Prince Henrik's Plans for his Final Resting Place: August 2017

[carina_a]

To me, this isn't even about whether the title should be changed or how it should be changed.
This is about how PH deals with it.

He didn't become a scholar on gender equalities. He didn't research or write a book. He didn't engage in intellectual debates with experts. He didn't make any comprehensive and practical proposal on the whole system. Even people in this thread have thought about it more than he did.

He ran out of the country. He hijacked a state visit related interview. He gave 'exclusive interviews' to magazines. He refused to be buried with his wife. He gave out passive-aggressive statements.

PH does as he wishes.

p.s. I didn't even think of the Monpezat title earlier. Yeah it being a 'male-line descendants only' doesn't really help his case either. It's a newly created title anyway, they could've done anything with it. That means Isabella, Josephine and Athena's future children won't get it, right?

 

[alicia]

I'm really having a lot of trouble understanding what PH means by equality. Whether he is known as Prince Consort, or King Consort, surely his role would not have changed? How could it be anything else other than providing support to the Monarch, not sharing it with her. So he would never have been her equal in practice. Their household arrangements within the family are a private matter for them to sort out, where titles are superfluous.

My daughter sent me a card which puts the whole mess into some sort of perspective for me:
Mum - a title just above queen!
Some things are just more important than others!

 

[Katrianna]

Because that's the truth?

Because that's what PH had already told the press?

Perhaps they thought that damage control is easier, if they simply stick to facts and the truth?

Perhaps they hope for more understanding from the press (and the public) if they are fairly open and truthful from the beginning.

They could have said that PH for private and personal reasons do not wish to be buried at Roskilde Cathedral, but then the press which most likely have direct quotes from PH, would publish these quotes anyway.
And PH might still happily tell any journalist within earshot his reasons. He sure told TV2's Lally Hoffmann today!

And how do you put a spin on that anyway? Especially as they don't know what he might come up with next!

And it is factual. The same with PH's retirement. PH decided to retire, so that's what QMII told the public.

Time will tell whether that's the best strategy in the long run.

Congratulations on your first post, Slavey

From what I've read on the Royal Message Boards, Henrik "leaked" the information concerning his internment wish during an interview with a Danish magazine. The press then flooded the Court with the info and the Court had no choice, but to confirm what Henrik relayed. I'm sure the Court would have preferred to keep his wishes private for now, but they had no choice.
In any case, it's an extraordinary action. The Queen has been married to Henrik for 50 yr. and by this time has probably gotten used to his whims and gripes and feels that to let Henrik do as he wishes is the best course. It seems at odds though, Margrethe and Henrik both worked with the sculptor on the plans for their tomb at the Cathedral and now after all the work, Henrik's changed his mind. Who knows with Henrik? He could change his mind next week and want to be buried in France?

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

The problem with your 'plan' Duc_et_Pair is that it allows for no distinction between the wife of the Sovereign and assorted other Princesses MUCH 'further down the pecking line'...

I believe you draw a situation which never existed at all in real life. Did this "confusion" ever occur with Prince Albert, Prince Heinrich, Prince Pierre, Prince Félix, Prince Bernhard, Prince Henrik, Prince Claus and now with Prince Daniel, that these consorts to a Sovereign were confused to Princes lower in the pecking order?

Has any one ever, ever, been confused Prince Philip, The Duke of Edinburgh, with Prince Richard, The Duke of Gloucester or Prince Edward, The Duke of Kent?

He says he can not go to Roskilde Cathedral because he does not have the title of King, is that it? [....]

No that is not the case. Now the smoke has gone away the situation is far more nuanced than the headlines in media. Prince Henrik has reflected on his long life and considered his role in the family and in the Royal House and made a private descision on something which can not be more profound in a human being's life: the last wishes about the own remains. Prince Henrik has -off the record- insisted that it was a private decision which has nothing to do with the Royal House.

