Originally Posted by jonnydep
but saying that i cant see the need for Princess Alexia to be proclaimed Crown princess, surely it was taken for granted that she was , given that she was at that moment in time the only child of the King.
Legally, it wasn't that clear. The 1864 consitution and every one after that stated that the succession to the throne included " All the legal descendants of King George I , of eastern orthodox faith, with preference over the males" (that is my own traslation from greek). So , the wording isn't clear - does this mean that All males come before ALL females (semi salic ) or that this applies to each generation of descendants (male primogeniture)? Then , in the early years of Paul's reign, the government issued a statement that "clarified" the matter and said that the true meaning of the article refered to male primogeniture. The thing is, in Greece you can't just add an asterisk to an article of the consitution and say it's ok now - the proper way is to call for elections declaring that this would be a parliament authorized to revise the consitution, form a new government, create a new article regarding the succesion and then legalize it with the parliament's majority. This was nearly impossible in the 50s and 60s, with the post civil war atmosfere, because there was very little trust between political sectors - what if the succession was used as the Trojan Horse in order to form a parliament that would a revise also other constitutional articles? So everyone played stupid , thinking that " Oh well, the family with have a prince eventually and all be good".