HM King Haakon VII (Prince Carl of Denmark)

[Princess Robijn]

Hello, I have a question.. Considering the fact that HM King Haakon VII was born a Prince of Denmark, doesn't this mean that the current Royal Family of Norway is entitled to the title Prince(ss) of Denmark (like the Royal Family of Greece)

[LaMinka]

Originally Posted by Princess Robijn

Hello, I have a question.. Considering the fact that HM King Haakon VII was born a Prince of Denmark, doesn't this mean that the current Royal Family of Norway is entitled to the title Prince(ss) of Denmark (like the Royal Family of Greece)

I don't think so. And then why are the royal family of Greece the title Prince(ss) of Denmark and not the Norwegian Royal family?

[Sean.~]

Originally Posted by Princess Robijn

Hello, I have a question.. Considering the fact that HM King Haakon VII was born a Prince of Denmark, doesn't this mean that the current Royal Family of Norway is entitled to the title Prince(ss) of Denmark (like the Royal Family of Greece)

No. They are only allowed to be 'of Norway'.

[LaMinka]

Originally Posted by Sean.~

No. They are only allowed to be 'of Norway'.

And may I ask why?

[pdas1201]

Originally Posted by Princess Robijn

Hello, I have a question.. Considering the fact that HM King Haakon VII was born a Prince of Denmark, doesn't this mean that the current Royal Family of Norway is entitled to the title Prince(ss) of Denmark (like the Royal Family of Greece)

The 1953 Succession Act states in its very first line that the throne shall be inherited by the descendents of King Christian X and Queen Alexandrine. So, we go down the line, all the way to Princess Elizabeth (daughter of Prince Knud and granddaughter of Christian X). Although, Haakon VII was the brother of Christian X, he is not the descendent, therefore his descendents don't fall in the line of succession. The same with the British and Greek Royal Families. Greeks have kept 'Prince of Denmark' to their title, maybe because they are related closely to Christian X through his daughter Anne-Marie. I would like to point out that even though they keep the title they are not eligible to inherit the throne. The British and Norwegians know that they are not eligible for succession to the Danish throne, therefore they just dropped the 'worthless' title.

From Wikipedia, prior to 1953, various descendants of King Christian IX had succession rights in Denmark. The new Act of Succession (1953) terminated those rights but left the individuals involved in possession of their titles. This created a class of people with royal titles but no rights to the throne. As a distinction, those entitled to inherit the throne are called "Prins til Danmark" (Prince to Denmark) while those without succession rights are referred to as "Prins af Danmark" (Prince of Denmark).

[ysbel]

Thanks for answering that pda.

An odd question but why is the succession restricted to the descendants of Christian X? Frederik VIII had a lot of children, did they all waive away their rights to the Danish crown?

I admit the question is rather academic, they would be far removed from the crown by now but its a curious situation nonetheless.

[pdas1201]

Originally Posted by ysbel

Thanks for answering that pda.

An odd question but why is the succession restricted to the descendants of Christian X? Frederik VIII had a lot of children, did they all waive away their rights to the Danish crown?

I admit the question is rather academic, they would be far removed from the crown by now but its a curious situation nonetheless.

No, the children of Frederik VIII didn't waive the right to the throne. The 1953 Succession Act just chose Christian X, since his line are the correct (for lack of the right word) people to take the throne, for example, after Christian X, it was Frederik IX and then Margrethe II (all direct descendents of Christian X).

The 1953 Succession Act didn't choose Frederik VIII (I don't know why, but they didn't, maybe because he was long dead by then and so were his children, his grandchildren might have been heir to other thrones). The Succession Act merely choose a monarch and his descendents as having the right to the throne. When and if the descendents don't continue the line, then the succession act will be changed to take another monarch and his or her descendents as having the right to the throne.

As far as titles go, even those not in line to succession can have titles, as they are descendents of Christian IX and still 'part' of the Danish monarchy. They simply choose the title 'Prince or Princess of Denmark'. Its up to the individual to decide whether he/she wants use it. Some feel that if they are not eligible to the throne they shouldn't use the title (like Norwegian and British royal families), others like Greeks feel that since they have a connection to the Danish (even though not eligible to throne, as they are eligible for the Greek throne and have not been raised in Denmark, as the Succession Act states) they might as well use the title. Remember, its just a title, it doesn't suggest anything.

Its all very complicated, and pretty hard to explain. So forgive me, if you find it hard to understand.

[norwegianne]

I think it also has a lot to do with the fact that when Prince Carl ascended to the Norwegian throne - Norway was getting "rid" of another country's royal family, and wanted one that was just their own. - if I may over-simplify it. Carl took the name Haakon to show that he was part of Norway, and he left his Danish name and titles behind. I believe it has a lot to to with the national rising that was in Norway around then.

As far as I can read from the Norwegian constitution - it doesn't say anything about them not being allowed to have other titles than "of Norway," but it says that the King cannot ascend to other thrones without the approval of the parliament.

To take it one step further - it seems to me that even if the Norwegian royal family had kept "of Denmark" for Haakon and Olav... it would still have been lost in 1968 - when Harald married Sonja - a commoner.

[Sean.~]

Originally Posted by LaMinka

And may I ask why?

It was agreed at the time that Haakon/Carl took the Norwegian throne that they would be of Norway.

[Princess Robijn]

thank you for explaining this to me

[zarat]

http://www.aftenposten.no/english/lo...cle1540467.ece

According to site aftenposten.no king Hakoon VII at the begining of his reign was going through institutional crisis and his wife queen MAud wasn't supporting him too much.....

[norwegianne]

Bomann-Larsen seems to hunt for scandals - even after it was disproved by other historians that the big scandal in his last book (King Olav not the son of King Haakon) was wrong.

It seems like a lot of what he's basing it on is hearsay - someone thinking that he didn't receive much support from Maud is not the same thing as it not happening.