The Future of the Danish Monarchy

[Duke of Marmalade]

All monarchies will come under massive scrutiny once the old monarchs have gone and Denmark will be no exception.
All of them lead a lavish lifestyle (some of them more open than others and the Danish monarchy belongs to the first group, what only is an additonal achilles heel) with an impact that the young generation will question more and more the often assumed mismatch between cost and benefit.

While some countries whose monarchies are rather young, like Spain, will question the institution alltogether very soon (the next heir generation might still get away but probably not the one after the next), other countries with old and historic monarchies, like Britain or Denmark, might not still not question the institution alltogether but the lifestyle and work ethic of its representatives will become crucial as much as attitude and vision. My bet is that all of them will be cut to the possible minimum in terms of power (if there is any left at all) and money.

The process has already started and although there might not be any abolishments within TRF posters' lifetime, I think all institutions are in decline, in my personal opinion looking ahead, monarchy doesnt have a place in a modern society that will be created by the new generations to come.

I am not surpised the with change of government in Denmark the DRF becomes part of all sort of discussions, its only the beginning of what will come up after the transition from Margethe to Frederik.

 

[Muhler]

Actually I believe there is more than 50 % probablility that the DRF (and most of the other European royal families) has been quietly abolished in 75-100 years from now. Shortly after Denmark has ceased to exist as a nation.
Let me illustrate: in 1811 there were a huge number of principalities, minor kingdoms and city states in what is now Germany. Most of them centuries old.
In 1911 they were reduced to less than a handfuld.
now, in 2011, none are left.

That's what I believe will happen to Europe. The process is ongoing and I believe inevitable.
Politically we are right now moving from a confederation to a union. At present 60 % of all Danish legislation is the direct result of what has been passed in the European Parliament. The nations mean less and less politically and that process will quietly continue.
Demografically and mentally the process has also started among Europeans in general. People are moving about in Europe and setteling everywhere, often only for a few years, before moving on. That happens at all levels, from the unskilled to the highly educated. The internationalization of Europe is in full swing.
I believe once my generation is gone in about 40 years time, the process will really accellerate.

Example: I have a daughter. After finishing high school, she may attend a university in Bulgaria, get a job in Finland, meet a guy from Portugal, whom she will marry and they will settle for a number of years in Ireland. What will Denmark mean to their children?
We are going to see more and more of that. I.e. the national states means less than the European Union to our grandchildren, let alone our great-grandchildren.
So what I think will happen, is that the nations will be reduced to geographically administrative areas and the royal families will become symbols for nationalists, but quitely they will fade away. At best reduced to principalities, which will interest tourists and tabloids.

The ironic thing is that I'm in favour of a European Union, (or rather I would prefer it to remain a strong confederation), for two reasons:
A) A multitude of European nations cannot compete economically in the future with nations like China, Brazil, India and also USA, to mention the four most obvious competitors.
B) And because the alternative to a European Union is twenty armoured divisions just standing around, waiting for the next war. - We have not become wiser here in Europe, under the surface we are just as brutal and warlike as our ancestors.

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

Actually I believe there is more than 50 % probablility that the DRF (and most of the other European royal families) has been quietly abolished in 75-100 from now. Shortly after Denmark has ceased to exist as a nation.
Let me illustrate: in 1811 there were a huge number of principalities, minor kingdoms and city states in what is now Germany. Most of them centuries old.
In 1911 they were reduced to less than a handfuld.
now, in 2011, none are left.

That's what I believe will happen to Europe. The process is ongoing and I believe inevitable.
Politically we are right now moving from a confederation to a union. At present 60 % of all Danish legislation is the direct result of what has been passed in the European Parliament. The nations mean less and less politically and that process will quietly continue.
Demografically and mentally the process has also started among Europeans in general. People are moving about in Europe and setteling everywhere, often only for a few years, before moving on. That happens at all levels, from the unskilled to the highly educated. The internationalization of Europe is in full swing.
I believe once my generation is gone in about 40 years time, the process will really accellerate.

Example: I have a daughter. After finishing high school, she may attend a university in Bulgaria, get a job in Finland, meet a guy from Portugal, whom she will marry and they will settle for a number of years in Ireland. What will Denmark mean to their children?
We are going to see more and more of that. I.e. the national states means less than the European Union to our grandchildren, let alone our great-grandchildren.
So what I think will happen, is that the nations will be reduced to geographically administrative areas and the royal families will become symbols for nationalists, but quitely they will fade away. At best reduced to principalities, which will interest tourists and tabloids.