In the Netherlands we have learned that Princess Irene of the Netherlands (the former Duchess of Parma, sister of former Queen Beatrix) wants to be cremated and her ashes to be spread out on her properties in South Africa. Has never happened before. But that is her personal wish and ao it will be done. No fuss, no outcry, only understanding. Same with Prince Henrik. I wish the good man well. From all acounts he is a dedicated Pater Familias, there is a visible love and pride when he interacts with his grandchildren and in return these seem to adore their grand père to bits. I resist against the too easy qualifications in this board, denouncing Henrik.

[....]

p.s. I didn't even think of the Monpezat title earlier. Yeah it being a 'male-line descendants only' doesn't really help his case either. It's a newly created title anyway, they could've done anything with it. That means Isabella, Josephine and Athena's future children won't get it, right?

All continental nobiliary peerages are to the heirs in the male lineage. Not so long ago Spain changed it with the eldest child as the heir, regardless the gender but Spain is quite different as a sister can transfer the rights to a brother, as a holder of more titles can distribute it over more persons or even cede the use of a title to another person (but remaining the title holder).

In Sweden, Denmark, the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, Monaco, Liechtenstein and all former monarchies the nobiliary system follows the heirs of the male body. The United Kingdom too, unless a special remainder has been attached to a Letters Patent (i.e. the Earldom Mountbatten of Burma).

 

[Nordic]

The problem with your 'plan' Duc_et_Pair is that it allows for no distinction between the wife of the Sovereign and assorted other Princesses MUCH 'further down the pecking line'...

I believe you draw a situation which never existed at all in real life. Did this "confusion" ever occur with Prince Albert, Prince Heinrich, Prince Pierre, Prince Félix, Prince Bernhard, Prince Henrik, Prince Claus and now with Prince Daniel, that these consorts to a Sovereign were confused to Princes lower in the pecking order?

The situation would exist in real life.

Just as examples: If, in the DRF, the wife of the Sovereign would be 'Princess Mary', there would also be a 'Princess Marie' and in the NRF, there would be a 'Princess Mette Marit' and also a 'Princess Märtha Louise'.

No distinction between the wife of the Sovereign and other princesses.

 

[carina_a]

All continental nobiliary peerages are to the heirs in the male lineage. Not so long ago Spain changed it with the eldest child as the heir, regardless the gender but Spain is quite different as a sister can transfer the rights to a brother, as a holder of more titles can distribute it over more persons or even cede the use of a title to another person (but remaining the title holder).

In Sweden, Denmark, the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, Monaco, Liechtenstein and all former monarchies the nobiliary system follows the heirs of the male body. The United Kingdom too, unless a special remainder has been attached to a Letters Patent (i.e. the Earldom Mountbatten of Burma).

If that's the rule from the his (disputed or not) French title, just like all those German titles, that is very hard to change currently, then it's fine.

But as I understand it, Margrethe essentially created the title 'Count/Countess of Monpezat' in Denmark, just like she created Alexandra's countess title, and made it real so to speak. Doesn't Margrethe have the ultimate and only say in how the title is carried on from the future? Did I understand wrongly?

 

[Stefan]

All continental nobiliary peerages are to the heirs in the male lineage. Not so long ago Spain changed it with the eldest child as the heir, regardless the gender but Spain is quite different as a sister can transfer the rights to a brother, as a holder of more titles can distribute it over more persons or even cede the use of a title to another person (but remaining the title holder).

spanish noble titels could also inherited by daughters before the recent change in the law if there where no sons:
Therefore there where the late Duchess of Alba, the late Duchess of Medina Sidonia and the late Duchess of Medinaceli etc. who all succeeded in te 1950's.

 

[Muhler]

If that's the rule from the his (disputed or not) French title, just like all those German titles, that is very hard to change currently, then it's fine.

But as I understand it, Margrethe essentially created the title 'Count/Countess of Monpezat' in Denmark, just like she created Alexandra's countess title, and made it real so to speak. Doesn't Margrethe have the ultimate and only say in how the title is carried on from the future? Did I understand wrongly?

That is correct. It's the monarch who has the final say in regards to titles in the DRF, or creating new noble titles.

