Titles of the Swedish RF and Changes 2019

[Tatiana Maria]

It is Grand Duke Adolphe de Luxembourg who gave to Prince Oscar of Sweden the Tittle of Bernadotte of Wisbourg , luxembourger nobility tittle for his morganatic Wedding.

I assume he only accorded Prince Oscar (who had lost the titles "of Sweden and Norway" and HRH upon marriage) that favor due to Oscar being his nephew?

Nonetheless, it must have set a precedent, as King Gustaf VI Adolf requested the same favor from Grand Duchess Charlotte of Luxembourg in 1952 even though as far as I know they were not closely related. It will be interesting to see whether King Carl XVI Gustaf or Queen Victoria likewise ask a favor from Grand Duke Guillaume V of Luxembourg for the next generation, assuming they keep their promise that Prince Carl Philip and Princess Madeleine's grandchildren will not be princes.

His brothers and cousins got their orders of the Seraphim on the day of their baptism, so as he isn't baptized yet, he would have received the order yet even if he had been born a member of the royal house and prince of Sweden.

After his baptism we'll know for sure whether the king found a way to 'grandfather' him in.

And about whether he receives a royal coat of arms, which is also restricted by law to members of the royal house.

 

[An Ard Ri]

Can the king create a member of his family Prince/Count of Bernadotte or has that privilege been abolished?

Personally I think it was a mistake to have made all of his grandchildren HRH Prince/Princess of Sweden ,Duke/Duchess only to remove the HRH and of Sweden a few years later.
That style/rank should only have been granted to the children of the Crown Princess and Prince Daniel.

 

[Stefan]

Can the king create a member of his family Prince/Count of Bernadotte or has that privilege been abolished?

Personally I think it was a mistake to have made all of his grandchildren HRH Prince/Princess of Sweden ,Duke/Duchess only to remove the HRH and of Sweden a few years later.
That style/rank should only have been granted to the children of the Crown Princess and Prince Daniel.

the swedish King can't create new titles also not for members of the RF

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Can the king create a member of his family Prince/Count of Bernadotte or has that privilege been abolished?

Bernadotte: When Crown Princess Victoria married Daniel Westling, the Tax Agency found that the family had the surname Bernadotte notwithstanding that they did not use it. There is no law that says Alexander et al could not resume its use.

Prince: While Julian was never a member of the Royal House and thus did not have an HRH or of Sweden, he was created Prince Julian and Duke of Halland by the King, so we can be sure the King at least has the authority to create members of his family Prince/Princess and Duke/Duchess as personal honorary titles. However, the Marshal of the Court claimed at the press conference in 2019 that the grandchildren who were removed from the Royal House were not to share their titles with future spouses and children.

Count: The paragraph stating that the King could ennoble counts (as well as barons and untitled nobility) was removed from the new Constitution in 1975, but the new Constitution did not explicitly disallow the King from creating counts and barons. By way of comparison, the paragraph stating that the King could create dukedoms for royal princes was removed in 1975 as well, but it is clear many more ducal creations have followed after 1975.

 

[An Ard Ri]

Thanks for the update and further information from my understanding the king could have easily made the children of Carl Philip and Madeleine Count/Countess rather than Duke/Duchess and kept the duchies for the children of Victoria and Daniel.

 

[Mbruno]

Bernadotte: When Crown Princess Victoria married Daniel Westling, the Tax Agency found that the family had the surname Bernadotte notwithstanding that they did not use it. There is no law that says Alexander et al could not resume its use.

The author of the article is actually unsure about that.

I have followed his blog for some time, and read with interest his article on 26 May 2010, where he asked how Daniel Westling's surname was going to disappear when he got married. The legal challenge was that the current name law did not allow a surname to be taken away. Traditionally the members of the royal family don't have a surname and are listed in Folkbokföringen, the National Register, with an asterisk.



[....]



It is interesting to note that while the king's lawyer, Axel Calissendorf, insists that the royal family has no surname, the Tax Agency, which is responsible for the National Register, is of the opinion that they have, but just don't use it. I find the agency's view to be somewhat self-contradictory, as it has allowed the royals to be registered with an asterisk instead of a surname.

