About Royal Institutions, Titles and Hierarchy in the 7 European Kingdoms

[Muhler]

The Law of Succession §6 of 2009: Upon the death of the monarch (or abdication), the throne passes to oldest child of the monarch.

The Constitution of 1953 §7,8 & 9 specifically mention the Successor. (Which is also means Crown Prince, Heir or Hereditary Prince. Just as King also means Queen Regnant, Regent or Rigsforstander.)

[Tatiana Maria]

Originally Posted by Muhler

The Law of Succession §6 of 2009: Upon the death of the monarch (or abdication), the throne passes to oldest child of the monarch.

The Constitution of 1953 §7,8 & 9 specifically mention the Successor. (Which is also means Crown Prince, Heir or Hereditary Prince. Just as King also means Queen Regnant, Regent or Rigsforstander.)

Correct. The Constitution uses the term "tronfølger" (heir to the throne), rather than "Kronprins". (And I realize that it is the tradition for a "tronfølger" who is the King's eldest son to be known as Crown Prince, whereas the title Crown Princess was traditionally carried by the wife of the Crown Prince or, when he was unmarried, the eldest daughter of the King if unmarried.)

[Tatiana Maria]

Originally Posted by Mbruno

My understanding is that the term "Crown Prince" in Scandinavia applies to the heir apparent to the throne whereas "Hereditary Prince" in Knud's case was a title that applied to a male heir presumptive.

After consulting the former wording of the Constitution, it seems that under the old laws in Norway, the term Crown Prince only applied to the heir apparent if he was the son of the King.

More here. https://www.theroyalforums.com/forum...ml#post2384031

[Mbruno]

Originally Posted by Muhler

It's really quite simple:
The Crown Prince = Always the oldest living (unless bypassed for physical or mental reasons) child of the monarch.
The Successor (Tronfølger) = A child of the monarch who is the official heir under the condition that XYZ doesn't happen.
The Hereditary Prince (Arveprins) = The next in line from another branch of the family. In case the monarch is childless or the children have malfunctioned.

What I don't understand is why Prince Knud was only called Tronfølger and not Arveprins as expected between 1947 and 1953. Does that say something about King Frederik IX? For example, that from the start he didn't want his brother to succeed and pushed for changes in the Act of Succession?

Second question: now that equal primogeniture is in place, do you think a future female heir apparent will be called Kronprinsesse like in Sweden, rather than simply Tronfølger as Princess Margrethe was as heir presumptive?

[Tatiana Maria]

Originally Posted by Mbruno

What I don't understand is why Prince Knud was only called Tronfølger and not Arveprins as expected between 1947 and 1953. Does that say something about King Frederik IX? For example, that from the start he didn't want his brother to succeed and pushed for changes in the Act of Succession?

As I said, there were other heirs presumptive who did not receive the Arveprins title. (In fact, only two of them did.) Most recently, Prince Christian Frederik did not receive it between 1808 and 1839, and I don't think Prince Christian received it during the several months that he was heir presumptive in 1863.

And again, if he was showing favoritism towards his own family, then it is odd that he also discontinued the tradition of calling the unmarried eldest daughter of the King the Crown Princess when that title was not held by a wife of the Crown Prince.

[Mbruno]

Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria

As I said, there were other heirs presumptive who did not receive the Arveprins title. (In fact, only two of them did.) Most recently, Prince Christian Frederik did not receive it between 1808 and 1839, and I don't think Prince Christian received it during the several months that he was heir presumptive in 1863.

And again, if he was showing favoritism towards his own family, then it is odd that he also discontinued the tradition of calling the unmarried eldest daughter of the King the Crown Princess when that title was not held by a wife of the Crown Prince.

Perhaps Christian (1863) was seen as a special case because he was not a King's brother or close relative to the previous monarch. Weren't Frederik, half-brother of Christian VII, and Ferdinand, brother of Christian VIII, called Arveprins ?

[Muhler]

Originally Posted by Mbruno

What I don't understand is why Prince Knud was only called Tronfølger and not Arveprins as expected between 1947 and 1953. Does that say something about King Frederik IX? For example, that from the start he didn't want his brother to succeed and pushed for changes in the Act of Succession?