Christian and Vincent are Counts of Montpezat, while Isabella and Josephine are Comtessas of Montpezat i.e. unmarried daughters of a count (Frederik).

The same thing applies to Joachim's children.

A Gallup poll has been published: Nu er danskerne trætte af prins Henrik: Du svigter Margrethe | BT Royale - www.bt.dk

1.008 have been asked.

75 % believe PH has let down his wife.

73 % believe PH should not be made king consort.

80 % believe PH has not been treated unfairly by not getting the title.

80 % believe PH directly harms his legacy.

There are a number of comments to the figures which I agree with, but I'll leave that, I believe you can interpret the figures for yourselves.

 

[Denville]

The more I think about it, the more I'm in the camp that thinks it may be dementia or a form of it. I'm seriously wondering if perhaps during his hospital stay that he was told to get his affairs in order and with a faltering mind, part of getting things in order is making the statement of his last wishes as far as his burial as this whole "king" business has been a pet peeve of his for a long time. On the other hand, some of the family has stated that they've known these wishes for a while.

.

I think that it is possible. certainly. He may have always had issues iwht Marg and with being her husband and lower than her in the pecking order but he seems to have kept them private till now. Perhaps he has been unhappy with life in Denmark for many years, has wanted to return to france at least to be buried, and now, if he is starting to suffer from ill health and mental decline, in old age, he is fretting and obsessing and "coming out" with issues that he mostly kept quiet about for a long time.
It is a slap in the face for his wife and for Danish people, but It may be a long held desire of his..

 

[Osipi]

I think that it is possible. certainly. He may have always had issues iwht Marg and with being her husband and lower than her in the pecking order but he seems to have kept them private till now. Perhaps he has been unhappy with life in Denmark for many years, has wanted to return to france at least to be buried, and now, if he is starting to suffer from ill health and mental decline, in old age, he is fretting and obsessing and "coming out" with issues that he mostly kept quiet about for a long time.
It is a slap in the face for his wife and for Danish people, but It may be a long held desire of his..

He has not kept his views private at all. He has a history of letting everyone know of his displeasure of being treated "unequally" to his wife, the Queen and has publicly embarrassed her with even storming off to France at one time in a hissy fit. This latest episode is just one in a long line of Henrik being Henrik.

 

[Nordic]

He has not kept his views private at all. He has a history of letting everyone know of his displeasure of being treated "unequally" to his wife, the Queen and has publicly embarrassed her with even storming off to France at one time in a hissy fit. This latest episode is just one in a long line of Henrik being Henrik.

According to this article (in Danish), he has been complaining about it in public since 1992...

Prins Henrik får aldrig en anden titel, mener ekspert - TV 2

 

[alicia]

I'm sure there will be many more comments in this thread, but I wanted to thank Muhler for his management of reaction to posts. I have found the different points of view interesting, and Muhler has responded when necessary with patience and always with courtesy. It's a great skill you have, Muhler. Thank you.

 

[Muhler]

Thanks, Nordic.

I think what was said back in 1992, deserves to be translated.
Prins Henrik får aldrig en anden titel, mener ekspert - TV 2
Compare the two clips in the video, from 1992 and 2015.

Q: Dit it bother You, Your Royal Highness, coming from the background You had, to know that eyes of the nation at first would rest on the Queen?

PH: "Yeah".

Q: So it did?

PH: "Yes, it's frustrating. I can well say that/that I can say".

Q: Is it something You have discussed within the family?

PH: "Have I talked about it"?

QM: "With me, yes. You have made me aware of it, and it's good you did so. Because I think I'm so observant, but I'm not".

The survey at the bottom of the article asks: Should PH get the tite king consort?

A) Yes. He should be equal to the Queen.
B) Yes, as long as he is not equal to the Queen. There can be only one head of state as outlined in the Constitution.
C) No, he should accept his role as prince consort.
D) Not at all. And if he can't accept the tradition he ought to consider leaving the country and the DRF.

