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

[Muhler]

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.



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?

That's DRF protocol. Once a majesty, always a majesty.
That's not the same thing as being acknowledged as head of state.
Which is not up to QMII.

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?

They are not exempt. They have immunity in the same way as members of the Parliament has immunity.
It's up to QMII to decide whether a DRF member should stand trial.
In the same way as it is up to the other members of the Parliament to decide whether a member should stand trial. And that happens on occasion.
Also, each time a DRF member is caught speeding, doesn't happen as often now, this topic comes up.
So it's something that is discussed at times and each time someone explains that the DRF members have immunity and that it is up to the monarch to decide if they should stand trial or alternatively be sanctioned/sentenced by the monarch.
When for example smoking was banned in workplaces some years back, that also included private homes, where for example care-workers came. My wife had to go out quite a few times and explain to citizens that they were not to smoke while a municipal worker was present and that the home should be aired thoroughly before a care worker arrived.
These health and safety regulations also applied to royal residences, which are private homes but also a workplace. But as it was pointed out at the time, QMII who loves a cigarette or two didn't have to comply and there was nothing anyone could do to force her.
I suppose some sort of compromise was found there as well.

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?

They can appeal to the monarch all they want, but what the monarch says goes.
The court will ask: Who decides? The monarch? Well, tough luck.
In Denmark the monarch decides who gets or lose royal titles (except for the heir). Not the courts, not the Parliament, not the public, not the press, not the other DRF members, not the Human Rights Court.

QMII can make me a count tomorrow is she wished to and there is nothing the Parliament or courts could do about, if someone was against it.
One reason of course being that being noble means nothing, it's just a title.
Alexandra and her two sons are ordinary citizens, just like me. The only difference being that Alexandra has the order of the Elephant so she is invited to the New Year court, I'm not.

 

[Stefan]

The only difference being that Alexandra has the order of the Elephant so she is invited to the New Year court, I'm not.

Is she really invited. She hasn't attended since her remarriage and neither does Count Ingolf attend, so i guess that they are not invited.

 

[Muhler]

Is she really invited. She hasn't attended since her remarriage and neither does Count Ingolf attend, so i guess that they are not invited.

She belongs to the Class 1 rank, and they include those who have the Order of the Elephant.
Say Commanders of the Order of Danneborg belongs to Class 2 or 3, whatever.
They are all listed here:
https://da.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rangfølgen_i_Danmark
In Danish. The Countess of Frederiksborg being among them, see persons under class 1.

 

[Toledo]

...

https://royalcentral.co.uk/europe/d...-to-still-be-using-their-royal-titles-185928/

I find it very peculiar that the monarch apparently has no control over whether someone is named as a prince in their civil registry, insurance papers and passports. (But perhaps I should not be so surprised, given that two years ago a Belgian court took it upon themselves to confer royal titles on someone without the king's consent.) So based on the comment from the Ministry, I suppose that legally, any Danish citizen can register themself as a Prince/Princess on their official documents if they wish?

From that link I read the following:
The Ministry of Social Affairs, Housing, and the Elderly told the press that individuals are responsible for changing their names unless they are under 18 years of age. The Ministry also states that there are no official guidelines for when to change one’s name.

A spokesperson to Countess Alexandra says the counts will soon submit changes to their titles in the register.

Talk about adding insult to injury. Their titles were part of their names after all, and this is like a name change now? So they are responsible to re-register their demotion themselves, too? If this was done from above their heads, by QMII, staff could have done the paperwork to match the January 1st change while at it. If they were quick to make that mistake in December on the website from Princes to Counts why is there no staffer or secretary to take care of this change on the official records.

Trying not to joke but won't be fun if they do like the late musician Prince, and re-register as "the count ___ formely known as Prince"? ?

 

[JR76]

That's DRF protocol. Once a majesty, always a majesty.
That's not the same thing as being acknowledged as head of state.
Which is not up to QMII.