My understanding is that Daniel and Sofia have a surname in the National Register (to which Bernadotte was added) . The King, his children and Victoria's children have an asterisk instead.


The interesting part is that, as far as I have been able to tell, none of the princes/princesses have HRH listed with their names in the National Register or in documents like passports. In contrast to what happens in the UK then, I understand HRH is not part of their legal name in Sweden. That seems to be consistent with the King being able to add or remove that prefix from members of his family at his discretion as it is not an official or legal style in Sweden.

 

[LadyFinn]

The interesting part is that, as far as I have been able to tell, none of the princes/princesses have HRH listed with their names in the National Register or in documents like passports. In contrast to what happens in the UK then, I understand HRH is not part of their legal name in Sweden. That seems to be consistent with the King being able to add or remove that prefix from members of his family at his discretion as it is not an official or legal style in Sweden.

Carl Philip's driver's license
"HKH Prins Carl Philip" = HRH Prince Carl Philip
Image Upper.com - Free Image Hosting - View Image

 

[Mbruno]

Carl Philip's driver's license
"HKH Prins Carl Philip" = HRH Prince Carl Philip
Image Upper.com - Free Image Hosting - View Image

Interesting. Is HRH Prince also included in his passport?

 

[JR76]

https://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2419828
Hopefully this works. I don't think I've ever linked between threads before.

My issue is that since most of the regulations that have been set aside for the children of Carl Philip and Madeleine are part of the Constitution was it really legally possible for the King to unilaterally change them? Changes to the Constitution requires the approval of two sitting parliaments with one general election in between them. There were quite a few voices in 2019 that argued that he can't do so. The Court says that by tradition the King is the "master of his house" but I can't see that holding up against the laws of the land.
I'm also puzzles by, and something that I think has to be clarified legally, that constitutionally there doesn't seem to be any difference between the Royal House and the Royal family. The two terms are used interchangeably in the Order of Succession to describe what after the changes of 2019 are called the Royal House. This is also how it's used by the media and the general population. From what I find the distinction between the two first appeared in Statskalendern and Hovkalendern during the 70s after King Carl Gustav ascended the throne as a way to include those members of the King's family that weren't constitutionally members of the Royal House anymore.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

My issue is that since most of the regulations that have been set aside for the children of Carl Philip and Madeleine are part of the Constitution was it really legally possible for the King to unilaterally change them? Changes to the Constitution requires the approval of two sitting parliaments with one general election in between them. There were quite a few voices in 2019 that argued that he can't do so. The Court says that by tradition the King is the "master of his house" but I can't see that holding up against the laws of the land.

I agree with you. The King and Court could argue that the Constitution is silent on who is a member of the Royal House/Royal Family and hence an in-house issue reserved to HM, but when the terms are used in the Constitution they become part of the law of the land. I would argue that even if the King is allowed to regulate membership of the Royal House/Royal Family in the context of appanages or court precedence, it should not be left to him to set the official interpretation of the Constitution.

However, in fairness to the King and Court, I would also put forth that the Government and Parliament, by refusing to take responsibility for clarifying the Constitution, willingly left the constitutional interpretation open to the King.

I'm also puzzles by, and something that I think has to be clarified legally, that constitutionally there doesn't seem to be any difference between the Royal House and the Royal family. The two terms are used interchangeably in the Order of Succession to describe what after the changes of 2019 are called the Royal House. This is also how it's used by the media and the general population. From what I find the distinction between the two first appeared in Statskalendern and Hovkalendern during the 70s after King Carl Gustav ascended the throne as a way to include those members of the King's family that weren't constitutionally members of the Royal House anymore.

That is certainly enlightening! Thank you very much for posting your finding. In view of that information, the King and Court's argument that the constitutional regulations differentiate between the Royal House and the Royal Family become even less tenable.

Returning to the above discussion of Bertil and Christina, it now seems to me that there was a pattern of the King attempting to have it both ways during the 1970s transition between the old rules and the new rules.

