The Royal Forums

The Royal Forums (http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/)
-   The Royal Family of Greece (http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f77/)
-   -   Order of Succession to the Throne (http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f77/order-of-succession-to-the-throne-28238.html)

GRspecialforces 07-17-2010 05:08 PM

Order of Succession to the Throne
 
hello

i try to find information about prince michael. first of all, is he the son of prince christopher? becuase if yes, then he's the grandson of king george (the first) and closer to the greek throne. right? ;) and i didn't know he is an author. this means he lives with his own money? thanks!

gregory

MAfan 07-17-2010 05:36 PM

Yes, he's indeed the son of Prince Christopher and his second wife Princess Françoise; and yes, he's indeed grandson of King George I.
About being closer to the Greek throne, he was the only son of the last son of the first King of Greece (of that House), so he has always been the last in the line of succession to the Throne; btw, he lost his rights by marrying a commoner, Marina Karella, in 1965.
As for your last question, he's a writer, and I think he lives with his own moneys (and I don't think it can be different, especially after the fall of the Greek Monarchy).

EmpressRouge 07-17-2010 05:58 PM

Order of Succession to the throne
 
Every member of the Greek royal family was a ahead of Prince Michael in the line of succession. This included Princess Marina, Duchess of Kent and her sisters (daughters of a third son) and Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh (son of a fourth son) before their marriages. Maybe the Romanov children of his aunts were after him, but they probably gave up their rights of succession after marrying into the Russian house.

GRspecialforces 07-18-2010 08:15 AM

thank you for answering my questions! :flowers: i didn't express it right, i think. closer to the throne, i meant michael was above contantine to become king. but he shouldn't marry a commoner, like you said, if he wanted to take the throne. now something else: did he want to become king? did he feel sad when constantine took his position? ;)

gregory

Warren 07-18-2010 08:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GRspecialforces (Post 1113273)
did he feel sad when constantine took his position?

Prince Michael was 17 months old when Constantine was born so it's unlikely he felt anything.

GRspecialforces 07-18-2010 08:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warren (Post 1113277)
Prince Michael was 17 months old when Constantine was born so it's unlikely he felt anything.

aha, this means there was no issue at all then. since constantine was born, everyone knew michael had no chance. thanks, warren. ;)

gregory

MAfan 07-18-2010 09:09 AM

He never had big chances of becoming King, in a way or another. He was born in 1939, and at the time he was 7th in the Line of Succession. The same year Prince Petros married a commoner, and lost his succession rights; in 1940 his father Christopher died, and Constantine was born; through the years several princes died or got old or renounced their rights, and finally in 1964, at King Pavlos' death, Michael became second in the succession, after the King (Constantine II, at the time unmarried and childless), and Prince Petros (married to a commoner and however childless). So hadn't Constantine had children, Michael would be destined to be King sooner or later.
But in 1965 Princess Alexia was born, and appointed as Heir to the Throne (a decision that met the opposition of Petros, who thought to be the legitime Heir being Constantine's closest male relative). At that point, Michael's morganatic marriage wasn't a big issue at all, as he had little chances to becom King.

EmpressRouge 07-18-2010 01:46 PM

I thought Constantine's sister, Irene, was next in line for the throne because Greece didn't practice Salic Law. I remember Sophia had to give up her second-in-line place when she married Juan Carlos. And when Constantine ascended the throne and took the oath, Irene was pictured standing next to him in the position of (then) heiress presumptive.

MAfan 07-18-2010 04:39 PM

Yes, you're right, my mistake. I forgot that Greece had semi-salic succession law. Btw, this means that in 1964 Michael was third in the Succession.

jonnydep 07-19-2010 01:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EmpressRouge (Post 1113344)
I thought Constantine's sister, Irene, was next in line for the throne because Greece didn't practice Salic Law. I remember Sophia had to give up her second-in-line place when she married Juan Carlos. And when Constantine ascended the throne and took the oath, Irene was pictured standing next to him in the position of (then) heiress presumptive.

Yes ! that's correct and wasnt Constantine's daughter Princess Alexia (Mrs morales) the Heiress Presumptive from her birth 10th June 1965 until the birth of her brother, (the Crown prince paul) on the 20th May 1967, she was not appointed the Heiress as MAfan states !!!

Nikolopoulus 07-19-2010 04:36 AM

The princess Irine was Crown Princess during one year, the Princess Alexia was Crown Princess until 1967. She was Crown Princess!!!!!!!!!
Princess Irine spoke about it in 2007, she said that she had been Crown Princess during one year.
Prince Michael was fourth in line of succession until Princess Alexia was born, after he renounced in 1965

MAfan 07-19-2010 10:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jonnydep (Post 1113570)
Yes ! that's correct and wasnt Constantine's daughter Princess Alexia (Mrs morales) the Heiress Presumptive from her birth 10th June 1965 until the birth of her brother, (the Crown prince paul) on the 20th May 1967, she was not appointed the Heiress as MAfan states !!!

Princess Irene was Heiress Presumptive from King Pavlos' death in 1964 to Alexia's birth in 1965, then Alexia became Heiress Presumptive, because in Greece (like almost all the monarchies) the children of a monarch come before the brothers of the monarch in the line of succession.

