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

[CyrilVladisla]

From the book Prince Philip by Philip Eade:

Philip, meanwhile, by his own account, 'wasn't madly in favour [of taking the name Mountbatten]...but in the end I was persuaded, and anyway I couldn't think of a reasonable alternative'.
​

 

[crown]

I am not suggesting dual citizenship, I am merely saying he has a right to a Danish passport, in the unlikely event he finds himself stateless, as Constantine II did. s.

As I'm sure you know the law os succession to the Danish Throne was changed in 1953. In fact more changes to the Danish Constitution were made that year one of which happens to be the Danish nationality law.
I should clearify that the original text uses the term 'indfødsret' which does not translate easily to english. It means to be eligible for Danish citizenship.
The law states that have Danish 'indfødsret'/ to be eligible for Danish citizenship at least one parent have to be a Danish citizen. I am not sure that was the case for Prince Philip.
The law also states that the 'indfødsret' will be forfeited if:
a) if a person voluntarily acquires nationality of another country (whether after application or by entering the public service of another country)
b) if a person acquired Danish nationality by birth, but was not born in Denmark and has never lived in Denmark by the age of 22 years.

Prince Philip's Danish 'indfødsret' would be lost on both accounts. So no - in the unlikely event that PP finds himself stateles he has no right to a Danish passport. Maybe QMII could pull a few strings should that ever happen.

 

[Ish]

I have a random question. I was reading a (not very good) mystery novel that focused on the then-Princess Elizabeth during WWII. In it at one point, Prince Philip is referred to as "Lieutenant Mountbatten". It got me wondering what name did Prince Philip use during his military service in the war?

I know that in 1947 he officially became Lieutenant Philip Mountbatten when he gave up his Greek titles, but I'm not sure what he was called between 1939-1946.

 

[Rudolph]

At school he was known as 'Philip of Greece' and I believe during his war service he was 'HRH Prince Philip of Greece'

I can't find anything official referring to Mountbatten before 1947

 

[Curryong]

According to the book 'Young Prince Philip' by Philip Eade, (which is footnoted throughout) Philip was referred to by colleagues and fellow naval officers as Prince Philip of Greece' during his war service. He didn't give up that styling until his naturalisation.

 

[Rudolph]

I have a question.

Let's say Philip never married. He was born a Prince of Greece and Denmark. Greece is now a republic so he isn't a Prince of Greece but what about Denmark?

I realise he's not in the line of succession and Danish titles are royal prerogative, but has any Danish king or queen ever used their prerogative to take away his 'Prince of Denmark' title?

For the sake of my question let's say he never 'renounced' his titles, where along the timeline would he have ceased to be a prince of Denmark or was the Denmark title tied to him being a Greek prince and he would have lost both when Greece became a republic?

 

[Mbruno]

Not that I know of. Wouldn't be necessary anyway because:
A: Phillip had already renounced his title.
B: The Danish Constitution states clearly that it is the Monarch who decides who should be granted or stripped of titles. - The Parliament need not legislate on the matter and the government can only advise.
(Phillip is not covered by the Danish Law of Succession, since he is not a Danish citizen and he was only Prince of Denmark anyway).

Besides, I believe the current Danish Law of Succession only applies to the descendants of King Christian X and Queen Alexandrine, which is not Philip's case.

QMII can in theory strip all members of the DRF of their royal status tomorrow should she wish to. With the sole exeption of the Crown Prince, his status cannot be changed. - British legislation or not, it's the Danish Monarch who has the final word.

I am not sure what you mean by "stripping all members of the DRF of their royal status", but, since QMII cannot unilaterally amend the Act of Succession, she most certainly cannot unilaterally remove any of her children or grandchildren from the line of succession unless they marry without her consent given in a Council of State.

 

[Curryong]

Surely, as Nudge pointed out in his post of #267 in 2014, even though Greece became a republic in 1974, members of the Greek royal family retain their stylings as a courtesy. Certainly Constantine is still referred to as a King (although) an ex King, and his son Pavlos is similarly styled Crown Prince, so surely, just as Pavlos's siblings are still Princes/Princesses of Greece, so would Prince Philip be had he never renounced his stylings?

