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

[Alisa]

But "to Denmark" reflects that he is in the line of succession, which he is. There are Princes and Princesses of Denmark who are not.

Nikolai isn't at all stupid, nor is he particularly provocative. He knows exactly what he's doing, and he also knows "til Danmark" wasn't (and can't really be) taken away from him, unless farmor wants to start using more decrees.

"til Danmark" means he's on the succession list means nothing. He's not "til Danmark" and he's still on the succession list!

I actually think he's being a bit of a brat by using such a handle. Instead of using "Nikolai of Monpezat" he's being defiant by using "til Danmark" as that was a part of his former title- Prince til Danmark.

 

[tommy100]

Maybe it shows that the children of Joachim would have been happier if their grandmother has offered them a different title rather than a made up French one.

 

[JR76]

Maybe it shows that the children of Joachim would have been happier if their grandmother has offered them a different title rather than a made up French one.

Any title they received would have been "made up". We never heard any objections to Nicolai & Felix carrying the name of their grandfather until their royal titles were removed.
That said their mother's press advisor, Helle von Wildenrath Løvgreen, told Jacob Heinel Jensen in his podcast "Kongehuset bag kulissen" that the two boys had voiced a wish to have a Danish title instead of a French one.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Maybe it shows that the children of Joachim would have been happier if their grandmother has offered them a different title rather than a made up French one.

Monpezat is noticeably French and not Danish sounding (which is apparently the former princes' objection), but it was not "made up" by Margrethe II. The surname of Prince Henrik until his marriage was de Laborde de Monpezat, and he and other members of his family generally used the second name in everyday life (as do many other people with long surnames) and was thus known as Count Henri de Monpezat.

We never heard any objections to Nicolai & Felix carrying the name of their grandfather until their royal titles were removed.

True, but that is logical given that they were not known by that name until the removal of their royal titles.

Queen Margrethe II's choice was unusual. There are other husbands of European queens regnant in modern times who have passed on their names or titles, but these did not displace the names or titles passed on from the royal family. The non-royal grandchildren of Prince Claus of the Netherlands are Jonkvrouw and Jonkheer van Amsberg but carry the higher title and surname of Countess and Count of Orange-Nassau. The descendants of Prince Philip of the UK are Mountbatten-Windsor, not only Mountbatten.

It would have been more typical of recent European practice if the former princes had become "Count of [Danish name], Count of Monpezat" or "Count of [Danish name]-Monpezat".

That said their mother's press advisor, Helle von Wildenrath Løvgreen, told Jacob Heinel Jensen in his podcast "Kongehuset bag kulissen" that the two boys had voiced a wish to have a Danish title instead of a French one.

According to somebody who listened to the podcast, the Danish name they wanted was Count of Frederiksborg, to match their mother. But it seems Helle von Wildenrath Løvgreen also stated there had been no communication between the brothers and their grandmother at the time, so it is unclear to whom they voiced that wish (and why they had not contacted their grandmother with the request).

 

[JR76]

According to somebody who listened to the podcast[/url], the Danish name they wanted was Count of Frederiksborg, to match their mother.

No, what Helle said was that Nicolai and Felix wanted a Danish title (Helle preferred to call it a Danish name) "for example... maybe" (her words) that of their mother.
What's interesting is that had they received permission to assume their mother's title/name they wouldn't have had the same title/name as their two siblings which, at least to me, would be a strange thing to choose given how close the four of them seem to be.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

No, what Helle said was that Nicolai and Felix wanted a Danish title (Helle preferred to call it a Danish name) "for example... maybe" (her words) that of their mother.

Thanks! Are you reading from a transcript of the interview? I searched but could not find one; if you could post it that would be appreciated.

The title Greve is Danish (although equivalent to the French Comte), while the family name Monpezat is not, so it does make sense to emphasize not having a Danish name.

What's interesting is that had they received permission to assume their mother's title/name they wouldn't have had the same title/name as their two siblings which, at least to me, would be a strange thing to choose given how close the four of them seem to be.

Their two half-siblings could have received it as well, and personally I think that would have been a better solution. It is not as if Frederiksborg is a family name of Alexandra's.

 

[JR76]

Thanks! Are you reading from a transcript of the interview? I searched but could not find one; if you could post it that would be appreciated.



