Royal Titles Through the Generations

[Brian_Ahern]

One thing I've never been able to discover but that must be set down on paper somewhere is what titles would be handed to great-grandchildren descended paternally from a King of Norway. The issue has yet to come up, but it must have been considered when instituting a monarchy, since there was no knowing that Olav wouldn't have many sons.

Obviously any sons of Haakon are going to be HRH's, Princes of Norway, but what about their grandsons? In Denmark and Great Britain, great-grandsons of kings can be born counts and earls, thus gradually fazing a particular branch of the family into the nobility. Norway can't do this, since it has no aristocracy. And since the family doesn't acknowledge a surname, it doesn't seem like they could have "Princes of Schleswig-Holstein-Glucksburg". But obviously you can't have Princes of Norway producing more Princes of Norway, ad infinitum.

I'd be impressed - and indeed most grateful - if anyone could answer this question. Thanks.

[ysbel]

Good question. Why doesn't Norway have a nobility? They had a robust monarchy in the Middle Ages and usually the nobility stays around even if the monarchy goes away.

[Brian_Ahern]

Originally Posted by ysbel

Good question. Why doesn't Norway have a nobility? They had a robust monarchy in the Middle Ages and usually the nobility stays around even if the monarchy goes away.

I can only guess as to the answer. I know I've read that titles were abolished in Norway in the first decade of the 20th century, though someone, when we were discussing the topic on the thread about Queen Sonja's background, thought that they had been done away with sooner.

My guess is that many of the titles would have been implemented when the Swedes and the Danes ruled the country, and a smaller number would have belonged to titled French, German and Austrian families that had branches migrate to Norway. So when Norway became an independent kingdom, they decided not to genuflect to distinctions bestowed by non-Norwegians; to make a fresh start where everyone was equal.

Just a guess, since I've read that Norwegian titles weren't done away with until 1907, just after independence. Unfortunately I read this over a year ago on an article posted on the Net and can't quote the source .

[ysbel]

Thanks for the answer Brian. If the titles were done away with in 1907 that seems kinda dumb. A monarchy doesn't exist by itself but is partly supported by a strong nobility. It seemed self-defeating to get rid of the titles.

[norwegianne]

http://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norske_adelsslekter
and
http://www.genealogi.no/Genealogen/A...norsk_adel.htm

Most of the Norwegian nobility died out/lost their positions during the 16th century when the union with the Danes became stronger and the Norwegian nobles didn't have the financial strength to hold onto their power.

The 1814 constitution prohibited creating new noble titles, and the final of their rights were removed in 1821, though those already having special rights would have them until their death. So, the nobility in Norway disappeared around 1880s. This was also the era when the Norwegian farmers' history was glorified + equality was the ideal for all men.

In Denmark children of Prince Joachim's children would, provided they get approval for their marriage from the monarch, still be born Prince/Princess to Denmark. If the approval isn't granted, it is customary to give the title Count/Countess of Rosenborg. (As is the case with Princess Elisabeth's brothers...) I think it also depends on if they will ask the permission, to keep the royal family small, as was done in the Netherlands.

To my knowledge, there aren't any rules specifying what titles great-grandchildren of the monarch has. As long as they get male the consent of the monarch to marry and have male children, the Prince of Norway title will be what they have. I guess, that if Haakon and Mette-Marit have many children, that eventually it will be rather like in the Netherlands for some of the ones further out in the line. That's only a guess.

[KikkiB]

Originally Posted by norwegianne

http://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norske_adelsslekter
and
http://www.genealogi.no/Genealogen/A...norsk_adel.htm

Most of the Norwegian nobility died out/lost their positions during the 16th century when the union with the Danes became stronger and the Norwegian nobles didn't have the financial strength to hold onto their power.

The 1814 constitution prohibited creating new noble titles, and the final of their rights were removed in 1821, though those already having special rights would have them until their death. So, the nobility in Norway disappeared around 1880s. This was also the era when the Norwegian farmers' history was glorified + equality was the ideal for all men.

In Denmark children of Prince Joachim's children would, provided they get approval for their marriage from the monarch, still be born Prince/Princess to Denmark. If the approval isn't granted, it is customary to give the title Count/Countess of Rosenborg. (As is the case with Princess Elisabeth's brothers...) I think it also depends on if they will ask the permission, to keep the royal family small, as was done in the Netherlands.

To my knowledge, there aren't any rules specifying what titles great-grandchildren of the monarch has. As long as they get male the consent of the monarch to marry and have male children, the Prince of Norway title will be what they have. I guess, that if Haakon and Mette-Marit have many children, that eventually it will be rather like in the Netherlands for some of the ones further out in the line. That's only a guess.

Thanks for that enlighting summary of why there isn't any nobility in Norway :) I knew something happened in the 19th century but I didn't know the facts around it. Then again, as a Norwegian, I can't quite understand the awe and facination that some have of us not having any nobility and titles (especially regarding Marius). Even though, in my opinion, we have a titleless gentry in Norway,in business and celebrity and some people whos family had titles before 1821.

