The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #61  
Old 07-22-2019, 01:08 PM
Duc_et_Pair's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: City, Netherlands
Posts: 11,024
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stefan View Post
It is the same in Spain with the title Prince/Prccness of Asturias. But still the consort a Prince of Asturias is styled Princess of Asturias. We will see if this will also be the case for a male spouse but as also the husbands of spanish Ducghesses are styled Duke of Albva etc. i think it is very likely.
That is true. But during the readings of the Bill on the Royal House 2002 the Dutch Government preferred the title of King (Queen) to be used by the bearer of the Crown exclusively. They also preferred the title Prince (Princess) of Orange by the Heir(ess) exclusively.

Between 2002 and 2013 Máxima indeed never was The Princess of Orange, without any problem, completely following the Royal House Act. Why the Cabinet thought that Máxima not being known as Queen suddenly would be "undesirable" , is a mystery. In my opinion a missed chance on a clear and fair gender-equal system of titulature.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old 07-22-2019, 01:59 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 7,133
Quote:
Originally Posted by theroyalfly View Post
In English? Her Majesty Queen Máxima, Princess of the Netherlands, Princess of Orange-Nassau? This is interesting.

Can we legally address her as 'HM The Queen of the Netherlands?'

Compared with other reiging European Queen Consorts? Is it only Máxima that has this distinct case?
No, we cannot. Her official title in English is indeed HM Queen Máxima, Princess of the Netherlands, Princess of Orange-Nassau.

Likewise, Mathilde is HM Queen Mathilde ( Marie Christine Ghislaine comtesse d’Udekem d’Acoz), Princess of Belgium. She is not HM The Queen of the Belgians.

And Letizia is SM la Reina Doña Letizia (Ortiz Rocasolano) . She is not SM la Reina de España.

The only consorts that are officially “Queen of [xxx]” are Silvia and, I believe, Sonja. Silvia for example is HM Silvia Renate, Sveriges Drottning.

Domestically of course, one would only say HM The Queen, e.g, SM la Reine, SM la Reina,, HM de Koningin, HM Drottningen.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 10-07-2019, 05:01 PM
norwegianne's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Rogaland, Norway
Posts: 6,026
Quote:
Originally Posted by CyrilVladisla View Post
In 2002, with King Harald V's consent, Princess Martha Louise's title was changed from Her Royal Highness to Her Highness. Why was her title changed?
Her title was changed so that she could earn money by having her own company and earn money, without seemingly being at odds with being a royal. Unlike when her aunts' titles changed, ML's title changed before her marriage as it was (seemingly) a decision independent of that.

Of course, the Norwegian press failed to make that distinction, so in August this year, it was also announced that ML will not use her princess title for commercial gain.

Why they did not specify that back then, beats me, but I guess it was less controversial when she was profiting from fairy tales and writing books around that aspect than when she is going on tour with a shaman.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old 05-23-2020, 06:37 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 3,757
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
Princess Ragnhild and Princess Astrid are the only two titled royals who have ever been registered in the Folkeregisteret with a surname.

[...]

While "of Norway" is used for convenience when dealing with international audiences, my understanding is that the official title is merely Prince or Princess. This is as stated in the announcement of his title in 2005.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post
It doesn't specifically state anything about him being a prince of Norway or not;
As "of Norway" is not the prince's surname, I believe it would have to have been granted in the title in order to be legally registered. However, the King's announcement states "Jeg har gitt den nyfødte tittelen prins" ("I have given the newborn the title of prince"), not prince of Norway.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post
they also don't refer to Ingrid Alexandra or even the king or queen as 'of Norway' but as (HRH princess Ingrid Alexandra) and HM Queen Sonja.
Which "they" do you refer to? The website of the Royal House (kongehuset.no) does refer to Norges Konge and Norges Dronning, whereas the princes(ses) are referred to as Prins(esse) only.

