General Questions and Information about Danish Titles

[iceflower]

* *

This thread is dedicated to general questions and information about Danish Titles.


For the particular title changes in 2008, 2022 and 2024, please see and use our extra thread instead:

"New Titles for Queen Margrethe's Descendants: 2008 & 2022, 2024"


​

Please take a look at the
TRF Community Rules & FAQs!


· Only pictures you have written permission to share can be posted here. You can post links to any pictures.
· No more than 20% of the text of an article can be posted, along with a link to the original article.
· It's a copyright violation to post translations of entire articles.
· We expect our members to treat each other and the royals and persons in these threads with respect.
· Opinions should be backed up by reference to published reports.
· Off topic and empty posts will be deleted without notice.
· Please be careful not to write in capital letters.

Happy Posting! ​

 

[Biri]

It's curious that the heir(ess) of the Danish throne doesn't have any peculiar title, just Crown Prince(ss).

Heir(ess) of the Dutch throne - Prince of Orange
Heir(ess) of the Belgian throne - Duke/Duchess of Brabant
Heir(ess) of the Spanish throne - Prince(ss) of Asturias
Heir(ess) of the British throne - Prince(ss) of Wales.

 

[Stefan]

It's curious that the heir(ess) of the Danish throne doesn't have any peculiar title, just Crown Prince(ss).

Heir(ess) of the Dutch throne - Prince of Orange
Heir(ess) of the Belgian throne - Duke/Duchess of Brabant
Heir(ess) of the Spanish throne - Prince(ss) of Asturias
Heir(ess) of the British throne - Prince(ss) of Wales.

It is the same for the Heir/Heiress in Sweden and Norway. And it used to be the case to in the different german Kingdoms, Duchies etc.

 

[iceflower]

Off topic posts have been removed. Please discuss Danish titles only.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

I wonder whether anyone could explain why some Anglophone royal watchers (not on this forum) persistently insist that the Norwegian and British royals who are male-line descendants of Danish monarchs are Princes of Denmark.

Count Ingolf of Rosenborg is a male-line descendant of Danish monarchs, yet no royal watchers seem to have any hesitation in admitting that Ingolf is not (anymore) a Prince of Denmark.

So why is there a recalcitrance among certain royal watchers to acknowledge that the Norwegian and British royals are likewise not Princes of Denmark?

 

[blooms_rulers]

I wonder whether anyone could explain why some Anglophone royal watchers (not on this forum) persistently insist that the Norwegian and British royals who are male-line descendants of Danish monarchs are Princes of Denmark.

Count Ingolf of Rosenborg is a male-line descendant of Danish monarchs, yet no royal watchers seem to have any hesitation in admitting that Ingolf is not (anymore) a Prince of Denmark.

So why is there a recalcitrance among certain royal watchers to acknowledge that the Norwegian and British royals are likewise not Princes of Denmark?

I recall reading over a decade ago that there were doubts as to whether HRH Prince Philippos of Greece and Denmark (1921-2021) legally had the ability to renounce his succession rights and titles. If he didn’t under the constitution in force at that time, then it would follow that his male-line descendants from approved marriages would have the legal rights to the Greek dynastic title which is “HRH Prince/ss of Greece and Denmark” even if they don’t use those titles in their lives. I don’t think the two sides ever came to a legal conclusion as to whether his renunciation was in line with the constitution.

I also don’t know if Prince Carl of Denmark ever renounced for himself and his son Alexander their Danish titles. I admit to not paying much attention to that time in Norwegian royal history but I recall reading that they stopped using the title—not that they renounced the title. Harald would not have married in line with Frederik IX’s marriage rules (Sonja wasn’t noble) so his children wouldn’t have Danish titles, but he and his sisters, if Olav/Alexander still had the legal right to the Danish title, would have had the right to the Danish title because Märtha would have met Christian X’s marriage requirements.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

I recall reading over a decade ago that there were doubts as to whether HRH Prince Philippos of Greece and Denmark (1921-2021) legally had the ability to renounce his succession rights and titles. If he didn’t under the constitution in force at that time, then it would follow that his male-line descendants from approved marriages would have the legal rights to the Greek dynastic title which is “HRH Prince/ss of Greece and Denmark” even if they don’t use those titles in their lives. I don’t think the two sides ever came to a legal conclusion as to whether his renunciation was in line with the constitution.

