Prince Philip's Former Greek Citizenship and Greek and Danish Titles

[NGalitzine]

I would still like to know how he went about renouncing his titles. It appears to be verbal because there is no written record of it, that much is for certain.

I suspect you would need to gain access to the archives of George VI of Uk or George II of The Hellenes or private achives of Philip to determine if the renunciation was verbal or in writing. It possible Lord Mountbattens archives could give you details you want since he was the one who seems to have coordinated the whole arrangement.

 

[Kataryn]

Whatever Philip did and how he did it - I'm convinced if asked his cousin Constantine will declare him a prince and member of the family. As for QMII I don't see her being difficult in case Philip wants to use his "old" titles again. You normally (whatever that means, okay) only renounces your succession rights, but not your personal status.

There is only one Habsburg archduke that comes to mind who was stripped of his titles and of course the Scandinavian princes who married unequally but I can't recall a case when a prince lost his titles because he married a future queen.

 

[branchg]

He didn't lose his titles, he voluntarily relinquished them in preparation for becoming the Consort to the British Sovereign. Quite a difference.

 

[Duke-of-Earl]

Whatever Philip did and how he did it - I'm convinced if asked his cousin Constantine will declare him a prince and member of the family. As for QMII I don't see her being difficult in case Philip wants to use his "old" titles again. You normally (whatever that means, okay) only renounces your succession rights, but not your personal status.

There is only one Habsburg archduke that comes to mind who was stripped of his titles and of course the Scandinavian princes who married unequally but I can't recall a case when a prince lost his titles because he married a future queen.

I agree with you. Renouncing succession is different from giving up your titles and I'm convinced Philip is a Prince of Greece and Denmark and IMO , Constantine would agree. (Philip's verbal renunciation had more to do with the optics in the UK and I agree with Garter King of Arms it is not legally binding)
I'm waiting on a reply from the Danish Embassy in Canada who forwarded my question to the Danish Royal Court.

 

[NGalitzine]

Since Constantine was booted out of Greece wouldn't it be a rather hollow "title" for him to give Philip such a designation? Have you written to Constantine's office to ask about Philip's renunciation of his Greek rights and title? It would seem he would be closer to the issue since all of the 1947 negotiations were between Louis Mountbatten, George VI and George II of Greece and not with the Danish court.

 

[Artemisia]

Aside from that, I'm not even certain it is possible for a former Monarch to grant a Princely title to anyone.
A title granted in the manner will hardly be recognised with the exception of some Monarchies.

 

[NGalitzine]

I just cannot imagine any circumstances under which Philip would ask for a restoration of titles that he clearly had no problems giving up in 1947. Why would he want them for himself and why would he want to complicate the lives of his children? The BRF have gone to a great deal of time and effort to stress their Britishness and to keep continental royals at a bit of a distance so taking on foreign titles doesn't really fit with the plan.

 

[Iluvbertie]

That is incorrect.
Prince Phillip was never in line for the Danish throne as he was Prince of Denmark and not to Denmark. - Both titles are usually translated in English as Prince of Denmark.
Anyway, the change in the Law of Succession in 1953 made it very clear who could be in line for the throne.

BP clearly told the British High Commission in 1947 and again in 1952 that he and, in 1953, Charles were in the line of succession to the Danish throne as male line descendents of George I of the Hellenes who didn't ever renounce his claim to that throne but moved himself below that of his younger brother.

In 1954 the information from BP listed both Philip and Charles as still being Princes of Denmark.

I have the copies of the documents that were given to employees working at the High Commission at the time - headed from Buckingham Palace with the wording 'by instructions from HM The King/Queen this is the information to be given to the public if asked'..... The document is numerous pages long and doesn't only concern Philip, but Elizabeth, George VI and The Queen Mum, lines of succession, Charles and Anne (1953 and 1954) Margaret, Queen Mary along with information on how to greet them, how to be involved in a discussion with them etc etc.

I have a lot of confidence in the British Royal Family knowing the status of members of their own family and that they would also not be putting out incorrect information.

That the line of succession to the Danish throne changed in 1953 is irrelevant to whether Philip was ever in that line - that change took him out simply because it denied the right of succession to all the descendents of Christian IX's younger sons and limited to only his eldest son's heirs (like denying the right of inheritance to the British throne to Anne, Andrew and Edward's children and limiting to only Charles'). Until then, the Danes wouldn't even allow a woman to inherit so they took the opportunity to change both the line of succession and open the succession to women.