For comparison, the princes(ses) of Sweden and Denmark are referred to as such on their websites.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post
So, while I understand that within the country it is irrelevant to mention the 'of Norway', do they really not have any designation? If so, on what basis are they using it internationally? What surname would be used at school?
In my opinion "of Norway" is the most logical and readily understood designation to use outside of the country; do you think differently?

I'm afraid I am not knowledgeable about how the royals are treated at school, although I believe Crown Prince Haakon once mentioned that he used his second given name Magnus when a surname was required. Perhaps someone else can answer the question?
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old 05-23-2020, 06:57 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 3,757
Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post
They probably need a 'solution' of Sverre Magnus eventual children as well. Or would they be prince(ss) of Norway (without royal highness of course, as he himself isn't one either)?
No one has confirmed what titles or surname an eventual child of Prince Sverre Magnus would carry. A title would be up to the monarch (see Article 34 of the Constitution), while a surname would probably be a mutual decision between the monarch and the parents, as it was with the Behn children.

Having said that, virtually all Norwegian royal watchers, in my experience, say they see no reason to treat Prince Sverre Magnus's children differently from his cousins, who have already established the precedent of being in the line of succession without a title or official function. I will quote Royal Norway's post here, as he is quite knowledgeable about the royal family:


Quote:
Originally Posted by ROYAL NORWAY View Post
Would Sverre's wife be a princess? That is up to the monarch, but I don't think so. - Why? Most Norwegians (politicians, commentators, experts and myself included) are VERY keen on gender equality, and the criticism will therefore be ENORMOUS if Sverre's wife became a princess, while Erling Lorentzen, Johan Martin Ferner & Ari Behn didn't become princes.
The headlines will be something like this: ''The spouses of male non-Royal House members receives titles, while the spouses of female non-Royal House members does not. - Gender equality anyone?''

Would she give up her career once she marries? No, she won't (I will actually go so far as to say that I'm 100% sure about that). - Why? Well, because that woman will marry a prince who is not a member of the Royal House, and he will most likely have a career of his own. Their alternative is to live of a trust-fund, but the NRF isn't that rich, so that would be quite difficult.
Would she perform public duties? No, she won't (I will say that I'm 100% sure about that too). - Why? Same as above.

Would their children be princesses/princes? No, they won't (I will say that I'm 200% sure about that). - Why? Because their parents would not be members of the Royal House, not that they had received any titles, anyway (this is not Denmark or Sweden).
Would their children have professional careers? Yes, they would (I will say that I'm 200% sure about that too). - Why? Well, they will need something to live of.
Would their children be offered patronages? No way (and I couldn't be more sure). - Why? Because (as the children of Ragnhild, Astrid, and Märtha) they won't have any titles, or official functions at all.
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old 05-23-2020, 07:24 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,753
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post


In my opinion "of Norway" is the most logical and readily understood designation to use outside of the country; do you think differently?
Certainly it makes the most sense when referring to HH Princess ML of Norway outside of the country when she's mentioned in the context of the royal family and her place in it.

But Martha Louise of Norway when she's not allowed to use or refer to her royal title and status for commercial ventures makes no sense. Hence the surname discussion. "Of Norway" clarifies which ML you're talking about but is basically a title.

OTOH if she started publicising herself as Martha Louise Glucksberg are even people from Scandinavia going to realise who it is without recognising the context? And people who don't royal watch from other countries will have no idea. That's why she's probably happy for companies and groups she works with to "mistakenly" use her title on their materials for a while.

It's that magic little word "Prince/ss" that brings the eyeballs and the cash and all the royals and royal-adjacent people trying to sell things know it.
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old 05-23-2020, 09:04 PM
Somebody's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 6,541
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
As "of Norway" is not the prince's surname, I believe it would have to have been granted in the title in order to be legally registered. However, the King's announcement states "Jeg har gitt den nyfødte tittelen prins" ("I have given the newborn the title of prince"), not prince of Norway.
My main question was, whether it was included for Ingrid-Alexandra, who unlike her brother is a royal highness (and I assume a princess of Norway - if they exist).

Quote:
Which "they" do you refer to? The website of the Royal House (kongehuset.no) does refer to Norges Konge and Norges Dronning, whereas the princes(ses) are referred to as Prins(esse) only.

