Marriage to Commoners in Denmark


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

Maura724

Courtier
Joined
Mar 22, 2008
Messages
775
City
St. Louis
Country
United States
I've always had the impression that then-Princess Margrethe's marriage to Henri de Laborde de Monpezat in 1967 was not a problem at all, despite the fact that he wasn't royal. Considering the issues Crown Prince Harald and Sonja Haraldsen had in Norway around the same time, why was this? And why did Margrethe's cousins Prince Ingolf and Prince Christian lose their rights to succession when they later married commoners? Or was Margrethe's and Henri's marriage more of a problem than I've always thought?
 
Well I've never heard of any problems, but I'm not sure thats he's a complete commoner, I think his family has a castle in france and that his father might be a duke or something. I'm not sure. And besides I think the royal family was happy to get some new blood, since it was difficult finding a suitable prince. I don't know why the others lost their rights.
hope it was useful
 
I've always had the impression that then-Princess Margrethe's marriage to Henri de Laborde de Monpezat in 1967 was not a problem at all, despite the fact that he wasn't royal. Considering the issues Crown Prince Harald and Sonja Haraldsen had in Norway around the same time, why was this? And why did Margrethe's cousins Prince Ingolf and Prince Christian lose their rights to succession when they later married commoners? Or was Margrethe's and Henri's marriage more of a problem than I've always thought?


I think the main problem with Prince Ingolf and Prince Christian was that both of them married danish girls, and therefor King Frederik didn't give permission.
 
Can someone elaborate on this? Are there restrictions on Danish royals marrying Danish commoners?

I've found it very odd that the two sons of the Royal House have gone to commoners of other countries for their three brides. I can't imagine Denmark being bereft of lovely, educated, and elegant women who are commoners, and who would be entirely suitable as brides of the Royal house. But if there are such restrictions, then it would explain why an Australian, a British/Chinese woman, and a Frenchwoman have been the choices of the sons of Denmark.
 
If memory serves me correctly, when I watched the 20/20 special on "Royals Rule" in 2004, they talked to either a reporter or a regular Dane about CP Frederik marrying an Australian. One lady said that she couldn't imagine the CP marrying a Danish girl because she would seem too familiar to most Danes to be imagined as Crown Princess. I'm not implying anything nor do I know about the marriage laws, but I did find that comment interesting and gives some insight into the Princes marrying foreigners.
 
If memory serves me correctly, when I watched the 20/20 special on "Royals Rule" in 2004, they talked to either a reporter or a regular Dane about CP Frederik marrying an Australian. One lady said that she couldn't imagine the CP marrying a Danish girl because she would seem too familiar to most Danes to be imagined as Crown Princess.

That's an interesting thought - it sort of makes sense that maybe it seems "fairer" to native girls if the commoner is foreign.
 
If memory serves me correctly, when I watched the 20/20 special on "Royals Rule" in 2004, they talked to either a reporter or a regular Dane about CP Frederik marrying an Australian. One lady said that she couldn't imagine the CP marrying a Danish girl because she would seem too familiar to most Danes to be imagined as Crown Princess. I'm not implying anything nor do I know about the marriage laws, but I did find that comment interesting and gives some insight into the Princes marrying foreigners.

That's the primary reason I see for why they marry abroad. Given some of the chaos that surrounded Mette-Marit in Norway in the beginning (the father, the old boyfriends, etc) marrying foreigners seems to be a way to put their past a bit further away than just next door.

Of course there have also been Danish princes in the past who married foreigners, and lost their rights to the throne - because the lack of permission from the king. So in the earlier days is was not just the Danish vs. non-Danish argument, but commoner vs. non-commoner as well. (And dependant on what the King felt like :whistling:)
 
Ah, yes, Mette-Marit.

That's the primary reason I see for why they marry abroad. Given some of the chaos that surrounded Mette-Marit in Norway in the beginning (the father, the old boyfriends, etc) marrying foreigners seems to be a way to put their past a bit further away than just next door.


Chaos is the right term. That makes perfect sense. Denmark for all its beauty is a small country (population approximately, 5.4MM, about half of metropolitan New York, my hometown) so I can see where it could feel as though too many people know too many other people, for comfort in choosing a mate.

So, if I can recap, it boils down to permission of the king, yes? No?
 
Some years ago, some royal Danish princes lost their titles because marriage to Commoners. Now is not possible.
 
So, if I can recap, it boils down to permission of the king, yes? No?

Yes.

The Lex Regia (the King's law) from 1665 dictates that no prince of the blood, who is in this realm, or living in our domain, shall marry, or leave the country, or join the service of foreign masters, unless he receives the permission of the King. This part of the law is still valid.

In Tronfølgeloven of 1953, the following additions are added( §5)
For a monarch to marry, he/she needs the permission of the parliament.

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.

The council of State addendum is why the engagements of both Frederik and Joachim came about in the fall, when the council of state were starting up again after the holidays, and why the Danish media were convinced that the engagement of Joachim and Marie would come either before the holidays or once the Parliament reconvened after the holidays. :flowers:

Some years ago, some royal Danish princes lost their titles because marriage to Commoners. Now is not possible.
Since the law hasn't changed in that regard since Ingolf and Christian were married, it is still possible. It is unlikely that the monarch will do it to his/her own children, though.
 
Well I've never heard of any problems, but I'm not sure thats he's a complete commoner, I think his family has a castle in france and that his father might be a duke or something. I'm not sure. And besides I think the royal family was happy to get some new blood, since it was difficult finding a suitable prince. I don't know why the others lost their rights.
hope it was useful

Prince Henrik was not born a commoner but a count meaning he was born
noble.Members of the royal must seek permission from the monarch before
marrying.If the a member of the royal family weds without permisssion than
he or she and his or her descents will lose their right to the throne.
 
Prince Henri´s father is called Count but his grandfather and other ancestors aren´t Counts. I don´t know when his father was created a Count or by whom.
 
Prince Henri´s father is called Count but his grandfather and other ancestors aren´t Counts. I don´t know when his father was created a Count or by whom.
The Laborde de Monpezat family styled themselves as counrs through their
right to use the title is disputed.The Encyclodephia of Fake and Seeming nobility states that Prince Henrik's ancestor Jean de Laborde recieved royal
letters patent of ennoblement in 1655,conditionnal on his reception as a noble in the Estates of the Province of Beanu where his lands were located.
But the condition was never fulfilled ,as the Estates refused Laborde's petitions in 1703 and again 1707.Although the comital title has been used by the family as if it were a courtsey title traditionally the royal court and French society accepted such titles when geninuely noble families.On the other hand ,since the title was assumed by Henrik's ancestor prior to the twentieth century ,it is possible he was unaware of the family's history was
later scrutinized by genealogists.Henrik's 1996 autoboigraphy acknowledges the unsuccessful ennoblement.
Source Wikipedia
 
Very interesting, thank you Next Star.
 
you are right next star and i wonder how can king christian give his consent for the marriage[no offense] cause back in these day the royal marry royal were still in force [exept for england]in europe where anne-marie marry king of greece,benedikte marry a non-reigning german prince and margarethe the heiress marry a count. does this seem equal in the eyes of her swedish grandfather king gustav vi adolf who distitle his sons who marry commoner and refuse to allow the late prince bertile to marry lilian davie .can you check for me what was his reaction on margarethe wedding .did 'nt he had discussion with his daughter ingrid about his pov on the marriage
 
In my opinion, I like the DRF tradition, marrying foreigners.
 
Yes, Princess Elisabeth confirmed on multiple occasions that she did not marry Claus in order to keep her title and privileges.

Why did the Queen insist that Princess Elisabeth would be removed from the Royal House if she married a commoner when the Queen’s two sons and the Queen herself married commoners ? It doesn’t Make a lot of sense.

Presumably it was the rule at the time...

The Queen and her sisters were already married when the Queen succeeded to the throne, as were Princess Elisabeth's brothers. I am not sure if the Queen's father gave formal permission to Princess Anne-Marie to marry the King of the Hellenes, but with the other marriages over the course of his reign, the King granted permission when the spouse held a courtesy noble title or style and was from a different country (Anne, Viscountess Anson, Count Henri de Monpezat, and Richard Prince zu Sayn-Wittgenstein-Berleburg). He refused formal permission when a prince married a Danish commoner (Dorrit Puggaard-Müller, Ruth Nielsen, Inge Terney, and Anne Dorte Maltoft-Nielsen).