The ironic thing is that I'm in favour of a European Union, (or rather I would prefer it to remain a strong confederation), for two reasons:
A) A multitude of European nations cannot compete economically in the future with nations like China, Brazil, India and also USA, to mention the four most obvious competitors.
B) And because the alternative to a European Union is twenty armoured divisions just standing around, waiting for the next war. - We have not become wiser here in Europe, under the surface we are just as brutal and warlike as our ancestors.

Great post Muhler, and I completely agree. In the end there will be Europe, and european monarchies will first become relicts and then be gone.

 

[fearghas]

Do you truely believe that places like Germany and France will want to continue to prop up places like Greece?

 

[Mirabel]

Do you truely believe that places like Germany and France will want to continue to prop up places like Greece?

I agree; I see the European Union crashing down in a few more years.
It may have been saved this time by a strategic bailout, but what about the future?

As for the monetary aspect, do people really think they'd have any more money if the royals left tomorrow?
(The politicians manage to burn through millions in expenses; I don't see that changing).

 

[Muhler]

Do you truely believe that places like Germany and France will want to continue to prop up places like Greece?

As long as the economic problems in Greece directly threathens the Euro, yes.
The alternative is too costly.
The moment the economic collapse of Greece no longer is a direct threath to the Euro, then....
Yes, I'm being cynical.

DK is not a member of the European Monetary Union, nor is United Kingdom, but it still affects us very much.

Should the present European Union collapse, it will eventually be replaced with a united Europe in two or three stages, depending on the economic strength of the various countries. The politicians are openly discussing that option.
Forget the notion of a Europe of nations, that ship has sailed. - The elite want a united Europe.

 

[ricarda]

Well, maybe the elite wants it but I don't really see it happen.
"United Europe" is Utopia IMO.
Can there really be a united Europe with so many different languages and mentalities/cultures around?
I mean, after so many years of EU we do not even have a Monetary Union yet (see DK, UK). I think the Danes will be as willing to give up their monarchy as they were willing to give up their "kroner".

 

[nwinther]

nwinther, Helle Thorning has said that the government will not touch the monarchys place in DK

Yeah, she's a real promise-keeper that one.

Actually I believe there is more than 50 % probablility that the DRF (and most of the other European royal families) has been quietly abolished in 75-100 years from now. Shortly after Denmark has ceased to exist as a nation...

You are describing my absolutely worst nightmare.
If you are right, Europe will sink into a grey abyss of corruption and indifference, with powerhungry politicians greedily grabbing everything they can get their hands on. We're already seeing the damages of "pure" democracy in any number of republics.
Elected representatives have no conscience and noone to really answer to.

"The people", one might object "the people won't reelect a crook".

First of all: Won't they?
Second: What does that matter? Once a person is in power he'll do anything to better his situation - and eventually retire comfortably. He'll have absolutely no motivation to do anything rational - because he isn't responsible for anything.

Huge towering institutions are built up in democracies with the aim to protect the politicians. Sure, other institutions are erectes (ombudsman for example), but it's skin deep.

What democracies need in order to have a chance of actually serving the people, is something "bigger". Someone, who actually cares and actually had something at stake, i.e. a monarch.

The monarch has a stake, as his/her children are eventually going to take over. He/she is responsible towards his/her children and as such towards his/her people. The King can't just make a piss-poor deal that makes him rich and then retire. He has a family and a people to care for - and give the best possible future. A monarch has to think in generations not terms!

The good thing is, that the monarch doesn't even have to be that active in legislation. As long as he's there, the elected representatives have to figure him into their proposals. They are unable to sink into corruption because they have to - from day to day mind you - be answerable to the monarch.

The EU is an institution made not to keep the peace (although that may have been the fig-leaf) but to keep (corrupt) politicians "in the money" and power, far away from the actual people.

 

[sjetajiem]

I even think that Kings Queens and nations will disappear a lot sooner (maybe 20 years or so).
If Europe will survive, nations will have to give up their autonomy and there will be one central government to take action more rapidly than now with all those governments and parliaments.

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

Another issue will be, in all monarchies, that the future heirs (and spares) wont be prepared anymore to do this job for life: little "acting" power, constantly under media scrutiny. Plus, if a heir/heiress wont be up for the job on an intellectual/charismatic level, the public wont hesitate, like they have done in the past due to cover-ups or lack of media scrutiny, different understanding of respect, to get rid of the person and the institution he or she represents.

The sense of duty will get lost because less representatives will see the point of it, and once there is the first incapable heir or the first monarchy is gone for whatever reason, the floodgate will open and it wont take long until the final curtain for Kings and Queens has come.