ADDED: You are welcome, Alicia. ?

---------------

ADDED: There is one thing worth smiling at in this whole affair: Not even Women's Day and New Idea had the imagination for coming up with a drama like that!

 

[Mbruno]

spanish noble titels could also inherited by daughters before the recent change in the law if there where no sons:
Therefore there where the late Duchess of Alba, the late Duchess of Medina Sidonia and the late Duchess of Medinaceli etc. who all succeeded in te 1950's.

Indeed. The change in the 2006 law was to introduce equal primogeniture in the succession. Before that, some titles were inherited by male-only primogeniture and others by cognatic primogeniture with male preference, depending on the terms of the letters patent. That has now been explicitly overriden by the new law which has precedence over the letters patent as it is an act of the Spanish parliament, see Art. 2 in the text (in Spanish) of the law here .

A Gallup poll has been published: Nu er danskerne trætte af prins Henrik: Du svigter Margrethe | BT Royale - www.bt.dk

One would expect the equality-minded Danes to be more sympathetic to making PH "king consort", which, as we have been debating here, is not the same as a second Head of State, or a co-monarch, or equal to his wife. The problem is that PH's tantrums hurt his cause and attract antipathy against him. A poll on the title of "king consort" in abstract, rather than on giving the title to PH specifically, could have different numbers, although it is doubtful that the public would be able to separate the two questions at this point under current circumstances.

 

[wartenberg7]

In the close future we will see princes as consort in Sweden, Norway, the Netherlands, Belgium and Spain. In due time we will see the spouses of Prince George and Prince Christian as the only consorts who share the husband's rank (as it is now, Luxembourg will probablh again have a Prince as consort again as Amalia de Nassau is the closest heir in the age group of George and Christian). Then the anomaly will only become more visible.

Solution: all consorts, male or female, are created a Prince (Princess) in their own right (like Albert von Sachsen-Coburg und Gotha, like Heinrich von Mecklenburg-Schwerin, like Pierre de Polignac, like Félix de Bourbon de Parme, like Bernhard zur Lippe-Biesterfeld, like Henri de Laborde de Montpezat, like Claus von Amsberg and like Daniel Westling).

All these gentlemen were/are/will be Prince next to the female Sovereign. Okay, treat ladies equal: all of them will be Princess next to the male Sovereign.


Clear and his honours the unique position of the bearer of the Crown. This arrangement makes monarchies more future proof, with the eye on the flood of female sovereigns coming.

This "anomality" as you put it, is none at all! It is the practice in europe for about 1000 years. Anomality would be modern created, artificial titles without any traditions or roots you suggest! Every married King in Europe (and in many other countries outside it) has a Queen. This won´t be changed because of a stubborn, megalomaniac old man who, after half a century living in europe´s oldest monarchies, still has no sense of royal protocol, traditions or etiquette!
It is interesting to see how male still gets upset if female is once in a seemingly more advanced position like he is...

 

[Mbruno]

If that's the rule from the his (disputed or not) French title, just like all those German titles, that is very hard to change currently, then it's fine.

But as I understand it, Margrethe essentially created the title 'Count/Countess of Monpezat' in Denmark, just like she created Alexandra's countess title, and made it real so to speak. Doesn't Margrethe have the ultimate and only say in how the title is carried on from the future? Did I understand wrongly?

Yes, "greve af Monpezat" is a Danish title; Henri's family's alleged French title is undocumented. BTW, if I understand it correctly, QMII gave the title to Henri's male-line descendants , but not to Henri himself, i.e. he doesn't bear the title in Denmark.

This "anomality" as you put it, is none at all! It is the practice in europe for about 1000 years. Anomality would be modern created, artificial titles without any traditions or roots you suggest! Every married King in Europe (and in many other countries outside it) has a Queen. This won´t be changed because of a stubborn, megalomaniac old man who, after half a century living in europe´s oldest monarchies, still has no sense of royal protocol, traditions or etiquette!
It is interesting to see how male still gets upset if female is once in a seemingly more advanced position like he is...