I dont' know, of course, but I have a feeling that 99% of the population have no knowledge or interest in these matters. But, if Julian is NOT given the order and arms and whatnot, and the papers are writig about it, there will be a small uproar that he is treated differently than the other kids.

Most people (of those who follow the royals) will think it unfair.

So my guess is that The King had better find a way, because it would be too bothersome to try and explain the difference between the royal family and the Royal House. I mean, who cares about that anyway?

The general Swede doesn't care, but there seems to be a general support for the changes to limit the Royal House. Small details like this would probably seem ridiculous to the man on the street. One thing I've noticed in the different royal Facebook groups and Instagram accounts is that while people say that they support the changes they don't approve of its consequences regarding titles, orders, not showing christenings on TV etc...

That is interesting because at the same time, the number of Members of Parliament who cared about the difference between the Royal House members entitled to an allowance and the Royal Family members responsible for their own keep was substantial enough to compel the King to demote his son and younger daughter's children from the first to the second class in 2019.

I can't wait for the uproar when the first of the boys marry and people realise that his wife and kids won't get a title. If Svensk Damtidning is still around they'll have a field day.

I wonder if we could read into the fact that the promise that the demoted children's royal titles will not be shared with their future spouses and children was only announced during the press conference and not included in the written communiqué. Perhaps it is not a final decision?

I still hold to my prediction that even if that promise is fulfilled, any legal wife or marital son that Alexander, Gabriel, or Julian may have will still be known as Countess or Count, at least in the eyes of the Royal Court and the royal media. But time will tell.

 

[JR76]

I assume he only accorded Prince Oscar (who had lost the titles "of Sweden and Norway" and HRH upon marriage) that favor due to Oscar being his nephew?

People were still ennobled in Sweden at the time and the unequal marriage between Prince Oscar and Ebba Munck was widely popular and had the support of a large part of the population so I don't think that Oscar II creating his son Count of Wisborg would have met any opposition. I wonder if the reason behind the Royal family going to Queen Sofia's brother in Luxembourg was due to the fact that since the §37 Constitution of 1809 had introduced a British style nobilitary system where only the holder were part of the nobility/held a title awarded thereafter?

 

[Mbruno]

People were still ennobled in Sweden at the time and the unequal marriage between Prince Oscar and Ebba Munck was widely popular and had the support of a large part of the population so I don't think that Oscar II creating his son Count of Wisborg would have met any opposition. I wonder if the reason behind the Royal family going to Queen Sofia's brother in Luxembourg was due to the fact that since the §37 Constitution of 1809 had introduced a British style nobilitary system where only the holder were part of the nobility/held a title awarded thereafter?

That is a plausible possibility. If a Swedish title had been created under §37, it would have descended by male primogeniture only (as in the British peerage), whereas the Luxembourger title is transmitted to all agnatic descendants of the first title holder, I think.

 

[JR76]

https://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2406534

I still can't get linking between threads completely right?

There was actually nothing that legally prevented Prince Bertil from marrying Lilian Craig and still remain a member of the Royal House if the marriage got the King's approval. The Order of Succession was altered in 1937 to only ban marriages between princes and the daughters of Swedish commoners not as before the daughters of Swedish and foreign commoners. That King Carl Gustav decided to treat Bertil different from his brothers and his cousins was probably because of the sacrifice of his personal happiness for the sake of the monarchy and also because it was legally possible.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

https://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2406534

I still can't get linking between threads completely right?

There was actually nothing that legally prevented Prince Bertil from marrying Lilian Craig and still remain a member of the Royal House if the marriage got the King's approval. The Order of Succession was altered in 1937 to only ban marriages between princes and the daughters of Swedish commoners not as before the daughters of Swedish and foreign commoners. That King Carl Gustav decided to treat Bertil different from his brothers and his cousins was probably because of the sacrifice of his personal happiness for the sake of the monarchy and also because it was legally possible.

Very true. In Norway there was also nothing to legally prevent King Harald from allowing Princess Märtha Louise and Prince Sverre Magnus to remain members of the Norwegian Royal House, so the original poster drew a fair comparison.

[...] Then if CG had not demoted her, he would have shown special treatment to one of his own sisters, not just his uncles, and probably caused a rift in his even more immediate family. Perhaps he preferred not to cause trouble there.

You raise a good point. I imagine that Sigvard Bernadotte's public rift with the King and his lawsuit over his princely title would have been a greater embarrassment and been more troubling personally if he had been the sibling of the King rather than his uncle.

My guess is also that he didn't want to treat one sister differently than the others - and probably Christina didn't want him to either. She wasn't in line to the throne and it didn't change her ability to support her brother in his royal duties.

Princess Christina deserves praise for her life of duty to the monarchy, but my feelings are that the King attempted to have it both ways in officially stripping her of her place in the Royal House but permitting her to continue to carry out royal duties.

 

[An Ard Ri]

Why are M's children not called Miss/Master O'Neill? I can't think of any other children of a Princess (other than Crown Princesses) who's children have royal titles other than M's.

Princess Margriet of the Netherlands (younger sister of former queen Beatrix) 4 sons were all titled Prince/Princess of Orange-Nassau from birth so its not unique.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

[...] The children carry titles because the changes to the Swedish Order of Succession in 1979 introduced absolute primogeniture meaning that the succession is gender-neutral and that all children born and raised according to the constitution have and transfer their rights of inheritance to their children if they in turn are born and raised according to the constitution.

That reminds me of a point I forgot to mention when this question was brought up a few pages ago.

Indeed the extension in succession to the throne took place in 1980. However [...] it is about titles and expectations or royal work; the extension of that happened in the last 10 years (for Sweden)

Why are M's children not called Miss/Master O'Neill? [...]

Before the changes in 1979, there was no differentiation in relation to princess/prince titles between the children of a princess and the children of a prince in a comparable position for the succession. Neither the children of a princess without succession rights nor the children of a prince without succession rights were Swedish princesses and princes.

Following the introduction of gender-neutral succession rights for princesses and their descendants in 1980, if the King had blocked princesses' children with succession rights from royal titles, but allowed them for princes' children with succession rights, he would have established gender discrimination in a form where there was none before. He certainly could have (the Grand Duke of Luxembourg did), but it certainly wouldn't have been faithful to the spirit of the 1979 changes to treat girls in the royal house equally to boys in the line of succession.

 

[sophie25]

The children of princess Margriet were made princes of Orange-Nassau in the late 60's (personal titles not inheritable - their father wasn't made a prince; so comparable to the children of Madeleine and Chris). They are highnesses instead of royal highnesses, which is comparable to how Denmark goes about the titles for children of younger siblings.

The children of princess Astrid were made princes and princesses of Belgium in the 90's. At that time king Baudouin wasn't sure that Philip would have children of his own and he most likely wanted to make sure that Astrid and her children were available instead of needing to rely on Laurent).

It still wasn't really necessary as far as the Swedish royal family was concerned that's why I'm wondering why it happened.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

It still wasn't really necessary as far as the Swedish royal family was concerned that's why I'm wondering why it happened.

It was not a matter of necessity (if it were, there would have been even less necessity for Prince Carl Philip's children, as they were born after the Crown Princess gave birth to a "spare"), as the only member of the family for whom a title is really necessary is the King as head of state.

JR76 answered your question about why it happened in post #41:

Master is not a Swedish title. If the O'Neill kids didn't have any royal titles they'd be Fröken (Miss) & Herr (Mister). In daily speech that wouldn't mean anything since Swedes are on a first-name basis with each other. The children carry titles because the changes to the Swedish Order of Succession in 1979 introduced absolute primogeniture meaning that the succession is gender-neutral and that all children born and raised according to the constitution have and transfer their rights of inheritance to their children if they in turn are born and raised according to the constitution.

 

[Princess_Eleanor]

Why are M's children not called Miss/Master O'Neill? I can't think of any other children of a Princess (other than Crown Princesses) who's children have royal titles other than M's.

Because when they equalized Princes and Princesses by making the oldest child, regardless of gender, the heir, they also equalized Princesses in this sense. Therefore, a Swedish Princess is able to pass on titles to her children just as Princes are.