 

[Artemisia]

I just cannot imagine any circumstances under which Philip would ask for a restoration of titles that he clearly had no problems giving up in 1947. Why would he want them for himself and why would he want to complicate the lives of his children? The BRF have gone to a great deal of time and effort to stress their Britishness and to keep continental royals at a bit of a distance so taking on foreign titles doesn't really fit with the plan.

Oh, I too cannot envision a situation when Prince Philip and/or his descendants might request the Danish Queen of the former Greek King to restore their rights to Princely titles from those countries. However, even if former King Constantine did decide to grant his cousin his former title, I don't believe it would actually be recognised anywhere but Britain and other monarchies (and even that is not certain).

 

[Duke-of-Earl]

Danish Royal Family - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following relations of Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh are members of the extended Greek and Danish royal families. However, unlike members of the Greek and Norwegian branches, [B]Prince Philip, as the senior dynast of this branch, renounced (upon taking British citizenship) his right to succeed to the Greek (but not Danish) throne, discontinuing use of his title Prince of Denmark (as well as Prince of Greece), and assuming the surname "Mountbatten". Nonetheless, all are members of the House of Oldenburg by agnatic descent or marriage:[/B]
The Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh and Elizabeth II
The Prince Charles, Prince of Wales (the Duke of Edinburgh's eldest son) and Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall (formerly Parker-Bowles, née Shand)
Prince William, Duke of Cambridge (the Prince of Wales' older son) and Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge (née Middleton)
Prince Harry of Wales (the Prince of Wales' younger son)
The Princess Anne, Princess Royal (the Duke of Edinburgh's only daughter)
The Prince Andrew, Duke of York (the Duke of Edinburgh's second son)
Princess Beatrice of York (the Duke of York's older daughter)
Princess Eugenie of York (the Duke of York's younger daughter)
The Prince Edward, Earl of Wessex (the Duke of Edinburgh's third and youngest son) and Sophie, Countess of Wessex (née Rhys-Jones)
Lady Louise Windsor (the Earl of Wessex's only daughter)
Viscount Severn (the Earl of Wessex's only son)


Its interesting it says Philip discontinued use of the title Prince of Greece and Denmark and not that he renounced those titles.

There is also evidence from the BRF that Philip and Charles were in fact in the line of secession to the Danish throne until the laws were changed

 

[Muhler]

I can't resist teasing you Duke-of-Earl,

A few posts ago you said you didn't consider wikipedia articles reliable, but now you do?

The Danish version of Wikipedia states clearly that Prince Phillip "afgav" = renounced the title as Prince of Denmark.
And he was Prince of Denmark, so any talk about him being a part of the line of succession is incorrect.

Whether you renounce/discontinue/suspend usage of/give up using a title, means that you de facto renounce it. You can't say 60 years later: "I still got the title", if you for those 60 years haven't been acknowleged having that title anymore.

In DK that means we would suddenly have a new member of the DRF. And even though it may not much of a difference, people will say (I being one of them): "Hey, you can't just leave the family and then decide you want to return".
And QMII may think: "Hey, you gave my grandfather your word".

In Greece the reaction would be: "Prince of Greece?!? We are a republic now! What's going on"?

If you give up a title, that's it. There's no going back - unless you are requested to assume your old title again.

So, how he gave up his title is pretty academical.

 

[NGalitzine]

"Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh was born a Prince of Greece and Denmark in Corfu in 1921, but renounced his Royal title when he became a naturalised British subject in 1947, adopting his maternal grandfather’s surname of Mountbatten. At the time of his engagement to Princess Elizabeth he was known as Lieutenant Philip Mountbatten, RN"...Buckingham Palace and the official site of the monarchy clearly believe that Philip gave up all his foreign ranks when he became a British subject. From the information Philip provided to his mothers biographer Philip clearly believes the same thing.

 

[Duke-of-Earl]

Camilla the Duchess of Cornwall doesn't use her title Princess of Wales but she is the legal title holder
If Philip chose not to use his title of Prince of Greece and Denmark, that doesn't mean he is not the legal holder of that title.