I also don’t know if Prince Carl of Denmark ever renounced for himself and his son Alexander their Danish titles. I admit to not paying much attention to that time in Norwegian royal history but I recall reading that they stopped using the title—not that they renounced the title.

Thank you very much for the response!

Indeed, as you say, those who claim the Norwegian and British royals are Princes(ses) of Denmark often claim (rightly or wrongly) that they never renounced Danish royal titles - but why do they not apply this same argument to persons such as Ingolf?

They seem to fully accept that Ingolf is no longer a Prince of Denmark simply because King Frederik IX decided he was not. The majority of them also seem to acknowledge that Nikolai is no longer a Prince of Denmark simply because Queen Margrethe II decided it, even though Nikolai made it very, very clear that he did not voluntarily renounce his title.

So, why is it that they will acknowledge the monarch's authority to unilaterally remove Danish royal titles in the cases of Nikolai and Ingolf, but not in the cases of Philip and Carl?

Harald would not have married in line with Frederik IX’s marriage rules (Sonja wasn’t noble) so his children wouldn’t have Danish titles, but he and his sisters, if Olav/Alexander still had the legal right to the Danish title, would have had the right to the Danish title because Märtha would have met Christian X’s marriage requirements.

That's a good point as well.

 

[blooms_rulers]

So, why is it that they will acknowledge the monarch's authority to unilaterally remove Danish royal titles in the cases of Nikolai and Ingolf, but not in the cases of Philip and Carl?

I think the issue is these two, Philippos and Carl, weren't cases where the title was stripped from a Danish prince, but rather where the title may or may not have been renounced.

For Philippos, the issue comes down to the question of whether the Greek constitution in force at the time allowed for a Greek prince to renounce his Greek royal titles. If it did not, then his renunciation was invalid and his children would have been entitled to the titles of Prince(ss) of Greece and Denmark. Whether his grandchildren would have been entitled to those titles is unknown--they didn't seek out Konstantinos II's approval for their marriages, but he remained closed to the Windsors. Philippos' Danish title was an appendage of his Greek title, so what Christian X thought of his marriage (or Margrethe II thought of his chidren's marriages) and whether he would have approved his marriage (presumably Christian would have approved because Elizabeth II was equal, but Margrethe would not have because she seemingly insisted on dynasts marrying foreigners (unless that only applied to Danes)) is moot.

For Carl, there is nothing I can recall that shows that Carl ever actually renounced his Danish titles. We know that the Norwegian RF are not considered to be members of the Danish RF and are not in line to the Danish throne, but is there a document where Carl formally renounced his titles for himself, his son and his descendants? I have never heard of there being one.

I think most people accept that the Danish constitution allows the Danish sovereign to remove titles from Danish dynasts for various reasons (usually an unapproved marriage), which means that we accept the removal of the titles from Margrethe's grandchildren and her cousins. I don't know that the Danish constitution allows for the renunciation of royal titles. Perhaps it does not, and a Danish dynast who wishes to renounce a title and succession rights in olden days would simply have married unequally and forced the removal of the title and succession rights.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

I think the issue is these two, Philippos and Carl, weren't cases where the title was stripped from a Danish prince, but rather where the title may or may not have been renounced.

For Philippos, the issue comes down to the question of whether the Greek constitution in force at the time allowed for a Greek prince to renounce his Greek royal titles. If it did not, then his renunciation was invalid and his children would have been entitled to the titles of Prince(ss) of Greece and Denmark. Whether his grandchildren would have been entitled to those titles is unknown--they didn't seek out Konstantinos II's approval for their marriages, but he remained closed to the Windsors. Philippos' Danish title was an appendage of his Greek title, so what Christian X thought of his marriage (or Margrethe II thought of his chidren's marriages) and whether he would have approved his marriage (presumably Christian would have approved because Elizabeth II was equal, but Margrethe would not have because she seemingly insisted on dynasts marrying foreigners (unless that only applied to Danes)) is moot.

For Carl, there is nothing I can recall that shows that Carl ever actually renounced his Danish titles. We know that the Norwegian RF are not considered to be members of the Danish RF and are not in line to the Danish throne, but is there a document where Carl formally renounced his titles for himself, his son and his descendants? I have never heard of there being one.

