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!

 

[Lori138]

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?

The above is patently untrue. H & M's children were not entitled to be called Prince or Princess until KCIII came to the throne. The law states that only male line descendants of the Sovereign can be so. An exception was made by the Queen for William's children.

 

[iceflower]

Let us please stay on topic of this thread. Thank you!

 

[Muhler]

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.

I may be a little daft here, but I fail to see what these examples has to do with PH wanting to be king - because of gender-equality.
These are opinions about royals, not what royals demanded or very actively advocated. (For himself in the case of PH.) And the issue here is actually title-equality, not gender-equality.

I live in an in old monarchy.
You have to sell the idea of the male spouse to a reigning queen being titled king to me, as well as my fellow countrymen. Well, you'll have to perform some impressive acrobatics to convince me, even in principle.
As for my countrymen, titles is something we openly scorn here. We make fun of people who have fancy titles. We see that is silly, especially if it makes no difference for the person having the title. And that was one of the reasons people were against PH getting the title of king. - It wasn't needed. It would only make things more confusing. It would make absolutely no difference for PH, he would still rank QMII in anything but Constitutional matters. People saw right through him. And it was felt he didn't deserve it.
In principle you can certainly argue for PH should have been titled king. But principle isn't tradition, principles isn't emotions and these things matter so much when it's about a monarchy!

Then you may argue that Queen Mary in the holy name of gender equality should be princess consort or something like that. And in principle you may have a point, but you will run your nose flat into the wall of tradition and emotion.
If you were to come here to DK and argue the principle of male consorts being titled king you will be met with a: Yeah, in principle you have a point - but - we don't want it.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

I may be a little daft here, but I fail to see what these examples has to do with PH wanting to be king - because of gender-equality.

Please don't hesitate to ask for clarification when you do not understand my posts.

In my previous post, I quoted the specific portion of your previous post to which I was responding. Here it is quoted again:

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

In this sentence you referred to "equality", not to a specific kind of equality such as gender equality. Thus, I wrote a response in which the main point was:

"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."​

The examples I gave were of royal watchers demanding that principles of class equality and/or racial equality be applied to European hereditary monarchies.

So, my question remains: Would you - and the many others who agree with you - also say that "Applying principles of class equality to an institution that is based on anything but equality is a bit off" or "Applying principles of racial equality to an institution that is based on anything but equality is a bit off", or is this argument only selectively applied to gender equality?

 

[Muhler]

Please don't hesitate to ask for clarification when you do not understand my posts.

In my previous post, I quoted the specific portion of your previous post to which I was responding. Here it is quoted again:

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

In this sentence you referred to "equality", not to a specific kind of equality such as gender equality. Thus, I wrote a response in which the main point was:

"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."​

The examples I gave were of royal watchers demanding that principles of class equality and/or racial equality be applied to European hereditary monarchies.

So, my question remains: Would you - and the many others who agree with you - also say that "Applying principles of class equality to an institution that is based on anything but equality is a bit off" or "Applying principles of racial equality to an institution that is based on anything but equality is a bit off", or is this argument only selectively applied to gender equality?

No, I would personally not, in regards to the DRF, because it serves no practical purpose what race an upcoming member of the DRF has, nor religion (which is a crucial thing you omitted), nor sexual orientation or class - but I would certainly have an opinion in regards to the background of the new member. Does the person have an unfortunate past? An unfortunate family? A history of an unfortunate behavior? Etc. And that matters whether that person is blue or red blooded.

But there are monarchies today, where these examples very much matters.
Can a non-Muslim marry the heir of the Saudi kingdom?
Can a non-Japanese marry the heir of the Japanese throne?
- And that's where my point from my last post comes in.
In principle a non-Muslim should of course be able to marry the heir to the Saudi kingdom.
In principle a Sudanese should be able to marry the heir to the Japanese throne.
- You just have to try and convince the locals that it's a good idea...
Because to them, for various reasons, it makes sense. It feels right. It works, for them.