They are not exempt. They have immunity in the same way as members of the Parliament has immunity.
It's up to QMII to decide whether a DRF member should stand trial.
In the same way as it is up to the other members of the Parliament to decide whether a member should stand trial. And that happens on occasion.
Also, each time a DRF member is caught speeding, doesn't happen as often now, this topic comes up.
So it's something that is discussed at times and each time someone explains that the DRF members have immunity and that it is up to the monarch to decide if they should stand trial or alternatively be sanctioned/sentenced by the monarch.
When for example smoking was banned in workplaces some years back, that also included private homes, where for example care-workers came. My wife had to go out quite a few times and explain to citizens that they were not to smoke while a municipal worker was present and that the home should be aired thoroughly before a care worker arrived.
These health and safety regulations also applied to royal residences, which are private homes but also a workplace. But as it was pointed out at the time, QMII who loves a cigarette or two didn't have to comply and there was nothing anyone could do to force her.
I suppose some sort of compromise was found there as well.



They can appeal to the monarch all they want, but what the monarch says goes.
The court will ask: Who decides? The monarch? Well, tough luck.
In Denmark the monarch decides who gets or lose royal titles (except for the heir). Not the courts, not the Parliament, not the public, not the press, not the other DRF members, not the Human Rights Court.

QMII can make me a count tomorrow is she wished to and there is nothing the Parliament or courts could do about, if someone was against it.
One reason of course being that being noble means nothing, it's just a title.
Alexandra and her two sons are ordinary citizens, just like me. The only difference being that Alexandra has the order of the Elephant so she is invited to the New Year court, I'm not.

I started writing a reply yesterday before Ole Lukøje hit me with all he got and now see that you've written a much better reply than I did.
One of my main points was that the style and titles of the Greek royal family and other deposed houses are regulated by European traditions and protocol that is shared by all the courts of Europe. Most likely also by the non-European courts. For instance as we saw in the official announcement of the marriage between Prince Ghazi of Jordan and Princess Miriam of Bulgaria she was referred to as both a princess and a royal highness.
According to other traditions Queen Margrethe as the head of her house regulates the titles and status of the members of her family. King Carl Gustav referred to, and made use of, the same right and traditions ("the ancient right of princes") in his decision to reorganize his house. I've read that many of these traditions were put in print by the Congress of Vienna, but they also referred back to more ancient traditions of the Holy Roman Empire.

 

[JR76]

If they were quick to make that mistake in December on the website from Princes to Counts why is there no staffer or secretary to take care of this change on the official records.

Because judging by the quote you posted it's up to the individual themselves to apply for these changes meaning that it's probably illegal for someone else to do it.
Though, of course, I agree with most everyone when I think that this could have been handled much, much better.

 

[Toledo]

Because judging by the quote you posted it's up to the individual themselves to apply for these changes meaning that it's probably illegal for someone else to do it.
Though, of course, I agree most everyone when I think that this could have been handled much, much better.

You make an interesting point if we see that this is like a name change but was done by the grandmother of two adults. And now the responsibility falls on them to complete the required paperwork.

I assume when they were born, if we see the title was part of their names, they were registered as Prince Nikolai and Prince Felix, and not as Nikolai and/or Felix, Princes of Denmark? That's the only way I can understand why the title was part of their names to start with and not a separate entry.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

While the Constitution refers to the monarch by a specific title (King) it does not specify any particular title for the heir, who is simply referred to as "the heir to the throne" (tronfølgeren) whenever mentioned, e.g.

§ 7. Kongen er myndig, når han har fyldt sit 18. år. Det samme gælder tronfølgeren.

§ 7. The King shall be of age when he has completed his eighteenth year. The same provision shall apply to the Heir to the Throne.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

Because judging by the quote you posted it's up to the individual themselves to apply for these changes meaning that it's probably illegal for someone else to do it.
Though, of course, I agree most everyone when I think that this could have been handled much, much better.