For comparison, the princes(ses) of Sweden and Denmark are referred to as such on their websites.
The specific reference that you included and other ones on the same government website.

Quote:
In my opinion "of Norway" is the most logical and readily understood designation to use outside of the country; do you think differently?
I agree, unless they are officially no princes of Norway, than it is pretending to be something they are not. If they stress that some people are not princes/princesses of Norway, they shouldn't suddenly start pretending they are once out of the country. You cannot have it both ways.

Quote:
I'm afraid I am not knowledgeable about how the royals are treated at school, although I believe Crown Prince Haakon once mentioned that he used his second given name Magnus when a surname was required. Perhaps someone else can answer the question?
So the question on Sverre Magnus' surname remains unanswered; it would be very hard to pass on a non-existing surname to any children.
Reply With Quote
  #68  
Old 05-23-2020, 09:56 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 3,757
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heavs View Post
Certainly it makes the most sense when referring to HH Princess ML of Norway outside of the country when she's mentioned in the context of the royal family and her place in it.

But Martha Louise of Norway when she's not allowed to use or refer to her royal title and status for commercial ventures makes no sense. Hence the surname discussion. "Of Norway" clarifies which ML you're talking about but is basically a title.

OTOH if she started publicising herself as Martha Louise Glucksberg are even people from Scandinavia going to realise who it is without recognising the context? And people who don't royal watch from other countries will have no idea. That's why she's probably happy for companies and groups she works with to "mistakenly" use her title on their materials for a while.

It's that magic little word "Prince/ss" that brings the eyeballs and the cash and all the royals and royal-adjacent people trying to sell things know it.
I think you make good points, and that if King Harald or the future King Haakon ever did contemplate creating an eventual spouse or child of Sverre Magnus a prince/ss, the recent controversies may harden them against it.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post
My main question was, whether it was included for Ingrid-Alexandra, who unlike her brother is a royal highness (and I assume a princess of Norway - if they exist).
I assume the opposite, i.e. that she is titled Princess like her aunt and brother. As far as I can tell, the Royal Court's website does not refer to her as Norges Prinsesse or Prinsesse av Norge, whereas the king and queen are Norges Konge and Norges Dronning.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post
I agree, unless they are officially no princes of Norway, than it is pretending to be something they are not. If they stress that some people are not princes/princesses of Norway, they shouldn't suddenly start pretending they are once out of the country. You cannot have it both ways.
I think the situation in Norway is very different from the one you characterize. It cannot be compared to monarchies such as Belgium and Luxembourg, where some princesses/princes in the royal family are "of Belgium/Luxembourg" whereas other princesses/princes are not. A Belgian/Luxembourgian princess/prince who is not "of Belgium/Luxembourg" but used the territorial designation would be pretending to a higher title than that which they are entitled to use.

In Norway, however, the princely title is the same for all princes(ses), apart from the crown prince and princess, and they are equally part of the Royal Family.

Likewise, royals in Japan (and in most monarchies outside of Europe, I would assume) do not bear the name of their country in their titles. Is it "pretending" when members of the Japanese imperial family refer to themselves as "of Japan" in English?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post
So the question on Sverre Magnus' surname remains unanswered; it would be very hard to pass on a non-existing surname to any children.
Princess Märtha Louise seems to agree:
One thing the couple have decided is that the baby's family name will be Behn, since, as the princess remarked "I don't have a surname."
However, since the naming law in Norway offers numerous options and does not limit children to the surnames of their parents, I don't see any legal bars to naming a prince/ss's child Glücksburg.
Reply With Quote
  #69  
Old 05-24-2020, 10:36 AM
Somebody's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 6,541
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
I think you make good points, and that if King Harald or the future King Haakon ever did contemplate creating an eventual spouse or child of Sverre Magnus a prince/ss, the recent controversies may harden them against it.
I don't expect they will; it would go against their current policy to keep the royal family as small as possible.