 

[Muhler]

You are describing my absolutely worst nightmare.
If you are right, Europe will sink into a grey abyss of corruption and indifference, with powerhungry politicians greedily grabbing everything they can get their hands on. We're already seeing the damages of "pure" democracy in any number of republics.
Elected representatives have no conscience and noone to really answer to.

That's a gloomy view, but I think you are very much right.

We, the voters, have the politicians we deserve.

How many among us living in EU countries are able to name just five members of the EU Parliament off hand?
What's the name of the EU President?
And so on. No wonder greedy politicians are having a field day!

Most still live in the naive illusion that it's the national parliaments that matters. - Wrong! It's what happens in Bruxelles and Strassbourg that matters. That can be a beneficial thing, if we, the voters, bothered to care.
But noone cares about what goes on in the EU Parliament, the media certainly don't! Oh no, the readers/viewers are stupid, so it's better to write about a reality star, and there is more interest in that anyway...
When was the last time you saw a prominent EU politician being grilled by journalists? I can't remember.

That's why the whole EU system went into a state of complete panic, when the former Danish government intended to set up a very limited border control. Not because of the control, good heavens no. The eurocrats have nothing against border control, as long as noone talks about it. - What they really fear is that the national parliaments take back power and that the population realise how much power is concentrated in the EU Parliament and how little control there is.
That's why our new PM here in DK was recieved with open arms on her visit down there. She's one of their own and she won't rock the boat.

EU could work, it should work, it must work.
Alas, we have the politicians we deserve....

Another issue will be, in all monarchies, that the future heirs (and spares) wont be prepared anymore to do this job for life: little "acting" power, constantly under media scrutiny. Plus, if a heir/heiress wont be up for the job on an intellectual/charismatic level, the public wont hesitate, like they have done in the past due to cover-ups or lack of media scrutiny, different understanding of respect, to get rid of the person and the institution he or she represents.

I agree with you to a point. Fortunately changing the form of rule in a country is difficult. Otherwise several countries would now be in the position where the monarchy had been abolished and people are complaining that the new system is worse - but now it's too late. - That is something we will see in the future.

As for "unsuited" royals. Well, that is a problem that has existed since the first monarchies were formed. Nowadays the royals only need to worry about being voted out.
Beforehand they risked being assassinated, rebellions, coups, beheadings and so on. The problem with a less capable monarch has always been there. Often with disastrous results. At least that is something we don't have to loose sleep over these days.
The monarchies have dealt with such problems before and the more adaptable can survive for some time more.
But there is a much more serious threat to the monarchies now. Making them superflous. Some politicians want to strip them of constitutional powers, - "All power to the politicians in democracies"! That sounds right, alluring and logic, doesn't it? - Yes, if we could trust the politicians and the safeguards the politicians set up for themselves.
What point is there to have a monarch with no constitutional role? A monarch who has been reduced to tabloid-fodder and ribbon-cutter?
Stripping the monarch of any constitutional role is the most dangerous attack on the monarchy there is. - They've pretty much succeeded with that in Sweden and if it wasn't for CP Victoria, the monarchy would be abolished there within a generation.

I don't see that happening here in DK, where especially Frederik and Mary stand very strong for at least the next generation.
It's when the notion of adhering to a specific nation becomes blurred, that things will change in earnest.

 

[nwinther]

I read this on another forum, and I think it's absolutely true:

"Who's best at running a country? The person who's been trained for it his entire life, or the person who was able to drum up more votes?"

In a nutshell, it's what republics are. There are no good presidents or bad presidents. Only (more or less) popular presidents.

 

[Muhler]

Translation of a Q&A in Billed Bladet #42, 2011.

Really a comment as a direct response to this: http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f24/the-future-of-the-danish-monarchy-14778.html#post1324403

Elisabeth Thomsen writes:
I just want to say thank you for standing up for the rhetorical abilities of the Crown Prince. He has a beautiful personality and I understand everything he says - or rather what he means.
Actually I think he is a great mind and that his brain sometimes works faster than his mouth.

Jon Bloch Skipper responds:
I'm certain there are many who feel just like you.
As said before I don't think his rhetorical problem is as big as many makes it. I have noticed that he often express himself cryptic in public contexts (on the job) - when he is trying to be diplomatic, politically correct, formal or solemn.
He expresses himself more freely and therefore better in private contexts, like for example when he mentiones his family, his interests in sports or friends.
I actually don't know what causes this/what this is an expression for, but it's probably some kind of blockage.