Every individual is responsible for a correct registration in the municipal registers. When Mrs Jensen changes from gender to a Mrs Jensen, he/she is responsible for his/her registration. When a new baby is born to a Mr and Mrs Hansen, they are responsible for the baby's registration. When a Court rules that someone is entitled to a certain surname or title, he/she is responsible to file a request to the municipal registrar.

Note that in Spain titles are not automatic: the assumed heir to a title has to petition him- or herself. In the Netherlands the King's nephew Carlos Roderick Sybren Klynstra won a legal battle to obtain his natural father's surname and title. But the initiative to have his name changed lies with him. He has to file a request, backed by the arrest of Court of Justice, at the municipal registrar. It is - like in Denmark- not that names are changed without first initiative of the citizen.

The citizen even has to pay for it, and for his/her new ID!

 

[Javaward]

Every individual is responsible for a correct registration in the municipal registers. When Mrs Jensen changes from gender to a Mrs Jensen, he/she is responsible for his/her registration. When a new baby is born to a Mr and Mrs Hansen, they are responsible for the baby's registration. When a Court rules that someone is entitled to a certain surname or title, he/she is responsible to file a request to the municipal registrar.

Yes, in paperwork and fees all things are equitable. However when it comes to QMII's grandchildren and, say, the examples quoted above, the situations reflect how different and strange the former's situation actually is. They must go through the same process as everyone else for a name change, but everyone else, presumably, made that decision for themselves. When looked at it from this perspective, one can see why some might think - after being ordered to legally change their names (unlike Mrs. Jensen or Mr. Hensen)--having them fill out paperwork and pay the fees is like adding insult to injury.

Stripping the grandkids of their titles may have been the correct thing to do for the monarchy in the long term, but what it also clearly highlights, is that an "ordinary" life cannot be dictated by royal decree. While, QMII may be creating the conditions for anonymity later in life -I think it difficult to guess how long it will take for Joachim's kids to fade from the public eye.

 

[kalnel]

I started writing a reply yesterday before Ole Lukøje hit me with all he got and now see that you've written a much better reply than I did.
One of my main points was that the style and titles of the Greek royal family and other deposed houses are regulated by European traditions and protocol that is shared by all the courts of Europe. Most likely also by the non-European courts. For instance as we saw in the official announcement of the marriage between Prince Ghazi of Jordan and Princess Miriam of Bulgaria she was referred to as both a princess and a royal highness.
According to other traditions Queen Margrethe as the head of her house regulates the titles and status of the members of her family. King Carl Gustav referred to, and made use of, the same right and traditions ("the ancient right of princes") in his decision to reorganize his house. I've read that many of these traditions were put in print by the Congress of Vienna, but they also referred back to more ancient traditions of the Holy Roman Empire.

Very interesting history, thanks for posting! Slightly OT, but did King Carl Gustav use the same arguments when responding to his uncle's demands to have his princely title restored. I know that went to court, but I don't recall the rationale for the outcome.

 

[JR76]

Very interesting history, thanks for posting! Slightly OT, but did King Carl Gustav use the same arguments when responding to his uncle's demands to have his princely title restored. I know that went to court, but I don't recall the rationale for the outcome.

I can't really recall either what was said in court, but I know representatives of the King said at other times that he couldn't/wouldn't alter the decisions of his forebearers. The argument that it was a decision in council, which therefore can't be changed, has also been used. Funnily enough Count Sigvard's legal advisors used the King's right to decide over his house against him when saying that he had the power to give his uncle his title back.

 

[kalnel]

I can't really recall either what was said in court, but I know representatives of the King said at other times that he couldn't/wouldn't alter the decisions of his forebearers. The argument that it was a decision in council, which therefore can't be changed, has also been used. Funnily enough Count Sigvard's legal advisors used the King's right to decide over his house against him when saying that he had the power to give his uncle his title back.

I wonder if Felix and Nikolai's attorneys are taking note!

Reading your post, I seem to remember King Carl Gustav also saying something about how it wouldn't be fair to his sisters or the other Swedish princes who lost their titles upon marriage to restore Sigvard.

Some interesting parallels to the Danish decision, although for quite different reasons.

 

[Archduchess Zelia]

Stripping the grandkids of their titles may have been the correct thing to do for the monarchy in the long term, but what it also clearly highlights, is that an "ordinary" life cannot be dictated by royal decree. While, QMII may be creating the conditions for anonymity later in life -I think it difficult to guess how long it will take for Joachim's kids to fade from the public eye.

I don't think QMII's intention with the change has ever been to enforce "an ordinary life" on Joachim's four children. That is simply how Alexandra is trying to frame it in the article posted previously.

The exact words used in the press release were that QMII wishes to create a framework in which the four can "shape their own lives to a much greater extent without being limited by the special considerations and duties that a formal affiliation with the Royal House of Denmark as an institution involves".

In other words: Nikolai will be free to promote as many rental car companies as he'd like to as he is no longer formally a part of an institution where you're not allowed to act as a commercial poster boy.

I don't think QMII feels any type of way if the children decide to remain public figures. But with the removal of the titles, she's ensured that they won't be restricted in their choices by the obligations that comes along with being a prince/ss. And she's ensured that should they decide to do something people would consider unbeseeming for a royal (say, participation on the Danish version of Strictly...), it won't reflect badly on the institution.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

I don't think QMII's intention with the change has ever been to enforce "an ordinary life" on Joachim's four children. That is simply how Alexandra is trying to frame it in the article posted previously.

The exact words used in the press release were that QMII wishes to create a framework in which the four can "shape their own lives to a much greater extent without being limited by the special considerations and duties that a formal affiliation with the Royal House of Denmark as an institution involves".

In other words: Nikolai will be free to promote as many rental car companies as he'd like to as he is no longer formally a part of an institution where you're not allowed to act as a commercial poster boy.

I don't think QMII feels any type of way if the children decide to remain public figures. But with the removal of the titles, she's ensured that they won't be restricted in their choices by the obligations that comes along with being a prince/ss. And she's ensured that should they decide to do something people would consider unbeseeming for a royal (for example participation the Danish version of Strictly...), it won't reflect badly on the institution.

100% amen to that. It is exactly only giving the four grandchildren all freedom without all the perks of being a Prince of Denmark.

 

[tihkon2]

And she's ensured that should they decide to do something people would consider unbeseeming for a royal (say, participation on the Danish version of Strictly...), it won't reflect badly on the institution.

Unfortunately for her, she instead reflected badly on the monarchy herself with the way she went about doing it.

All things pass, and eventually her ineptitude in this matter will be forgotten.

 

[Biri]

Not necessarily.
Isabella, Vincent and Josephine are not in the same boat as Nikolai, Felix, Henrik and Athena. All 7 are grandchildren of the Queen, but I,V,J are children of the Heir, Crown Prince Frederik.

Isabella, Vincent and Josephine will, in the future (if all goes to plan) be children of the monarch, Frederik X. Joachim's kids will not be children of the monarch.
Isabella, Vincent and Josephine, will be like Benedikte and Joachim, who have not lost their titles, non-heirs but children of the King/Queen.

But eventual Prince Vincent's children will definitely be counts/countesses from the beginning (i.e. their births).

I don't ask about eventual children of Princess Isabella and Princess Josephine, because they probably will not be titled at all - just given names + surnames of their fathers.

 

[Somebody]

I don't think QMII's intention with the change has ever been to enforce "an ordinary life" on Joachim's four children. That is simply how Alexandra is trying to frame it in the article posted previously.

The exact words used in the press release were that QMII wishes to create a framework in which the four can "shape their own lives to a much greater extent without being limited by the special considerations and duties that a formal affiliation with the Royal House of Denmark as an institution involves".

In other words: Nikolai will be free to promote as many rental car companies as he'd like to as he is no longer formally a part of an institution where you're not allowed to act as a commercial poster boy.