Quote:
I assume the opposite, i.e. that she is titled Princess like her aunt and brother. As far as I can tell, the Royal Court's website does not refer to her as Norges Prinsesse or Prinsesse av Norge, whereas the king and queen are Norges Konge and Norges Dronning.
However, the main difference is that Ingrid-Alexandra is a royal highness - as a member of the Norwegian royal house, while her aunt and brother are not.

Quote:
I think the situation in Norway is very different from the one you characterize. It cannot be compared to monarchies such as Belgium and Luxembourg, where some princesses/princes in the royal family are "of Belgium/Luxembourg" whereas other princesses/princes are not. A Belgian/Luxembourgian princess/prince who is not "of Belgium/Luxembourg" but used the territorial designation would be pretending to a higher title than that which they are entitled to use.

In Norway, however, the princely title is the same for all princes(ses), apart from the crown prince and princess, and they are equally part of the Royal Family.
I am not comparing it to any other situation in which you have different designations of princes/princesses, my main point is that you cannot just be a random prince/princess; otherwise we could all be princes and princesses (as Tessy likes to claim).

So, I guess we must assume they are all princes and princesses of Norway - even though they don't use it within the country; as in my view you cannot be a prince or princess of nothing (but I know we disagree on that).

Quote:
Likewise, royals in Japan (and in most monarchies outside of Europe, I would assume) do not bear the name of their country in their titles. Is it "pretending" when members of the Japanese imperial family refer to themselves as "of Japan" in English?
Yes, if they themselves do so. I am sure the press will do it for clarification purposes; but for example, Kako and Mako are 'of Akishino'.

Quote:
Princess Märtha Louise seems to agree:
One thing the couple have decided is that the baby's family name will be Behn, since, as the princess remarked "I don't have a surname."
However, since the naming law in Norway offers numerous options and does not limit children to the surnames of their parents, I don't see any legal bars to naming a prince/ss's child Glücksburg.
So far, the children in the royal family have all had their father's surname and/or titles, so it's interesting that Märtha Louise apparently considered giving them her surname had she had one.

It will be interesting to see whether Sverre Magnus would decide to use his wife's surname for any children they may have (of course, this also requires him to marry) - using his aunt's reasoning; or if they opt for Glücksburg; as that surely will bring more status as it stresses their royal heritage (which I think is reasonable given that these children will be male-line descendants and the eldest son would have been king one day had they not changed the rules).
Reply With Quote
  #70  
Old 05-24-2020, 10:52 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 9,461
Is it not a custom in Norway for wives to (if they wish) take their husband's surname or for their children to use the father's surname?
Reply With Quote
  #71  
Old 08-15-2020, 09:47 AM
Gentry
 
Join Date: Aug 2020
Location: Hong Kong, Hong Kong
Posts: 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post
So far, the children in the royal family have all had their father's surname and/or titles, so it's interesting that Märtha Louise apparently considered giving them her surname had she had one.

It will be interesting to see whether Sverre Magnus would decide to use his wife's surname for any children they may have (of course, this also requires him to marry) - using his aunt's reasoning; or if they opt for Glücksburg; as that surely will bring more status as it stresses their royal heritage (which I think is reasonable given that these children will be male-line descendants and the eldest son would have been king one day had they not changed the rules).
Or perhaps they can try to use patronymics the same way it was done in Iceland now - Sverresen may be the last name of Sverre Magnus' children.
__________________
~ Mikael ᛗᛁᚲᚨᛖᛚ ~
Reply With Quote
  #72  
Old 08-16-2020, 06:50 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 3,757
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post
Is it not a custom in Norway for wives to (if they wish) take their husband's surname or for their children to use the father's surname?
Yes, but different married women/mothers make different choices in regard to names.

I haven't seen recent numbers, however, as of 2005:

46% of married women had two family names, the first being their own name and the second being their husband's name.

34% had their husband's name only.

20% had their own name only.


As for children:

A nationally representative survey conducted by the government in 2003 (the same year that Princess Märtha Louise had her first child) asked women and men of childbearing age about the best choice of surname(s) to give to a child.