 

[Ish]

I have a question.

Let's say Philip never married. He was born a Prince of Greece and Denmark. Greece is now a republic so he isn't a Prince of Greece but what about Denmark?

I realise he's not in the line of succession and Danish titles are royal prerogative, but has any Danish king or queen ever used their prerogative to take away his 'Prince of Denmark' title?

For the sake of my question let's say he never 'renounced' his titles, where along the timeline would he have ceased to be a prince of Denmark or was the Denmark title tied to him being a Greek prince and he would have lost both when Greece became a republic?

The changes to the Danish line of succession happened in 1953, while Greece was still a monarchy. Despite that, neither in 1953 nor at any point since then has there been legislature to revoke the use of the royal titles by the descendants of George I of Greece.

Technically speaking, the Greek Royal Family members are no longer Greek Royals - as Greece no longer recognizes them as such - but they are still Danish royals, with the exception (I believe) of Prince Michael's wife, Marina, and their two daughters, Alexandra and Olga, as their marriage was non-dynastic.

By that same argument, and depending on the legal recognition of the DoE's "renunciation", the DoE, and most of their descendants (the exception being Anne's children and grandchildren) might technically also be Danish royals, if not in the Danish line of succession.

Surely, as Nudge pointed out in his post of #267 in 2014, even though Greece became a republic in 1974, members of the Greek royal family retain their stylings as a courtesy. Certainly Constantine is still referred to as a King (although) an ex King, and his son Pavlos is similarly styled Crown Prince, so surely, just as Pavlos's siblings are still Princes/Princesses of Greece, so would Prince Philip be had he never renounced his stylings?

The Greek Royal Family continues to use their Greek titles by courtesy in places that recognize them (Greece has not always done so. But (as I argued above), their Danish titles have never been taken away from them - succession rights, yes, but not titles.

 

[SLV]

Why do they have those Danish titles?

 

[WreathOfLaurels]

Why do they have those Danish titles?

Good question SLV, allow mw to explain.

it's because Philip's grandfather George I was one of the sons of Christian 9 of Denmark and part of the deal which let george become king stated that at the time george and his children could keep their danish succession rights with george coming down lower than his younger brother waldemar, as Denmark was having succession issues at the time and the greek throne wasn't stable. By 1952 the succession in Denmark was amended to make only the descendants of Christian 10 eligible on top of the other requirements (be lutheran, dont marry down etc...) and the royal greeks lost their places in the succession.* However, for reasons of history and prestige they retain the dynastic titles 'prins af danmark' instead 'prins til dammark'. The question of whether Philip's renounciantion of his greek and danish titles' legality in Denmark on the other hand is more complicated. Its similar to the Hannovers still calling themselves 'prince(ess) of hannover, Great Britain and Ireland' - instead of picking a pointless fight sometimes its better to let sleeping dogs lie.

* the norwegian branch of the family rebounded theirs when Haakon 7 took the Norwegian crown.

 

[Muhler]

Besides, I believe the current Danish Law of Succession only applies to the descendants of King Christian X and Queen Alexandrine, which is not Philip's case.



I am not sure what you mean by "stripping all members of the DRF of their royal status", but, since QMII cannot unilaterally amend the Act of Succession, she most certainly cannot unilaterally remove any of her children or grandchildren from the line of succession unless they marry without her consent given in a Council of State.

In theory QMII can strip all members of the DRF of their titles as royals. That's her decision alone. - It would of course cause some, ahem, turmoil! But in theory she can. - With the sole exception of the Crown Prince. Frederik's status is guaranteed under the Law of Succession and cannot be changed. But QMII could, again in theory, decide tomorrow to strip Mary of her title, so she would be Countess of Montpezat only.