Vlaha Karatsokaros 07-19-2010 01:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nikolopoulus (Post 1113612)
The princess Irine was Crown Princess during one year, the Princess Alexia was Crown Princess until 1967. She was Crown Princess!!!!!!!!!
Princess Irine spoke about it in 2007, she said that she had been Crown Princess during one year.
Prince Michael was fourth in line of succession until Princess Alexia was born, after he renounced in 1965

Actually, prince Michael was third after princess Yriny and prince Peter in the Line of Succession before Alexia's birth. This, of course, was another arbitrariness indicative of the I-do-as-I-please mentality of the Greek Royal House over the years of its reign. How could somenone (prince Michael in this case) be in the Line of Succession when he had resigned his rights to the Throne and his wife had not even been elevated to princess.
Such actions kept hapening again and again during the Glucksburg reign and reflected attitude toward the Throne. In the end, the Throne was wiped off - they paid dearly in multiple ways and so did the Nation!

PS By the way, I wonder, why wasn't princess Catherine considered ahead of prince Peter and prince Michael? One may argue that she had become a British subject etc etc and as such lost her rights, but a similar situation applied also to prince Michael's case who had always been a French citizen. When it comes to the Greek Royal Family, it is almost impossible to approach any subject matter in a scientific - that is logical and constitutional - fashion. Instead, chaos is always the word that comes to mind!

jonnydep 07-19-2010 02:16 PM

Hi MAfan
Yes i do understand , the point i was making that Princess Alexia was not appointed the heir as you have written here
Quote:

Originally Posted by MAfan (Post 1113286)
But in 1965 Princess Alexia was born, and appointed as Heir to the Throne (a decision that met the opposition of Petros, who thought to be the legitime Heir being Constantine's closest male relative). At that point, Michael's morganatic marriage wasn't a big issue at all, as he had little chances to becom King.

And another thing why should Petros have any oppositoin to a decison which could not had been made by anyone at all, as princess Alexia was heiress by right at birth, what are your sources here MAfan ?

MAfan 07-19-2010 05:30 PM

I've firstly read this story in the Italian page on Prince Petros in Wikipedia (which extensively quotes Célia Bertin's book "Marie Bonaparte"), and also I came across to it in this post by Snowflower in Prince George and Princess Marie (Petros' parents) thread here at TRF.

jonnydep 07-19-2010 07:02 PM

My apologies MAfan, isnt Snowflower referring to Prince Petros and his opposition to princess Irene and not princess Alexia. i still cant understand why you think that princess Alexia was appionted heiress to the throne and that Prince Petros opposed this decison, when the event could had not happened. i only can presume with the birth of Princess Alexia, that Prince Petros may have opposed her position in the succession, for the very same reasons that he opposed Princess Irene....is this what you mean ?

Vlaha Karatsokaros 07-19-2010 08:22 PM

I am not sure but I believe that, possibly, at some point the Line of Succession in Greek Monarchy may have been limited to agnatic primogeniture, by Law or based on House Rules, in which case female relatives would have been excluded from the line of succession.
If this were the case up until the death of King Paul and before prince Paul was born, then the first in line of succession would have been prince Peter.

Baron Saalfeld 07-19-2010 08:35 PM

The Greek Royal House had applied Salic law to it succession whereas only males were eligible to succeed to the throne. It was during the reign of King Paul I (PAVLOS I) where concept of primogenture was applied to the succession to the Greek throne. I believe that primogeniture was applied to the descendants of King Paul I.

Prince Peter was reputedly quite furious over this decision and accused Queen Frederica as being the mastermind. This of course was never proven and is subjecture at best. Prince Peter also took a morganitic wife and I am unclear whether he was removed from the line of succession.

MAfan 07-20-2010 08:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jonnydep (Post 1114005)
My apologies MAfan, isnt Snowflower referring to Prince Petros and his opposition to princess Irene and not princess Alexia. i still cant understand why you think that princess Alexia was appionted heiress to the throne and that Prince Petros opposed this decison, when the event could had not happened. i only can presume with the birth of Princess Alexia, that Prince Petros may have opposed her position in the succession, for the very same reasons that he opposed Princess Irene....is this what you mean ?

Snowflower's post regards specifically Princess Irene, but - as I previously wrote - I've found this story quoted also in Wikipedia, where it says that Petros opposed in 1964 to Irene's proclamation as Heiress Presumptive by King Constantine, and then in 1965 he did the same, protesting against Alexia's proclamation as Diadoch.
The reason of his behaviour is that before the succession was ruled by Salic Law, and being him the closest male relative to the King he thought to be the legitimate Heir to the throne. Apparently, he couldn't accept the change of the succession law.

I used the term "appointed" because I don't know a better one, and imo its meaning fits the context; if you can suggest me a better term, feel free to do.

jonnydep 07-20-2010 10:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MAfan (Post 1114202)
Snowflower's post regards specifically Princess Irene, but - as I previously wrote - I've found this story quoted also in Wikipedia, where it says that Petros opposed in 1964 to Irene's proclamation as Heiress Presumptive by King Constantine, and then in 1965 he did the same, protesting against Alexia's proclamation as Diadoch.
The reason of his behaviour is that before the succession was ruled by Salic Law, and being him the closest male relative to the King he thought to be the legitimate Heir to the throne. Apparently, he couldn't accept the change of the succession law.

I used the term "appointed" because I don't know a better one, and imo its meaning fits the context; if you can suggest me a better term, feel free to do.

Well you have just used the correct term "Proclamation" , its the term i would use , as it is making her postition pubilcly official even though it was her right from birth anyway.....to appoint someone to a positition is entirely differant, usually it is where a person has been chosen or asked from perhaps a number of possiable candidates who may have or not have any prior rights or interests to the positition concerned and where consent or some agreement has been made between the parties concerned.....

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....unless it was intended to be a clear message to set the situation straight with the retrograde Prince Petros, the scourge of the Greek Royal Family at this time........who knows !

i hope the adove has helped you to come to a better understanding of the matter at hand MAfan :flowers:
Cheers !


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:10 PM.

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2014
Jelsoft Enterprises