Princess Madeleine's children have and will always have equivalent titles to those of Prince Carl Philip's children. They got the same titles at birth and when the Royal Highness styles were taken away, this was again done equally for the children of both Carl Philip and Madeleine.

They wouldn't be called Miss and Master by the Swedish Court anyhow, as those are British designations. I don't think there is a Swedish equivalent for Master.

 

[Silverpot]

See the thread on titles for my responses to some of the posts upthread.

https://www.theroyalforums.com/foru...-and-changes-2019-a-20051-18.html#post2420554
https://www.theroyalforums.com/foru...-and-changes-2019-a-20051-17.html#post2420191



Hopefully a royal reporter will inquire with the court about the King's reasoning for deeming his non-direct-line grandchildren to be members of the Royal House when it comes to the laws of orders, but non-members when it comes to compliance with the conditions established for princes and princesses of the Royal House in the Act of Succession.




The Order of the Seraphim is an honor which legally can only be granted to heads of state or persons in a comparable position and to members of the Royal House.


Ordenskungörelse (1974:768) Svensk författningssamling 1974:1974:768 t.o.m. SFS 1995:1025 - Riksdagen

1 § Inom Kungl. Serafimerorden kan utmärkelser tilldelas statschefer och därmed jämställda personer samt medlemmar av det svenska konungahuset. Förordning (1995:1025).

2 § Inom Kungl. Nordstjärneorden kan utmärkelser tilldelas medlemmar av det svenska konungahuset samt utländska medborgare som har gjort personliga insatser för Sverige eller för svenskt intresse.

Med utländsk medborgare likställs statslös som är bosatt utomlands. Förordning (1995:1025).​

I know what it is, of course, I just can't see any benefit, it's not something that can be used. A title is always nice and can be useful, but an order? Nope. At least not in Sweden.

 

[sophie25]

The children of princess Margriet were made princes of Orange-Nassau in the late 60's (personal titles not inheritable - their father wasn't made a prince; so comparable to the children of Madeleine and Chris). They are highnesses instead of royal highnesses, which is comparable to how Denmark goes about the titles for children of younger siblings.

The children of princess Astrid were made princes and princesses of Belgium in the 90's. At that time king Baudouin wasn't sure that Philip would have children of his own and he most likely wanted to make sure that Astrid and her children were available instead of needing to rely on Laurent).

So I am correct then in saying it's very rare. I wonder why it was so important to her that they had those titles.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

..................................

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Why are M's children not called Miss/Master O'Neill? I can't think of any other children of a Princess (other than Crown Princesses) who's children have royal titles other than M's.

The children of princess Margriet were made princes of Orange-Nassau in the late 60's (personal titles not inheritable - their father wasn't made a prince; so comparable to the children of Madeleine and Chris). They are highnesses instead of royal highnesses, which is comparable to how Denmark goes about the titles for children of younger siblings.

The children of princess Astrid were made princes and princesses of Belgium in the 90's. At that time king Baudouin wasn't sure that Philip would have children of his own and he most likely wanted to make sure that Astrid and her children were available instead of needing to rely on Laurent).

So I am correct then in saying it's very rare. I wonder why it was so important to her that they had those titles.

Rareness is subjective, but if three out of ten European monarchies at this time (in addition to other examples historically in and outside of Europe) qualifies as very rare, then it is indeed very rare.

However, I do not understand the reason for your question. It is rarer for a woman or girl to be heir to the throne while having a younger brother, but has it ever been asked why it is so important for Victoria and Estelle for them to be crown princesses?

It is, by the way, also very rare (according to your standard) for a 21st-century European monarchy to treat a princess's children unequally to a prince's children when both have rights of succession. At the moment, only the UK and Luxembourg meet the criteria (though that obviously could change in the next generation).

 

[sophie25]

Victoria and Estelle automatically are the heirs, they didn't request it. Bearing in mind that M's kids are being raised as private citizens in the USA l am just curious as to why it was important to her that they were given royal titles when most other princesses in her position seem happy enough for their children to take their husband's status.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Victoria and Estelle automatically are the heirs, they didn't request it. Bearing in mind that M's kids are being raised as private citizens in the USA l am just curious as to why it was important to her that they were given royal titles when most other princesses in her position seem happy enough for their children to take their husband's status.

