The Royal Forums

The Royal Forums (http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/)
-   Royal Life and Lifestyle (http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f161/)
-   -   Does a royal baby have to be born in the country it's family reigns over? (http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f161/does-a-royal-baby-have-to-be-born-in-the-country-its-family-reigns-over-19820.html)

Lumutqueen 02-01-2009 01:58 PM

Does a royal baby have to be born in the country it's family reigns over?
 
I was wondering whether an a heir or baby of a royal parents for instance the crown princes of Denmark, Spain, Netherlands or Belgium has to be born in that country?

Or could the baby be born where the parents choose, like for Mary of Denmark may want one of her children born in Hobart?

Thank you.

x

sgl 02-01-2009 02:06 PM

I don't know the answer for reigning families, but Crown Prince Pavlos of Greece's children have been born in different places, such as New York, Los Angeles, and London. Since this royal family doesn't have a country to reign over, then this makes sense. I do know that Princess Margriet of the Netherlands was born in Canada, and she is of a reigning family. Hopefully, one of the other members knows much more than I do.

Al_bina 02-01-2009 02:07 PM

I think that Crown Princess is expected to give birth to her child/children in the country she has married into ( I can not find the better word). If otherwise, there might be issues related to the citizenship. Given my limited knowledge of legalities, my assumptions can be wrong.

acdc1 02-01-2009 03:24 PM

The present King of Thailand was born in the United States, so I guess you can still reign.

Maura724 02-01-2009 03:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sgl (Post 887367)
I do know that Princess Margriet of the Netherlands was born in Canada, and she is of a reigning family.

However, the hospital room Margriet was born in was declared Dutch territory for the day so that she would technically be born in the Netherlands. I think this was necessary for her to have any rights to the throne, which would have been much more important had she been a boy and therefore the future King. So I would assume that the laws in most European countries demand monarchs to be born in the country.

NotAPretender 02-01-2009 03:37 PM

Often times, if a royal pregnancy is to conclude in a place other than the homeland, the spot of birth is temporarily declared to be the home country.

lilytornado 02-01-2009 04:24 PM

Juan Carlos was born in Rome.

Maura724 02-01-2009 06:16 PM

The Spanish royal family was in exile at the time, though, weren't they?

iowabelle 02-01-2009 06:30 PM

I think Crown Prince Peter of Yugoslavia was actually born in London, although that was during World War II, also.

lucien 02-02-2009 02:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lumutqueen (Post 887365)
I was wondering whether an a heir or baby of a royal parents for instance the crown princes of Denmark, Spain, Netherlands or Belgium has to be born in that country?

Or could the baby be born where the parents choose, like for Mary of Denmark may want one of her children born in Hobart?

Thank you.

x

Any baby born to a Monarch or his/her Heir is in line to the Throne.

So in cases like the Thai Monarch Bhumibol Adulyadej,his parents studied in Boston,or Juan Carlos,
his parents were in exile in Italy at the time,it doesn't make a difference.

But an Heir,nor his wife,can not just pick and choose any spot on the globe to deliver a baby,
that will have to be in the Country itself only unless they are in exile because of war fi,and only then.
Paul of Greece is different ofcourse,he might be an heir,but an heir without a country so it doesn't matter
where his wife delivers,it is of no consequence in any which way.Not that I wouldn't wish for him to "have"
his country ofcourse,but that will not happen.

marmi 02-02-2009 02:50 AM

Just for interests sake, I read - but am completely unsure of the truth - that when Princess Maxima was touring a country whilest heavily pregnant (maybe Turkey???) that they carried a jar of Dutch soil with them, in case of an early delivery.

wbenson 02-02-2009 03:57 AM

If it's not required, it's still going to be very likely. Heavily pregnant women, especially heavily pregnant royals, don't make very many long trips in my experience, and typically they live in the country the family reigns over.

Lumutqueen 02-02-2009 04:00 AM

Really, a jar of soil?
Thank you all for answering my question.

