Prince Henrik: "I Should Be King" Discussion

royaljul73, I thought your point was insightful and I very much agreed, hopefully that was clear.

Thank you, Tatiana Maria

Muhler said:

Applying principles of equality to an institution that is based on anything but equality is a bit off, I'd say.

Click to expand...

Do you feel the same way about, for example:

Those who demonize the late Prince Gustav Albrecht of Sayn-Wittgenstein-Berleburg, or even falsely accuse him of racism, all because his last will in 1943 disinherited family members who married commoners?

Those who accuse King Charles III of the UK of racism because at one point he considered not granting royal titles to his male-line grandchildren of biracial descent?

Those who applauded the firing of a British courtier who was accused of making a comment that could be interpreted as racially insensitive?

Those who savaged a Spanish royal commentator for criticizing the choice of Letizia Ortiz as princess and now queen consort because she was not noble?


The fact is that almost all royal watchers do apply principles of equality – including class equality and racial equality – to hereditary monarchy. It is only gender equality where many draw the line.

Third Ambassy Secretary , little and unknown Nobility , he married the Future Queen of Denmark. Denmark gave him all what he wanted , a Castle in France, Wineyards , jade collections etc...
At the end of his life when he said not to be burried next to his wife at Roskilde is ungrateful.

maria-olivia said:

Third Ambassy Secretary , little and unknown Nobility , he married the Future Queen of Denmark. Denmark gave him all what he wanted , a Castle in France, Wineyards , jade collections etc...
At the end of his life when he said not to be burried next to his wife at Roskilde is ungrateful.

Click to expand...

Now reverse the gender, say it again and see how it sounds like!

Tatiana Maria said:

Those who accuse King Charles III of the UK of racism because at one point he considered not granting royal titles to his male-line grandchildren of biracial descent?

Click to expand...

The above is patently untrue. H & M's children were not entitled to be called Prince or Princess until KCIII came to the throne. The law states that only male line descendants of the Sovereign can be so. An exception was made by the Queen for William's children.

Tatiana Maria said:

Do you feel the same way about, for example:

Those who demonize the late Prince Gustav Albrecht of Sayn-Wittgenstein-Berleburg, or even falsely accuse him of racism, all because his last will in 1943 disinherited family members who married commoners?

Those who accuse King Charles III of the UK of racism because at one point he considered not granting royal titles to his male-line grandchildren of biracial descent?

Those who applauded the firing of a British courtier who was accused of making a comment that could be interpreted as racially insensitive?

Those who savaged a Spanish royal commentator for criticizing the choice of Letizia Ortiz as princess and now queen consort because she was not noble?


The fact is that almost all royal watchers do apply principles of equality – including class equality and racial equality – to hereditary monarchy. It is only gender equality where many draw the line.

Click to expand...

I may be a little daft here, but I fail to see what these examples has to do with PH wanting to be king - because of gender-equality.
These are opinions about royals, not what royals demanded or very actively advocated. (For himself in the case of PH.) And the issue here is actually title-equality, not gender-equality.

I live in an in old monarchy.
You have to sell the idea of the male spouse to a reigning queen being titled king to me, as well as my fellow countrymen. Well, you'll have to perform some impressive acrobatics to convince me, even in principle.
As for my countrymen, titles is something we openly scorn here. We make fun of people who have fancy titles. We see that is silly, especially if it makes no difference for the person having the title. And that was one of the reasons people were against PH getting the title of king. - It wasn't needed. It would only make things more confusing. It would make absolutely no difference for PH, he would still rank QMII in anything but Constitutional matters. People saw right through him. And it was felt he didn't deserve it.
In principle you can certainly argue for PH should have been titled king. But principle isn't tradition, principles isn't emotions and these things matter so much when it's about a monarchy!

Then you may argue that Queen Mary in the holy name of gender equality should be princess consort or something like that. And in principle you may have a point, but you will run your nose flat into the wall of tradition and emotion.
If you were to come here to DK and argue the principle of male consorts being titled king you will be met with a: Yeah, in principle you have a point - but - we don't want it.

Muhler said:

I may be a little daft here, but I fail to see what these examples has to do with PH wanting to be king - because of gender-equality.

Click to expand...

Please don't hesitate to ask for clarification when you do not understand my posts.

In my previous post, I quoted the specific portion of your previous post to which I was responding. Here it is quoted again:


In this sentence you referred to "equality", not to a specific kind of equality such as gender equality. Thus, I wrote a response in which the main point was:


The examples I gave were of royal watchers demanding that principles of class equality and/or racial equality be applied to European hereditary monarchies.

So, my question remains: Would you - and the many others who agree with you - also say that "Applying principles of class equality to an institution that is based on anything but equality is a bit off" or "Applying principles of racial equality to an institution that is based on anything but equality is a bit off", or is this argument only selectively applied to gender equality?

Tatiana Maria said:

Please don't hesitate to ask for clarification when you do not understand my posts.

In my previous post, I quoted the specific portion of your previous post to which I was responding. Here it is quoted again:

"Applying principles of equality to an institution that is based on anything but equality is a bit off, I'd say."​

In this sentence you referred to "equality", not to a specific kind of equality such as gender equality. Thus, I wrote a response in which the main point was:

"The fact is that almost all royal watchers do apply principles of equality – including class equality and racial equality – to hereditary monarchy. It is only gender equality where many draw the line."​

The examples I gave were of royal watchers demanding that principles of class equality and/or racial equality be applied to European hereditary monarchies.

So, my question remains: Would you - and the many others who agree with you - also say that "Applying principles of class equality to an institution that is based on anything but equality is a bit off" or "Applying principles of racial equality to an institution that is based on anything but equality is a bit off", or is this argument only selectively applied to gender equality?

Click to expand...

No, I would personally not, in regards to the DRF, because it serves no practical purpose what race an upcoming member of the DRF has, nor religion (which is a crucial thing you omitted), nor sexual orientation or class - but I would certainly have an opinion in regards to the background of the new member. Does the person have an unfortunate past? An unfortunate family? A history of an unfortunate behavior? Etc. And that matters whether that person is blue or red blooded.

But there are monarchies today, where these examples very much matters.
Can a non-Muslim marry the heir of the Saudi kingdom?
Can a non-Japanese marry the heir of the Japanese throne?
- And that's where my point from my last post comes in.
In principle a non-Muslim should of course be able to marry the heir to the Saudi kingdom.
In principle a Sudanese should be able to marry the heir to the Japanese throne.
- You just have to try and convince the locals that it's a good idea...
Because to them, for various reasons, it makes sense. It feels right. It works, for them.

Just as it, for various reasons, makes sense for most of us Danes (I won't presume to speak for people in other European monarchies) to not bestow the title of king to a male consort.
It works. It feels right, for us.

So if you try and boil reservations in regards to a royal family in a monarchy down to a matter of principles, then you have failed to understand what the monarchy really means to people in a monarchy.

There’s also the lamentable fact that Henrik brought it all up when it was likely brought on by some stage of dementia — aka, yes it was probably what he felt and motivated by some long-time resentment, but would he have said it with the restraints and judgment of being healthy?

And should we argue about something that was not raised in a perfectly clear and rational state of mind?

Prince Henrik alive , he would never agree what happened to his Son Joachim's Children.

Muhler said:

No, I would personally not, in regards to the DRF, because it serves no practical purpose what race an upcoming member of the DRF has, nor religion (which is a crucial thing you omitted), nor sexual orientation or class - but I would certainly have an opinion in regards to the background of the new member. Does the person have an unfortunate past? An unfortunate family? A history of an unfortunate behavior? Etc. And that matters whether that person is blue or red blooded.

Click to expand...

I am assuming this is a response to this question:

Tatiana Maria said:

So, my question remains: Would you - and the many others who agree with you - also say that "Applying principles of class equality to an institution that is based on anything but equality is a bit off" or "Applying principles of racial equality to an institution that is based on anything but equality is a bit off", or is this argument only selectively applied to gender equality?

Click to expand...

Please confirm whether I am correctly understanding your answer:

You believe that the principles of racial equality, class equality, religious equality, and sexual orientation equality (but that last one involves gender by definition...) should apply to Denmark's monarchy (and possibly to other monarchies as well). Your reasoning is that you do not see the race, class, religion, or sexual orientation of a DRF member as making any practical difference.

