What does King Constantine do?

[Diogenes]

Originally Posted by kelly9480

I'm not sure whether Constantine was friends with Onassis, I know he was friends with Latsis, even though Latsis also gave money to the Greek government that deposed him. Onassis or one of the other shippers gave Friederike that massive sapphire she was seen wearing in some 1950s-1960s photos.

Onassis was always a bit of an outsider, accepted by the international jet-set but not seen as a fully paid-up member of the neo-aristocracy of the Latsis or Niarchos variety. I would be very surprised if the greek royals had a lot of time for him

[kimebear]

I had thought that the Greek RF would be members of the Greek Orthodox Church. Are they actually members of the Church of England? I saw recent pictures of Constantine and Anne Marie attending church with Charles and Camilla. I also know that William is godfather to Pavlos and MC's oldest son and that Queen Elizabeth is godmother to Theodora. Any info would be appreciated!

[acdc1]

Prince Charles is godfather to Maria Olympia, Pavlos and M-C's eldest child.

[ilias of john]

His Majesty King Konstantine is Godfather to HRH Prince William.
Long Live Our King!

[lucien]

Originally Posted by kimebear

I had thought that the Greek RF would be members of the Greek Orthodox Church. Are they actually members of the Church of England? I saw recent pictures of Constantine and Anne Marie attending church with Charles and Camilla. I also know that William is godfather to Pavlos and MC's oldest son and that Queen Elizabeth is godmother to Theodora. Any info would be appreciated!

The Greek RF ARE members of the Greek Orthodox Church,and certainly not members of the Church of England,but that doesn't prevent them to attend services of memorials/weddings etc. by other denominations when invited,like everyone else.

[Philippe Egalite']

Originally Posted by Benn

I read something a while ago that had me thinking.
In it they talked about the greek royal family and some kind of official engagement. or reception, I don't remember very well.
Constantine and his wife never renounce their titles so technically they are still King and Queen but also ex-King and ex-Queen, and his son might still be the crown prince untill the day he dies. After that, is going to be like the other former ruling houses.
My question is, why are they still doing that?, I personally find it ridiculous specially when they are not representing anything.
Also why is pavlos' wife taking part in that and using the title princess.
Every time she is in the NY she demands to be treated as HRH and as princess.
I ask this beacuse to be doing and to be demanding these kinds of things they need somethig to back it up with, and in greece this things are not permitted anymore.

I can understand your surprise but be reminded that there are tons of people who live and prosper by exploiting the ignorance and naivete' of others who, in turn, may be the willing victims of their own self-aggrandizement or greed. For example, designer X throws a PR party and the invitation quotes that "HRH crown princess Y of Transylvania will attend". To many, this means automatically that the event will be an important social gathering.

I cannot believe that the wife of former King Constantine's first son is so naive as to demand that she be treated as crown princess. I bet though that she expects it from the type of people she associates with and I would also bet that they also love to be in the company of a crown princess. Thus, they are deluding themselves but as long as they are happy, why not. They don't violate any law and there is no deception here.

You are entitled to style yourself as HRH prince Ben of Hullabaloo. The issue is how many people are out there willing to treat you as such. And if they are willing to do so AND while they know that your title is fictitious, why not??

Back to reality now:
King Constantine, former King of the Hellenes, was born a (real) prince and became a (real) king. Likewise, Queen Anne-Marie was born a (real) princess and became a (real) queen. At this juncture, their royal status has no legal or constitutional backing, however, by courtesy only and convention, in civil society, individuals are referred to and addressed by their former title. eg senator A, ambassador B, president C, secretary D etc etc. Moreover, with respect to royalty, their title stems from birthright and, as such, it cannot be lost. Thus, Constantine shall remain king for life BUT he is NO more the King of the Hellenes or Greece (former king of the Hellenes is both correct and appropriate). Likewise, Anne-Marie shall remain queen for life BUT she is NO more the queen of the Hellenes or Greece (former queen of the Hellenes is both correct and appropriate).
This is also true for their first three children, Alexia, Pavlos and Nikolaos. She was born a princess (in fact, not only a princess of Greece but crown princess until the birth of prince Pavlos) and they were born princes (in fact, Pavlos as crown prince). Thus, all three of them shall remain princess and princes, respectively, for life. However, because they got married after Greece became a republic, their spouses, unless they hold titles in their own rights, hold NO title by marriage. Now, the way they or their spouses expect to be addressed and the way their relations address them is a matter for their own consumption, their prerrogative and of no concern to me or anyone else. That's democracy guys.