Second question: now that equal primogeniture is in place, do you think a future female heir apparent will be called Kronprinsesse like in Sweden, rather than simply Tronfølger as Princess Margrethe was as heir presumptive?

Tronfølger, Arveprins and Kronprins is the same thing constitutionally speaking. So it's not a question of being "only" Tronfølger or Arveprins.

After 1953 Prince Knud got the title official Arveprins, pretty much as a compensation, but also because there was a chance the throne would revert to his family, even to him personally.

Your second question is interesting. For a thousand years the Crown Princess has always been the princess who is married to the Crown Prince. So it might be confusing, in the same way as it was seen as confusing to give PH the title of king. (There are also loads of references in the legislation to king, rather than monarch, in the legislation, so that could be even more confusing.)
Yet it works fine in Sweden, where Victoria is always referred to and addressed Kronprinssessan.

[Tatiana Maria]

Originally Posted by Mbruno

Perhaps Christian (1863) was seen as a special case because he was not a King's brother or close relative to the previous monarch. Weren't Frederik, half-brother of Christian VII, and Ferdinand, brother of Christian VIII, called Arveprins ?

Yes, they were, but they were the special cases.

Between Frederik III's introduction of a formal law of succession in 1665 and the second modification of the law of succession in 1953, there were eight heirs presumptive who were not the eldest son of the King.

1. Georg (1670-1671) - brother of the King
2. Carl (1699) - brother of the King
3. Louise (1747-1749) - sister of the King
4. Frederik (1766-1768) - half-brother of the King
5. Christian Frederik (1808-1839) - first cousin of the King
6. Frederik Ferdinand (1848-1863) - uncle of the King
7. Christian (1863) - first cousin of the King by marriage
8. Knud (1947-1953) - brother of the King

Only Frederik (1766-1768) and Ferdinand (1848-1863) received the title of Arveprins when first in line to the throne. Knud received it in 1953 in compensation for losing his position as heir presumptive.

[Tatiana Maria]

Originally Posted by Muhler

Your second question is interesting. For a thousand years the Crown Princess has always been the princess who is married to the Crown Prince.

Not always. As explained above, in the 17th and 18th centuries, the Crown Princess was at times the unmarried princess who was the eldest daughter of the King.

I am not sure when the Danish title of Crown Prince was created. But it is unlikely to be as ancient as a thousand years, since Denmark was not officially declared a hereditary monarchy until 1660.

[Mbruno]

Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria

Not always. As explained above, in the 17th and 18th centuries, the Crown Princess was at times the unmarried princess who was the eldest daughter of the King.

I am not sure when the Danish title of Crown Prince was created. But it is unlikely to be as ancient as a thousand years, since Denmark was not officially declared a hereditary monarchy until 1660.

Changing countries, wasn't the title of Princess of Asturias also held by the eldest living daugther of the monarch and had no brother, or who was the eldest sister of a childless king?

I believe that, as early as the 15th or 16th centuries, two daughters of Isabella the Catholic (Isabella and later Joanna) held the title of Princess of Asturias, although I think it was not automatic (proclamation by the Cortes was necessary, at least for Joanna ?).

More recently, in the 19th century, Maria de las Mercedes, daughter of Alfonso XII, was also Princess of Asturias. I am not sure if Queen Isabella II was ever formally Princess of Asturias, but she became queen at age 3, so maybe there wasn't enough time to formalize it?


EDIT: The constitution of 1978 and the Royal Decree 1368/1987 have now made the title automatic from the moment a person becomes the heir, either apparent or only presumptive.

[Muhler]

Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria

Not always. As explained above, in the 17th and 18th centuries, the Crown Princess was at times the unmarried princess who was the eldest daughter of the King.

I am not sure when the Danish title of Crown Prince was created. But it is unlikely to be as ancient as a thousand years, since Denmark was not officially declared a hereditary monarchy until 1660.