The only marriages to which Queen Margrethe II gave her permission were the marriages of her sons (to Alexandra Manley, Mary Donaldson, and Marie Cavallier). I don't know why the Queen, as Princess Elisabeth stated, refused to give permission for Princess Elisabeth to marry Claus Hermansen without being stripped of her status, but the Queen might have preferred foreign commoners to Danish commoners, preferred princes marrying commoner women to princesses marrying commoner men, or preferred her own children to her cousin.

It will be interesting to see if the young princesses (Isabella, Josephine, and Athena), or even the sons of Prince Joachim, will lose their title and position in the Royal House if they marry commoners, granted that Christian and Vincent will retain theirs.
 
Last edited:
Did Dagmar of Denmark loose her title and privileges when she married Jorgen Castenskiold?
 
Did Dagmar of Denmark loose her title and privileges when she married Jorgen Castenskiold?

According to a Danish book, yes.

Furthermore, based on what I have read, she was known as Mrs. Dagmar Castenskiold after marrying him.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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 ?
 
Last edited:
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.
 
Last edited:
I have always heard that there is an unwritten rule in the Danish royal family that they have to marry people who are not from Denmark. Is that true?

Possibly. Section 5(3) of the Act of Succession states:

(3) If a person who is entitled to succeed to the throne decides to marry without the King’s or reigning Queen’s consent which shall be given during a meeting of the Council of State, he/she forfeits his/her right to succeed to the throne and so do his/her children born in lawful wedlock and their issue.​

https://english.stm.dk/media/8875/the-act-of-succession-of-march-27.pdf

Up until now, no monarch has given their consent in the council of state to the marriage of a person in line to the throne and a Danish commoner. Queen Margrethe's cousins Elisabeth, Ingolf, and Christian chose partners who were Danish commoners, but King Frederik IX and Queen Margrethe II refused to give their consent in council to these marriages.

Ingolf and Christian opted to marry their partners anyway and thus lost their places in line to the throne (which, according to custom, meant they ceased to be Princes to Denmark), while Elisabeth chose to live with her partner without marrying him in order to remain a princess.
 
Last edited:
Possibly. Section 5(3) of the Act of Succession states:
(3) If a person who is entitled to succeed to the throne decides to marry without the King’s or reigning Queen’s consent which shall be given during a meeting of the Council of State, he/she forfeits his/her right to succeed to the throne and so do his/her children born in lawful wedlock and their issue.​
https://english.stm.dk/media/8875/the-act-of-succession-of-march-27.pdf

Up until now, no monarch has given their consent in the council of state to the marriage of a person in line to the throne and a Danish commoner. Queen Margrethe's cousins Elisabeth, Ingolf, and Christian chose partners who were Danish commoners, but King Frederik IX and Queen Margrethe II refused to give their consent in council to these marriages.

Ingolf and Christian opted to marry their partners anyway and thus lost their places in line to the throne (which, according to custom, meant they ceased to be Princes to Denmark), while Elisabeth chose to live with her partner without marrying him in order to remain a princess.


I realize that the prince or princess has to gain permission, but since King Frederik 9 they have all married people outside of Denmark. They are from Sweden, France, Germany, Greece, Hong Kong, and Australia. Some of these were commoners whom they married with permission. Would Christian and his siblings be required to marry someone outside of Denmark in order to keep their place in succession? Would permission be denied for a born citizen of Denmark to marry them?
 
I realize that the prince or princess has to gain permission, but since King Frederik 9 they have all married people outside of Denmark. They are from Sweden, France, Germany, Greece, Hong Kong, and Australia. Some of these were commoners whom they married with permission. Would Christian and his siblings be required to marry someone outside of Denmark in order to keep their place in succession? Would permission be denied for a born citizen of Denmark to marry them?

That's for Frederik X to decide. Personally, I think he will allow marriage to Danish commoners (like the king of Sweden and Norway before him eventually did as well) - although like many other monarchs, he might encourage especially Christian to find a foreign wife as she will have less history in Denmark.
 
They should marry whoever they love, no matter what ethnic background.
 
Back
Top Bottom