I don't think QMII feels any type of way if the children decide to remain public figures. But with the removal of the titles, she's ensured that they won't be restricted in their choices by the obligations that comes along with being a prince/ss. And she's ensured that should they decide to do something people would consider unbeseeming for a royal (say, participation on the Danish version of Strictly...), it won't reflect badly on the institution.

True, however, as the queen already pointed out. They are given more freedom, not complete freedom as they will always be associated with the DRF and at the moment are still in line to the throne.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Hilariously, almost every single comment, birthday wish from the public on the official post on Instagram and Facebook purposely calls her Princess Athena, and most say they will always consider her a princess. I wonder if the secretary who posted it will ever tell her Majesty. Somehow I doubt it! ?

Reading your post, I seem to remember King Carl Gustav also saying something about how it wouldn't be fair to his sisters or the other Swedish princes who lost their titles upon marriage to restore Sigvard.

Some interesting parallels to the Danish decision, although for quite different reasons.

Indeed. I wonder if the commenters on the royal social media voicing outrage on behalf of Athena and her siblings would do the same for Count Ingolf, given that his and his siblings' treatment was far worse... and if not, why not.


ETA: King Harald V of Norway went even further, saying it would not be fair to his sisters to allow his own daughter or grandson to remain part of the Royal House after marriage.

https://www.theroyalforums.com/foru...y-may-17-2003-2022-a-2316-29.html#post2117415

 

[Muhler]

Indeed. I wonder if the commenters on the royal social media voicing outrage on behalf of Athena and her siblings would do the same for Count Ingolf, given that his and his siblings' treatment was far worse... and if not, why not.


ETA: King Harald V of Norway went even further, saying it would not be fair to his sisters to allow his own daughter or grandson to remain part of the Royal House after marriage.

https://www.theroyalforums.com/foru...y-may-17-2003-2022-a-2316-29.html#post2117415

Playing the devil's advocate here.
Ingolf and his family were indeed treated a lot worse!
At least Joachim's children are not publicly perceived as being ugly and as a consequence stupid as well.
There is still a difference though.
The Rosenborgs were demoted by democratic vote based on a wide political and public wish. And the public debate was pretty brutal, heartless in fact. Not exactly helped by the fact the Rosenborgs were favorite targets for the satirists in the yearly reviews. (*)

But the Rosenborgs were not demoted by King Frederik IX, even though they did blame him and especially Queen Ingrid, for plotting behind the scenes.

Joachim's children were demoted by QMII, not by either a public nor political wish. It was pretty much expected that they at some point would lose or give up their titles, so there was no public debate about demoting them. The only public debate there was, was about whether they would get an apanage.
So again, public dissatisfaction boils down to the very poor way this was handled.
That is, if there was a democratic vote about Joachim's children losing their titles, the result would, I'm confident in saying, be the same.

- I believe that when historians look back on QMII's by all parameters very successful reign, this will be one detail they will look at, but, I doubt it will be her epitaph. Unless she screws up even more here towards the end of her reign.
But that's a discussion in future alternative timelines.

(*) The yearly revues is a mainly Danish phenomenon.
It is basically local-theater satire, where events, topics and people, royals, celebs and politicians in particular are parodied, caricatured or mocked. Either through song or acting out a sketch.
These revues go from very professional to local amateur theater.
I think the best known examples here on TRF are the parodies of QMII and sometimes PH done by the now retired Ulf Pilgaard.
https://asset.dr.dk/imagescaler01/h...-l-1920x1264we.jpg&w=1200&675&scaleAfter=crop
It's Ulf Pilgaard to the left...

 

[Stefan]

Playing the devil's advocate here.
Ingolf and his family were indeed treated a lot worse!
At least Joachim's children are not publicly perceived as being ugly and as a consequence stupid as well.
There is still a difference though.
The Rosenborgs were demoted by democratic vote based on a wide political and public wish. And the public debate was pretty brutal, heartless in fact. Not exactly helped by the fact the Rosenborgs were favorite targets for the satirists in the yearly reviews. (*)

But the Rosenborgs were not demoted by King Frederik IX, even though they did blame him and especially Queen Ingrid, for plotting behind the scenes.

