Prince Henrik: "I Should Be King" Discussion

[Muhler]

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

This IMO is basically a case of don't fix what ain't broken.
It does really truly matter that things are as little confusing as possible. Most countries are not monarchies and most people don't really know about monarchies. What they do know, through film, fairy tales, novels and what not is that a king rule, usually with a queen by his side. Sometimes a queen rules, usually without a man by her side.
And even among a number of monarchies, the concept of a female monarch is theoretical at best.
I'm a passionate believer in KISS = Keep It Simple Stupid.
So let's keep it simple stupid: A female monarch is a queen, with a prince by her side. - Queen rules over prince, problem solved.

Apart from that in a Danish context the word King appears often in the Constitution, where it really should be the Monarch, and that means that the wording of the Constitution needs to be changed to avoid confusion.

Anyway, in the eyes of the DK public and the politicians this is a non-issue and as such not going to be changed any decade soon.
Also because while we are at it: At some point there will be an open gay man (or woman, but let's leave that aside for this post) on the throne and he will marry the love of his life, a man. That in itself will present interesting problems, but there really is nothing to prevent that from happening now.
According to your opinion, the husband of the king should be... wait for it... king. So we have his majesty king A and his majesty king B. After all you can't deny a gay man the right to be titled king, can you? That would break the principles of equality. So talk about confusion!

It's not a question whether such a scenario will happen, in a legal and constitutional context it's a matter whether this scenario can happen.

So there is a reason why monarchies retain the system of the husband (and presumably at some point the wife) of a reigning queen gets a lesser title.

 

[royaljul73]

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

Thank you, Tatiana Maria

 

[Tatiana Maria]

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

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.

 

[maria-olivia]

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.

 

[duke of poliganc]

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.

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