(For the benefit of new readers.)
Until 1660 the DRF kings were acknowledged (formally elected) by local assemblies consisting of free men and nobles, so the first thing a king did when having his first son, was to travel the realm ensuring the son was acknowledged as the official heir "the prince to be crowned" or in short the crown prince.
That became an established practice after the vicious civil wars of the 1200's. Which was basically almost 150 years of constant struggle within the extended DRF about the the throne. By 1300 (almost on the dot) there would be no more doubt as to who was the successor, please! Everybody wanted stability.
From 1660 that was no longer necessary.

The wife to the heir was someone special, so at some point the logic step was taken to give her the title crown princess. It was simple and everybody could figure it out. But in reality the wife to the heir had always been special, no matter what she was called.

[Tatiana Maria]

Originally Posted by Mbruno

Changing countries, wasn't the title of Princess of Asturias also held by the eldest living daugther of the monarch and had no brother, or who was the eldest sister of a childless king?

A better comparison would be the British title of Princess Royal. An unmarried eldest daughter was able to hold the title of Crown Princess in Denmark (until Frederik IX put an end to the tradition) or Princess Royal in Britain even if she had a brother or other male relative preceding her in the line of succession. However, in Denmark she would lose the title upon the Crown Prince's marriage - the title Crown Princess would then become associated with his wife. That did not matter in Britain, where the wife of the crown prince was never styled Princess Royal.

In Spain, Princess of Asturias and titles equal to it were held by eldest daughters or sisters, married or not, only if they were the heiress to the throne.

Originally Posted by Mbruno

I believe that, as early as the 15th or 16th centuries, two daughters of Isabella the Catholic (Isabella and later Joanna) held the title of Princess of Asturias, although I think it was not automatic (proclamation by the Cortes was necessary, at least for Joanna ?).

More recently, in the 19th century, Maria de las Mercedes, daughter of Alfonso XII, was also Princess of Asturias. I am not sure if Queen Isabella II was ever formally Princess of Asturias, but she became queen at age 3, so maybe there wasn't enough time to formalize it?

EDIT: The constitution of 1978 and the Royal Decree 1368/1987 have now made the title automatic from the moment a person becomes the heir, either apparent or only presumptive.

Isabel and Juana (daughters of Isabel the Catholic) and Isabel II were indeed created Princess (I am not sure whether they were called by a territorial designation), and you are right that it was not an automatic title.

[Muhler]

Caroline, the oldest daughter of Frederik VI is the only Danish princess who has used the title of crown princess, without being married to a crown prince.
And she only used it when she was young.
Upon marriage to Arveprins Ferdinand, she became Arveprinsesse.

It's up to the monarch to bestow titles and for whatever reason Caroline got the title of crown princess. Perhaps she was his favorite? Or perhaps she nagged him long enough?

There are two cases where Danish princesses have mistakenly been labelled crown princess in books.
They are: Caroline Amalie and Sophie Frederikke.

[Tatiana Maria]

Originally Posted by Muhler

Caroline, the oldest daughter of Frederik VI is the only Danish princess who has used the title of crown princess, without being married to a crown prince.
And she only used it when she was young.
Upon marriage to Arveprins Ferdinand, she became Arveprinsesse.

It's up to the monarch to bestow titles and for whatever reason Caroline got the title of crown princess. Perhaps she was his favorite? Or perhaps she nagged him long enough?

There are two cases where Danish princesses have mistakenly been labelled crown princess in books.
They are: Caroline Amalie and Sophie Frederikke.

It is not a mistake. During the reigns of their fathers, until they lost the title upon their marriage or their eldest brother's marriage, the title of Crown Princess was always used by Louise, the only daughter of Christian VI, Sophie Magdalene, the eldest daughter of Frederik V, Louise Auguste, the only daughter of Frederik VI, and Caroline, the eldest daughter of Frederik VI.

You can view a bibliography of historic publications using the titles during the crown princesses' lifetimes at this link.

https://archive.org/details/bibliothecadanic03bruuuoft

[Muhler]

Sorry, what am I supposed to look for?

I said that a number of books are incorrectly referring to at least two other princesses as crown princesses. As well as a number of other mistakes regarding royal titles.
I understand that correction is based on the royal records.

