Do Royals Have To Be Born In Their Own Country?

[IE3K]

It is rumoured, that Queen Victoria was born in Southern Germany ... it is said, that her mother only made it to an English ship on the "Neckar". But unfortunately (for the city of "Eberbach") the story is not proved.

[sancakli70]

After the ottoman imperian family exiled, the members born in france, lebanon, egypt and england the first member who born after the exile born in turkey was prince Sehzade Abdulhamid kayihan Osmanoglu after 55 years exile in 1979. Today the members born in turkey an England

[Skippyboo]

Originally Posted by IE3K

It is rumoured, that Queen Victoria was born in Southern Germany ... it is said, that her mother only made it to an English ship on the "Neckar". But unfortunately (for the city of "Eberbach") the story is not proved.

At the time British royal births had to be witnessed by a government official to make sure know one pulled a baby switcheroo. This didn't end until Prince Charles birth when George VI stopped it.

[Josefine]

We know now that in sweden it works at least of you are a child of younger siblings to the king

Princess Leonore of sweden was born in new york, USA

[Duc_et_Pair]

King Juan Carlos was born in Rome, Italy. He did spend part of his youth in Portugal. In general for most of today's monarchies (if not all) we can say that the succession is arranged by primogeniture and not by location.

[Duc_et_Pair]

Originally Posted by Maura724

However, the hospital room Margriet was born in was declared Dutch territory for the day so that she would technically be born in the Netherlands. I think this was necessary for her to have any rights to the throne, which would have been much more important had she been a boy and therefore the future King. So I would assume that the laws in most European countries demand monarchs to be born in the country.

It was not necessary, since the Dutch Constitution mentions no word about the birthplace of a successor. It was just a nice, symbolical tribute that with the European part of the kingdom occupied, there was still a royal princess born "on Dutch soil". Apparently it was a geste by the Governor-General of Canada, Prince Alexander of Teck, the Earl of Athlone. (His spouse, Princess Alice, was a full cousin to Queen Wilhelmina of the Netherlands).

[nascarlucy]

If the constitution said that any heir to the throne would have to be born in the country then it would be a big deal. Some people might make it an issue even if there was not written about it.

[NotHRH]

Prince Alois of Lichtenstein's oldest son, who is 2nd in direct succession to that country's throne, was born in London because will one day also be the claimant to the Jacobite throne (direct descendant of the last Catholic monarchs of the UK.)

[Mbruno]

Originally Posted by Lumutqueen

I was wondering whether an a heir or baby of a royal parents for instance the crown princes of Denmark, Spain, Netherlands or Belgium has to be born in that country?

Or could the baby be born where the parents choose, like for Mary of Denmark may want one of her children born in Hobart?

Thank you.

x

As far as I know, there is no legal requirement in any European monarchy that royal babies be born in the country over which their families reign. Some countries like Sweden require , however, that they be raísed in the country to stay in the line of succession.

[Mbruno]

Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair

It was not necessary, since the Dutch Constitution mentions no word about the birthplace of a successor. It was just a nice, symbolical tribute that with the European part of the kingdom occupied, there was still a royal princess born "on Dutch soil". Apparently it was a geste by the Governor-General of Canada, Prince Alexander of Teck, the Earl of Athlone. (His spouse, Princess Alice, was a full cousin to Queen Wilhelmina of the Netherlands).

Furthermore, the Netherlands, like most European countries, does not follow "jus solis". Princess Margriet would have Dutch citizenship anyway even if she had been born on Canadian soil.

[Mbruno]

Originally Posted by NotHRH

Prince Alois of Lichtenstein's oldest son, who is 2nd in direct succession to that country's throne, was born in London because will one day also be the claimant to the Jacobite throne (direct descendant of the last Catholic monarchs of the UK.)

He is not a direct descendant of the last Catholic monarch of England and Scotland ( James II ). In fact, I believe there are no living direct descendants of that monarch anymore.