All who are in the Line of Succession in DK are officially listed:
Frederik.
Christian.
Isabella.
Vincent.
Josephine.
Joachim.
Nikolai.
Felix.
Henrik.
Athena.
Benedikte.
Elisabeth.

- And that's it.

All of the above are titled Prince/ss to Denmark.
Everybody else, the GRF included, are at best titled of Denmark. I.e. they are not in the line of succession.

QMII could also change the titles of Benedikte's two daughters to Princess to Denmark, but as there is no shortage of spares, alive and well, it would be most odd and cause a number of very raised eyebrows!
But she is the Monarch and head of the family, so in theory...

 

[WreathOfLaurels]

Wow, the Danish government are confident nothing will go wring for the RF in the future. That sure is a small sucession pool. Daisy must really be fond of her sister and brother in law, a more sensible person would have told Tino to pull his head in and simply compromise on the surname issue. Common sense would also dictate that republics dont do titles and there's no point in flogging that particular dead horse!

However I remember hearing somewhere that with the Dutch Royals, all the titles from the successive prince consorts (meckelinburg-schwerin, Schaumburg-Lippe-Biersfield, Von Aremsberg) are now part of the titles of the Dutch monarch without changing the family name. Luxembourg has on the other hand gone from being Orange-Nassau to Bourbon Parma (and got an upgrade from HGDH to HRH in the process) due to GDss Charlottes marriage to Prince Felix BP. Im personally of the opinion that if the BRF's 'name' had not been made such a fuss of during WWI (i.e. If george 5 had just stopped using the name saxe-coburg like the belgian cousins and not made such a song and dance about the name windsor) than probably Ph would not have needed to go through the rig morale of renouctions (thus saving everyone a great deal of confusion) and the dynasty's name change would have happened under the radar (thus avoiding all the fuss kicked up by Ph and Mountbatten over the matter).

 

[Iluvbertie]

It should be remembered though that the Germans actually occupied about 90% of Belgium so a King denouncing his German name publicly could have had even worse consequences than the horrific ones they were suffering under the occupation anyway.

The King, wasn't captive of course but he really only commanded in a miniscule part of his nation.

In Britain though there was a lot of anti-German feeling and no real consequences for the public when George V made his decision. Had he not made that decision though there may have been different consequences.

 

[WreathOfLaurels]

The point I was trying to make is that a lot of talk about royal names is often arbitrary e.g. The DRF don't have an official surname - they just use 'Denmark' or 'Dane' when they need one - Glucksburg is a dynastic name. This is also the same line taken by a number of other royal families Likewise there is no consensus on the actual name of the BRF pre Windorization, was it Saxe Coburg? Wettein? Brunswick? Hannover? Part of the problem was the families habit of following german practice of all family members in the male line being styled prince regardless of how close to the throne they were or not (think the Hohezollerns) and too many HRH's HH's and so on. The changes were to bring them in line with standard UK aristocratic practice. The GRF took their cue from its Danish/German antecedents and hence have no official surname.Given the amount of sneering about the RF's german ancestry there still is, i'd say that it probably didn't achieve its intended goal. They were trying too hard and so was Philip - given that he is still called 'the hun' and 'Phil the Greek' by sundry snobs and wags. Had the BRF simply stuck with using titles and toponyms only and dropped the saxon arms from their arms, there would have been no to make a fuss about names in the first place. George 5 would still have been toast if the british had been on the loosing end of the war as he would have been a natural scapegoat for someone like Lloyd George regardless of name changes or anything else along those lines.

Here are the usable surnames of the current RFs of Europe

* Sweden - Bernadotte
* Spain - Borbon
* Monaco - Grimaldi
* UK - Windsor

The rest use toponyms ('of *****') as do many of the former families, asian and ME monarchies.

