The Future of the Danish Monarchy

[NGalitzine]

Originally Posted by Stefan

Even in the Netherlands. From 1849-1865 there where Queen Sophie and Queen Anna Pavlovna the widow of Willem II. And from 1890-1934 there where Queen Wilhelmina and Queen Mother Emma.

Of the ladies you mention only Wilhemina was Queen Regnant. The other ladies were Queen Consorts and Queen Dowagers, with Emma also being Regent for 10 years. It was Wilhemina's personal choice to revert to the title of Princess, now it is the law that an abdicated monarch reverts to prince/princess. Upon abdication they are constitutionally dead, no longer queen.

[Viv]

Originally Posted by FasterB

Why should it be on proclaimed from Amalienborg? It is after at Christiansborg that the Prime Minister and
the government has its place (til huse)

I'll second that! Christiansborg is the seat of the parliament, while Amalienborg is a residence. King Frederik X and Queen Mary and the
kids might decide to appear on the balcony after the proclamation at Christiansborg, but it would mainly be for the benefit of the children
of the local kindergartens , a bit like the Queen's birthday!

Queen Beatrix's word about it being time that 'the next generation take over' must have hit home in various courts in Europe! Somehow I keep hearing Queen Margrethe's statement that she'll 'stay put till she falls of the perch'!

And a thought on the situation in Denmark:
While I concede that Queen Margrethe has been an excellent monarch
in many ways I'm increasingly convinced that CP Frederik should take
over in the not too distant future. Somehow she appears very
old-world-like these days! Most monarchies seem to have seen the
writing on the wall! The times are changing! Their reason d'etre is not
the grace of God but the grace of their people. While I won't deny
the monarchs the right of understanding their office as a vocation,
nowadays they are first and foremost servants of the people! I don't
know whether it's just me, but IMO the Danish RF have had so much
tail wind in recent years that it has blinded them to the fact that
other RFs are in the proces of redifining their roles in a post modern democracy.

Maybe CP Frederik lacks a bit in the maturity department, but then
again maybe the top job would be the best finishing school for him!
We don't need a repetition of the fate of CP Frederik VIII (1906-1912), who acceeded at 63.

Viv

[Tarlita]

I believe the only way Queen Margrethe will abdicate is if her health stops her from performing her duties. I remember Queen Juliana attending many official events after her abdication. So its not like an abdicated monarch will never be seen again. But long may Queen Margrethe reign. And I sincerely hope she enjoys good health for a great many years to come.

[nwinther]

For me, it's to the death.

However, if the monarch sees fit to have someone else (the heir apparant) do some of the jobs, then find by me. That way the Monarch can "retire" while not letting go altogether.

Also, one should not discount the possibility of dementia or other cognitive challenges arising as the monarch gets older. Then it will be the Heir Apparant's duty to take over as regent, if the monarch him-/herself doesn't manage to make that decision on his/her own.

[ricarda]

You mean he/she stays monarch, keeps the title and position but his/her heir does the work?
Seems quite unfair towards the heir (what if he dies first?). And would empty the title King/Queen of any meaning. Dangerous IMO, could lead to people saying: we can do without a king/queen.

[Muhler]

I agree. We shouldn't have a pseudo-monarch.

Let QMII and her generation sit out their reign, that's fine with me. But a reformation is needed, I believe.

When Fredeik become a king he ought to abdicate at 75-80. By then Christian will be in his 40's and hopefully established with a wife and his own little heir.
He would also be in his prime. And just as importantly he will know that in X years, barring a tragedy, he will take over. - And his father will still be around. He will not go through the heavy burden of becoming a king, while at the same time grieving for his father.

Christian will again retire around normal retirement age for his generation, say 85. By which time his heir will probably be in his/her 40's - and so on, and so on.

To me this sounds preferable to Frederik dying in say his 90's and Christian becoming king around the age of 60. And Christian dying at say 110 (which is not unlikely) with his heir being in his/her 70's.

[nwinther]

Originally Posted by ricarda

You mean he/she stays monarch, keeps the title and position but his/her heir does the work?
Seems quite unfair towards the heir (what if he dies first?). And would empty the title King/Queen of any meaning. Dangerous IMO, could lead to people saying: we can do without a king/queen.

This is already happening. Many things Frederik does could just as well have been the job of the Queen. It's quite natural as a person gets older, that they won't be able to do the jobs they used to. There's no shame in that.

The shame is when said person fail to realize his/her limitations and keep on keeping on.

But I still think monarch is a title for life. Even if the monarch becomes demented or anything, it becomes a matter for the next generation to lift the burden - until the monarch dies. Then, and only then, can he call himself King.

Besides, do we run around thinking "we could do without a queen" every time someone else is acting Regent? So what if it's on near-permanent basis?

This is what we always did and there's no reason to change it. Stability and continuity is the way forward, still.

[Mariel]

I admire the Luxembourgers, and they have a tradition of abdication when the monarch comes to an advanced (although not decrepit) age. So I consider this a good role model.
It should not mean the disappearance of the monarch who abdicated. He/she should still be prominent in public ceremonies, as have the monarchs of Luxembourg. Old GD Jean is still apparent in public at an age over 90, even held up by a cane.

[kathia_sophia]

Originally Posted by ricarda

You mean he/she stays monarch, keeps the title and position but his/her heir does the work?
Seems quite unfair towards the heir (what if he dies first?). And would empty the title King/Queen of any meaning. Dangerous IMO, could lead to people saying: we can do without a king/queen.

yes it is unfair to the heir, but i think this is a very possible scenario. Monarchs that their belief is to die on the throne, if they happen to have some serious mental or physical problem, they will not abdicate but they will let the heir do the work...the heir will do the Monarch's work until he/she dies and finally the heir is officially a Monarch himself.

i think the Liechenstein has a similar situation, Reigning Prince Hans (though he's capable yet) passed his work to his son and heir Prince Alois, so Prince Alois acts as a reigning prince but he is not officially, not until his father dies (or abdicate).