 

[Viv]

IMO, the monarchy should be strengthened - not weakened. They are, after all, the only protection the population have against politicians.

Any politician suggesting a rewite of the monarch's constitutional role is toast - it just hasn't dawned on the person who mentioned it !
But give it another 10-20 years and the Danes perception of royalty will have shifted towards indifference IMO.

I 'dunno' whether it has been mentioned elsewhere on this forum, but there was a piece in Berlingske by a Anne Sophie Hermansen about the relevance of especially the crown princely couple. She saw it as a problem that the almost middle aged couple needed to grow up and act responsibly rather than hanging on to their partying and clubbing ways!. She also said that the last thing we needed was a clothes horse for a princess!

I'm not sure how much partying they're doing these days, however the problem is that whatever parties they attend get an extensive coverage in the gossips.

Maybe the gossip mags think that there are doing the DRF and the Danes a favour in reporting all this social stuff, but the fact is IMO that at the end of the day it's counter productive.

I'm beginning to understand why the younger members of the British RF is handling their parties like some clandestine operation.

Viv

 

[UserDane]

She also said that the last thing we needed was a clothes horse for a princess!

I noticed that expression too in the article.
It's rather peculiar how this expression - a clothes horse - is used about CP Mary. When I follow the various CPs here at TRF, I wonder whether her closet is really any bigger than the others'? She has been around for some years now and IMO we have seen a lot of repetitions from Mary - she's just very clever at using her clothes in new ways. And - she still fits into clothes from the early years of her marriage.
I have a theory that if she starts dressing badly, deliberately, she'll get rid of the clothes horse label. For some strange reason, a lot of people seems to equal a good dressing sense with being a clothes horse.

 

[Muhler]

People who write a column in a paper as a basis for a debate tends to use a black and white picture and provoke at bit.
Having said that I don't think M&F party more or are more social than the average couple of their age. - Good grief does the columnist expect them to remain at home or sneak away to their friends? Lest the Danes should get the impression that they are humans?

It's nothing but an attempt to start a debate and when you can't find anything else to write about, write about the royals.
It's actually positive. If we haven't got anything more serious to discuss than the social activities of the DRF, we are a very fortunate people indeed.

It's the opinion of the ordinary silent Danes that matters. - And this is something the "elitist opinion makers" hate. They sit aloof in their intellectual ivory tower, drinking cafe latte, while agreeing with their peers about their superiour insight and looking down on the unwashed ignorant masses. In their theoretical world, monarchies is an anacronism - yet, they rarely turn down a knights cross....
In their world the ordinary people's fascination for the royals is silly (the uneducated are so easily pleased, you know..), - yet they won't turn down an opportunity to take part in a cultural event with the royals.

What the opinion makers omit to take into account is that monarchy is very much about emotions, a sense of belonging, something that is stable.
Emotions matter, just look at the daily news.

You cannot look at the monarchy in a purely rational manner and that's what they have never really understood.

ADDED: As for Mary and how she dress. That's her "work-clothes"! I fully expect one of the most important representatives for my country to dress appropriatly and in a manner so that they don't embarrass my country.
So what's the problem?

 

[Emmily]

Muhler, love your comment and very much agree with your 'added' comment about Mary's clothes.

 

[BeatrixFan]

I even think that Kings Queens and nations will disappear a lot sooner (maybe 20 years or so).
If Europe will survive, nations will have to give up their autonomy and there will be one central government to take action more rapidly than now with all those governments and parliaments.

I'm sure alot of people have felt that way over the past few centuries. The fact is that monarchy survives in European countries. The only reason we lost the German, Serbian, French etc monarchies is because of very radical, extreme national incidents or revolutions. Nowadays people are less inclined to such actions and so without a huge disaster on the cards, people seem quite resolved to the idea that they have monarchies. I certainly can't see Denmark getting rid of their monarchy, as far as I can see the current incumbent is popular, Crown Prince Frederick is regarded as quite a safe bet and who could object to Prince Christian? So in my view, the Danish monarchy is secure for at least two more generations.

 

[Muhler]

I guess this hypothetical question belongs here.

Summary of a Q&A in Billed Bladet #18, 2012.
Where a Myrna Westhi would like to know what title Mary would get, should she marry a commoner after the death of Frederik.

Jon Bloch Skipper basically admits that he doesn't know. There is no presedence for that in Danish history. Not since the 1400's and the widow in that case, Dorothea of Brandenburg, married the next king, so she remained queen.