He is however a direct descendant of Charles I, James II 's father, and therefore, more senior than the current Queen Elizabeth II, whose line descends from James I, James II's grandfather.

[MAfan]

Originally Posted by NotHRH

Prince Alois of Lichtenstein's oldest son, who is 2nd in direct succession to that country's throne, was born in London because will one day also be the claimant to the Jacobite throne (direct descendant of the last Catholic monarchs of the UK.)

I have serious doubts that they made such a calculation. Instead it's far more likely that Prince Josef Wenzel was born in London simply because Prince Alois and Princess Sophie at the time were living in London, because Alois worked there.

[Skippyboo]

It's not like the UK government is going to retroactively reverse the act of settlement and kick out the Windsors to install the Jacobite claimant anytime soon.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

[Duc_et_Pair]

The succession is hereditary. Whether the baby is born in- or outside a certain territory, does not make him/her a less hereditary heir(ess).

For an example: the Stuart succesion according some:
1 - HRH The Duke of Bavaria, Franconia and in Swabia, Count Palatine of the Rhine / "His Majesty Francis II, King of England, Scotland, Ireland and France" (born in München, Germany):
2 - HRH Prince Max, Duke in Bavaria / "His Royal Highness The Duke of Albany" (born in München, Germany)
3 - HRH The Hereditary Princess of Liechtenstein born Princess Sophie, Duchess in Bavaria (born in München, Germany)

[Ish]

Originally Posted by Mbruno

He is not a direct descendant of the last Catholic monarch of England and Scotland ( James II ). In fact, I believe there are no living direct descendants of that monarch anymore.

He is however a direct descendant of Charles I, James II 's father, and therefore, more senior than the current Queen Elizabeth II, whose line descends from James I, James II's grandfather.

James II still has living descendants through his illegitimate children, it's just through his legitimate children that the line has ended. In fact, Prince William is a descendant of James II through his mother (they descend from James' daughter, Henrietta FitzJames). He's also descended from Charles II, meaning that he is descended from more of Britain's monarchs than his father.

[Rudolph]

Originally Posted by Skippyboo

It's not like the UK government is going to retroactively reverse the act of settlement and kick out the Windsors to install the Jacobite claimant anytime soon.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

Exactly. It always makes me laugh when I read posts about Jacobite 'claimants'

Anyone is free to claim whatever they want.. Succession to the throne is governed by law.

[Tatiana Maria]

Originally Posted by Mbruno

As far as I know, there is no legal requirement in any European monarchy that royal babies be born in the country over which their families reign. Some countries like Sweden require , however, that they be raísed in the country to stay in the line of succession.

Exactly, and no other European monarchy currently has a residency requirement for the line of succession, though the Norwegian Constitution requires the King to reside in Norway.

[Mbruno]

Originally Posted by Ish

James II still has living descendants through his illegitimate children, it's just through his legitimate children that the line has ended. In fact, Prince William is a descendant of James II through his mother (they descend from James' daughter, Henrietta FitzJames). He's also descended from Charles II, meaning that he is descended from more of Britain's monarchs than his father.

Of course, I meant legitimate descendants, who are the only ones relevant to the royal succession. You are right though about illegitimate descendants.

[Mbruno]

Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria

Exactly, and no other European monarchy currently has a residency requirement for the line of succession, though the Norwegian Constitution requires the King to reside in Norway.

It appears that, although it is not written in law or the constitution, the Danish monarch can impose special conditions to consent to a royal marriage. According to Wikipedia, "The consent to Princess Benedikte's marriage to Prince Richard of Sayn-Wittgenstein-Berleburg in 1968 was given on the condition that their children (and further descendants) would take up permanent residence in Denmark upon reaching the age of mandatory schooling. " As they were, however, raised in Germany, they lost their succession rights (although that seems to be controversial).

[lucien]

HM King Bhumibol Adulyadej of Thailand,the worlds longest Reigning Monarch at present,was born in Boston,...as an answer to the initial question.