So let's move back on track, eh?

[Tatiana Maria]

Originally Posted by Muhler

Sorry, what am I supposed to look for?

I provided the blbliography as a reference to support my claim, as you have the right to expect that from me.

Originally Posted by Muhler

I said that a number of books are incorrectly referring to at least two other princesses as crown princesses. As well as a number of other mistakes regarding royal titles.
I understand that correction is based on the royal records.

So let's move back on track, eh?

Do you have evidence to support your claim that the "royal records" were all mistaken about the titles that the (crown) princesses used at the time of their publication? That seems an unlikely scenario to me. It would be equivalent to Danish publications today always making mistakes about the title of Princess Isabella.

[Muhler]

That's not what I claimed.

I wrote that there were mistakes in several books regarding titles.
And that these mistakes, as I understand it, has been fact checked by later scholars against the royal records. And I listed a couple of examples of such mistakes - in various books.
The royal records of the time must arguable be considered correct, I'd say.

I guess the highest current authority on this subject must be The National Archives (Rigsarkivet).
Or The National History Museum at Frederiksborg.

Should you wish to contact them.

There is also Jon Block Skipper for Billed Bladet's Q&A. I think he would appreciate having a challenging question for once.

[Tatiana Maria]

Originally Posted by Muhler

I wrote that there were mistakes in several books regarding titles.
And that these mistakes, as I understand it, has been fact checked by later scholars against the royal records. And I listed a couple of examples of such mistakes - in various books.
The royal records of the time must arguable be considered correct, I'd say.

The bibliography to which I linked above lists a large number (not just several) of royal records/books/various documents published in the 17th-18th centuries in whose names the Crown Princess title was used for eldest daughters (including the princesses whom you listed as "mistakes").

Perhaps more importantly, the overwhelming majority are consistent with the tradition of using the Crown Princess title, so I see no reason at this point to doubt that the evidence is correct.

In the event that royal records are provided which state differently (that the usage was mistaken and the mistaken usage was rampant), then I will naturally reconsider.

[Tatiana Maria]

Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria

Isabel and Juana (daughters of Isabel the Catholic) and Isabel II were indeed created Princess (I am not sure whether they were called by a territorial designation), and you are right that it was not an automatic title.

Apparently, when Isabel the Catholic and her husband reigned, their heirs, Prince or Princess, used many territorial designations, including of Asturias, of Girona, and of Portugal.

https://boe.es/datos/pdfs/BOE//1880/...0599-00600.pdf

Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria

And again, if he was showing favoritism towards his own family, then it is odd that he also discontinued the tradition of calling the unmarried eldest daughter of the King the Crown Princess when that title was not held by a wife of the Crown Prince.

After more consideration, I wonder whether Frederik IX discontinued the tradition in order to bring Denmark into line with other European monarchies. As far as I'm aware, no other monarchies in early 20th century Europe used the title Crown Princess, or its equivalent, for sisters of the Crown Prince. Calling Margrethe Crown Princess could have misled foreigners into believing she, rather than Knud, was the heiress.

[Muhler]

Louise (Augusta?)?
The only daughter of Frederik VI?
He had 6 daughters with his queen.
And 2 more with Frederikke Dannemand.

Checked Frederik VII, who had no children.

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

Christian VI did indeed have one daughter, Louise.
403 (Dansk biografisk Lexikon / X. Bind. Laale - Løvenørn)
Who stuttered and was lively, too lively for the court...
I find no immediate references in Danish as to her having the title of Crown Princess though.

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

Frederik V.
Sophie Magdalene was indeed his oldest daughter.
And she was indeed Crown Princess - of Sweden.
Because she married the Swedish Crown Prince.

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

As for Caroline she was indeed daughter of Frederik VI, and was as I have already mentioned titled Crown Princess when she was young. As the only one.

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

Can we move on, please?!?
I think I have spend enough of my time on this. And I'm not in the mood of reading archaic Danish and German texts from 1700's right now. - Especially as they spelled the way the spoke. - Let alone Latin and French, which I have never learned.