It would be entirely up to king Christian to sanction the marriage of his mother and to decide whether she should even remain as a member of the DRF and what title she would get.

 

[Artemisia]

Based on the precedence with Alexandra, I think it is fairly certain Mary would at the very least be given a nobility title. As a mother of the future King, it is also likely Mary would also retain her royal style. Hopefully Frederik and Mary will live long and happy lives together, so the issue will not arise.

 

[nwinther]

In theory, Frederik could die tomorrow and the question would, should it arise, lie in the hands of the Queen.

However, I don't see a reason Mary would remarry. It would pose so many more problems than it would solve. It would, after all, be entirely possible for her to pursue romantic interests without having to enter into holy matrimony.

In fact, the matter could easily happen with the current Queen and Prince Consort. If the Queen dies leaving the Prince Consort as widower, the then King Frederik could find himself in a similar situation.

Again, I don't see why the Prince Consort would remarry. It's entirely unnecessary.

 

[Lumutqueen]

It's entirely unnecessary.

Other than the fact that if Henrik or Mary found themselves in that situation, they want to remarry. I don't see how it would create more problems then not, Frederik or Christian or Margrethe depending upon the order of things would decided, presumably just giving a new title to Mary or Henrik.

 

[Viv]

I don't see why the Prince Consort would remarry. It's entirely unnecessary.

I don't see that happening either!
And pardon me for saying so, but sometimes these 'what-if' questions in Billed Bladet are way beyond reason! But maybe people don't have anything better to do?

viv

 

[camelot23ca]

Late to the party here, but I find this an interesting, (albeit weird), question. In the event of a divorce I could see Mary giving up or losing her title... although given that she will always be the mother of the future monarch I don't think we can take Alexandra's situation as any sort of guide. But if Frederik were to die before becoming King, would Mary not still be entitled to the title of Crown Princess for the rest of her life?

 

[Artemisia]

Late to the party here, but I find this an interesting, (albeit weird), question. In the event of a divorce I could see Mary giving up or losing her title... although given that she will always be the mother of the future monarch I don't think we can take Alexandra's situation as any sort of guide. But if Frederik were to die before becoming King, would Mary not still be entitled to the title of Crown Princess for the rest of her life?

If Frederik dies before becoming King, Mary will retain her title of a Crown Princess, unless she remarries. If she does remarry, given her status of the mother of a future Monarch, it is likely she will be bestowed a title similar to Alexandra's (probably, higher).

 

[Madame Royale]

More than likely she would be created a Princess of the Kingdom of Denmark in her own right, I'd imagine.

 

[Artemisia]

More than likely she would be created a Princess of the Kingdom of Denmark in her own right, I'd imagine.

That's be very likely.
In fact, I don't see why, when Christian becomes King, she couldn't be created a Queen Mother.
Granted, that has never happened; in order to become a Queen Mother, you normally have to be a Queen Consort first. But it's not exactly impossible either.

 

[miche]

The Queen Mother isn't an official title. The only reason why Queen Elizabeth was call that was become the Dowager Queen, Queen Mary was still alive when King George died.

 

[Artemisia]

The Queen Mother isn't an official title. The only reason why Queen Elizabeth was call that was become the Dowager Queen, Queen Mary was still alive when King George died.

In the United Kingdom, Queen Mother is an official title that the Queen Dowager who is also mother of the present Monarch automatically assumes. However, the title, along with the title of a Queen Dowager, is rarely, if ever used: instead, Queens Mother, Queens Dowager, and Queens Consort are simply known as "Queen Name".
The mother of the present Monarch was specifically styled Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother because she and her daughter shared the same first name, and it would have been awkward, not to mention confusing, to have two Queens Elizabeth.

At least, that has always been my understanding.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_mother

 

[Muhler]

If Frederik should die before he becomes king, Mary will quietly lose her title and another will be created for her. Presumably princess of Denmark.

There can be only one crown princess. The next female heir or the wife of the next male heir.

Should Christian have turned eighteen, he will become king and Mary will again lose her title as crown princess.

That should not be considered a demotion. Mary will not be expected to curtsey to her son, that would be in conflict with the Ten Commandments.

ADDED: In the sense that monarchs in the old days may, if need by, have blinded their parents or banished them to a remote corner of the realm or whatever nasty things they might come up with. But they wouldn't humiliate them or offend God by making them bow or curtsey to their children.

Interestingly, should Christian have a daughter as his firstborn, it will be very doubtful whether her husband will get the title of crown prince as that somehow implies that he will eventually become a majesty, i.e. king and not a prince consort.