Also as Iluvbertie stated BP clearly told the British High Commission in 1947 and again in 1952 that he and, in 1953, Charles were in the line of succession to the Danish throne as male line descendents of George I of the Hellenes who didn't ever renounce his claim to that throne but moved himself below that of his younger brother.

In 1954 the information from BP listed both Philip and Charles as still being Princes of Denmark.

I have the copies of the documents that were given to employees working at the High Commission at the time - headed from Buckingham Palace with the wording 'by instructions from HM The King/Queen this is the information to be given to the public if asked'..... The document is numerous pages long and doesn't only concern Philip, but Elizabeth, George VI and The Queen Mum, lines of succession, Charles and Anne (1953 and 1954) Margaret, Queen Mary along with information on how to greet them, how to be involved in a discussion with them etc etc.

I have a lot of confidence in the British Royal Family knowing the status of members of their own family and that they would also not be putting out incorrect information.

That the line of succession to the Danish throne changed in 1953 is irrelevant to whether Philip was ever in that line - that change took him out simply because it denied the right of succession to all the descendents of Christian IX's younger sons and limited to only his eldest son's heirs (like denying the right of inheritance to the British throne to Anne, Andrew and Edward's children and limiting to only Charles'). Until then, the Danes wouldn't even allow a woman to inherit so they took the opportunity to change both the line of succession and open the succession to women.

Philip and Charles are princes of Denmark and both were in the line of succession to the Danish throne until the law changed

 

[Muhler]

Camilla the Duchess of Cornwall doesn't use her title Princess of Wales but she is the legal title holder
If Philip chose not to use his title of Prince of Greece and Denmark, that doesn't mean he is not the legal holder of that title.

There is a considerable difference in having a title and not using it and having a title and no longer being acknowledged of having that title.

When QMII became a monarch she gave up a number of ancient titles, including being conquerer of lands that haven't existed for hundreds of years.
These titles were not used let alone acknowledged by anyone outside DK.
Frederik can't just use these titles again when he become a king, just because his grandfather used them. That's it, they are gone.

 

[snowflower]

Muhler, I am kind of confused about Philip's danish title. You said that he was a prince of Denmark in any case so irrelevant to the succession. But I believe that his father was a Prince to Denmarkbased on my only clue -btw this I have are the graveyards to the Tatoi where king George is titled Vilhelm Prinds til Danmark and his descendants Prinds/Prinssese til Danmark , the sole time I have seen the Danish titles used- so if Prince Prince Andreas was a Prince to Denamrk , why would his son be a Prince Of Denmark? Do I translate something on the grave stones wrongly? Did they perhaps putted the titles incorrectly? Is it about the decree of relation to George I? thanks in advance

 

[Muhler]

Also as Iluvbertie stated BP clearly told the British High Commission in 1947 and again in 1952 that he and, in 1953, Charles were in the line of succession to the Danish throne as male line descendents of George I of the Hellenes who didn't ever renounce his claim to that throne but moved himself below that of his younger brother.

Any such claim would not have been acknowledged according to the first Constitution of 1849. And they were perfectly aware of that.
Only in the case of the line dying out in DK, would any members of the Greek RF have been considered. And a new monarch would have been chosen by the Parliament, that is very clear in the Constitution.

In 1954 the information from BP listed both Philip and Charles as still being Princes of Denmark.

I have the copies of the documents that were given to employees working at the High Commission at the time - headed from Buckingham Palace with the wording 'by instructions from HM The King/Queen this is the information to be given to the public if asked'..... The document is numerous pages long and doesn't only concern Philip, but Elizabeth, George VI and The Queen Mum, lines of succession, Charles and Anne (1953 and 1954) Margaret, Queen Mary along with information on how to greet them, how to be involved in a discussion with them etc etc.

I have a lot of confidence in the British Royal Family knowing the status of members of their own family and that they would also not be putting out incorrect information.

And I have a lot of confidence in the DRF having a pretty good idea about who they are in family with and who is a member of the DRF.

That the line of succession to the Danish throne changed in 1953 is irrelevant to whether Philip was ever in that line - that change took him out simply because it denied the right of succession to all the descendents of Christian IX's younger sons and limited to only his eldest son's heirs (like denying the right of inheritance to the British throne to Anne, Andrew and Edward's children and limiting to only Charles'). Until then, the Danes wouldn't even allow a woman to inherit so they took the opportunity to change both the line of succession and open the succession to women.

