Titles, Surname and Protocols for the Royal Family

[betina]

I can solve this problem with the prince(ss) of Denmark.
King Georgios 1. was prince of Denmark but his father Christian 9. of Denmark knew that being king of the Hellenes wouldt not be an easy task.
He proclaimed that Georgios and all his decendant were allowed to carry the title prince(ss) of Denmark too.
Therefor is PAvlos children still prince(ss) of Denmark and it have nothing to do about Anne-Marie is a princess from Denmark

[princess gertrude]

So what is being said is that Pavlos & MC are prince & princess, just not of Greece, but of Denmark?? I suppose that Christian had the idea that Greece would not always be a monarchy, even way back then.

[Frothy]

Betina

He proclaimed that Georgios and all his decendant were allowed to carry the title prince(ss) of Denmark too.

I want to see evidence of this, because 'and all his descendants' sounds very generous. It isn't that way for actual princes of Denmark right now, so HRH in perpetuity seems not very likely for a second son. Plus, bear in mind that 'Prince' may or may not be an HRH. Lots of minor Euros style themselves Princes but have no 'highness' titles.

Thanks for the clue thouhg I will look up on the net and see if I can see exactly how long the Georgios title went on for. It is definite that Pavlos and MC are not 'Crown' or any other type of Prince(ss) of the Republic of Greece! Whether they are legitimately a Prince(ss) of Denmark is what I want to find out. The first King of greece was but these guys, I'm not sure how long that privilege lasted.

[Sean.~]

Hi there,

this issue was discussed here a while back by myself, as well as on alt.talk.royalty. It came up in the Danish Parliament a few years ago as well, IIRC. Anyway, they are *not* Princes/ss of Denmark in their own right & are certainly not Princes/ss 'to Denmark'. It's a courtesy title, and is only accorded by virtue of them being (former) Greek Royals descending from George I (b. William of Denmark). In other words, they can only be refferred to as Prince/ss of Greece and Denmark, and not just Prince/ss of Demark. I hope that makes some sense?

They have no succession rights in Denmark. The 1953 laws make it clear that only Prince/ss 'to' Denmark, and not 'of' Denmark, can succeed.

[Frothy]

Yeah, you are right! Pavlos is a Prince of Denmark without any right of succession. Whether he is also a Royal Highness I do not know. On the Danish site some do not carry the HRH title. It would be interesting to know if the Prince of Denmark title carries an HRH with it or if it's more in line with a "Prince" of Lobcowicz say.

[Frothy]

Sean, thank you. I did find the title "of greece and Denmark" on the Danish RF official site. But on the other hand I also found the official title HM Queen of the Hellenes for A-M, which she certainly is not. The Danish site list no other Greek ex-royals as HRH and they list all the Danish royalty styled Majesty, Royal Highness or simply Highness.

Now if I were introduced to Princess Benedikte of Denmark (for example) I would cursy and say 'How do you do, Your Royal Highness.' Is it your understanding that this would not be appropriate for the Greeks? I refer of course only to their Danish titles and rights as they have none, qua Greece.

BTW, you mentioned earlier about curtseying as 'bowing and scraping'. Here's my take on it; I will cursty to any true Royal whose House rules by consent of the people of that land. To do so is an expression of respect for the people of the nation that the Royal Family comes from. Same way that I although not an American would say 'Mr. President' and 'Sir' instead of 'Mr. Bush'. It shows respect not only to the man involved but to the people of the USA.

So - for me, I would curtsy to a Princess of Jordan but not one from Saudi Arabia; I would cursty to the Queen of Denmark but not to Pavlos, pretender to the non-throne of Greece (and frankly I find all references to them as 'King' 'Prince' of Greece disrespectful to the democratic will of the Greek people). Curtsying, like other forms of politeness, should have a logic to it and that is mine.

[Sean.~]

Originally Posted by Frothy

Sean I think you've got this wrong, about Constantine being called Majesty by BP. I read the Court Circular and have NEVER seen him referred to by such a title, called a King, or even listed at all. He's a private citizen and nothing else. In fact that's what makes me guess the Danish title no longer applies as English protocol would list him as HRH Prince Constantine of Denmark if he were one.

No, I don't have it wrong. And,to branchg, it has been had diplomatic consequences, as the Greek government has protested several times, AFAIK, and the Greek ambassador has made public acussations about the less than diplomatic treatment he receives at the Palace during levies, etc., by Prince Philip.

