Philippe Egalite'
Aristocracy
- Joined
- May 8, 2007
- Messages
- 217
- City
- Athens
- Country
- Greece
First of all, I am most grateful for your translation of the document.
Second, I would like to apologize for confusing you by calling, in the previous post, the af Danmark courtesy title. I should have said, instead, to avoid confusion that prince or princess af Danmark has no sunbstantive meaning or legal bearing per se.
I do appreciate that, socially, the term courtesy is understood by most people as referring to use of a non-existent title as a polite gesture, but in peerage parlance [see Wikipedia], courtesy title is used in distinction from, and in contrast to, substantive title. For example, the first son of a duke carries usually the title of marquess which is real but is called a courtesy title by the Biritish Peerage because the bearer holds no position in the House of Lords until the death of his father. The term courtesy title is also used in reference to titles acquired through marriage, as in the cases of commoners marrying princes, dukes etc.and holding no titles in their own rights.
Example: Crown Princess of Sweden is a sunbstantive title, while Crown Princess of Belgium is not.
The question asked by the MP was technical and specifically why King Constantine got a Danish passport and, by implication, why was he granted Danish citizenship. And the Minister gave the correct answer, which is exactly what I discussed in my preceding post. Former Constantine was born with rights of succession to the Danish Throne, thus a prince til Danmark (1940) and ipso facto a Dane. As of the enactment date of the 1953 Succession Act, he ceased to have such rights and ceased to be a prince til Danmark, but remains a Dane and became a prince af Danmark.
Logically, once a father is a Dane and holds Danish passport, his children should also have the same privileges.
I am not sure, however, whether the prince af Danmark title is inheritable. My personal guess would be that it isn't but I may be utterly wrong. The prince af Danmark title was extended apparently only to those who were holding a til Danmark rank and title when the Act came into effect and logically it should be an ad personam title. Perhaps, it would be interesting if you had the time to research and tell us about it.
I agree. Please see above.
I agree completely that the 1953 Succession Act only regulates succession to the throne and it does not regulate rank and titles. However, in Denmark, those members who lose their rights to the throne, lose also their rank and title.
Example #1: HRH Prince Knud's sons, born princes [now Counts Rosenborg] Ingolf and Christian, lost their right of succession upon their marriage without permission by the monarch and automatically ceased to be princes [either til or af Dankark] and should not be referred to as princes except in a historical sense and for the period of their lives up until their marriage. However, their sister, Elisabeth continues to be a dynast [8th in the Order of Succession] and keeps the highest rank of nobility [princess], her title [princess] and style [her Higness].
Example #2: Princess Anne-Marie of Denmark, upon marrying a foreign ruling dynast in 1964, lost her succession rights, by decision of her father and King and she is no more a princess til Danmark.
Indeed, it is quite significant and important that the passport to King Constantine was not issued on the grounds of his being the husband of Anne-Marie but because of his descent from King Christian IX.
I appreciate that you agree on that.
Think about it. The current crownprincess is also "only" Crownprincess of Denmark, but she is indeed a part of the Royal Family - it is not courtsey only. She is the future Queen.
.
Of course she is real. The af Danamark in her case implies only that she is not a princess in her own rights or she holds no substantive position in her own rights. However her title is real and she has full legal rights because she holds what is called "a life estate in her husband's dignity".
Example #1: Their Royal Highnesses Victoria, Mary, Maxima, Mathilde, Letizia are Crown Princesses but only Victoria is constitutionally relevant and receives precedence as such because, one day, she will become a sovereign queen. The others will become queen consorts but never monarchs.
Example #2: Formerly HRH Princess Alexandra, became HH as soon as she took divorce and ceased to be a princess upon her remarriage.
I would like to thank you again for an excellent discussion.
Last edited:
