using angle-grinders to cut them away … before Mary’s arrival to open the Lynggaard shop.
(I was there and watched them.)
Maybe just a one-off random thing never to be repeated, but how easy it seems to have happened.

The PET officers may stand a bit closer for a while, but that's about it, I think.
It's the balance between having a life and being protected.

An opportunity-attack like the one yesterday are rare, because the would be attackers are seldom prepared.

Muhler said:

The PET officers may stand a bit closer for a while, but that's about it, I think.
It's the balance between having a life and being protected.

An opportunity-attack like the one yesterday are rare, because the would be attackers are seldom prepared.

Click to expand...

That’s what I thought Muhler.
Some of what I’ve seen here in Sydney seems over the top.
Aside from the ceremonial aspect … many well-dressed motorcycle outriders etc for a bit of pomp … continual overhead helicopters, continual rubber-duckies zooming up and down in front of Admiralty House with scuba-divers throwing themselves off into the water every few feet, many secret service personal wandering the streets.
These last things were when President Bush senior was here, in my suburb. Talk about drawing attention, it all looked a bit silly and overdone.
I hope the Prime Minister feels secure enough to go about her life without thinking she is vulnerable to anyone/anything at a moment’s notice because this has happened once.
Sometimes things like this make us wake-up a bit to who is around us and to what is possible, and it’s a good lesson to up your alertness.

A curiosity I just read on a website:

King Frederik X was supposed to be called Christian, since Danish kings are alternately called Frederik and Christian - and his maternal grandfather was called Frederik. But, according to the book "Under the Beam" by Jens Andersen, the queen and Prince Henrik decided at the last minute to change the name to Frederik, so that there would be an equal number of Frederiks and Christians in the Danish line of kings - that is, 10.

Blog Real said:

A curiosity I just read on a website:

King Frederik X was supposed to be called Christian, since Danish kings are alternately called Frederik and Christian - and his maternal grandfather was called Frederik. But, according to the book "Under the Beam" by Jens Andersen, the queen and Prince Henrik decided at the last minute to change the name to Frederik, so that there would be an equal number of Frederiks and Christians in the Danish line of kings - that is, 10.

Alt det du ikke ved om kronprins Frederik

Alt det du ikke ved om kronprins Frederik

www.dr.dk

Click to expand...

I thought the reason always given was that Margrethe reigning considered herself to be a "Christian" in the positioning of things? (That was after she named her kid, but still. Aside from which she was very happy to name Fred after her beloved father and make him happy.) But I suppose if it's in Frederik's book... must be at least partly true?

Gyles Brandreth has written a new book and quotes Queen Margrethe in it …

… When I visited the Queen of Denmark at her palace in Copenhagen, she said to me: 'Being Queen involves a lot of repetition — the same ceremonies, the same functions, the same routine. Sometimes you think: 'Here we go again!'

'But my parents taught me something useful that I have tried to pass on to my two boys. Whatever you are doing, be aware of it and stay involved.

'I have to listen to a lot of boring speeches, but I have discovered there is nothing so boring as not listening to a boring speech.

'If you listen carefully, the speech is very rarely as boring as you thought it was going to be. 'You can disagree with the speech in your head. You can think: 'He's saying it very badly,' but don't switch off. It is much better that way.'

This reminds me of an anecdote I read about Diana speaking about her Royal duties.
She said, “it’s like going to a wedding everyday, and you’re the Bride”.

(I don’t think she meant that in a good way.)

Blog Real said:

A curiosity I just read on a website:

King Frederik X was supposed to be called Christian, since Danish kings are alternately called Frederik and Christian - and his maternal grandfather was called Frederik. But, according to the book "Under the Beam" by Jens Andersen, the queen and Prince Henrik decided at the last minute to change the name to Frederik, so that there would be an equal number of Frederiks and Christians in the Danish line of kings - that is, 10.

Alt det du ikke ved om kronprins Frederik

Alt det du ikke ved om kronprins Frederik

www.dr.dk

Click to expand...

And eventual firstborn son of Prince Christian will be called Frederik

Is not the monarchy of Denmark the only monarchy to have sovereigns who have alternating regnal names?

Sad news for the family: Per Thornit, former head of court for 25 years and with a close relationship with Frederik, Joachim and Mary has died, aged 82:



** good translation **

Royal immunity from the law is bestowed by Article 25 of the Kongelov (Royal Law), also known by its Latin name Lex Regia. The Lex Regia was promulgated in 1665 and served as the constitution of the kingdom of Denmark during the period when it functioned as an absolute monarchy. Today, absolute monarchy has been abolished, the Lex Regia has ceased to be the constitution of the Kingdom of Denmark, and most articles in the Lex Regia have been repealed. However, Article 25 has not been repealed and continues to be the law of the land.

Article 25 states, in full:



The inclusion of the clause "or whomever He shall install specially for this purpose" grants the King the freedom to waive the person's immunity. Today, the standard practice is that the powers belonging to the King are in actuality exercised by the Government, but I wonder if the fact that the Lex Regia was written for an absolute monarchy means that "the King" should be interpreted here as "the King personally".


While Article 25 does not state who "they" are, the preceding article (Article 24), before it was repealed, referred to "Printzerne og Printzesserne aff Blodet" ("the Princes and Princesses of the blood").