Furthermore, Constantine would only be listed in the court circular *if* he attended a particular event. In every event that he has attended he *is* listed as HM King of Hellenes. Buckingham palace has refused to relinquish the use of this title and style for him. Moreover, at every court event he is given precedence directly after members of the BRF.

I don't have access to the court circulars online, however, you will note that in this press release by the Buckingham Palace at time of the Christening of Lady Louise, he is indeed referred to as HM King Constantine of the Hellenes.

http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/page3081.asp

[Sean.~]

Originally Posted by Frothy

Yeah, you are right! Pavlos is a Prince of Denmark without any right of succession. Whether he is also a Royal Highness I do not know. On the Danish site some do not carry the HRH title. It would be interesting to know if the Prince of Denmark title carries an HRH with it or if it's more in line with a "Prince" of Lobcowicz say.

His HRH is derived from being a Prince of Greece. He is not a Prince of Denmark per se. Rather, he's a Prince of Greece and Denmark. He can't simply refer to himself as Prince Pavlos of Denmark. I hope that makes sense. I think Kelly tried to explain it earlier & probably did a better job.

[cute_girl]

Originally Posted by Fashionista100

Pavlos is still a prince as the royal house still exsists even thought they have no country.

what you say is like being divorced and still insist that because once you were married you're still a husband/wife.

[suturegeisha]

Originally Posted by cute_girl

what you say is like being divorced and still insist that because once you were married you're still a husband/wife.

Or that because you worked as a surgeon once but had your license to practice medicine taken away from you, that you're still legally a surgeon.

[Sean.~]

[quote=Frothy]

Sean, thank you. I did find the title "of greece and Denmark" on the Danish RF official site. But on the other hand I also found the official title HM Queen of the Hellenes for A-M, which she certainly is not. The Danish site list no other Greek ex-royals as HRH and they list all the Danish royalty styled Majesty, Royal Highness or simply Highness.

They're not listed because they are not Danish royalty. It's a courtesy title & is not separatable from their Greek one. Anne Marie is listed as Queen rather than ex-Queen out of courtesy. Many would argue that, just as Presidents are oft referred to as Mr. President after their tenure, that it should be no different for former monarchs (not a theory I subscribe too).

Now if I were introduced to Princess Benedikte of Denmark (for example) I would cursy and say 'How do you do, Your Royal Highness.' Is it your understanding that this would not be appropriate for the Greeks? I refer of course only to their Danish titles and rights as they have none, qua Greece.

No, not appropriate. But I'm sure many people do. Members of the BRF do bow and curtsy to both Constantine and Anne Marie out of courtesy. There's a clip of Diana doing it to Anne Marie on a yacht, and Anne was once told by Philip to curtsy to the "King" before sitting for dinner.

BTW, you mentioned earlier about curtseying as 'bowing and scraping'. Here's my take on it; I will cursty to any true Royal whose House rules by consent of the people of that land. To do so is an expression of respect for the people of the nation that the Royal Family comes from. Same way that I although not an American would say 'Mr. President' and 'Sir' instead of 'Mr. Bush'. It shows respect not only to the man involved but to the people of the USA.

So - for me, I would curtsy to a Princess of Jordan but not one from Saudi Arabia; I would cursty to the Queen of Denmark but not to Pavlos, pretender to the non-throne of Greece (and frankly I find all references to them as 'King' 'Prince' of Greece disrespectful to the democratic will of the Greek people). Curtsying, like other forms of politeness, should have a logic to it and that is mine.

Oh, I'm all for according respect, and I agree with much of what you've written. The bowing and scraping bit was an attempt at humour. However, that being said, I *personally* would _not_ bow to any monarch or Prince/Princess or any other human being for that matter. God is my limit. Nevertheless, I understand why others might bow/curtsy in order to accord respect to the institution rather than the person they are bowing/curtsying to.

On a final note, I just have to add that the credentials of the Jordanian Royal Family to rule by the consent of the people is shaky at best. :)

[mtbcm]

This is a very interesting discussion.

It's no longer about Marie-Chantal but much more interesting indeed.

Another royal family came to my mind about being a Prince or a King of a Republic.

The Bulgarian Family for instance. They all have tittles of Princes and their wifes are called Princesses. But Bulgaria is a Republic and their King even became Prime Minister. Does this make any sense?! Or this is a completely different situation?!