Philip and Charles are princes of Denmark and both in the line of succession to the Danish throne until the law changed

Again, Prince Phillip was Prince of Denmark and as such not acknowledged as being in the line of Succession, no matter what he may have believed himself.
I have never ever, not once in my life, heard about Prince Charles ever having been referred to as Prince of Denmark. Only the Danish monarch could give him such a title, you don't get it by right.
Such a claim is nonsense.

 

[Duke-of-Earl]

hen was Phillip's Greek and Danish titles not acknowledged or recognized?
Well if Buckingham Palace says Phillip and Charles are Princes of Denmark, than thats that. I need no more proof or evidence.

 

[Muhler]

Muhler, I am kind of confused about Philip's danish title. You said that he was a prince of Denmark in any case so irrelevant to the succession. But I believe that his father was a Prince to Denmarkbased on my only clue -btw this I have are the graveyards to the Tatoi where king George is titled Vilhelm Prinds til Danmark and his descendants Prinds/Prinssese til Danmark , the sole time I have seen the Danish titles used- so if Prince Prince Andreas was a Prince to Denamrk , why would his son be a Prince Of Denmark? Do I translate something on the grave stones wrongly? Did they perhaps putted the titles incorrectly? Is it about the decree of relation to George I? thanks in advance

No wonder.

I did a quick check Andreas af Grækenland - Wikipedia, den frie encyklopædi
and in Denmark his title is Prince of Denmark. - This may have something to do with the Greek branch not being willing to give up their potential claim to the Danish throne and that claim not being acknowledged in Denmark, hence the title of Denmark and not to Denmark. And that was cemented after the change in 1953.

 

[NGalitzine]

When was Phillip's Greek and Danish titles not acknowledged or recognized?

Hmmm, well since 1947 I would say as far as the BRF was concerned since he was created HRH The Duke of Edinburgh after having previously signed naturalization documents to become a British citizen as Lt Philip Mountbatten, and certainly as far as he was concerned given the information he provided his mothers biographer. Even this very day if you go to the BRF monarchy website they say he renounced those titles and is HRH The Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh. They include all of his other styles and titles and honours but no Prince of Greece & Denmark.

I have asked a few times but I don't believe you have ever answered. Why do you want to foist foreign titles on a man who certainly believes that he gave them up and why would you want his heirs to carry foreign titles which would clearly complicate their lives? The Greek title would be useless and QMII does not include him in the list of those people who are members of her royal family on her website.

 

[Muhler]

When was Phillip's Greek and Danish titles not acknowledged or recognized?

Since he renounced them 65 or so years ago.

Well if Buckingham Palace says Phillip and Charles are Princes of Denmark, than thats that. I need no more proof or evidence.

Ah, come on.

With all due respect for the BRF, they have no sovereignty and no jurisdiction in Denmark. They cannot claim that Prince Phillip is prince in a foreign monarchy. That's up to the Danish monarch to decide.
Just as they can't claim he is a prince in a republic.

What are you going to do if the Danish court says that Prince Phillip is not Prince of Denmark? Dismiss it and say that Buckingham Palace is right?

 

[Duke-of-Earl]

In 1954 BP listed both Phillip and Charles as Princes Of Denmark. Why does Buckingham Palace insist on foisting foreign titles on people who according to you are not entitled to them

Muhler, please provide your evidence that Phillip renounced his titles. There is no written record and Garter considers verbal renunciation not valid. BP says he never renounced his titles either verbally or otherwise

 

[NGalitzine]

In 1954 BP listed both Phillip and Charles as Princes Of Denmark. Why does Buckingham Palace insist on foisting foreign titles on people who according to you are not entitled to them

Well have you ever seen BP list Philips styles and titles as HRH Prince Philip of the UK, Prince of Greece and Denmark. Whatever may or may not have been put out there in 1954 if you go the the British monarchy website today you will see where Philip renounced his foreign titles in 1947. They list all of his current styles, titles, honours and the styles of Prince of Greece and Denmark is never mentioned.
You still havent answered the question I asked btw.

 

[Muhler]

Muhler, please provide your evidence that Phillip renounced his titles. There is no written record and Garter considers verbal renunciation not valid.