I suppose the anomaly is not that every married king has a queen, but rather that no married (reigning) queen currently has or will in the future have a king ! As we have been discussing, that is not a 1000-year-old practice, but rather a practice that pretty much began in the 19th century in the United Kingdom and then spread to northern Europe (where, at the time BTW, there were no "reigning queens" as women could not inherit the throne).


Personally, I disagree with Duc's suggestion as I support having both "queen consorts" and "king consorts". However, I appreciate his point, which is based on the logic that spouses should not use their partner's title, style or name, but rather have a title, style, or name of their own. That would also work for same-sex couples, which is not the case today, but might be in the future as same-sex marriage is now legal in several monarchies and is an option that is also available to royals as any other citizen

 

[rominet09]

A Gallup poll has been published: Nu er danskerne trætte af prins Henrik: Du svigter Margrethe | BT Royale - www.bt.dk

1.008 have been asked.

75 % believe PH has let down his wife.

73 % believe PH should not be made king consort.

80 % believe PH has not been treated unfairly by not getting the title.

80 % believe PH directly harms his legacy.

There are a number of comments to the figures which I agree with, but I'll leave that, I believe you can interpret the figures for yourselves.

Very clear and it's reflecting my opinion....

 

[wartenberg7]

Yes, "greve af Monpezat" is a Danish title; Henri's family's alleged French title is undocumented. BTW, if I understand it correctly, QMII gave the title to Henri's male-line descendants , but not to Henri himself, i.e. he doesn't bear the title in Denmark.



I suppose the anomaly is not that every married king has a queen, but rather that no married (reigning) queen currently has or will in the future have a king ! As we have been discussing, that is not a 1000-year practice, but rather a practice that pretty much began in the 19th century in the United Kingdom and then spread to northern Europe (where, at the time BTW, there were no "reigning queens" as women could not inherit the throne).

The practise of a King´s wife being his Queen (not "his Princess"!) is many many centuries old. Even in the roman empire the wife of the cesar was the empress.
The tradition in England began in the early 18th century with Queen Anne and George of Denmark, not in the 19th century. Before that time there was no need to deal with the matter because there were hardly, if any married sovereign Queens (exception Mary Tudor whose husband was a King in his own right - he was NOT a spanish nobeleman or Prince being married to the Qu. of England).

 

[maria-olivia]

I visited Roskilde Church and saw the great sculpture/tomb of Queen Margerethe the First . Was she married?
Perhaps they may sell their sarcophage and Queen Margrethe II will be alone as the first one.

 

[Mbruno]

The practise of a King´s wife being his Queen (not "his Princess"!) is many many centuries old. Even in the roman empire the wife of the cesar was the empress.
The tradition in England began in the early 18th century with Queen Anne and George of Denmark, not in the 19th century. Before that time there was no need to deal with the matter because there were hardly, if any married sovereign Queens (exception Mary Tudor whose husband was a King in his own right - he was NOT a spanish nobeleman or Prince being married to the Qu. of England).

What I meant is that the practice of the queen's husband being a "prince" rather than a king is not 1000 years old. On the contrary, see my previous posts, there are dozens of examples of husbands of reigning queens who were called kings not only in medieval and early modern Europe, but also as late as the middle of the 19th century. The tipping point in that regard is Prince Albert not being made king in the UK in the 1840s for purely domestic political reasons.

 

[wartenberg7]

What I meant is that the practice of the queen's husband being a "prince" rather than a king is not 1000 years old. On the contrary, see my previous posts, there are dozens of examples of husbands of reigning queens who were called kings not only in medieval and early modern Europe, but also as late as the middle of the 19th century. The tipping point in that regard is Prince Albert not being made king in the UK in the 1840s for purely domestic political reasons.

The practice of the queen's husband being a "prince" rather than a king being not 1000 years old is not my point - I didn´t say anything to that. My point was how things in europe are being handled since dozens of generations and centuries and that this practice is deeply rooted and in all our collective minds are the traditions about monarchies we have!
The reason why Albert was Prince Consort and not a King is irrelevant. He, among all the male consorts we know, was not a King and that´s that.