 

[SLV]

Good question SLV, allow mw to explain.

it's because Philip's grandfather George I was one of the sons of Christian 9 of Denmark and part of the deal which let george become king stated that at the time george and his children could keep their danish succession rights with george coming down lower than his younger brother waldemar, as Denmark was having succession issues at the time and the greek throne wasn't stable. By 1952 the succession in Denmark was amended to make only the descendants of Christian 10 eligible on top of the other requirements (be lutheran, dont marry down etc...) and the royal greeks lost their places in the succession.* However, for reasons of history and prestige they retain the dynastic titles 'prins af danmark' instead 'prins til dammark'. The question of whether Philip's renounciantion of his greek and danish titles' legality in Denmark on the other hand is more complicated. Its similar to the Hannovers still calling themselves 'prince(ess) of hannover, Great Britain and Ireland' - instead of picking a pointless fight sometimes its better to let sleeping dogs lie.

* the norwegian branch of the family rebounded theirs when Haakon 7 took the Norwegian crown.

Thank you for your thorough explanation!

 

[Lumutqueen]

* UK - Windsor

For any descendant that doesn't have an of ...., they use Mountbatten-Windsor as a surname. Anne may have used it when she got married to Tim, and Charles and William have used it on occasions.

Windsor is the "dynasty" name if you like.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

In theory QMII can strip all members of the DRF of their titles as royals. That's her decision alone. - It would of course cause some, ahem, turmoil! But in theory she can. - With the sole exception of the Crown Prince. Frederik's status is guaranteed under the Law of Succession and cannot be changed. But QMII could, again in theory, decide tomorrow to strip Mary of her title, so she would be Countess of Montpezat only.

I agree that it is very unlikely, but in theory, I think the heir apparent could be stripped of his or her royal title, because the titles of Prince(ss) and Crown Prince(ss) are not used in the Danish Constitution and Law of Succession.

Here are the usable surnames of the current RFs of Europe

* Sweden - Bernadotte
* Spain - Borbon
* Monaco - Grimaldi
* UK - Windsor

* Netherlands - van Oranje-Nassau
* Luxembourg - de Nassau

 

[Mbruno]

I agree that it is very unlikely, but in theory, I think the heir apparent could be stripped of his or her royal title, because the titles of Prince(ss) and Crown Prince(ss) are not used in the Danish Constitution and Law of Succession.



* Netherlands - van Oranje-Nassau
* Luxembourg - de Nassau

Isn't the usable surname of Queen Elizabeth II's descendants Mountbatten-Windsor rather than Windsor only ?

Likewise, I think the usable surname for the Dutch royals is van Oranje-Nassau van Amsberg for the children of Prince Constantijn and Prince Friso, and van Oranje-Nassau van Vollenhoven for Princess Margriet's children. My understanding is that King Willem-Alexander and his daughters don't use a surname, as I believe it is also the case of all members of the British Royal Family who are HRHs.

The Swedes, on the other hand, confuse me as always. In principle, princes or princesses of Sweden should not use a surname either, but Carl Philip uses the family name Bernadotte in his design company, Daniel changed his legal name to Westling Bernadotte, and Sofia also legally took up Bernadotte as her surname after getting married. It is even more complicated when it comes to Madeleine's children. Leonore's (American?) passport is said to have her listed as "Bernadotte O'Neill", but the Swedish Royal Court insists Leonore and Nicholas are not O'Neill and actually don't have a surname.

I suppose the Belgians are the most consistent in that respect, i.e. not using a surname in the official documents relating to any "prince of Belgium", as is correct IMHO.

However I remember hearing somewhere that with the Dutch Royals, all the titles from the successive prince consorts (meckelinburg-schwerin, Schaumburg-Lippe-Biersfield, Von Aremsberg) are now part of the titles of the Dutch monarch without changing the family name.

They are only titles of the the Dutch royals, I suppose, as long as they are inheritable, which only applies normally in male line. In other words, Princess Juliana was Duchess of Mecklenburg-Schwerin, but Princess Beatrix was not. Princess Beatrix, on the other hand, was Princess of Lippe-Biesterfeld but Prince Willem-Alexander was not. Willem-Alexander, however, was Jonkheer van Amsberg.