But it was still King Frederik IX, who decided that Princes Ingolf and Christian would loose their titles and succession rights upon their respective marriages so they where also demoted by him.

 

[Mbruno]

Yes, in paperwork and fees all things are equitable. However when it comes to QMII's grandchildren and, say, the examples quoted above, the situations reflect how different and strange the former's situation actually is. They must go through the same process as everyone else for a name change, but everyone else, presumably, made that decision for themselves. When looked at it from this perspective, one can see why some might think - after being ordered to legally change their names (unlike Mrs. Jensen or Mr. Hensen)--having them fill out paperwork and pay the fees is like adding insult to injury.

Stripping the grandkids of their titles may have been the correct thing to do for the monarchy in the long term, but what it also clearly highlights, is that an "ordinary" life cannot be dictated by royal decree. While, QMII may be creating the conditions for anonymity later in life -I think it difficult to guess how long it will take for Joachim's kids to fade from the public eye.

Nikolai, Felix and their younger siblings will never be "ordinary" in the sense that they will always be grandchildren of the monarch (or a former monarch after Queen Margrethe II is deceased) and in the line of succession to the throne (unless they marry without consent and are excluded from the succession by law).

They will be basically in the same situation as many other people in Europe who are in the line of succession and/or are grandchildren of (current or former) monarchs in their country, but are not princes or princesses themselves. For example:

• Felipe Froilán, Victoria Federica, Juan Valentín, Pablo Nicolás, Miguel, and Irene in Spain.
• Eloise, Claus-Casimir, and Leonore in the Netherlands.
• Maud Angelica, Leah Isadora, and Emma in Norway.
• In the UK, James and Louise; Peter and Zara; the Earl of Snowdon and Lady Sarah (grandchildren of King George VI); possibly Archie and Lilibet (?)

 

[Muhler]

But it was still King Frederik IX, who decided that Princes Ingolf and Christian would loose their titles and succession rights upon their respective marriages so they where also demoted by him.

Yes, but at the time it was still normal that a royal married another royal or at least nobility, not doing so meant you lost your place in the Succession.
And even before that it was normal to push side-branches of the DRF out, while focusing on the main-branch - the children of the ruling monarch.
- Keeps the number of royals down, cut costs, prevents civil wars and blocks claims by usurpers.

The dynastic process, be it royal or noble, is actually pretty brutal. Most end up being sidelined.

 

[Prinsara]

Nikolai's Insta, btw, says "nikolaitildanmark" — with his name as Count Nikolai of Monpezat, so he is by no means rejecting his new title.

And all the commenters say he is still a Prince to them...

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

Nikolai's Insta, btw, says "nikolaitildanmark" — with his name as Count Nikolai of Monpezat, so he is by no means rejecting his new title.

And all the commenters say he is still a Prince to them...

Even if the commentators say he is The Messias to them, he still is Hans Excellence Nikolai William Alexander Frederik greve af Monpezat.

 

[Stefan]

Yes, but at the time it was still normal that a royal married another royal or at least nobility, not doing so meant you lost your place in the Succession.
And even before that it was normal to push side-branches of the DRF out, while focusing on the main-branch - the children of the ruling monarch.
- Keeps the number of royals down, cut costs, prevents civil wars and blocks claims by usurpers.

The dynastic process, be it royal or noble, is actually pretty brutal. Most end up being sidelined.

But they have not done that with all sides branches. The chidlren of Prince Valdemar where even made HRH instead of HH and the marriage of Prince georg was approved dspite beeing him an great-grandson of a King and quiet far away from the Main line when he married

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Playing the devil's advocate here.
Ingolf and his family were indeed treated a lot worse!
At least Joachim's children are not publicly perceived as being ugly and as a consequence stupid as well.
[...]
And the public debate was pretty brutal, heartless in fact. Not exactly helped by the fact the Rosenborgs were favorite targets for the satirists in the yearly reviews. (*)

Well said. Prince Knud's children experienced not only demotion (two demotions in the cases of Ingolf and Christian), but being targeted by very public bigotry and attacks at a young age.

