Nope, that's a title. A title commoners can't use.
I hope that is true. Please communicate that to the ministry spokesperson who (if Oskar Aanmoen's summary is correct) referred to the possible removal of "prince" and "Highness" from the civil registry as a name change.
Well, he can argue until the cows come home. It's solely up to the Monarch to grant and remove titles within the DRF, except in regards to the Heir.
[...]I suggest you write Jon Bloch Skipper from Billed Bladet, he actually knows what he is talking about, usually.
Since this was in response to my comment about Queen Margrethe II's persistence in calling her sister and brother-in-law King and Queen of Greece after the removal of those titles by the Greek government, is it your understanding that these usages were actually grants of the Danish monarch?
I know that Jon Bloch Skipper claims the monarch has no authority to change the title of the heir - we have had this discussion many times before - but I remain in disagreement with Mr. Bloch Skipper, as neither the Constitution nor any other law of which I am aware restricts the monarch's prerogative over royal titles.
https://www.ft.dk/-/media/pdf/publikationer/english/my_constitutional_act_with_explanations.ashx
- It's actually an interesting question as to whether QMII even needs to take this to court. Because she actually has the theoretic right to make rulings (and impose sentences) in regards to DRF members.
It's pretty much down to whether Nikolai is a full member of the DRF = he is under the jurisdiction of QMII.
Or whether he is a common citizen = he falls under the jurisdiction of the courts.
I can't locate any reference to members of the royal house/royal family being exempt from the jurisdiction of the courts in the current Constitution (see above link). Could you tell me what that is based on?
And yeah...the reason was flimsy then and it is flimsy now for removing these titles and not making it an issue of going forward.
If this reason is flimsy, then the reason for limiting titles going forward without removing them from this generation is flimsier. If Nikolai remained a prince for life, his children would have a very strong case that their father was permitted to have a free private life and career but also carry a Prince title, so why should they, his children, not also enjoy both freedom and a royal title, just like their father did?
And again, I think it is worth remembering that unlike members of most other European royal families, Nikolai and his siblings were already expected to lose their titles on marriage, as their spokesperson has repeatedly stated.
Fair enough, we can disagree on the validity of this opinion piece, and that's it.
However, this does represent an opinion and view by a serious journalist working for a serious paper.
This is not grabbed out of thin air. This is something they discuss among her fellow journalists on Berlingske and something she and her friends, who presumably come from a similar segment of the population, also discuss.
So in that perspective, it is interesting.
Because this differs from say the BT guy Jacob, who admittedly is pretty sympathetic towards Joachim and his family.
Thank you to tommy100 for the article and Muhler for putting the piece into context.
The article does not present any bombshells. Whatever their truth value, the claims made by Ms. Dahlgren's anonymous sources (that the Prince Couple's move to Copenhagen in 2014 was perceived as crossing into the Crown Prince Couple's territory, the Queen's advisers encouraged her to make the decision herself rather than leaving it to King Frederik, Queen Margrethe II shies away from conflict and awkward conversations and does not realize how un-modern it is to send a courtier to deliver news to her family, and Prince Joachim's anger took the court by surprise) are almost identical to the speculations on forums like these. However, a few passages did catch my eye:
Meanwhile, the Danish royal court has so far declined to spell out the benefits of a slimmed-down royal family, why the title of prince or princess should limit Joachim’s children’s lives and if anything should have been done differently. And while it isn’t uncommon for royal families around Europe to strip close family members of titles, there are lessons for King Charles to learn, notes Jacob Heinel Jensen, royal correspondent for Danish newspaper BT. ‘The crisis exploded because Prince Joachim and his family felt it was a direct attack on his children and no one inside the palace seemed to listen,’ he says.
It seems Ms. Dahlgren believes it would have been better to "spell out the benefits of a slimmed-down royal family, why the title of prince or princess should limit Joachim’s children’s lives and if anything should have been done differently". Perhaps she is right. The Belgian court did exactly that in 2015: The Palace briefed the media that the King hoped to minimize the number of royals who might exploit their status to advance their careers or damage the monarchy through their indiscretions.
On the other hand, the Belgian royal house has had a sustained stream of public scandals and rocky family relationships. So I wonder if similar briefings from the Danish court might have broken up what the article says was a "picture of harmony" up until the announcement - although that might still be preferable to the current outcome.
Yet the palace’s less-than-tactful handling of the announcement has led to fierce criticism of the otherwise greatly respected Margrethe. The tabloid media have called her ‘Ice Queen’ and ‘Crazy Daisy’, referring to her nickname, Daisy.
It is a pity that female monarchs continue to be subjected to sexist nicknaming like "Crazy Daisy" (at least, I don't think King Carl XVI Gustaf of Sweden, who has gotten into much more serious trouble in the past, has been labeled in that manner).
As the mother of his two elder children, Nikolai and Felix, [Countess Alexandra] saw first-hand the impact of the queen’s statement: ‘They’ll always have the sense of duty they grew up with, whatever they do in the future,’ she tells Tatler via a spokesperson. ‘They can’t start living private lives now – it’s too late,’ she adds, pointing out that the princes have spent their entire lives in the spotlight.
Is that truly how it is? There are many people who were famous in their early 20s but eventually manage to lead completely private lives. I also wonder at what point it became "too late" in the Countess's assessment.