I heard somewhere that somebodies hotel room was declared a foreign state so that the baby born would still be born in that country it maybe Princess Magriet.

x

marmi 02-02-2009 04:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lumutqueen (Post 887562)
Really, a jar of soil?

Thats what I 'heard', like I say not sure how true it is.

Jacknch 02-02-2009 05:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iowabelle (Post 887475)
I think Crown Prince Peter of Yugoslavia was actually born in London, although that was during World War II, also.

I believe that the hotel room in which Crown Prince Peter of Yugoslavia was born was temporarily declared Yugoslavian soil by the British government (headed by Winston Churchill) because the law in Yugoslavia required the heir to be born on Yugoslavian soil! :ohmy:

MAfan 02-02-2009 10:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jacknch (Post 887593)
I believe that the hotel room in which Crown Prince Peter of Yugoslavia was born was temporarily declared Yugoslavian soil by the British government (headed by Winston Churchill) because the law in Yugoslavia required the heir to be born on Yugoslavian soil! :ohmy:

The same is for Portugal; some doesn't recognise Dom Duarte Pio as Head of the Portuguese Royal Family because He was born in Switzerland, and not in Portugal; He and His Parents ever declared that however He was born over Portuguese soil.

iowabelle 02-03-2009 10:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jacknch (Post 887593)
I believe that the hotel room in which Crown Prince Peter of Yugoslavia was born was temporarily declared Yugoslavian soil by the British government (headed by Winston Churchill) because the law in Yugoslavia required the heir to be born on Yugoslavian soil! :ohmy:

I think you're right about the temporary Yugoslavia (although I don't know about the law). I guess WWII disrupted the normal patterns of life for most European royals, so it wouldn't have been unusual for a royal baby to be born away from its country during that period.

randomlyKeira 02-03-2009 11:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maura724 (Post 887402)
However, the hospital room Margriet was born in was declared Dutch territory for the day so that she would technically be born in the Netherlands. I think this was necessary for her to have any rights to the throne, which would have been much more important had she been a boy and therefore the future King. So I would assume that the laws in most European countries demand monarchs to be born in the country.

It was not declared Dutch, it was declare "extraterritorial", if I am not mistaken. It is in no way legal to declare any part of an established country owned by another for any amount of time without legal actiions preceeding it, and heavy paperwork, etc. The ward was considered "unaffiliated", making it pretty much no-man's land while the princess was being born.

And technically, citizenship does not necisarilly lean on which country you were born. I was born in Monaco, but they do not consider anyone born in their country to have automatic citizenship. You must reside there to be a citizen. I hold duel American and English citizenship, though I was born in neither place. And my sister was born in America, but she holds citizenship in the UK because our mother is a citizen of that country.

But enough of my familial story; I believe that a child born in another country would still be considered citizens and heirs in their home country, though the government and monarchy would only let it happen in extenuating circumstances (such as during WWII). It's patriotism and respect towards their country that their children are born in the country that their reign over.

Charlotte1 02-04-2009 02:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jacknch (Post 887593)
I believe that the hotel room in which Crown Prince Peter of Yugoslavia was born was temporarily declared Yugoslavian soil by the British government (headed by Winston Churchill) because the law in Yugoslavia required the heir to be born on Yugoslavian soil! :ohmy:

It wasn't Peter as he was already King during WW2. It was his son Crown Prince Alexander II ( current crown prince). The room he was born in Claridges Hotel in London in 1945 was declared Yugoslav soil so that the baby could be born on Yugoslav soil, it was more symbolic that actually necessary to royal laws.

The story of Maxima pregnant and a jar of Dutch soil during a trip to Turkey was a myth, it was denied at the time by the Dutch Royal House.

Lobo 02-13-2009 10:39 AM

I believe it all depends on the constitution, and whether there is an article says where the heir should be born!


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:56 AM.

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2014
Jelsoft Enterprises