When Juliana, Beatrix and Willem-Alexander became queen/king, they stopped using those titles, but Juliana and Beatrix started to use them again upon abdication, together with the legally mandated title of Princess of the Netherlands. I don't quite understand why that is the case.

 

[Muhler]

I agree that it is very unlikely, but in theory, I think the heir apparent could be stripped of his or her royal title, because the titles of Prince(ss) and Crown Prince(ss) are not used in the Danish Constitution and Law of Succession.

No, but the title of "Tronfølger" = Heir to the Throne is used. And the heir is by law guaranteed his/her place in the Line of Succession.
Also the heir is the only one who is titled Regent in the absence of the monarch. Everybody else are titled Rigsforstander.
So logically QMII can't strip Frederik of his royal status.

She could elevate Frederik to a royal, I assume, if for whatever reason QMII was the last DRF (suitable) member and the Parliament appointed Frederik to be the next king - in consultation with QMII of course.
But now we are going even further out in the shadowland of really far-out what ifs.

 

[WreathOfLaurels]

They are only titles of the the Dutch royals, I suppose, as long as they are inheritable, which only applies normally in male line. In other words, Princess Juliana was Duchess of Mecklenburg-Schwerin, but Princess Beatrix was not. Princess Beatrix, on the other hand, was Princess of Lippe-Biesterfeld but Prince Willem-Alexander was not. Willem-Alexander, however, was Jonkheer van Amsberg.

I guess then that WA's daughters, along with Constantijn and the late Friso's children will also have Jonkheer/[feminine eqv of Jhr] Von Amsberg as part of their titles e.g. Prince/princess of the netherlands/orange-nassau and Jhr von Amsberg? As this has become part of the titles of the male line unlike the MS/SBL ones which stopped with each new male in the family?

When Juliana, Beatrix and Willem-Alexander became queen/king, they stopped using those titles, but Juliana and Beatrix started to use them again upon abdication, together with the legally mandated title of Princess of the Netherlands. I don't quite understand why that is the case.

Seems logical, princess of MS/SBL is part of the titles they inherited from their fathers and there's no reason why they should not be discretely allowed to acknowledge their paternal heritage, as long as there isn't a song and dance about it as the use of both maternal and paternal titles if the mother was an heiress is permissible in most cases. I guess that WA if and when he chooses to abdicate (hoping he doesn't die before Catharina Amalia is of age) will probably assume the title prince of the netherlands, Jonkheer von Amsberg, as it seems to be a family tradition of sorts. The Danes came up with a similar solution to Prince Hendrik's kicking up of a stink over his monpezat comital title with the title passing to those not in the direct line of succession.

Bringing all this back to the discussion of the DoE's Greek/Danish titles, compared to contenential practice, the windsors are the outliers. Much of this comes from the anglophone practice that women take their husbands names and titles instead of the practice of the rest of europe where women keep their own names and titles and that children often have the right to use both family names (a widespread practice in the hispanic lands and iberian peninsula), but with the fathers names and titles being the ones that are considered heritable. The exeption is heiresses to titles and arms which become part of the family name (this is where all those vons, undos, eats, las, ys and multibarrelled names came from)

For example if the above practice had been the norm than Ph&E's children could have used their mothers and fathers titles and arms jointly and had both surnames along w Ph using a UK title in conjunction with his birth ones e.g. Glucksburg-Windsor (von Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glucksburg und zu Saxe-Coburg und Gotha?), prince(ss) of the UK and NI, Greece and Denmark; but with the provision that those in the direct line of succession would drop the G/D titles and arms without any need for renouciations and other such hooha, this would have spared Philips pride, as well as not having to the bring the whole mountbatten/battenburg thing into it (and it was the mountbatten thing that was the cause of the trouble not the name and title issue within itself - nobody wanted to see uncle dickie going around being that smug)

However this was not a realistic option in the political climate of the time - too mitteleuropean - but the gender customs of the times in which Philip married into the BRF is a large part of all this as well. There was never any seroius suggestion that as part of his naturalization that he simply take his wife's name after the wedding, a solution that would have solved a number of problems but social convention both then and now would not have looked kindly on this. There was also the fact that in the 1950s there was a considerable stigma attached to the use of maternal surnames - normally it was a sign of illegetamacy. This was one of the reasons why Queen Vic was so insistent that Albert should be able to pass his titles to their children, and why QE2 felt the same about her children as well.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

Isn't the usable surname of Queen Elizabeth II's descendants Mountbatten-Windsor rather than Windsor only ?

