The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #21  
Old 06-20-2018, 12:20 PM
An Ard Ri's Avatar
Super Moderator
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: An Iarmhí, Ireland
Posts: 22,388
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kataryn View Post
Did Dagmar of Denmark loose her title and privileges when she married Jorgen Castenskiold?
Wasn't he a Danish noble?
__________________

__________________

27th of March 1615:Death of Marguerite de Valois,Queen of Navarre
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 06-20-2018, 12:54 PM
Muhler's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Eastern Jutland, Denmark
Posts: 11,990
Quote:
Originally Posted by An Ard Ri View Post
Wasn't he a Danish noble?
Carstenskiold is a noble family, yes.
I believe one of them until fairly recently was a LiW for QMII.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 06-20-2018, 01:38 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 1,215
Unlike King Frederik IX, King Christian X apparently considered lesser noble houses to be of unequal standing. In addition to stripping Princess Dagmar of her title when she married the nobleman Jørgen Castenskiold, he also removed the HRH and the title "Prince of Denmark" from Prince Aage when he married Italian countess Mathilde Calvi di Bergolo. But in contrast to Dagmar, Aage was permitted to keep the title "Prince Aage" and became HH.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 06-20-2018, 01:53 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 4,533
In Sweden, the former version of the Act of Succession explicitly said that princes of the Royal House would lose their succession rights if they married unequally (meaning, if they married someone who was not also a dynast). The law also barred princesses of the Royal House from marrying a non-royal Swedish man , even though princesses were already out of the line of succession from birth.



As far as I know, Denmark didn't have any such provisions in law, at least not in the Act of Succession of 1953, where the only requirement was that marriages of the monarch should be approved by parliament and that marriages of persons in the line of succession should be consented to by the monarch in a Council of State. Kings Christian X and Frederik IX's decisions not to consent to unequal marriages of princes, thus stripping them of their succession rights and princely status, were therefore personal decisions, rather than a legal requirement.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 06-20-2018, 02:09 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 4,533
Quote:
Originally Posted by norwegianne View Post
If someone in line to the throne marries without the monarch's permission as given in the council of state, the person loses the right to the throne for him/herself and those children born in the marriage and the descendants of these.

A little bit off-topic, but there is a lingering doubt that has always bothered me about royal marriages.


In some countries, e.g. Denmark, the Netherlands and now the UK, the wording of the law is that, if a person marries without the required consent, that person and the person’s descendants from the marriage are disqualified from succeeding to the Crown. In other countries, such as Sweden or Norway for example, the law says simply that the person and his/her descendants (omitting "from the/that marriage") are disqualified.



Is it just of careless wording e.g. by the Swedish/Norwegian lawmakers, or are the rules actually different in those two groups of countries ? More specifically, when "from the/that marriage" is included, should we assume that descendants from previous marriages that received consent are unaffected, whereas, when the wording is "their descendants" only, all descendants are equally affected, including the issue of other marriages ? And what about descendants of future marriages, are they disqualified too ?
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 06-20-2018, 03:04 PM
JR76's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Malmö, Sweden
Posts: 2,135
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
A little bit off-topic, but there is a lingering doubt that has always bothered me about royal marriages.


In some countries, e.g. Denmark, the Netherlands and now the UK, the wording of the law is that, if a person marries without the required consent, that person and the person’s descendants from the marriage are disqualified from succeeding to the Crown. In other countries, such as Sweden or Norway for example, the law says simply that the person and his/her descendants (omitting "from the/that marriage") are disqualified.



Is it just of careless wording e.g. by the Swedish/Norwegian lawmakers, or are the rules actually different in those two groups of countries ? More specifically, when "from the/that marriage" is included, should we assume that descendants from previous marriages that received consent are unaffected, whereas, when the wording is "their descendants" only, all descendants are equally affected, including the issue of other marriages ? And what about descendants of future marriages, are they disqualified too ?
The offspring of an approved marriage of a Swedish dynast wouldn't be affected by a second unapproved marriage of a parent. It's implied in the wording that this is the case since there's no mention of the rule being retroactive and because one of the founding principles of the law is that you can't be held accountable for someone else's crime. Also the wording suggests that the approval is for each marriage at a time.
Regarding if the offspring of a second marriage of a dynast who was removed from the Line of succession because of their first unapproved marriage could be included in said succession I doubt it. As a private citizen the parent wouldn't need the approval of the monarch to get married and the monarch has no jurisdiction over the marriages of Swedish citizens anymore.
__________________

Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Marriage to Commoners vs Royals/Nobles karima Royalty Past, Present, and Future 386 04-06-2018 06:49 PM
Charles and Camilla: The Marriage (2005 and on) VuMom The Prince of Wales and the Duchess of Cornwall 1583 04-09-2015 10:10 PM
Marriage between Royals and Commoners. Part 1: Current Rulers Ennyllorac General Royal Discussion Archive 12 11-11-2008 01:43 PM




Popular Tags
aif bracelets british royal family christian ix clothes current events cypher dailyfail de belgique discussão documentary duchess of sussex duchessofsussex duke of edinburgh duke of sussex family search fashion genealogy general news germany gordon hamdan bin mohammed harry and meghan head of the house her children interesting facts introduction iñaki urdangarín jack brooksbank jacobite juan carlos lady louise mountbatten-windsor letter lineage meghan markle modernization mohammed vi nelson mandela bay northampton patron prince aymeric prince harry prince harry of wales prince nicholas prince peter princess princesses princess louise princess royal prince william public image queen elisabeth queen mary of teck relationship remarriage royal royal ancestry; oscar and sophia royal family royal wedding rumania sarah ferguson state visit surname swedish royal registry wedding windsor castle windsor wedding windy city wivies ww1



Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:30 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2019
Jelsoft Enterprises