Now, the last two children of King Constantine and Queen Anne-Marie, Theodora and Philippos were NOT born a princess and prince, respectively. Thus, they may be referred to as princess and prince, respectively, ONLY by courtesy.

[lyndaW]

Thanks that was very well explained. So Theodora & Philippos were not born P or P. interesting family

[ilias of john]

Philippe Egalite'
You make several interesting points and We are all impressed with your fluid and precise arguments. < ed personal comment : Warren > The two youngest children of T.M are both Prince and Princess as are the grandchildren.Why? Because they are "of the blood" and because The King made them so.
Secondly,illegal acts whether or not they have been inshrined in Greece's constituition have no moral standing whatsoever and hence H.M The King is the true Greek Head of State irrespective of the illegal and immoral referendum and constituition.

< ed: Warren >

[Philippe Egalite']

I protest strenuoulsy your comments about the Greek Constitution < ed: Warren >. Hellas (Greece) is a sovereign republic and a democracy where the will of the majority of its people reigns supreme.

It has been argued by many, including myself in another post, that the referendum of 1974 was conducted under unequal circumstances. This remains a fact but, obviously, the wrongdoing cannot be reversed.

Nonetheless, were a referendum to be conducted today, the monarchy would have hardly received 10-12% of the popular vote. This is being acknowledged by royalists and non-royalists, internal and external sources. Indeed, this is the very reason that prince Pavlos proceeded with an unequal marriage and, in fact, one that would have infuriated the Greek populus.

Needless to say that King Constantine or any member of his family is most welcome to live permanently in Greece and, why not, run for public office.

And let me also add that even if the old constitution, that of royal democracy, was in effect, IT did not recognize titles of princes and princesses BUT only those of the Diadoch, that is heir to the throne and of Vassilopaides ie, royal children (Greek Vassilopais = royal child) in a manner identical to that of Spain where there are infantes and infantas BUT only the Heir(ess) is a prince(ss). Although the infantas are constantly addressed as princesses outside Spain, the country's constitution does NOT provide for this title.
Because the terms infante/infanta (Spanish) kai Vassilopais (Greek) had (have) no equivalent elsewhere in royal parlance, these individuals are, by convention, addressed as princes/princesses BUT strictly speaking they are not.

< ed: Warren >

[ilias of john]

Phillip,
1.You commented about the illegality of the '74 referundum and mentioned that wrongdoings cannot be undone.A true system of justice could,would and should!

2.You comment , that a referendum would only give the King 10-12% of the votes and that this has been aknoweledged by pro and anti monarchists alike.How do they know,what sort of regular polls have been conducted and what sort of positive and negative influences are at play?

3.HRH Prince Pavlos of Greece did not marry his wife for those reasons I'm sure.Please let me know if he has told you otherwise.

4.You mention that H.M The King is welcome to live in Greece and even run for political office. How can he live in Greece as a Greek when your like deny him citizenship on the false pretence that he will not declare a surname? You have mentioned that their surname is Gluxburg or Beck.Show us any document (use a scanner) of the last 250 years,ever since the family became Dukes of Gluxburg(i think it is at least 500 years by the way) that calls them ie. Spiros Gluxburg rarther than Spiros of Gluxburg.

5.You make the point of the titles of Prince,Princess,Diadochos and Vasilopaidi and use the lame excuse of constituitions < ed political comment: Warren > conventions and Spain and her Royal Family.To answer you in reverse order I know nothing about the Spanish nor do i care,sorry Spanish friends :) ).In terms of conventions the U.K does not even have a constituition their entire political system is based on conventions and their Royal sons/daughters are called Prince/Princess.

< ed: Warren >

[Warren]

Before it gets too ugly, here's a warning: if this discussion is unable to be held in a civil manner, offending posts will be be deleted rather than edited.
This means no personal remarks, no snide comments, and no attacks on members regarding the current Greek constitution.

Warren
Royal Forums Administrator

[Philippe Egalite']

[quote=ilias of john;642099]Phillip,
1.You commented about the illegality of the '74 referundum and mentioned that wrongdoings cannot be undone.A true system of justice could,would and should!