However, by your own admission, you believe the principle of gender equality should not apply to any monarchy. Thus - given your reasoning for believing in the other aforementioned forms of equality - that means you believe the gender of a DRF member does make a practical difference.

If I've understood you correctly, what practical difference does the gender of a DRF member (or member of any other monarchy) make, and how does that relate to titulature?

And, since you consider the issue of religion to be "crucial" to mention, please feel free to explain what you mean by that.

On another note, Muhler, I note that you introduce many new arguments and issues in each post you write. That is fine with me, and it certainly makes your posts interesting to read, but I hope you understand that I prefer to address one argument at a time and therefore will not respond to all of your comments at once.

Prinsara said:

There’s also the lamentable fact that Henrik brought it all up when it was likely brought on by some stage of dementia — aka, yes it was probably what he felt and motivated by some long-time resentment, but would he have said it with the restraints and judgment of being healthy?

And should we argue about something that was not raised in a perfectly clear and rational state of mind?

Click to expand...

To clarify, it's not my intention to debate Prince Henrik's comments (as I already stated, I agree with those who believe he was not really motivated by gender equality or even any kind of general principle, and yes, his dementia seems to have worsened his existing public resentments), but about gender-equal titulature.

One of the points that make me lean on PH side of the argument was that he was outranked by his son as the crown prince and future king while if Christian was a girl or his sister Isabela was born first and now is the crown princess and next Queen of Denmark she wouldn’t have outranked her mother Queen Mary while being the consort of the King!

duke of poliganc said:

One of the points that make me lean on PH side of the argument was that he was outranked by his son as the crown prince and future king while if Christian was a girl or his sister Isabela was born first and now is the crown princess and next Queen of Denmark she wouldn’t have outranked her mother Queen Mary while being the consort of the King!

Click to expand...

My understanding (Muhler can correct me if I am mistaken) is that despite giving him a lower title, Queen Margrethe II generally treated her husband as outranking their sons in social precedence. The New Year's 2002 event which prompted Prince Henrik to give his infamous interview was an exception because Crown Prince Frederik was serving as Regent for his mother at the time, which accorded him precedence over his father.

It would make sense to me if Isabella also took precedence over her mother in the event of Isabella serving as Regent/Guardian of the Realm, but I don't know if that would be the case in Denmark.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t believe the relatively-irreverent Henri de Monpezat married Princess Margrethe and agreed to be her consort with any wish or expectation of becoming a king, ever.

So a precedence slight decades later and deteriorating brain changes aside, it would be interesting to know why he became unsatisfied with his ‘unequal’ role.

Prinsara said:

Correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t believe the relatively-irreverent Henri de Monpezat married Princess Margrethe and agreed to be her consort with any wish or expectation of becoming a king, ever.

So a precedence slight decades later and deteriorating brain changes aside, it would be interesting to know why he became unsatisfied with his ‘unequal’ role.

Click to expand...

If I do remember correctly during one of the interviews he gave he said that he was perfectly comfortable knowing that he would always comes second after his wife as the Queen but he couldn’t accept being pushed to 3rd place after his own son while his wife was still the Queen.

Did Henrik never think things like that through when he became engaged to Margrethe and in discussions with her before marriage?. Surely it must have crossed his mind years before it happened that one day he would inevitably be outranked by his eldest offspring if that child was a son.

He truly was only pushed to 'third place' when his son was regent - it's really not that hard to understand that the acting head of state takes precedent over everyone else. I would think that the same is currently true for Mary; if Frederik is out of the country, Christian automatically is regent, so presumably takes precedence over his mother (and grandmother), as he is the acting head of state. If Frederik is in the country, Frederik takes precedence as head of state takes precedence over everyone else in the country, with Mary coming second, Margrethe coming third and Christian coming fourth I believe (assuming that majesties take precedence over royal highnesses).

I always thought that the late Prince , in the main , did a sterling job supporting the Queen . Considering his age , era in which he was raised , even with his diplomatic background it must have been a strain . However he had practical examples to follow , ie the late Duke of Edinburgh , and Prince Claus . The situation which occurred when ,as heir Frederick took precedence over his Father , could I think , have been handled better . If the late prince had truly been motivated by inequality he would have ensured that the title the Queen created of Count / Countess of Monpezat would have passed equally through his male and female descendants .