Thank you for your attention!

Regards.

[Frothy]

Sean,

I was in Jordan last week and let me tell you, they LOVE the King and RF. His pic is everywhere including cabs and little shops in non-tourist areas - everywhere. They love him and the RF as the grief at the death of Hussein showed.

Members of the BRF do bow and curtsy to both Constantine and Anne Marie out of courtesy.

Well I think it is actually highly discourteous to the people of Greece to do that, and I am sure the Queen would not want to do but Phillip, being Greek, insists. I bet when he dies that stops. It's a personal family loyalty of Phillip's, but it is not right.

[Sean.~]

=Frothy]Sean,

I was in Jordan last week and let me tell you, they LOVE the King and RF. His pic is everywhere including cabs and little shops in non-tourist areas - everywhere. They love him and the RF as the grief at the death of Hussein showed.

That's because it is not a free country, and a quasi- dictorship (like when parliament was shut down for two years by Abdullah) and quasi police state. One is expected to publicly love the RF there. There used to be pictures if Saddam Hussein everywhere, too, as with Assad, Kim, etc.It's all propaganda,and many times pictures are given out by the regime for people to post or to carry during protests in. It is a tactic used in many countries where the ruler (s) have a dearth of legitimacy in order to give/create at least a veneer of legitimacy. Moreover, in a country like Jordan it is very hard to publicly go around speaking ill of the King and RF (particularly to outsiders), especially for the media. Those who do are punished accordingly. Just go over to Amnesty International or reporters without borders.

Moreover, Hussein and his policies were_not_ always very popular with large segments of Jordanian society. Like it or not, he was a despot, albeit a sometimes benevolent one. Many grieved him because that's all they knew, and that is what was expected of them.

Finally, I do agree with your point on bowing/curtsying to T & A as being discourteous to the Greeks. However, I don't think it is solely because of Philip, because it is done for other former royals (even those who were only tenuously 'royal' like the former Shabanou) ,and I'm certain it won't end with his demise. Charles and Constantine are *very* close, and no doubt, the same courtesies will be extended to the former Greek royals under his reign.

[Frothy]

Sean,

Jordan is a semi-absolute monarchy but that in and of itself does not make it illegitimate; if there is the will of the people behind the arrangement - and I do promise you, there is. The King is loved, the only fly in the ointment is the Queen who is not so popular being a Palestinian, despite her grace, beauty and charisma.

There may be 'sections' of Jordan who don't like the RF but those sections are small. We were on and also off the tourist trail, and we talked to many, and love of the RF is very great. they might be the last enlightened despots, if you like, we will see in the modern world - good kings ruling with the consent of their people. the royal women are at the forefront of the effort to promote and increase the rights of women and children in Jordan. They are doing everything they can, are as pluralist as you could wish for, and peacemakers by nature. Eventually they want a true democracy in Jordan and a constitutional only monarchy but that time has not yet come. Despite efforts by the royals, for example, rural Jordanians still practise 'honor killing' - they arre trying to bring in reform as fast as possible without the kind of revolt that attended the Shah's disastrous banning of the hijab (veil).

HRH Prince Zeid (one example) is Jordan's Ambassador to the UN and he has been instrumental in the foundation of the International Criminal Court (which I don't support, but this ain't a politics forum!). I offer it however as an example of Jordanian royal 'enlightenment' and Western values.

[Sean.~]

Sean,

Jordan is a semi-absolute monarchy but that in and of itself does not make it illegitimate; if there is the will of the people behind the arrangement - and I do promise you, there is. The King is loved, the only fly in the ointment is the Queen who is not so popular being a Palestinian, despite her grace, beauty and charisma.

Hi Frothy! :)

We're going to have to agree to disagree on this one. As a political economist who specializes in the ME, I can tell you that he is far from loved by many segments of society, and the institution does lack legitimacy with those who feel that they are disenfranchised. And no kind of absolute government good, "enlightened" or sustainable.

The Queen isn't popular with the Palestinians either, and neither his her husband for his and his father's policies. Many of them feel disenfranchised. She isn't popular with the Bedouin natives becaus she gets too involved in politics, and even tried her hand at promulgating laws.

There may be 'sections' of Jordan who don't like the RF but those sections are small. We were on and also off the tourist trail, and we talked to many, and love of the RF is very great. they might be the last enlightened despots, if you like, we will see in the modern world - good kings ruling with the consent of their people.