Just as it, for various reasons, makes sense for most of us Danes (I won't presume to speak for people in other European monarchies) to not bestow the title of king to a male consort.
It works. It feels right, for us.

So if you try and boil reservations in regards to a royal family in a monarchy down to a matter of principles, then you have failed to understand what the monarchy really means to people in a monarchy.

 

[Prinsara]

There’s also the lamentable fact that Henrik brought it all up when it was likely brought on by some stage of dementia — aka, yes it was probably what he felt and motivated by some long-time resentment, but would he have said it with the restraints and judgment of being healthy?

And should we argue about something that was not raised in a perfectly clear and rational state of mind?

 

[maria-olivia]

Prince Henrik alive , he would never agree what happened to his Son Joachim's Children.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

No, I would personally not, in regards to the DRF, because it serves no practical purpose what race an upcoming member of the DRF has, nor religion (which is a crucial thing you omitted), nor sexual orientation or class - but I would certainly have an opinion in regards to the background of the new member. Does the person have an unfortunate past? An unfortunate family? A history of an unfortunate behavior? Etc. And that matters whether that person is blue or red blooded.

I am assuming this is a response to this question:

So, my question remains: Would you - and the many others who agree with you - also say that "Applying principles of class equality to an institution that is based on anything but equality is a bit off" or "Applying principles of racial equality to an institution that is based on anything but equality is a bit off", or is this argument only selectively applied to gender equality?

Please confirm whether I am correctly understanding your answer:

You believe that the principles of racial equality, class equality, religious equality, and sexual orientation equality (but that last one involves gender by definition...) should apply to Denmark's monarchy (and possibly to other monarchies as well). Your reasoning is that you do not see the race, class, religion, or sexual orientation of a DRF member as making any practical difference.

However, by your own admission, you believe the principle of gender equality should not apply to any monarchy. Thus - given your reasoning for believing in the other aforementioned forms of equality - that means you believe the gender of a DRF member does make a practical difference.

If I've understood you correctly, what practical difference does the gender of a DRF member (or member of any other monarchy) make, and how does that relate to titulature?

And, since you consider the issue of religion to be "crucial" to mention, please feel free to explain what you mean by that.

On another note, Muhler, I note that you introduce many new arguments and issues in each post you write. That is fine with me, and it certainly makes your posts interesting to read, but I hope you understand that I prefer to address one argument at a time and therefore will not respond to all of your comments at once.

There’s also the lamentable fact that Henrik brought it all up when it was likely brought on by some stage of dementia — aka, yes it was probably what he felt and motivated by some long-time resentment, but would he have said it with the restraints and judgment of being healthy?

And should we argue about something that was not raised in a perfectly clear and rational state of mind?

To clarify, it's not my intention to debate Prince Henrik's comments (as I already stated, I agree with those who believe he was not really motivated by gender equality or even any kind of general principle, and yes, his dementia seems to have worsened his existing public resentments), but about gender-equal titulature.

 

[duke of poliganc]

One of the points that make me lean on PH side of the argument was that he was outranked by his son as the crown prince and future king while if Christian was a girl or his sister Isabela was born first and now is the crown princess and next Queen of Denmark she wouldn’t have outranked her mother Queen Mary while being the consort of the King!

 

[Tatiana Maria]

One of the points that make me lean on PH side of the argument was that he was outranked by his son as the crown prince and future king while if Christian was a girl or his sister Isabela was born first and now is the crown princess and next Queen of Denmark she wouldn’t have outranked her mother Queen Mary while being the consort of the King!

My understanding (Muhler can correct me if I am mistaken) is that despite giving him a lower title, Queen Margrethe II generally treated her husband as outranking their sons in social precedence. The New Year's 2002 event which prompted Prince Henrik to give his infamous interview was an exception because Crown Prince Frederik was serving as Regent for his mother at the time, which accorded him precedence over his father.

It would make sense to me if Isabella also took precedence over her mother in the event of Isabella serving as Regent/Guardian of the Realm, but I don't know if that would be the case in Denmark.