Tatiana Maria said:

I am assuming this is a response to this question:



Please confirm whether I am correctly understanding your answer:

You believe that the principles of racial equality, class equality, religious equality, and sexual orientation equality (but that last one involves gender by definition...) should apply to Denmark's monarchy (and possibly to other monarchies as well). Your reasoning is that you do not see the race, class, religion, or sexual orientation of a DRF member as making any practical difference.

However, by your own admission, you believe the principle of gender equality should not apply to any monarchy. Thus - given your reasoning for believing in the other aforementioned forms of equality - that means you believe the gender of a DRF member does make a practical difference.

If I've understood you correctly, what practical difference does the gender of a DRF member (or member of any other monarchy) make, and how does that relate to titulature?

And, since you consider the issue of religion to be "crucial" to mention, please feel free to explain what you mean by that.

On another note, Muhler, I note that you introduce many new arguments and issues in each post you write. That is fine with me, and it certainly makes your posts interesting to read, but I hope you understand that I prefer to address one argument at a time and therefore will not respond to all of your comments at once.



To clarify, it's not my intention to debate Prince Henrik's comments (as I already stated, I agree with those who believe he was not really motivated by gender equality or even any kind of general principle, and yes, his dementia seems to have worsened his existing public resentments), but about gender-equal titulature.

Click to expand...

No, it does not apply to every monarchy. That's a fact.
And that applies to gender, religion, sexual orientation, nobility or not as well as race, depending on the country and the monarchy. As well as the culture, tradition, religion, legislation and not least public opinion of whatever country it may be.

You can argue the principle of PH could/should have had the title of king in the holy name of gender equality and in theory you have a point. In reality, forget it. For the reasons I have already outlined in previous posts. On top of that the public support for such a move was not and is not there.
Will it happen in the future? Maybe. Probably not while I'm around though.

--------

Queen Mary will not outrank Christian in Constitutional matters, because the Crown Prince automatically become Regent the second the Monarch is out of the country or is indisposed. Queen Mary can only outrank Christian in Constitutional matters if he is indisposed, illness or injury being the obvious reasons, and she acts as Rigsforstander.

In regards to the protocol and precedence Queen Mary will always hold the same position and rank as her husband, so long as he is alive. Also when she is alone.
And that applied to PH too.

On that fateful New Year Court where PH got his fit, QMII was indisposed and that meant that then CP Frederik automatically became Regent.
Receiving foreign ambassadors is so much a matter of state! Because according to the diplomatic protocol, the ambassadors are treated as if they were the head of states of the country they represent. As such it is the head of state who receive the ambassadors. And on that day, that happened to be CP Frederik, because he was automatically the Regent.
And PH, with his intelligence and background in diplomacy knew that perfectly well. It just conflicted with his conservative (and IMO inflated) view of himself as the patriarch of the family.
He simply would not accept that he was second to his son.
- And that stance was in total conflict with Danish culture and Danish mindset. And that is extremely important to take into account. The public opinion.

Had I been PH in that situation, I would have been luminescent with pride! I would have been smiling so broadly that the top of my head would have been in danger of falling off.
That's the difference.
I am only the patriarch of my children until they can fly on their own, then they become my equals (and if I've done my job well, hopefully also dear and close friends) and that's how it should be, according to Danish culture and mindset.
In Danish mindset you bring up your children to become independent. In PH's more patriarchal mindset, you bring up your children up to take their place in the hierarchy of the extended family.
On top of that titles don't matter much to a Dane. I work in logistic and I happen to have a fancy international (English) title, but it makes no difference to my or my colleagues, I still just make sure things go from A to B. And a fancy title don't pay our bills.
So PH's campaign about becoming king, apart from it being considered very brazen of him, it was met with a collective question mark as well. Because PH was already the second highest ranking person in DK, and remained so until his death. Except in Constitutional matters. - So what's the problem?

So the arguments about in principle this and that, goes up against tradition, mindset, culture, legislation and what is most practical.
So in a Danish context this subject is dead and buried, until or if Christian has a daughter as his firstborn.