I think most people accept that the Danish constitution allows the Danish sovereign to remove titles from Danish dynasts for various reasons (usually an unapproved marriage), which means that we accept the removal of the titles from Margrethe's grandchildren and her cousins. I don't know that the Danish constitution allows for the renunciation of royal titles. Perhaps it does not, and a Danish dynast who wishes to renounce a title and succession rights in olden days would simply have married unequally and forced the removal of the title and succession rights.

I think we are perhaps talking at cross-purposes, though once again I appreciate your well-considered response. While questions about whether constitutions allow renunciations and in what manner renunciations may or may not have occurred would be interesting to explore, my question was about why some royal watchers appear to apply double standards by using those questions to justify their refusal to accept the decisions of Danish monarchs in some cases, but not in other equally applicable cases.

Most royal watchers accept that Margrethe II's removal of Nikolai's Prince of Denmark title was valid (i.e., they accept that Nikolai is no longer a Prince of Denmark, even if they think he should be), even though Nikolai himself clearly never renounced his Danish royal titles.

At the same time, some royal watchers refuse to accept that Christian IX's removal of Carl's Prince of Denmark title and Christian X's removal of Philip's Prince of Denmark title were valid (i.e., they insist that they and their male-line descendants are still Princes of Denmark regardless of what the Danish monarchs say) on the grounds that these princes (seemingly) did not explicitly and formally renounce their Danish royal titles.

Why is it that some royal watchers will accept some removals of titles by Danish monarchs without a renunciation (Nikolai), but refuse to accept other removals of titles by Danish monarchs (Carl, Philip) unless there is a renunciation?

ETA: I am not sure I understand your second paragraph: is it your case that the Greek kings were entitled to decide whether their descendants bore Danish royal titles (even if it violated the will of the Danish monarchs)? If so, why would that not also apply to the Norwegian kings?

 

[blooms_rulers]

Why is it that some royal watchers will accept some removals of titles by Danish monarchs without a renunciation (Nikolai), but refuse to accept other removals of titles by Danish monarchs (Carl, Philip) unless there is a renunciation?

ETA: I am not sure I understand your second paragraph: is it your case that the Greek kings were entitled to decide whether their descendants bore Danish royal titles (even if it violated the will of the Danish monarchs)? If so, why would that not also apply to the Norwegian kings?

There is no evidence of there being a removal by Christian IX from Carl or a renunciation from Carl. We know that Carl and his descendants do NOT use a Danish title. That--the non-usage--does not equate to the "removal of (a) title." It is simply non-usage. Think about it this way. We do not have a document or statement from Christian IX that says "Carl is no longer a Prince to/of Denmark and is no longer entitled to that title." We also do not have a document or statement from Carl stating that "I am no longer a Prince to/of Denmark and am no longer entitled to that style." All we have is that Carl changed his and his son's names, and he stopped using the title. That is not a renunciation or the removal of the title.

The Greek title is Prince of Greece and Denmark for those who are dynasts to the now-defunct Greek throne. For those who are not dynasts, like the late Prince Michael's two daughters, the title is simply "Prince(ss) of Greece" and the style is "Highness" instead of HRH. That marriage, of Michael to Marina, is the only time a non-dynastic marriage in Greece produced offspring that were not eventually upgraded (Queen Alexandra of Yugoslavia was upgraded). It is a completely different title and style created for Michael's descendants and presumably, should the monarchy have continued, would have been the way non-dynasts would have been treated going forward.

The Greeks have always maintained both titles, even when reigning. The Norwegians, since 1905, have only used their Norwegian title. That doesn't mean the Norwegians weren't entitled to the Danish title. Olav/Alexander could have been Prince Olav of Norway and Denmark. Haakon/Carl simply chose not to use the Danish title.

The case of Margrethe with Nikolai and his siblings and Frederik with Ingolf and Christian doesn't apply. We have evidence of the titles being removed by the monarchs in those cases. There is no evidence of either a renunciation by Carl/Haakon or Philippos/Philip or the removal of a title by Christian IX of Denmark or George II of Greece.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Thank you again for the response; I think I better understand your arguments after reading it.

Before responding to the points you made, I would like to ask for further clarifications:

1. In your most recent posts, are you speaking on your own behalf or also on behalf of most of the royal watchers who say that the Norwegian and British male-line royals are Princes of Denmark? I.e., do most of them base their argument on the same reasons you have cited?

2. Do you believe that Kings Christian IX / Christian X through Frederik X consider(ed) the Norwegian/British royals to be Princes of Denmark (whether you agree with them or not)?