It was pretty much expected that they at some point would lose or give up their titles, so there was no public debate about demoting them. The only public debate there was, was about whether they would get an apanage.
So again, public dissatisfaction boils down to the very poor way this was handled.
That is, if there was a democratic vote about Joachim's children losing their titles, the result would, I'm confident in saying, be the same.

That seems to be the case for the majority of the public, to judge from the scientific opinion poll posted here a few months ago, wherein the populace supported the change by 2:1. (Has there been any more recent public opinion polling?)

https://www.seoghoer.dk/kongelige/efter-titelfratagelsen-flertal-af-danskere-enige-med-dronningen

However, I was responding to a post on online commenters who say that Joachim's children "will always be princes(ses) to them". If we take those commenters at their word, they would be dissatisfied even if the removal had been managed perfectly and even if only happened much later upon marriage as it did for Princes Ingolf and Christian - so I wondered whether those particular commenters would defend Ingolf's right to keep his title for life in the same way.

[...] and the marriage of Prince georg was approved dspite beeing him an great-grandson of a King and quiet far away from the Main line when he married

Apparently King Frederik IX was pressured into approving Prince Georg's marriage by the bride's relative, King George VI of Britain. (One wonders how George VI would have reacted to Frederik IX attempting to control who would or would not become a British royal.)

Norwegian historian Trond Norén Isaksen wrote on Facebook earlier this summer that he was once told by Georg's sister-in-law, Countess Ruth of Rosenborg, that he'd pestered King Frederik until he relented and allowed Georg to keep his title. He was also later told by Princess Anne's daughter, Lady Elizabeth Anson, that the story about King George intervening on Georg's behalf was true. Apparently the King did really say "If a Bowes-Lyon was good enough for me, a Bowes-Lyon is surely good enough for one of your Princes."

 

[tihkon2]

Indeed. I wonder if the commenters on the royal social media voicing outrage on behalf of Athena and her siblings would do the same for Count Ingolf, given that his and his siblings' treatment was far worse... and if not, why not.
[/url]

Well, no they wouldn't. Because it happened over 55 years ago when there wasn't social media, so it has nothing to do with what happened 4 weeks ago. And i don't really care what the social media people do or don't do. I just think it's hilarious that they basically thumbed their noses at Marge on the monarchy's official social media accounts.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Well, no they wouldn't. Because it happened over 55 years ago when there wasn't social media,

I was referring to the current commenters on social media who you mentioned.

so it has nothing to do with what happened 4 weeks ago.

If (emphasis on if) the commenters' issue is truly with the titles themselves, then there is no difference between what happened in the 1960s-70s to Ingolf and Christian and what happened four weeks ago to Prince Joachim's children. Each was demoted from prince(ss) to count(ess).

 

[Javaward]

I don't think QMII feels any type of way if the children decide to remain public figures. But with the removal of the titles, she's ensured that they won't be restricted in their choices by the obligations that comes along with being a prince/ss. And she's ensured that should they decide to do something people would consider unbeseeming for a royal (say, participation on the Danish version of Strictly...), it won't reflect badly on the institution.

Joachim's kids remaining in the public eye is absolutely something that would be relevant. They are in the public eye because they are "royals". As they no longer have this formal association, then they are now free agents who can do and say whatever they want, in addition to making whatever questionable, commercial deals they would like. That sounds great BUT...the idea that this won't be reflected on the institution does not seem realistic. Particularly for the older two who have not only grown up in the public eye, but have (lets face it) more "teen-age girl appeal" than most.

To be clear, I am not arguing for or against the title change per se, only that the motivations seem to be muddled at best, counter-productive at worst.