In fact it's much more relevant in the Swedish threads, because there are some calls for bestowing the title of king on Prince Daniel, once Victoria becomes queen. Because he too is otherwise destined to remain prince. - It's not my impression that there is much public support for that idea. Without knowing the details, it's likely down to the same reasons as in DK.

(..)
Prince Henrik started again his complain when Maxima and Mathilde became Queens.

Prince Henrik sometimes had my sympathies, and sometimes not… The working description for a male consort of a female monarch is vague, because it is still so unusual that the male is not the monarch… That will change in a generation and two, but we must read Prince Henriks situation with the glasses of his time…

And he was after all not even titled ”Prince Consort” until 2005, but only ”The Prince” from 1972, wich led him to often complain ”Who is that Prince ? Is it The Queen’s husband or is it another prince ?”

Though that is something he could have discussed with King Frederik IX in 1967 prior to the wedding if it really concerned him that deeply, while there was still time to clarify things…. The way he sometimes publicly insulted his enormously popular wife because of it, made him loose a lot of respect among the danish people i’m sure…..

And the talk that then came about him being styled as ”King” is so unrealistic that he should have realized it himself…

It’s sad really that he was unable to let it go, because he was not a bad person… He was a breath of fresh air, enormously funny, very intelligent, could easily speak with everyone from the people living in Christiania to the people in the upper class circles, and he had a huge network… And his artistic talents made him a perfect match to his artistic wife…. He had every chance to make himself very popular…. And sometimes he was, but then he ruined it all again with a new temper tantrum about titles and rank, and made a lot of danish people feel ”Not again ! Just shut up Henrik !! Realize how priviligied you are!!!”

In his last years, some of his tantrums can likely be blamed on his terrible illness… But his feelings was far and wide known long before dementia overtook the better of him…

When it comes to Prince Daniel who is likely in line to become the next ”first gentleman of the realm” in a monarchy while not being the monarch, i would not be surprised if his title remains completely unchanged even after Victorias accession… Many seems to take for granted that his title will change to ”The Prince Consort” (Prinsgemålen in Swedish) but i’m not at all that sure…. He seems to be totally uninterested in titles… And most of us Swedes will know them as ”The Queen and Prince Daniel” anyway…. Gemålen is an almost unheard word in the daily swedish vocabulary nowdays so many people wouldn’t even know exactly what it means…

Even if he was as conservative in this regard as the late Prince Henrik (wich he is by all accounts not) he would never have to worry about being outranked by his son, as it is his daughter who is the next heir… So he will always be the highest ranked male in the Kingdom regardless after his father in law has passed…

Muhler said:

No, it does not apply to every monarchy. That's a fact.
And that applies to gender, religion, sexual orientation, nobility or not as well as race, depending on the country and the monarchy. As well as the culture, tradition, religion, legislation and not least public opinion of whatever country it may be.

Click to expand...

Muhler, you have still not addressed the responses that I spent time writing to you.

Our disagreement is not over whether gender inequality (or any other form of equality) is present in monarchies. Of course gender inequality exists - that is the whole point.

Our recent disagreement is about whether the double standards which many members of the public (including, on your own account, yourself) apply to different forms of equality in monarchies are justified. Is it reasonable that many members of the public demand that monarchies apply the principles of class equality and racial equality but demand that they not apply gender equality?


I will ask again: You said "Applying principles of equality to an institution that is based on anything but equality is a bit off, I'd say." In that case, why do you, according to your opinion, not consider it "a bit off" that many royal watchers...

(..)

Per the above note, I will be the first to move this general discussion to the general discussion forum, here:

I think the truth may be simpler and possibly during his illness he became less aware of who he was and surrounding.

To me the main reason is that King Frederik IX died suddenly in 1972 only 5 years after their Wedding. Princess Margrete and Prince Henrik had a joyfull life and were often seen in France. Suddenly the King came ill and died 14 days later. Prince Henrik saw his life completely changed and did not realise to be a Consort so young and for always. Who could advise and help him ? Constantine was not King anymore and Prince Richard was a strange Prince. His Montpezat family ? Where they happy about their Wedding. Two different worlds !