The title Greve is Danish (although equivalent to the French Comte), while the family name Monpezat is not, so it does make sense to emphasize not having a Danish name.







Their two half-siblings could have received it as well, and personally I think that would have been a better solution. It is not as if Frederiksborg is a family name of Alexandra's.

I was listening to the podcast. The reason Helle wanted to say name instead of title is because "it's a name for them. It's what it says in their passports. Right now it says that they're counts of Monpezat... and that's French" (her words).
I, and I'm sure quite a few other people, would find it very strange for two children to carry a name that was thought out for their father's first wife. Though stranger things have happened.

 

[Somebody]

They could have been made counts of Rosenborg, however, I wonder why thr would prefer that over their grandfather's.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

I was listening to the podcast. The reason Helle wanted to say name instead of title is because "it's a name for them. It's what it says in their passports. Right now it says that they're counts of Monpezat... and that's French" (her words).
I, and I'm sure quite a few other people, would find it very strange for two children to carry a name that was thought out for their father's first wife. Though stranger things have happened.

Thank you.

They could have been made counts of Rosenborg, however, I wonder why thr would prefer that over their grandfather's.

It seems clear from Helle von Wildenrath Løvgreen's explanation: Their grandfather's name is French and they would prefer to be identified (in their passport) by a Danish name. Which is natural given that they are Danes and, apparently, remain part of the royal house of Denmark.

In addition, the name of a royal castle such as Frederiksborg or Rosenborg would have acknowledged them as members of the Royal House.

If the Frederiksborg suggestion were accepted, it would also permit them to bear the same name as their mother, who is even closer to them than their late grandfather.

 

[Muhler]

Monpezat is a Danish title. Made up and granted by QMII, not someone in France.

It's not an (existing, if it ever has been) French noble line.

And there are several old Danish families that still carry the French family names from the 1600s when French Huguenots fled to DK. Names like Honoré and Dupont.
So I don't think Nikolai's alleged arguments holds.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Monpezat is a Danish title. Made up and granted by QMII, not someone in France.

The future Prince Henrik was a Monpezat before he ever met the future Queen Margrethe II.

 

[Lee-Z]

Isn't it this way:
Monpezat is a French family *name* (P.Henrik's name)
but
it is a Danish *title*?

 

[Adda]

Isn't it this way:
Monpezat is a French family *name* (P.Henrik's name)
but
it is a Danish *title*?

Yes, it is a genuine Danish title since 2008, granted by Queen Daisy to her sons and grandchildren.


Thank goodness Prince Henri is no longer around to see the eldest grandchild being snooty about his name AND title.

 

[Izzie]

Poor Nikolai. Maybe he should just disappear from the public so none of some of your sensibilities are so offended.

And actually thank goodness Prince Henrik is not around to see good Queen Marge strip four of his grandchildren of their prince(ss) titles.

But given her most recent interview I doubt the feelings of others land anywhere on her radar

 

[Muhler]

PH was a Danish citizen, living in DK, with a very much Danish family (they can hardly be more Danish in fact) so doesn't that make both the title and name Danish? Even though it arguable has a French origin. ?

So Nikolai's problem with carrying the name of a Dane, who was also his grandpapa, with whom he had a loving relationship by all accounts, is... - Well, remind me again what is Nikolai's problem?
Monpezat, a fine Danish name. Just like the names of the distinguished Danish families de Meza (Jewish, from Portugal, in 1753 they came to DK) or the equally distinguished Meulengracht family. (Dutch, came to DK in 1585.)

It reminds me about the story about a Saracen (elite) soldier who in the 1100s was mocked by a fellow Saracen for his humble origins: He retorted: "I'm the first in my line. You are the last in yours."
Nikolai is third generation of the counts of Monpezat, It does taste like fowl (DK idiom) doesn't it?

 

[Prinsara]

I don't think Nikolai has much of a problem with Monpezat — or at least not publicly, since that's the name on his IG. He probably could have just said "Count Nikolai" if he was so (dis)inclined.

I also understand why he's using "til Danmark".

 

[Somebody]

Poor Nikolai. Maybe he should just disappear from the public so none of some of your sensibilities are so offended.