Response:
I did not say that the 1974 referendum was illegal for it was NOT. I indicated, however, that it was conducted under unequal circumstances but still much more favorable and just to the monarchist cause than the manipulated and fraudulent plebiscites of 1936 and 1946!
Finally, the welfare and well-being of a stable and prospering democracy of 11 million people takes precedence over some injustice done to one person, no matter who that person was and I am sure that the former King of the Hellenes would also agree with that.

[quote=ilias of john;642099]
2.You comment , that a referendum would only give the King 10-12% of the votes and that this has been aknoweledged by pro and anti monarchists alike.How do they know,what sort of regular polls have been conducted and what sort of positive and negative influences are at play?

Response:
That was based on a recent poll published by most Athenian daily newspapers. The poll was not specific to the monarchy (for there is NO such issue anymore) but pertained to the popularity of various institutions, political personages etc.

[quote=ilias of john;642099]
3.HRH Prince Pavlos of Greece did not marry his wife for those reasons I'm sure.Please let me know if he has told you otherwise.

Response:
I do not know the gentleman and I did not say that he married her for these reasons. What I said was that because the chances of restoration in the forseeable future are infinitely negligible, the former crown prince of Greece, was free to, and did, proceed with an unequal marriage. Said differently, if he had any chance of becoming king one day, he would have never proceeded with an unequal (morganatic) marriage, irrespective of who that person was.

[quote=ilias of john;642099]
4.You mention that H.M The King is welcome to live in Greece and even run for political office. How can he live in Greece as a Greek when your like deny him citizenship on the false pretence that he will not declare a surname? You have mentioned that their surname is Gluxburg or Beck.Show us any document (use a scanner) of the last 250 years,ever since the family became Dukes of Gluxburg(i think it is at least 500 years by the way) that calls them ie. Spiros Gluxburg rarther than Spiros of Gluxburg.

Response:
By European and Greek law, every European citizen can live, work and prosper in Greece, if she/he so chooses. Former King Constantine of Greece is a European citizen. He walks in and out of Greece as he pleases and he can also live in Greece permanently if he so chooses. Unconfirmed rumour has it that, recently, he or a member of his family bought a neoclassical house in the old district of Plaka under the Acropolis.
Now, if a surname without of, de, zu, til, af, di or whatever prefix is good for, and acceptable by, the sovereign of the United Kingdom, the oldest, the grandest and strongest continuous monarchy in Europe (Windsor-Mountbatten for the offsprings of Queen Elizabeth), it should be good for any other reigning or former monarch. After all, the sovereign of the UK takes precedence over them all.

[quote=ilias of john;642099]
5.You make the point of the titles of Prince,Princess,Diadochos and Vasilopaidi and use the lame excuse of constituitions < ed political comment: Warren > conventions and Spain and her Royal Family.To answer you in reverse order I know nothing about the Spanish nor do i care,sorry Spanish friends :) ).In terms of conventions the U.K does not even have a constituition their entire political system is based on conventions and their Royal sons/daughters are called Prince/Princess.

Response:
The UK, indeed, has no constitution and acknowledges titles of prince and princess [but even there, only for children and grandchlidren (the latter on the male line only) of sovereigns] and this is the country's absolute prerrogative. Other countries have constitutions and different rules and this is also their absolute prerrogative and internal matter, which no outsider has the right to dispute.

[ilias of john]

Phillipo,
Just a quick reponse because I have to take the kids swimming.
Firstly the British Monarchy does not take precedence over the other monarchies and secondly, does the Danish Monarchy claim a surname?
I'll talk to you later,

[Philippe Egalite']

Originally Posted by ilias of john

Phillipo,
Just a quick reponse because I have to take the kids swimming.
Firstly the British Monarchy does not take precedence over the other monarchies and secondly, does the Danish Monarchy claim a surname?
I'll talk to you later,

Although your points are not relevant to the discussion about King Constantine, they pertain to history, thus deserving clarification.

Normally when reigning monarchs gather together, precedence is assigned by length of service/reign [the same seniority principle that applies to ambassadors]. However, in a historic sense and in terms of importance, the British monarch does take precedence over the other monarchs in Europe, as did until 1918 the emperor of All Russias. Indeed, we are familiar with the case of Grand Duchess Maria Alexandrovna, daughter of Czar Alexander II. When she married the second son of Queen Victoria, Alfred, Duke of Edinburgh and later of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, her father was insisting that she take precedence even over The Princess of Wales, later Queen Alexandra!!!

The Danish dynasts (i.e. descendants of King Christian X and Queen Alexandrine) do have a surname, Rosenborg, that traditionally assumed by all members of the royal family who relinquish or lose their rights to the throne and, thus, their rank and title. For example, the current queen's first cousins, sons of prince Knud (her father's brother), born princes Ingolf and Christian, became counts Rosenborg, in 1968 and 1971, respectively, upon losing their rights to the throne.
Going back in history, the last name Rosenborg was effected since the time of King Christian IX (the father of King George I of the Hellenes). His third son, prince Valdemar, who remained a prince of Denmark had three sons, Aage, who was later created count Rosenborg, Viggo who was also created count Rosenborg and prince Axel who married princess Margaretha of Sweden. Prince Axel had male issue, prince Georg of Denmark and Flemming who was later created count Rosenborg.
Therefore, Rosenborg, appears to be the de facto last name of Danish royals ever since King Christian IX.

[Warren]

Originally Posted by Philippe Egalite'

The Danish dynasts (i.e. descendants of King Christian X and Queen Alexandrine) do have a surname, Rosenborg, that traditionally assumed by all members of the royal family who relinquish or lose their rights to the throne..

If Danish dynasts have a surname it may be Glücksburg, or even Oldenburg (the latter going back to the origins of the dynasty), but those members who have lost their rights and royal titles and become non-dynasts have traditionally - at least since 1914 - borne the title of Counts and Countesses af Rosenborg.

Rather than go off-topic further, the Danish Forum has a thread on the Danish Royal Family surname, which may have some relevance to the Greek branch of the Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburgs.

[Charlotte1]

Originally Posted by Philippe Egalite'

Although your points are not relevant to the discussion about King Constantine, they pertain to history, thus deserving clarification.

Normally when reigning monarchs gather together, precedence is assigned by length of service/reign [the same seniority principle that applies to ambassadors]. However, in a historic sense and in terms of importance, the British monarch does take precedence over the other monarchs in Europe, as did until 1918 the emperor of All Russias. Indeed, we are familiar with the case of Grand Duchess Maria Alexandrovna, daughter of Czar Alexander II. When she married the second son of Queen Victoria, Alfred, Duke of Edinburgh and later of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, her father was insisting that she take precedence even over The Princess of Wales, later Queen Alexandra!!!

The Danish dynasts (i.e. descendants of King Christian X and Queen Alexandrine) do have a surname, Rosenborg, that traditionally assumed by all members of the royal family who relinquish or lose their rights to the throne and, thus, their rank and title. For example, the current queen's first cousins, sons of prince Knud (her father's brother), born princes Ingolf and Christian, became counts Rosenborg, in 1968 and 1971, respectively, upon losing their rights to the throne.

Danish dynasts do not have a surname. Rosenborg is used as 'of Rosenborg' Counts Ingolf and Christian are Count Ingolf of Rosenborg and Count Christian of Rosenborg. Danish royals have stated that they do not have a surname as have the Norwegian royals who are descended from the same royal house. Norwegian Princess Martha-Louise stated around the birth of her first child that the child will carry its father's surname as " I don't have a surname"

[Philippe Egalite']

Originally Posted by Charlotte1

Danish dynasts do not have a surname. Rosenborg is used as 'of Rosenborg' Counts Ingolf and Christian are Count Ingolf of Rosenborg and Count Christian of Rosenborg. Danish royals have stated that they do not have a surname as have the Norwegian royals who are descended from the same royal house. Norwegian Princess Martha-Louise stated around the birth of her first child that the child will carry its father's surname as " I don't have a surname"

I know that but, at some point, all people adopt a surname when they cease to be royal. Inasmuch as Rosenborg is the name of a series of Counts, ie distant members of the royal family or less distant members who ceased to be royal due to unequal marriage, the fact is that all these relatives of the Queen are known and addressed cumulatively by the Press and the Danish people as Rosenborgs. And when their kids or grand-kids cease to be counts they become plain Rosenborgs, thus this is their de facto surname.