How many links do you want?

He is not listed anywhere in Denmark as having that title.
He is not referred to anywhere in DK as having that title.
He is not even mentioned on the official DRF website.

I have really tried to check if you could be right and I can't find anything in Denmark to back up your claim.

What more do you want from me? That I phone QMII and ask her? That I take time off from work and go to Copenhagen and look in the national archive.
I've even written to a historian and asked

No, you prove that he still is Prince of Denmark, this is your claim.
I'm going to bed, goodnight.

 

[NGalitzine]

FYI on page 91 of this thread you wrote "Thank you for this quote NGalitzine. If Philip himself says he renounced his titles of Greece and Denmark than I stand corrected."

 

[Duke-of-Earl]

My answer is that he was and continues to be a Prince of Greece and Denmark by birthright.

How many links do you want?.

So you agree he was a Prince of Denmark but can't provide any information on when he ceased to hold this title? In that case he obviously still holds his Greek and Danish titles

The Danes need to update their information

FYI on page 91 of this thread you wrote "Thank you for this quote NGalitzine. If Philip himself says he renounced his titles of Greece and Denmark than I stand corrected."

Yes but since then Iluvbertie provided this

BP clearly told the British High Commission in 1947 and again in 1952 that he and, in 1953, Charles were in the line of succession to the Danish throne as male line descendents of George I of the Hellenes who didn't ever renounce his claim to that throne but moved himself below that of his younger brother.

In 1954 the information from BP listed both Philip and Charles as still being Princes of Denmark.

I have the copies of the documents that were given to employees working at the High Commission at the time - headed from Buckingham Palace with the wording 'by instructions from HM The King/Queen this is the information to be given to the public if asked'..... The document is numerous pages long and doesn't only concern Philip, but Elizabeth, George VI and The Queen Mum, lines of succession, Charles and Anne (1953 and 1954) Margaret, Queen Mary along with information on how to greet them, how to be involved in a discussion with them etc etc.

I have a lot of confidence in the British Royal Family knowing the status of members of their own family and that they would also not be putting out incorrect information.

That the line of succession to the Danish throne changed in 1953 is irrelevant to whether Philip was ever in that line - that change took him out simply because it denied the right of succession to all the descendents of Christian IX's younger sons and limited to only his eldest son's heirs (like denying the right of inheritance to the British throne to Anne, Andrew and Edward's children and limiting to only Charles'). Until then, the Danes wouldn't even allow a woman to inherit so they took the opportunity to change both the line of succession and open the succession to women.

 

[NGalitzine]

Clearly Philip does not know what his own titles are and what he did in 1947 or he entered into some sort of a conspiracy to hide the fact that he secretly enjoys being a Prince of one defunct monarchy and of another monarchy that does not even claim him. His wife must be complicit in this 65 year old lie since she continues to advance the lie in her own website to this very day. That you DofE for bringing this conspiracy to light.

 

[snowflower]

... I have a lot of confidence in the British Royal Family knowing the status of members of their own family and that they would also not be putting out incorrect information.

Then why are Lord Nicholas' sons Albert and Leopold listed in the Line of Succesion or the official Website ? They were baprtised as Roman Catholic and aren't eligible to become Sovereigns. The BRF can make mistakes

 

[Duke-of-Earl]

Clearly Philip does not know what his own titles are and what he did in 1947 or he entered into some sort of a conspiracy to hide the fact that he secretly enjoys being a Prince of one defunct monarchy and of another monarchy that does not even claim him. His wife must be complicit in this 65 year old lie since she continues to advance the lie in her own website to this very day. That you DofE for bringing this conspiracy to light.

At most I will concede he verbally renounced his titles because I and many others can find no written record of Phillip renouncing his titles.
Even after his 'verbal renunciation' in 1947 , Garter states "I believe he remains a Prince of Greece and Denmark though naturalized here"
Garter seems to not put much stock in his verbal renunciation.

 

[Archduchess Zelia]

The Danes need to update their information

Philip is not a Danish Prince, there's no information to update.

 

[Duke-of-Earl]

Philip is not a Danish Prince, there's no information to update.

Phillip is a Danish Prince. He was born a Prince of Greece and Denmark and there is no written record he gave up his titles. He may have decided to stop using them but that doesn't mean he isn't legally still the holder of these titles.