42% of women and 37% of men were in favor of children having the names of both parents, the first from the mother and the second from the father.

25% of women and 39% of men were in favor of children having the name of their father only.

7% of women and 5% of men were in favor of children having the names of both parents, the first from the father and the second from the mother.

2% of women and 3% of men were in favor of different surnames being given to different siblings.

2% of women and 1% of men were in favor of children having the name of their mother only.

22% of women and 15% of men answered "other" or "don't know".


Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post
I am not comparing it to any other situation in which you have different designations of princes/princesses, my main point is that you cannot just be a random prince/princess; otherwise we could all be princes and princesses (as Tessy likes to claim).

So, I guess we must assume they are all princes and princesses of Norway - even though they don't use it within the country; as in my view you cannot be a prince or princess of nothing (but I know we disagree on that).
The problem is that it (the general subject of princes and princesses "of nothing", not the specific question about Norway) isn't only a matter of assumption, but a question of facts which in theory can be settled by observation: Does every title throughout every culture and every period of history comprise an "of something" designation?

As I said, I suspect the "of country X" designations are mostly a feature of European monarchies, but I will leave that to someone with more knowledge of Asian and African customs. However, even in modern Europe, the princesses/princes of the Belgian nobility for example are formally "princes and princesses of nothing" (there are official sources for that here).



Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
Likewise, royals in Japan (and in most monarchies outside of Europe, I would assume) do not bear the name of their country in their titles. Is it "pretending" when members of the Japanese imperial family refer to themselves as "of Japan" in English?
Yes, if they themselves do so. I am sure the press will do it for clarification purposes; but for example, Kako and Mako are 'of Akishino'.
I guess our opinions differ. For me it would be more "pretending" if the Japanese emperor were to refer to himself as simply "the Emperor" when he is in, for example, the UK, as that might risk creating the impression that he is claiming to be the emperor of the UK.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post
It will be interesting to see whether Sverre Magnus would decide to use his wife's surname for any children they may have (of course, this also requires him to marry) - using his aunt's reasoning; or if they opt for Glücksburg; as that surely will bring more status as it stresses their royal heritage (which I think is reasonable given that these children will be male-line descendants and the eldest son would have been king one day had they not changed the rules).
Quote:
Originally Posted by 0325.Mikael.0929 View Post
Or perhaps they can try to use patronymics the same way it was done in Iceland now - Sverresen may be the last name of Sverre Magnus' children.
Or Magnusen, as Prince Sverre Magnus is known as Magnus within his family.
Reply With Quote
  #73  
Old 08-16-2020, 07:17 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 7,133
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
As I said, I suspect the "of country X" designations are mostly a feature of European monarchies, but I will leave that to someone with more knowledge of Asian and African customs. However, even in modern Europe, the princesses/princes of the Belgian nobility for example are formally "princes and princesses of nothing" (there are official sources for that here).



We don't even have to go that far. Children of British sovereigns are "princes/princesses of nothing". Only Prince Philip, I think, is formally referred to in his LPs as "Prince of the United Kingdom". Otherwise, it is HRH The Prince Charles, HRH The Prince Andrew, HRH The Prince Edward, etc.


The way I see it, at least for the Brits, one thing is the titular dignity of Prince/Princess that is prefixed to their Christian names under the LPs of 1917 and 2012 and a different thing are the titles that they were given by specific LPs applying to each of them individually and which are postponed to their Christian names. Hence,


HRH The Prince Charles (Philip Arthur George), Prince of Wales
HRH The Prince Andrew (Albert Christian Edward), Duke of York
HRH Prince William (Arthur Philip Louis), Duke of Cambridge


HRH The Prince of Wales, HRH The Duke of York or HRH The Duke of Cambridge are only short styles for daily use corresponding to the above in my point of view.