Likewise, I think the usable surname for the Dutch royals is van Oranje-Nassau van Amsberg for the children of Prince Constantijn and Prince Friso, and van Oranje-Nassau van Vollenhoven for Princess Margriet's children. My understanding is that King Willem-Alexander and his daughters don't use a surname, as I believe it is also the case of all members of the British Royal Family who are HRHs.

[...]

There are various surnames:

The children of King Willem-Alexander
Van Oranje-Nassau (prins / prinses)

The children of Prince Friso and Prince Constantijn
Van Oranje-Nassau van Amsberg (graaf / gravin)

The children of Prince Maurits
Van Lippe-Biesterfeld van Vollenhoven (no title)

The children of Prince Bernhard, Prince Pieter-Christiaan, Prince Floris
Van Vollenhoven (no title)

In the Royal House Act 2002 is regulated that the (title and) surname (prince/princess) van Oranje Nassau indicates a close relationship to the person of the Sovereign. This (title and) surname follows the Sovereign, regardless his/her gender. This policy has been followed indeed since only the four daughters of Queen Juliana, the three sons of Queen Beatrix and the three daughters of King Willem-Alexander have this surname indeed.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

British princes and peers ordinarily do not use their official surnames, though Mountbatten-Windsor appeared on Princess Anne's marriage register in 1973. On occasions when they need an unofficial surname, they use their territorial designations, Harry Wales for example.

In spite of the court insisting they have no surname, it was reported that Princess Madeleine's children were listed as Bernadotte O'Neill in their Swedish passports and registered in Sweden as Bernadotte.

Belgian royals and nobles have reportedly been required to begin using surnames in their identity documents.

No, but the title of "Tronfølger" = Heir to the Throne is used. And the heir is by law guaranteed his/her place in the Line of Succession.
Also the heir is the only one who is titled Regent in the absence of the monarch. Everybody else are titled Rigsforstander.
So logically QMII can't strip Frederik of his royal status.

I understand that the Queen of Denmark cannot strip anyone of their place in the line of succession; I meant that the Constitution does not say the Tronfølger must have the title of Crown Prince(ss) or Prince(ss).

I guess then that WA's daughters, along with Constantijn and the late Friso's children will also have Jonkheer/[feminine eqv of Jhr] Von Amsberg as part of their titles e.g. Prince/princess of the netherlands/orange-nassau and Jhr von Amsberg?

In the Royal Decree of January 25, 2002 declaring the titles of the future children of the Prince of Orange and Princess Máxima, and on the website of the Royal House of the Netherlands, the children of Willem-Alexander and Máxima did not receive the title Jonkvrouw van Amsberg, as opposed to their father and cousins.

Besluit van 25 januari 2002 tot vaststelling van de titels en het predikaat van Máxima Zorreguieta en van de titels, namen en het predikaat van de kinderen die geboren mochten worden uit het huwelijk van Zijne Koninklijke Hoogheid Prins Willem-Alexander Claus George Ferdinand, Prins van Oranje, Prins der Nederlanden, Prins van Oranje-Nassau, Jonkheer van Amsberg met Hare Koninklijke Hoogheid Prinses Máxima der Nederlanden, Prinses van Oranje-Nassau, mevrouw van Amsberg

Titels leden Koninklijke Familie | Titels, aanspreektitels en beschermheerschappen | Het Koninklijk Huis

 

[Tatiana Maria]

In the event that Princess Elizabeth had been the younger daughter of King George VI, would Philip have renounced his foreign succession rights and citizenship and the use of his foreign titles?

