Non-British Styles and Titles

[Somebody]

Originally Posted by Stefan

But then the use a wrong Title for Konstantin as his title was King of the Hellenes not of Greece.

I know but it said 'af Graekenland', I don't know what 'of the Hellenes' would be in Danish.

[JR76]

Originally Posted by Somebody

I know but it said 'af Graekenland', I don't know what 'of the Hellenes' would be in Danish.

Something like Hellenernes dronning or Grækernes dronning.

[Duc_et_Pair]

Greece is still -officially- the Hellenic Republic, but everyone says "the President of Greece".

Like Switzerland officially is the Swiss Confederation, the Confoederatio Helveticae (therefore their car licence plates with CH), but everyone says "the President of Switzerland".

Usually it was:

The King of the Hellenes
The Queen of the Hellenes
Prince [name] of Greece and Denmark
Princess [name] of Greece and Denmark

[Tatiana Maria]

Originally Posted by Somebody

But that's not the case: Konstantin is referred to as 'of Greece'. Only Anne-Marie is not referred to as of Greece. Your earlier argument for Benedikte was that this was a sign that she is still referred to by her original Danish title but the pattern is the same for Benedikte and Anne-Marie, while Anne-Marie is acknowledge as 'queen', which refers to her Greek, not to her Danish title.

See (from earlier link):

My apologies, I did miss that. That introduces more ambiguity to the guestlist.

But in Princess Benedikte's biography on the royal family website, it is her title Princess to Denmark which is mentioned, so I think it does take precedence.

http://kongehuset.dk/den-kongelige-f...esse-benedikte

Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair

Usually it was:

[...]
Prince [name] of Greece and Denmark
Princess [name] of Greece and Denmark

It was usually Prince or Princess [name] without a designation when within Greece, and "of Greece" when overseas.

Prince Philip of Greece, serving as a British navy officer in the second world war, signed his name "Philip, Prince of Greece".

https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-e...p-1563268.html

[CyrilVladisla]

King Joseph I of Portugal succeeded to the throne in 1750. His eldest daughter Maria Francisca was proclaimed Princess of Brazil.

[Tatiana Maria]

Originally Posted by Mbruno

That is a point I don't get when people raise it. Having HRH status never implied an obligation to work for the monarch. Historically, it only signaled a certain degree of kinship to a Sovereign (or being the wife or widow of someone who holds that status).

Yes, but the argument is not that royal titles were historically tied to an obligation to work for the monarch, but that going forward they ought to be.

There are current circumstances, present in most European monarchies, which I think make the limitation of royal titles to "working royals" an attractive proposal:

1. The expectation that royal family members who do not work for the monarchy will enter the labor force to earn a living, rather than relying on taxpayer resources or even private trust funds.

2. The expansion of the pool of professions undertaken by royal family members, and the perception that a royal title is an unfair advantage of many if not most such professions.

3. The responsibilities, limitations, and scrutiny which are now tied to royal titles, and their potential to conflict with a professional career.

[CyrilVladisla]

In medieval Serbia, the rank of the boyars was equivalent in the rank of the baron, meaning "free warrior", it was the first rank after the non-free peasants or serfs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boyar#Boyars_in_Serbia

[SirGyamfi1]

Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria

Yes, but the argument is not that royal titles were historically tied to an obligation to work for the monarch, but that going forward they ought to be.

There are current circumstances, present in most European monarchies, which I think make the limitation of royal titles to "working royals" an attractive proposal:

1. The expectation that royal family members who do not work for the monarchy will enter the labor force to earn a living, rather than relying on taxpayer resources or even private trust funds.

2. The expansion of the pool of professions undertaken by royal family members, and the perception that a royal title is an unfair advantage of many if not most such professions.

3. The responsibilities, limitations, and scrutiny which are now tied to royal titles, and their potential to conflict with a professional career.

That’s precisely the issue today with royal titles.