There is no evidence, apart from gossip, that Princess Madeleine requested that her children were given royal titles. In September 2013, when she was pregnant with Princess Leonore, the King's solicitor explained to the magazine Svensk Damtidning that it was automatic.

Eftersom prinsessan fortfarande är Hennes Kungliga Höghet föds barnet ocksa som en kunglig höghet och blir nummer fem i tronföljdsordningen, berättar hovauditör Axel Calissendorff som hänvisar till successionsordningens första paragraf.

(Given that the princess continues to be Her Royal Highness, the child too will be born as a Royal Highness and be number five in the order of succession to the throne, solicitor to the king Axel Calissendorff states in reference to the first paragraph of the Act of Succession.)​

Princess Madeleine and Chris O'Neill Expecting First Child


I imagine that in most cases princesses whose children took their husband's status were likewise not given any choice in the matter. (But Princess Benedikte of Denmark and Princess Anne of the UK come to mind as two who were given some sort of option to choose from.)

 

[Mbruno]

Victoria and Estelle automatically are the heirs, they didn't request it. Bearing in mind that M's kids are being raised as private citizens in the USA l am just curious as to why it was important to her that they were given royal titles when most other princesses in her position seem happy enough for their children to take their husband's status.

The Swedish tradition before 1980 was to award the title of prince/princess with the style of HRH:

1. To all men in the line of succession to the throne (only men could inherit the throne back then).
2. To all daughters of a king, crown prince, or prince of Sweden.

Women could not, however, pass on the title of prince/princess, so children of a princess only took their father's title/style when applicable. Princes and princesses who married unequally or without consent also lost their HRH. In the case of men, princes who married in those circumstances and the descendants of the marriage also lost their succession rights and were untitled. The combination of those rules, together with royal princes who did not make to adulthood or were childless, kept the number of HRHs surprisingly limited over time.


The introduction of equal primogeniture in 1980 made it difficult to justify different royal stylings based on gender. That is probably why the King went initially with the solution of extending the title of prince/princess with the style of HRH to all persons, male or female, in the line of succession, including children of princesses. Presumably, the title would be lost and no longer transmitted if, as before, the prince or princess lost his/her succession rights. For example, although unequal marriages are now allowed, the prince or princess who marries without consent of the government given upon request by the King is still excluded from the succession, together with his or her descendants. Furthermore, princes and princesses of the Royal House are still required to be raised in Sweden and all members of the Royal Family must still profess the Lutheran faith as adopted by the Church of Sweden.

The recent restriction of the HRH only to children of the King or the Crown Princess is actually an innovation which, if I am not mistaken, was never used before in the Bernadotte dynasty. It remains to be seen whether that exempts the non-HRHs from the requirements in the Act of Succession that apply to "Princes and Princesses of the Royal House", or not. If the requirements still applied, Madeleine's children would lose their titles anyway for being raised in the United States.

 

[sophie25]

There is no evidence, apart from gossip, that Princess Madeleine requested that her children were given royal titles. In September 2013, when she was pregnant with Princess Leonore, the King's solicitor explained to the magazine Svensk Damtidning that it was automatic.

Eftersom prinsessan fortfarande är Hennes Kungliga Höghet föds barnet ocksa som en kunglig höghet och blir nummer fem i tronföljdsordningen, berättar hovauditör Axel Calissendorff som hänvisar till successionsordningens första paragraf.

(Given that the princess continues to be Her Royal Highness, the child too will be born as a Royal Highness and be number five in the order of succession to the throne, solicitor to the king Axel Calissendorff states in reference to the first paragraph of the Act of Succession.)​

Princess Madeleine and Chris O'Neill Expecting First Child


I imagine that in most cases princesses whose children took their husband's status were likewise not given any choice in the matter. (But Princess Benedikte of Denmark and Princess Anne of the UK come to mind as two who were given some sort of option to choose from.)