JR76 said:

The notes clarifies that "De" in §25 refers to the princes and princesses.

Click to expand...

Interesting. I wonder why the editorial note omitted "of the blood". Is the note considered to be a binding interpretation?

If anyone else is searching for the note, it may be viewed in the Retsinformation.dk link by clicking on "Redaktionel note" above the text of the law. It reads as follows:


It would be interesting to see whether the current authorities interpret "They" to include persons who do not have Prince or Princess titles and/or are not of royal "blood". For example, if Queen Mary (not of royal descent, not in line to the throne, and not titled Princess, but bears a higher title and is a member of the Royal House) or Count Nikolai of Monpezat (not titled Prince, but of royal descent and in line to the throne) broke a law, would the authorities consider them to have immunity under Article 25 of the Lex Regia?

Mbruno said:

I couldn't find an article in the current Danish constitution that mimics Article 25 of the Lex Regia. Has it been incorporated into the Penal Code instead?

Click to expand...

I don't know, but Article 25 remains valid law, regardless. As explained in the editorial note quoted above, the Lex Regia was repealed by the Constitution of 1849 except for Articles 21, 25 and 27-40, and subsequently Articles 27-40 were repealed by the Act of Succession of 1853. Articles 21 and 25 were never repealed and they remain in force.

Tatiana Maria said:

Royal immunity from the law is bestowed by Article 25 of the Kongelov (Royal Law), also known by its Latin name Lex Regia. The Lex Regia was promulgated in 1665 and served as the constitution of the kingdom of Denmark during the period when it functioned as an absolute monarchy. Today, absolute monarchy has been abolished, the Lex Regia has ceased to be the constitution of the Kingdom of Denmark, and most articles in the Lex Regia have been repealed. However, Article 25 has not been repealed and continues to be the law of the land.

Article 25 states, in full:

De skulle og for ingen Underdommere svare, men deres første og sidste Dommer skal være Kongen, eller hvem Han særdeles dertil forordner ...

Translation:

They shall answer to no inferior judge, but their first and last judge shall be the King, or whomever He shall install specially for this purpose ...​

LOV nr 20001 af 14/11/1665, Statsministeriet

Lex Regia (Konge-Lov) (Kongeloven)

www.retsinformation.dk

The inclusion of the clause "or whomever He shall install specially for this purpose" grants the King the freedom to waive the person's immunity. Today, the standard practice is that the powers belonging to the King are in actuality exercised by the Government, but I wonder if the fact that the Lex Regia was written for an absolute monarchy means that "the King" should be interpreted here as "the King personally".

Click to expand...

This Norwegian article states that Prince Joachim was once fined for speeding.


Since Joachim is a prince of Denmark and blood royal, he is certainly covered by the law stating that "They shall answer to no inferior judge, but their first and last judge shall be the King, or whomever He shall install specially for this purpose".

Therefore, was his fine imposed by the then Queen or Queen in Council (Government), or did the Queen/Government waive his immunity to permit him to be sentenced by a court? Was there any discussion about whether the Queen/Government would or should allow him to be fined for speeding?

Is it known what will happen to the Crown Prince Couple Awards "Kronprinsparrets Priser", now that Frederik and Mary are already King and Queen? When will the awards be this year?

In the case with Joachim's fine, he simply opted to pay for the fine that was send to him. Thus ending that story.
Otherwise QMII could have told him to pay or issued her own fine.
I can't remember the details of hand. He was probably caught by a speed camera. So I imagine that Joachim, like everybody else, cussed for about half an hour, loudly! And then paid the ticket.
Members of the DRF are actually very rarely held accountable for minor infractions. I know of two cases where senior DRF members were admonished by a police officer and told to in case A: Let your girlfriend drive the car! B: No driving a moped without a helmet.
Danish police are normally not in the habit of issuing warnings. For years they were actually told to issue a fine regardless.
There have been a number of infractions by DRF members, clearly witnessed by both the public and police officers that were simply ignored.
And in cases where the DRF members has been escorted by by PET, nothing was done.

There was one example that delight me to this day.
I'm personally of the conviction that parking wardens are evil by nature, who had they not found a way to earn a salary by outliving their evil tendencies as parking wardens would have become serial killers.
You may recall that Queen Mary a few years back hit a cyclist in downtown Copenhagen (almost unavoidable BTW as all cyclists are insane). She jumped out of her car to check on the cyclist leaving her car in the middle of a small street. Her PET escort also left their car. While that happened a traffic warden approached, because here was an illegally parked car and that was all he could fathom so he began to write a ticket until told to get lost by PET.
That was observed with some obvious glee by bystanders.

(You'll find the episode described in an article somewhere on this forum.)

Thank you for your answer, Muhler. I wonder if Joachim and/or the police forgot his immunity from the courts when they issued/he paid the fine, or if Joachim simply did not want to invoke his immunity over such a matter.

From your other anecdotes, it seems most police officers have been educated about the royal immunity law and have been instructed to interpret Article 25 of the Lex Regia as applying to consorts as well. It would be interesting to know whether they have received any instructions about whether Article 25 still applies to the Monpezats.

Speed cameras know no difference between royals and commoners. Such a fine is calculated and shipped out automatically (back then by letter) to the registered owner of the car, after a police officer (also back then) looked at the photo to see if the face of the driver could be seen on the photo.