 

[Denville]

other consorts were not Kings, Q Ann'es husband was not a king. Generally, the consort of a queen regnant, has been of lower status. if it bothered Henri, then really he shouldn't have married a queen.

 

[Rudolph]

Princess Eugenie's husband won't become a prince. Baroness Smith's husband isn't a Lord. It's Princess William not Princess Catherine. So why should the Queen's husband be a king.

The issue for me is Henrick knew all of this when he got married. Did he really think the world was going to be turned upside down just to accommodate him?

 

[O-H Anglophile]

As Wartenberg7 pointed out, precedent had been made with Queen Anne's husband not being made King of any sort.
I think traditionally, a King was considered a higher rank than Queen, as men considered themselves more intelligent and more worthy than women and most often the Queen was only the spouse. So as women began inheriting thrones in their own right, the countries they reigned in did not want their husbands, usually an outsider foreigner being their "King" or ranking higher than their Queen. Admittedly this has not occurred often, but there will be many Queens in Europe coming.
If the term consort was always used with the title of a reigning monarch's spouse that might work--I actually find that a better option than the Princess/Princess option suggested by Duc. Who knows what conclusion the various countries will come to- they may all choose different titles for their Queen's spouses.

 

[Mbruno]

Princess Eugenie's husband won't become a prince. Baroness Smith's husband isn't a Lord. It's Princess William not Princess Catherine. So why should the Queen's husband be a king.

The issue for me is Henrick knew all of this when he got married. Did he really think the world was going to be turned upside down just to accommodate him?

However, Princess Astrid's husband is a Prince of Belgium ; the husband of the Princess of Asturias (by law and by tradition) will be named Prince of Asturias, and Chris O'Neill isn't a Prince of Sweden just because he turned down the title. Likewise, in Spain, the husband of a duchess is a duke, as the husband of a marchioness is a marquis. So, although it is true that the European custom is still mostly that husbands don't take the titles and styles of their wives, that is changing.

More significantly, husbands of queens have been kings for centuries, so , in this case, it is not even a matter of modern gender equality issues.

 

[O-H Anglophile]

The issue for me is Henrick knew all of this when he got married. Did he really think the world was going to be turned upside down just to accommodate him?

Yes, yes I think he did. I think he believed he would be king and has been stewing about it for years and is becoming more and more fixated on the thing he couldn't have as he ages.

 

[O-H Anglophile]

More significantly, husbands of queens have been kings for centuries, so , in this case, it is not even a matter of modern gender equality issues.

In a way gender equality is a factor, because in the past, husbands of queens were made kings because women were subservient to men and men thought they needed to make decisions for the poor weak minded little woman. That began to change and the title of king was no longer given to the spouse of the Queen, in part because in some minds the King always outranked the Queen.

 

[Rudolph]

There was some talk that the Kings advisors wanted a then Princess Elizabeth to be created 'Princess of Wales' but King George VI nixed it.

The Princess of Wales is the wife of The Prince of Wales he said.

I still think Henrick is just seeking attention. He knew/knows this king business was always a none starter but yet he continues to tilt at windmills

 

[Denville]

he may be, or he may be getting a bit doolally and if he is, issues that he has always been annoyed about are now becoming more dramatic in his mind. He may have always wished to be buried in France but now as he has gotten older, it is becoming an obsession, and he feels perhaps angry enough with his wife (if they're not getting on well) to make it more public even if it embarrasses her and their family

 

[O-H Anglophile]

There was some talk that the Kings advisors wanted a then Princess Elizabeth to be created 'Princess of Wales' but King George VI nixed it.

The Princess of Wales is the wife of The Prince of Wales he said.

I still think Henrick is just seeking attention. He knew/knows this king business was always a none starter but yet he continues to tilt at windmills

King George VI's thoughts on the Prince of Wales title just reinforces my point about a queen being thought lesser than a king.