I don't know about Benedikte but it's frequently and wrongly reported that Anne turned down royal titles for her children. She turned down a peerage for her husband which would have given her children aristocratic titles but that was all. The children of British princesses have always taken their status from their father and I understand that before Madeleine Swedish princesses did too as the King's sisters children were not given royal titles either.

 

[JR76]

There is no evidence, apart from gossip, that Princess Madeleine requested that her children were given royal titles.

At the time of her wedding there was a lot of rumours going around about Princess Madeleine wanting to leave the Royal family and modelling her future on that of her aunts, but that she was persuaded by her father to retain her title and status. Although only rumours I'd be more inclined to believe that Madeleine wanted to leave the Royal family than that she insisted on titles for her children.
It's important to stress again that these are only unsubstantiated rumours. Unlike their British cousins the Bernadottes have no habit of "unnamed sources" leaking things to the press.

 

[Mbruno]

I don't know about Benedikte but it's frequently and wrongly reported that Anne turned down royal titles for her children. She turned down a peerage for her husband which would have given her children aristocratic titles but that was all. The children of British princesses have always taken their status from their father and I understand that before Madeleine Swedish princesses did too as the King's sisters children were not given royal titles either.

The King's sisters were born HRHs as daughters of a male HRH. Margaretha, Christina and Desirée lost the HRH as a result of their unequal marriages (in accordance with the previous, unamended Act of Succession), but were allowed to be referred to by the prefix Princess by courtesy. Princess Birgitta, on the other hand, since she married a Prince of Hohenzollern, remains an HRH until today and a member of the Royal House, although she is not in the line of succession, which is limited under the amended Act of Succession to descendants of King Carl XVI Gustaf only. In any case, however, no descendants of the King's sisters are princes/princesses of Sweden, again in accordance with the pre-1980 rules when princesses did not transmit their titles to their children, even when they were stilll members of the Royal House like Princess Birgitta.


Benedikte's case in Denmark is slightly more complicated. My understanding, which may be wrong, is that, when King Frederik IX consented to Princess Benedikte's marriage as required under the Danish Succession to the Throne Act, he added a requirement that her children be raised in Denmark. Since that requirement was not fulfilled, they were excluded from the line of succession and, accordingly, lost the title of Prince/Princess to Denmark (Prins/Prinsesse til Danmark). In accordance with current practice, they would not have held the style of HRH anyway, which is reserved only to children of the Queen or the Crown Prince, but rather would probably be HHs, as Prince Joachim's children. Presently, Princess Benedikte's children enjoy, however, the style of HSH, which is inherited from their father (even though it is not actually legally recognized in the Federal Republic of Germany).

 

[sophie25]

The King's sisters were born HRHs as daughters of a male HRH. Margaretha, Christina and Desirée lost the HRH as a result of their unequal marriages (in accordance with the previous, unamended Act of Succession), but were allowed to be referred to by the prefix Princess by courtesy. Princess Birgitta, on the other hand, since she married a Prince of Hohenzollern, remains an HRH until today and a member of the Royal House, although she is not in the line of succession, which is limited under the amended Act of Succession to descendants of King Carl XVI Gustaf only. In any case, however, no descendant of the King's sisters are princes/princesses of Sweden, again in accordance with the pre-1980 rules when princesses did not transmit their titles to their children, even when they were stilll members of the Royal House like Princess Birgitta.


Benedikte's case in Denmark is slightly more complicated. My understanding, which may be wrong, is that, when King Frederik IX consented to Princess Benedikte's marriage as required under the Danish Succession to the Throne Act, he added a requirement that her children be raised in Denmark. Since that requirement was not fulfilled, they were excluded from the line of succession and, accordingly, lost the title of Prince/Princess to Denmark (Prins/Prinsesse til Danmark). In accordance with current practice, they would not have held the style of HRH anyway, which is reserved only to children of the Queen or the Crown Prince, but rather would probably be HHs, as Prince Joachim's children. Presently, Princess Benedikte's children enjoy, however, the style of HSH, which is inherited from their father (even though it is not actually legally recognized in the Federal Republic of Germany).[/QUOT

I absolutely still don't see the reason for those children to have royal titles when they live their everyday lives in America but if it pleases their parents so be it.