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

[...]

In the Royal Decree of January 25, 2002 declaring the titles of the future children of the Prince of Orange and Princess Máxima, and on the website of the Royal House of the Netherlands, the children of Willem-Alexander and Máxima did not receive the title Jonkvrouw van Amsberg, as opposed to their father and cousins. [...]

Correct, it is added to the "Enz. Enz. Enz." ("And so on and so forth") in the official titulature of the King.
The King's three daughters are prinses der Nederlanden, prinses van Oranje-Nassau with the prefix Koninklijke Hoogheid.

The children of his two younger brothers are graaf (gravin) van Oranje-Nassau, jonkheer (jonkvrouw) van Amsberg with the prefix Hooggeboren Heer (Vrouwe) and the surname Van Oranje-Nassau van Amsberg.

But: as in the Dutch nobiliary system a stapling of titles is not customary, only the highest is used: graaf (gravin) van Oranje-Nassau van Amsberg. With other words: the practical use of jonkheer (jonkvrouw) van Amsberg has become dormant.

 

[Queen Claude]

In the event that Princess Elizabeth had been the younger daughter of King George VI, would Philip have renounced his foreign succession rights and citizenship and the use of his foreign titles?

I doubt it especially if the older heir had married and had children. When Prince Albert married Victoria, he did not have to give up succession to the Saxe-Coburg duchy and eventually one of Albert and Victoria's sons inherited the duchy. Also British royals who married into foreign royal houses did not lose their succession rights. I know that the Norwegian royals are in the line of succession for the British throne, but now I am wondering if the same is true of the Swedish and Danish royals.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Yes the Swedes and Danes are in the line of succession to the British throne - Norwegians first due to descent from Edward VII while the Swedes come from their descent from Prince Arthur of Connaught. The Danes are also descended from Prince Arthur but from a later generation - Princess Ingrid rather than Princess Margaret.

The only reason the Spanish and Belgians aren't is their religion - Roman Catholic.

There are also many German 'princes and princesses' in the line of succession - including those descended from Kaiser and those descended from the Dukes of Albany and Cumberland whose titles were stripped but not their rights of succession.

The main reason Philip had to give up his succession rights and nationalities was the timing - it was immediately after the war, he had sisters married to serving German officers, Britain was largely xenophobic at the time and anything that looked like being German was not acceptable.

Look at how many people call him 'German' now - totally ignoring the fact his mother was born in the UK (Windsor Castle) and that he had chosen to serve in the British navy - having had the choice of four navies (Greek, Danish, German and British).

 

[AC21091968]

I'm not quite sure if this is in the right thread.

The Mail on Sunday has apparently unearthed Prince Philip's birth certificate handwritten and issued by a priest named Spiriodon Tryfonas. It was written Katharevousa Greek. Prince Philip's birth certificate has been "lying buried" "in a municipal archive" located in an old British Army barracks". This old British Army barracks "sits within the imposing Venetian fortress overlooking Corfu's Old Town". Philip was born in Mon Repos, Corfu.

https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2021/04/10/21/41593568-9457569-image-a-4_1618086038426.jpg

The rough translation of Prince Philip's birth certificate in the Mail on Sunday article (Unsure about the accuracy and reliability):

In Corfu, on October 24 of the year 1921, I, the undersigned vicar of the Church of Our Christ the Saviour, which is located in the grounds of the Royal Estate Mon Repos, declare that His Royal Highness Prince Andreas (Andrew) of Greece, aged 39, son of our late King George I, born in Athens and residing in Corfu, appeared before me.

He presented to me a newborn male infant, and stated that he was born on Friday May 28 1921 at 10am in his residence to Her Royal Princess Aliki (Alice), aged 36, daughter of Louis, Prince of Battenberg, born in Windsor Castle.

During his baptism the newborn was given the name Philippos (Philip) by his godparents, namely Her Royal Majesty Queen Mother Olga, represented by Her Highness Princess Olga, daughter of His Royal Highness Prince Nikolaos of Greece, and the Municipality of the Corfiates, represented unanimously by Mayor Mr Alexandros S. Kokotos, and Mr Stylianos I. Maniarizis, president of the Municipal Council.

The hereby act of registration was compiled in presence of the witness, Theodoros Chrysovitsianos, son of Nikolaos, aged 45, doctor, born in Corfu, and Konstantinos Alamanos, son of Pericles, aged 39, lawyer, born in Corfu, and both municipal councils.

The act of registration is legally signed by me, the appeared, and the witnesses.

Prince Philip's birth certificate is unearthed after lying buried for 99 years in an archive close to the Greek villa where he was born

• Document was written by hand in Katharevousa Greek, a purist version of modern Greek, by priest named Spiriodon Tryfonas on island of Corfu
• Found in municipal archive housed in old British Army barracks that sits within the imposing Venetian fortress overlooking Corfu's Old Town
• Details how Prince Andrew of Greece, Philip's father, presented baby boy to priest, which he said had been born at 10am on May 28, 1921
• Philip was actually born on June 10, 1921 but experts say his birth was registered using old Julian calendar, still being used in Greece in early 20th Century

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...taboola_feed&ns_mchannel=rss&ico=taboola_feed

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

That is true. It is always believed Princess Beatrix (1938), Princess Irene (1939) and Princess Margriet (1943) of the Netherlands (the last one born in Ottawa even) can claim UK passports as descendants of Anne Princess of Orange-Nassau born Princess of Great Britain and Hannover, The Princess Royal. They were all born before the Sophia Naturalization Act was repealed. The Dutch Court however denied they have ever used this Act.

 

[fandesacs2003]

Very nice finding, I read the scanned document, it is crystal clear.
The interesting point is what happened after. Was Prince Andreas and his whole family deprived by their Greek nationality? Prince Andreas I believe yes but did they extent this to the whole family?
I explain, in Greece according to the law, citizens are not allowed to deny and abandon their nationality, action, if happen, it has to come from the State.
So if the action of retiring from Pcs Andreas his Greek nationality, was nor extended to his kids also, they were and remain Greek.
Consequently, when Prince Philip wanted to marry Princess Elizabeth, he gave up his rights to the throne, this was correct. But giving up his Greek nationality, he couldn't, matter had to be done from the State. I presume that since his first cousin King Paul was then ruling, a solution was found. But it is not obvious. Greek citizens cannot give up their nationality.
There are rare examples in Greece the 20th century, when state took out nationality, especially during the 1967 dictatorship, and also from King Konstantine II.

I'm not quite sure if this is in the right thread.

The Mail on Sunday has apparently unearthed Prince Philip's birth certificate handwritten and issued by a priest named Spiriodon Tryfonas. It was written Katharevousa Greek. Prince Philip's birth certificate has been "lying buried" "in a municipal archive" located in an old British Army barracks". This old British Army barracks "sits within the imposing Venetian fortress overlooking Corfu's Old Town". Philip was born in Mon Repos, Corfu.

https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2021/04/10/21/41593568-9457569-image-a-4_1618086038426.jpg

The rough translation of Prince Philip's birth certificate in the Mail on Sunday article (Unsure about the accuracy and reliability):


Prince Philip's birth certificate is unearthed after lying buried for 99 years in an archive close to the Greek villa where he was born

• Document was written by hand in Katharevousa Greek, a purist version of modern Greek, by priest named Spiriodon Tryfonas on island of Corfu
• Found in municipal archive housed in old British Army barracks that sits within the imposing Venetian fortress overlooking Corfu's Old Town
• Details how Prince Andrew of Greece, Philip's father, presented baby boy to priest, which he said had been born at 10am on May 28, 1921
• Philip was actually born on June 10, 1921 but experts say his birth was registered using old Julian calendar, still being used in Greece in early 20th Century

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...taboola_feed&ns_mchannel=rss&ico=taboola_feed