And actually thank goodness Prince Henrik is not around to see good Queen Marge strip four of his grandchildren of their prince(ss) titles.

But given her most recent interview I doubt the feelings of others land anywhere on her radar

I'd say, the best thing for him would be if his mother and her representative stop talking about what he thinks or wants. It seems that is mostly the cause of these discussions.

I don't think Nikolai has much of a problem with Monpezat — or at least not publicly, since that's the name on his IG. He probably could have just said "Count Nikolai" if he was so (dis)inclined.

I also understand why he's using "til Danmark".

I also understand: he is doing it out of defiance, to protest his grandmother's decision... It's a bit like Tessy using 'from Luxembourg' after she ceased to be a princess of Luxembourg (except that he continues to use the same preposition).

 

[Prinsara]

I also understand: he is doing it out of defiance, to protest his grandmother's decision... It's a bit like Tessy using 'from Luxembourg' after she ceased to be a princess of Luxembourg (except that he continues to use the same preposition).

Tessy lost her royal status as a divorcée who hardly spent her entire life as a royal, nor are her ex-husband or children in line for the throne. It's not exactly the same situation.

Furthermore I think Nikolai is showing his attachment to Denmark despite the forced name change, not just mere protest or status. But that's my opinion.

 

[kalnel]

Yes, it is a genuine Danish title since 2008, granted by Queen Daisy to her sons and grandchildren.


Thank goodness Prince Henri is no longer around to see the eldest grandchild being snooty about his name AND title.

I thought the same thing. Prince Henrik would be *thrilled* that at least some of his descendants will go by Montpezat. After all, wasn't that QMII's purpose in creating the Montpezat comital title back in 2008?

Using the "til Danmark" seems a bit pretentious -- literally -- at this point.

 

[classyjackie]

Can someone explain to me why Princess Olympia and her siblings are allowed to use "Princess/Prince Of Greece AND Denmark" but Nikolai and his siblings had their titles stripped?.

It's a bit unfair and I can understand them wanting to use "of Denmark" since others who are from a defunct monarchy and aren't even in line to the Danish throne get to use titles.

 

[SirGyamfi1]

Can someone explain to me why Princess Olympia and her siblings are allowed to use "Princess/Prince Of Greece AND Denmark" but Nikolai and his siblings had their titles stripped?.

It's a bit unfair and I can understand them wanting to use "of Denmark" since others who are from a defunct monarchy and aren't even in line to the Danish throne get to use titles.

Olympia and her family don’t use that territorial designation anyways. Their line of the family stopped being in the succession to the Danish throne when Queen Anne Marie married the late King Constantine. I highly doubt most people in Denmark are thinking about them.

 

[LauraS3514]

Olympia and her family don’t use that territorial designation anyways. Their line of the family stopped being in the succession to the Danish throne when Queen Anne Marie married the late King Constantine. I highly doubt most people in Denmark are thinking about them.

The "of Greece and Denmark" comes from being in direct male descent from Christian IX of Denmark, whose second son became George I of Greece. (The late Duke of Edinburgh was born a Prince of Greece and Denmark.) After the change in succession laws in Denmark in 1953, which limited the succession to the descendants of Christian X, the Greek Royal family was no longer in line, but this did not remove the "of Denmark" part of their titles.

In a similar vein, Ernst August V of Hanover still has the title "Prince of Great Britain and Ireland" on his passport as a male-line descendant of George III.

 

[classyjackie]

The "of Greece and Denmark" comes from being in direct male descent from Christian IX of Denmark, whose second son became George I of Greece. (The late Duke of Edinburgh was born a Prince of Greece and Denmark.) After the change in succession laws in Denmark in 1953, which limited the succession to the descendants of Christian X, the Greek Royal family was no longer in line, but this did not remove the "of Denmark" part of their titles.

In a similar vein, Ernst August V of Hanover still has the title "Prince of Great Britain and Ireland" on his passport as a male-line descendant of George III.

Interesting. So the "Of Greece and Denmark" title comes from their Greek side and not Danish. Even though the Greek government stripped them of the titles.

Also very interesting about the Hanover title as well.

I still think it's very weird that Margrethe is fine with them having their titles on their Danish passports but not her own grandchildren.

 

[EllieCat]

It's all very inconsistent. The Prince Amaury of Bourbon-Parma who just got married is the great-great-grandson of Robert I Head of the House of Bourbon-Parma. In Britain the equivalent might be if Lord Freddie Windsor had a son who would be the great-great-grandson of George V. We'll call this non-existant child 'George Windsor'. Because he would not have a title at all because of that ruling in 1917.

However, why should all countries do the same thing, have the same rules? Nothing says they have to. But it does seem to me out of the thousands and thousands of (mostly) European people who have Prince or Princess attached to their name, that they are from defunct royal or princely houses, and the only people that are being so-called 'stripped' of their titles are the ones more or less in the public eye, and that's most likely IMO for political reasons, or for good optics, such as not being seen to be paid for by the public purse. Which is one reason why I think it's quite a good thing that the UK royal family is being split into 'working' or 'non-working' so that people can see that they're not paying for ALL the royal family, even though they never have been and the cost of the monarchy to each citizen is very minimal. IMHO that is.

However I seem to have got away from the point of this thread, of QMargrethe giving half her grandchildren new 'lesser' titles. It has caused quite a conundrum and although the reasoning may have been sound, it really has split the family in two. I think poor QM has been between a rock and a hard place. She wants to keep the monarchy going and has had to make some tough decisions. I personally don't know if she was right or wrong or if only history will tell, but the Danish monarchy is over 1200 years old and it hasn't got there without some sort of change happening now and then such as in 1953 when "she became heir presumptive to her father, when a constitutional amendment allowed women to inherit the throne." That caused a lot of bad feeling within the family back then too...

 

[LauraS3514]

Interesting. So the "Of Greece and Denmark" title comes from their Greek side and not Danish. Even though the Greek government stripped them of the titles.

.

The Greek government does not recognize the titles. Just like with many other titles from defunct monarchies, they may still be used socially even though they have no governmental recognition. And in Germany, for instance, they became the surname, such as "Georg Prince von Preussen."

 

[Tatiana Maria]

I still think it's very weird that Margrethe is fine with them having their titles on their Danish passports but not her own grandchildren.

I wonder, do we know for certain that they continue to use the "of Denmark" title and that the Queen is fine with it? As SirGyamfi1 mentioned, the members of the former ruling family of Greece generally use "Prince/Princess of Greece" and seldom use the "of Denmark" territorial designation. It seems to be mostly non-Greek royal watchers who refer to them as "of Greece and Denmark". Has there been a confirmed instance since January 1 of this year (when the Monpezat siblings were stripped of their Danish royal titles) when one of them has used "of Denmark"?

Interesting. So the "Of Greece and Denmark" title comes from their Greek side and not Danish. Even though the Greek government stripped them of the titles.

I may be mistaken, but I think it would need to be the Danish monarch who would potentially strip the title Prince or Princess of Denmark, since that title is of Danish origin, even though their line of descent passes through the kings of Greece. Although it may be that for the family members who are citizens of Greece or reside in Greece, the Greek government prohibits them from using foreign royal titles in their Greek papers or on Greek territory, since that is the practice in many countries (though I don't know whether that is also the case for Greece).

 

[Tatiana Maria]

The Greek government does not recognize the titles. Just like with many other titles from defunct monarchies, they may still be used socially even though they have no governmental recognition. And in Germany, for instance, they became the surname, such as "Georg Prince von Preussen."

If I remember correctly, in contrast to many other former monarchies, Greece has not recognized or allowed the former titles' social use, either, and the government has even objected to it at times.

However, why should all countries do the same thing, have the same rules? Nothing says they have to. But it does seem to me out of the thousands and thousands of (mostly) European people who have Prince or Princess attached to their name, that they are from defunct royal or princely houses, [...]

Not all of the thousands and thousands of European people who call themselves Prince or Princess are truly following the rules of their countries. Many of them are using titles which are not permitted under the rules of the countries which have jurisdiction over the titles and/or the users themselves, simply because no one has succeeded in making them desist.

It's all very inconsistent. The Prince Amaury of Bourbon-Parma who just got married is the great-great-grandson of Robert I Head of the House of Bourbon-Parma. In Britain the equivalent might be if Lord Freddie Windsor had a son who would be the great-great-grandson of George V. We'll call this non-existant child 'George Windsor'. Because he would not have a title at all because of that ruling in 1917.

