The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #21  
Old 03-23-2021, 07:02 AM
Muhler's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Eastern Jutland, Denmark
Posts: 14,089
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.)
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 03-23-2021, 07:08 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 3,392
Quote:
Originally Posted by Muhler View Post
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.)
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 03-23-2021, 07:12 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 3,392
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
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
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 03-23-2021, 07:12 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 6,877
Quote:
Originally Posted by Muhler View Post
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?
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 03-23-2021, 07:17 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 3,392
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 03-23-2021, 07:33 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 6,877
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
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 ?
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 03-23-2021, 07:49 AM
Muhler's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Eastern Jutland, Denmark
Posts: 14,089
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 03-23-2021, 07:49 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 3,392
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 03-23-2021, 08:00 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 3,392
Quote:
Originally Posted by Muhler View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 03-23-2021, 08:11 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 6,877
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 03-23-2021, 08:39 AM
Muhler's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Eastern Jutland, Denmark
Posts: 14,089
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 03-23-2021, 09:17 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 3,392
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
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.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 03-23-2021, 09:30 AM
Muhler's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Eastern Jutland, Denmark
Posts: 14,089
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.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 03-23-2021, 09:48 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 3,392
Quote:
Originally Posted by Muhler View Post
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
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 03-23-2021, 10:24 AM
Muhler's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Eastern Jutland, Denmark
Posts: 14,089
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?
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 03-23-2021, 11:04 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 3,392
Quote:
Originally Posted by Muhler View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Muhler View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 03-23-2021, 11:32 AM
Muhler's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Eastern Jutland, Denmark
Posts: 14,089
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.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 03-23-2021, 12:12 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 3,392
Quote:
Originally Posted by Muhler View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 03-23-2021, 03:25 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 3,392
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
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


Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 03-23-2021, 03:28 PM
Muhler's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Eastern Jutland, Denmark
Posts: 14,089
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.
__________________

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
Spain and the ancient Kingdoms within Spain Toledo Royal Genealogy 28 02-21-2021 05:28 PM
Ancient Kingdoms of the Balkans, Greece and Cyprus tancarville Other Non-Reigning Houses and Historical Monarchies 16 11-27-2020 08:46 PM
The Spanish Kingdoms Marengo Spanish Royal History 11 07-18-2019 01:09 PM
NEWSFLASH KING of Kingdoms UK And Italy! Giovanni de Nero Member Introductions 0 08-16-2010 09:33 AM




Popular Tags
#royalrelatives #royalgenes abdication america anastasia 2020 biography bridal gown britain britannia british royal family buckingham palace canada china chinese ming dynasty asia asian emperor royalty qing daisy dna doge of venice dubai duchess of sussex duke of cambridge duke of sussex edward vii elizabeth ii emperor facts family life fantasy movie fashion and style george vi hello! hereditary grand duchess stéphanie hereditary grand duke guillaume hypothetical monarchs introduction jewellery king willem-alexander książ castle list of rulers mary: crown princess of denmark mountbatten names plantinum jubilee prince charles of luxembourg prince dimitri prince harry princess ariane princess catharina-amalia princess chulabhorn princess dita princess eugenie princess laurentien queen louise queen mathilde queen maxima resusci anne royal ancestry royal court royal dress-ups royal jewels royal spouse royalty royal wedding royal wedding gown russian court dress solomon j solomon speech stuart suthida thailand uae customs united states of america wales


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:26 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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