This is where we disagree. It is not a small segment of society. Abdullah is far less "loved" than his father ever was, and before the Iraq war there was real fear of the Jordanian monarchy falling. The Pentagon was even hedging bets on it, and the King was being protected by the Americans with a plane waiting to whisk him and his family out if the need should have arisen. Hardly necessary if his regime had overwhelming legitimacy.

the royal women are at the forefront of the effort to promote and increase the rights of women and children in Jordan. They are doing everything they can, are as pluralist as you could wish for, and peacemakers by nature.

And here, too, we disagree. I'm not going to get into great detail on this here because this isn't the place to do so, however, I will state that it is one thing to talk about women's rights and peace, but quite another to take real substantive action. Rania talks about ending honour killings, but her husband won't even make them illegal in fear of alienating his rural supporters. Religious leaders and 'fundamentalist leaders' have influence with these people, but they are not going to take-up the cause on behalf of the King and Queen because the King's regime regularly persecutes them. The King has done little of substance to promote real peace in the region. Just go to the West Bank and ask the Palestinians. Sure peace was made in Israel, but rather than being "natural born peacemakers" (have you forgotten the wars of 40s, 50s, 60s, and the abuses of the 70s?), it was done for American $$ and economic reason (nothing wrong with that, but lets call a spade a spade). They also benefited hugely by the 2003 war, which alienated a lot of the Arab populace.

You talk about 'consent of the people', but this is a regime which panders to vested interests, is internationally known as corrupt (particulary by international lenders), and has little respect for human rights. Again, I would refer you to the plethora of human rights indexes (and if you want we can continue this discussion via PM).

Eventually they want a true democracy in Jordan and a constitutional only monarchy but that time has not yet come. Despite efforts by the royals, for example, rural Jordanians still practise 'honor killing' - they arre trying to bring in reform as fast as possible without the kind of revolt that attended the Shah's disastrous banning of the hijab (veil).

Jordan isn't Iran of decades ago. And honour killings aren't limited to rural areas. You say that they want a true democracy eventually, but that they aren't ready yet. This is what the King oft states to defend his regime and its policies. I think it is insulting to Jordanians, personally. He not so long ago basically stated that there wasn't anyone capable of democratically leading Jordan, however, in a country with its population and educated class, one finds that quite hard to swallow. Saudi uses the "We're not ready" and "social fabric" arguments quite often, too. It's a pattern with these kinds of regimes.

HRH Prince Zeid (one example) is Jordan's Ambassador to the UN and he has been instrumental in the foundation of the International Criminal Court (which I don't support, but this ain't a politics forum!). I offer it however as an example of Jordanian royal 'enlightenment' and Western values.

[/quote] The Hashemites are known for their nepotism -- appointing loyalists and family members to key positions. This has to stop. And Zeid, by the way, is on the exrtreme fringes of the RF (he comes from the Iraqi branch). In any case, the court was neither his idea, nor does his involvement with it negate the ills of his cousin's regime. Moreover, Western values are not always enlightened, nor are they conducive to democracy in the non-Western world because they are not in sync with their culural and historical realities. They can often alienate large segments of the population, which is somehing we've seen in many countries.

Anyway, pm me if you want to discuss further. I know the JRF has its supportes here, and I've already ruffled a few feathers! :)

[Frothy]

Sorry! There's certainly plenty to discuss in MC's pretension to a title and the fact that the Greeks are not royal. I'm still interested in ferreting out if MC and Pavlos have Danish titles. I'd like to know exactly what the Danish parliament said in respect to this when it came up.

Marie Chantal is not a Princess of Greece, so can she be one of Denmark still. A courtesy title it may be but courtesy titles are also real titles, eg, Lady Diana Spencer, the 'Lady' is a courtesy title - ie, her rank was 'commoner', but nevertheless you would have called her 'Lady Diana' or 'my lady' or 'your ladyship' if you were a servant.

I would be interested in the protocol of the courtesy Danish title and if it makes M-C a true royal and princess, not as a Greek (Republic) but as a minor Danish royal.

Courtesy to the Greek people's absolutely sovereign and free decision to vote themselves a republic means I can't agree with anybody who calls them a 'Greek royal family' - republics don't have those. They are a *former* Greek royal family or a part of the Danish royal family.

Put it this way; I wonder what Marie-Chantal says on her passport when she is obliged to give an official legal name and title?