Since you bring up that example, it does seem curious to me that both the Spanish and British monarchies have (in different ways) been fairly restrictive with royal titles, but in Spain, numerous non-royal descendants of the royal family have made dubious claims to abolished or renounced French and Italian titles from their male line of ancestry, in order to call themselves Prince or Princess, whereas in Britain, none of the non-royal descendants of the British royal family have done so. Why hasn't, say, Lady Amelia Windsor followed the Spanish non-royals' lead and started calling herself Princess Amelia of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha at social events on the grounds of her male lineage, since no one could effectively stop her? (If anyone should wish to answer my question, please move my post to another suitable thread.)

 

[royal_enthusiast]

A bit of a random question but in term of titles after divorce, does it depend if the royal woman had children with her husband? For example would an ex wife of Frederick or Joachim if they were childless be stripped of their royal title during the divorce?

 

[Muhler]

I think it's more a question of circumstances.

It usually takes two to wreck a marriage, but sometimes one part is most to blame.
Let's say this wife was involved in a major scandal. In that case I think she's be lucky to get any title at all.

It does indeed become much more complicated if there are children involved.
A) If the woman is granted pretty much full custody over the children, I think she would remain a princess. For two reasons: Because the (royal) dad has been very naughty. And because the mother is not only having full custody but in a royal context is also the guardian (i.e. tasked with raising the children as royals) she would retain a position befitting the mother and guardian of royal children and that means remain a princess.

B) If both parents have shared custody then it's a Joachim and Alexandra situation.
Then it's a question of reaching the most amiable compromise.
After all, despite persistent rumors there are no clear evidence that she had a direct romantic and sexual relationship with Martin Jørgensen before separating from Joachim. And in that context it was simply a case of a couple who just split up, happens all the time.
So here IMO it was pretty logical (and wise) that Alexandra remained a princes until she might remarry. Some might suggest it was also a way of placating Alexandra and keep her quiet. I think that is undeservingly painting Alexandra as a villain. An amiable compromise would in any way also be in her interest, not least in regards to her children. (Keep in mind that at the time Nikolai was the next heir.)
Also, Alexandra got an apanage, it was basically state child alimony ensuring that the children would live a life befitting of their status. So here Alexandra being a princess and later countess followed that mindset.

C) But if the woman has been involved in scandals or otherwise has displayed so poor a behavior that the (royal) husband is granted full custody, with her only getting say the right to an occasional visit, then it gets bad!
That's where I think she should be happy and grateful if she even gets a title at all!

- The problem so to speak in Denmark is that we basically go from royal to count to commoner. - Duke and earl (jarl) and baron and what not has basically been cut away. There are still a number of barons around but only because they inherited the title, otherwise it's count.
So that limits the options when the DRF discard members be that through divorce or because the monarch decides to reduce the number of core royals.

So to sum up: A woman divorcing a male DRF royal basically is faced with three outcomes:
Remain a princess.
Become a countess.
Or getting demoted to commoner.

 

[tommy100]

I agree with Muhler (as ever) it depends on circumstances. I also agree children play a part in that. I would say a huge factor is length of time married (I appreciate this is quite 'traditional' but it is also tends to be that the longer royals are married the more likely it is there are children are involved). E.g. if there was a divorce within a few years of the marriage, and there were no children, I suspect it very unlikely the Queen would have granted a HH Princess title as she did to Alexandra. At most she may get the title Countess, as Alexandra is now (after her own remarriage)

I guess it is important to remember Alexandra's divorce came at a time when Frederick and Mary had no children of their own so Joachim (and his two eldest sons) had a higher place in the line of succession. Alexandra had been hugely popular and hard working. She was the mother to two royal Princes 3&4 in line to the throne and ex wife of the second in line. Purely imaginary but if Alexandra and Joachim had remained married until now and at this point in life announced they were divorcing I suspect Alexandra would have gone straight to being a Countess, she would the ex wife of the 5th in line to the throne and mother of two recently downgraded Princes, now Counts.

Likewise, if Fred and Mary were to divorce today I imagine Mary would be treated as Alexandra was - keeping a royal title -if downgraded slightly to Her Highness instead of HRH - but given an official allowance, apartment etc.