[ysbel]

Thanks norwegienne. 1814 was the union with Sweden, yes?

[norwegianne]

Originally Posted by ysbel

Thanks norwegienne. 1814 was the union with Sweden, yes?

1814 was the year Norway decided to rid themselves of the union with Denmark (Also known as the 400 year night.) and was pushed into a union with Sweden by the larger countries of Europe, as part of the settlement after the Napolonic wars.

And, yes, Kikki. I've never understood the need people seem to have for a nobility either. Marius will have a perfectly normal life without a title, and it won't matter one iota to him in the sense of anything important that he is Marius Borg Høiby instead of Count Marius of something-that's-not-important-but-let's-pretend-it-is. He's the same as everyone else, his mother just happened to marry the Crown Prince.

[KikkiB]

Originally Posted by norwegianne

1814 was the year Norway decided to rid themselves of the union with Denmark (Also known as the 400 year night.) and was pushed into a union with Sweden by the larger countries of Europe, as part of the settlement after the Napolonic wars.

And, yes, Kikki. I've never understood the need people seem to have for a nobility either. Marius will have a perfectly normal life without a title, and it won't matter one iota to him in the sense of anything important that he is Marius Borg Høiby instead of Count Marius of something-that's-not-important-but-let's-pretend-it-is. He's the same as everyone else, his mother just happened to marry the Crown Prince.

Hear, hear

[norwegianne]

The birth of Sverre Magnus seemed to give one solution to this "problem". Ie. not give him the style of HRH.

[Philippe Egalite']

Originally Posted by norwegianne

I've never understood the need people seem to have for a nobility either.

I happen to share completely the opinion of Norwegianne. There is no justification whatsoever about the existence of nobility in modern-day advanced countries, other than satisfying the insatiable gossip appetite of some people who are observers of life with none of their own.

My understanding is [and I would like Norwegianne to correct me should I err] that, like Greece when the monarchy was in effect, the Norwegian Constitution provides, in essence, for only two positions, those of the Monarch and the Heir to the Throne. Even though, all children of Norwegian monarchs are styled HRHs and carry the title of prince/princess, there is no associated legal or constitutional backing. Thus, these are courtesy, legally meaningless titles and I would tend to believe that these personages wouldn't be included in the Civil List.
If, say, the second child of King Harald were a male and had issue, there would be no constitutional obstacle [in fact he has every right to do so] for the King to declare them, through a formal letters patent or a mere letter to the Press, princes/princesses of Norway, but then again, these titles would be of no import.
However, I feel somehow that, as a reflection of changing times, the grand children of CP Haakon, other than those in the direct line, ie the issue of princess Ingrid Alexandra, will not carry the HRH style or the prince/princess title.
And that would be a very healthy and positive step forward.

One more thought as an extension to the above. It seems that the 19th and early 20th century trend in continental Europe, particularly among the zillions of miniscule Germanic kingdoms, dukedoms, principalities or even vassals etc, for myriads of non-direct line, 3rd, 4th and Nth generation descendants to be titled as archdukes, dukes, princes etc, has trivialized the prestige of nobility and it is no surprise that various obscure people started selling titles or plagiarizing them. In this regard, the British Royal Family has shown remarkable discipline and sense of dignity by limiting the HRH style and prince/princess title to grand-children of monarchs.

[Sven-Fredrik]

I believe your wrong, the whole monarchical system is built by the "above" thinking, and a title is a prof of this. If the royals aren't appreciated there is no use of the monarchy, in sweden we are quite modern in that way, we do not say Sir or Mam to eachother we simply say "you" to complete strangers. But not to royals, they are sacred to us. If we didn't have this respect for them it wouldn't be any use having them.
But Norway dosen't have a tradition of titles, therefore it isn't important to "knight" or give Marius a title. But if it was in Sweden it would be considered weird. I dont care for noble people, but if you are a part of Royal house you are and should be treated that way.

And in a monarchy like Sweden, the biggest and most prestigous awards are given by the King and Queen, I think a title (like in spain nor Belgium) would be a great award.

[krikkert]

As long as the person in question is in the list of people enabled to inherit the throne, the King is entitled to give them any title he so wishes (as long as he doesn't create a noble house). But the Royal House is self-regulated: Princess Ragnhild and Princess Astrid will lose their titles when Harald dies, because they'll no longer be in the line of succession.

[Stefan]

Originally Posted by krikkert

As long as the person in question is in the list of people enabled to inherit the throne, the King is entitled to give them any title he so wishes (as long as he doesn't create a noble house). But the Royal House is self-regulated: Princess Ragnhild and Princess Astrid will lose their titles when Harald dies, because they'll no longer be in the line of succession.

They where never and are still not in the line of succession. Only Märtha Louise and her children are, besides Haakon and his children.