The Belgian system, always controversial here in TRF, is not different IMHO. The princes and princesses carry a titular dignity that is prefixed to their name, followed by their given names (and family names if used), their dynastic titles, and then the title of Prince of Belgium when applicable. Hence


SAR la Princesse Élisabeth (Thérèse Marie Hélène), Duchesse de Brabant, Princesse de Belgique


The only main difference is that, in the UK, under the LPs of 1917 and 2012, HRH is attached to the prefix Prince/Princess, who is turn attached to the given names (it is a style that applies to ALL people entitled to be called Prince/Princess under the said LPs, regardless of any other title that they might hold).



Conversely, in Belgium, HRH is also prefixed to Prince/Princess and the given names, but it is attached to also holding the title of Prince/Princess of Belgium. Anna-Astrid for example is not a Princess of Belgium, and not an HRH accordingly, but nonetheless uses the prefix Princess before her name.



We don't know yet, but I believe that Nicolas' and Aymeric's children, or Louise's and Maria Laura's for that matter, will also be Princes/Princesses of nothing without an HRH and so will be all legitimate descendants of Albert II in perpetuity as, that is my reading of the Royal Decree of 2015, but, again, we don't know that yet. Hopefully the Courts will clarify that in the context of Delphine's case.


Anyway, there are other examples too. Carl Gustaf's sisters, or Carl Gustaf's grandchildren other than Estelle and Oscar, are not HRHs, but are Princes/Princesses followed by their names only (and family name if they use it in their identity documents; for the sisters, followed by their husbands' names).



To me, "of country" is not the rule, but rather the exception, signifying membership of the Royal House (at least in some countries).
Reply With Quote
  #74  
Old 03-23-2021, 07:09 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 3,757
Until the modifications of 1990, Article 34 of the Constitution regulated the titles of the blood members of the Royal House.

Art. 34. The nearest heir to the Throne, if he is the son of the reigning King, shall bear the title of Crown Prince. The other persons entitled to succeed to the Throne shall be called Princes, and the daughters of the Royal House, Princesses.

In 1990, Article 34 was modified so that titles are now a matter for the King.

Article 34
The King shall make provisions concerning titles for those who are entitled to succeed to the Crown.

However, Article 118 is interpreted by royal experts to forbid the King from granting the titles of Count/ess or Baron/ess.

Article 118
No earldoms, baronies, entailed estates or fidei commissa may be created in the future.
Reply With Quote
  #75  
Old 03-23-2021, 07:23 AM
An Ard Ri's Avatar
Super Moderator
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: An Iarmhí, Ireland
Posts: 31,230
I'd forgotten that Norway had abolished noble titles in the 1820's
Reply With Quote
  #76  
Old 03-23-2021, 03:35 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 3,757
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
Until the modifications of 1990, Article 34 of the Constitution regulated the titles of the blood members of the Royal House.

Art. 34. The nearest heir to the Throne, if he is the son of the reigning King, shall bear the title of Crown Prince. The other persons entitled to succeed to the Throne shall be called Princes, and the daughters of the Royal House, Princesses.
Related to the discussions upthread, note that the old Constitution stipulated the titles as Prince(ss), rather than Prince(ss) of Norway, and did not clarify whether the Princes(ses) should be HRH or not.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Iolanthe View Post
And does the Norwegian public really make a difference between an H(R)H prince(ss) and a plain prince(ss)? I would think that the title of a prince(ss) would be more important than an H(R)H for the most people...
I don't believe they do. From what I have gathered from the Norwegian media, the senior royals are normally addressed and referred to by members of the public as King/Queen/Crown Prince(ss), rather than Majesty or Royal Highness.
Reply With Quote
  #77  
Old 03-23-2021, 03:40 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 7,133
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
Until the modifications of 1990, Article 34 of the Constitution regulated the titles of the blood members of the Royal House.
Art. 34. The nearest heir to the Throne, if he is the son of the reigning King, shall bear the title of Crown Prince. The other persons entitled to succeed to the Throne shall be called Princes, and the daughters of the Royal House, Princesses..

What did "daughters of the Royal House" mean exacty ?
Reply With Quote
  #78  
Old 03-23-2021, 06:33 PM
Somebody's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 6,541
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
What did "daughters of the Royal House" mean exacty ?
I assume daughters of those entitled to succeed to the throne (as they themselves were not); as two categories are discussed within one senctence: 'the men', i.e. next to the nearest heir to the throne, all other persons (read: men) entitled to succeed to the throne; and the 'women' which must be derived from who is or is not part of that royal house that was indirectly identified as being those entitled to succeed to the throne.

Quote:
Art. 34. The nearest heir to the Throne, if he is the son of the reigning King, shall bear the title of Crown Prince. The other persons entitled to succeed to the Throne shall be called Princes, and the daughters of the Royal House, Princesses.
Reply With Quote
  #79  
Old 03-23-2021, 08:06 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 7,133
Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post
I assume daughters of those entitled to succeed to the throne (as they themselves were not); as two categories are discussed within one senctence: 'the men', i.e. next to the nearest heir to the throne, all other persons (read: men) entitled to succeed to the throne; and the 'women' which must be derived from who is or is not part of that royal house that was indirectly identified as being those entitled to succeed to the throne.



Yes, I think your interpretation is right.


It surprises me that Norway moved from all persons in the line of succession and their daughters being princes/ princess to the current minimalist Royal House.
Reply With Quote
  #80  
Old 03-28-2021, 11:02 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 3,757
This is an interesting analysis from Dag T. Hoelseth, a Norwegian royal historian, regarding the debate over the King's prerogative to remove titles and apanages.

The Constitution of Norway Article 34 says that "The King shall make provisions concerning titles for those who are entitled to succeed to the Crown."

However, at the time Princess Märtha Louise was born, the article read: "The nearest heir to the Throne, if he is the son of the reigning King, shall bear the title of Crown Prince. The other persons entitled to succeed to the Throne shall be called Princes, and the daughters of the Royal House, Princesses."

So the first question would be if "the King" in this situation means the king in person or "the King in Council" (i.e. government). One leading constitutional expert, Arne Fliflet, belives it is the former. Another question is whether the original reading could give the title more "protection" than the present reading. One thing is for sure, if the government asks the king to do something about the title, he will certainly oblige. I don't think this is very realistic at the moment. Before the princess gave up her apanage (from 1 January 2002), the interpretation in the Ministry of Justice was that she would have to give it up personally, it couldn't be taken away from her by force (cf. my "Report on the Norwegian Royal House's civil list and the state-owned properties at its disposial", 2001). She was kindly asked to give it up and she obliged. I think there is a parallell to the title issue, as it also derives from the Constitution. It is easier to give something than to take away something. Generally, there is little precedence on the matter, so one should be careful about being too categorial about what could happen or not.

I think the princess has got the point and will be more careful in the future.

Regarding the last question, the answer is a definite no. The Constitution forbids the creation of new nobility. The king only has the right to give royal titles (i.e. Prince or Princess and Crown Prince and Crown Princess), as the prreparatory work before the constitutional changs in 1990, the current reading of Article 34 has to be read with background in the previousn reading.

DTH
__________________

Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Hi and a question! emoone03 Member Introductions 1 03-11-2007 01:02 PM




Popular Tags
american archie mountbatten-windsor asia baptism birth britain britannia british royal family british royals brownbitcoinqueen camilla camilla parker-bowles camilla parker bowles carolin china china chinese ming dynasty asia asian emperor royalty qing clarence house colorblindness commonwealth countries countess of snowdon customs daisy dresses dubai duchess of sussex duke of sussex edward vii general news thread george vi gradenigo gustaf vi adolf hello! highgrove history hochberg house of windsor jack brooksbank japan jewellery książ castle line of succession list of rulers luxembourg medical meghan markle monarchy mongolia nepal nepalese royal jewels prince constantijn prince harry princess alexia (2005 -) princess catharina-amalia princess chulabhorn walailak princess of orange princess ribha queen consort queen elizabeth ii queen maxima solomon j solomon spanish royal family speech sussex suthida swedish queen taiwan tradition uae customs united states wales


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:40 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2021
Jelsoft Enterprises
×