Do Royals Have To Be Born In Their Own Country?

[Alison H]

Declaring a Canadian hospital room Dutch territory for the day's already been mentioned, and I think something similar was done with a hotel room in London when the Crown Prince of Yugoslavia was born. AFAIK there are no laws about a future monarch having to be born in the appropriate country, though.

[NotHRH]

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

I know that - but actually if you would read about this topic, it is a big deal to Princess Sophie of Liechtenstein, who will hold that position before her son, and Sophie's family. Her father is 1st in line for the "Duke in Bavaria, Prince of Bavaria" title, then the title goes to Sophie, then to her son. I think it's ridiculous also, but royals are very into their family heritage. Sophie wanted to give birth in London so her son would eventually be the 1st claimant to Jacobite throne in 150+ years to be born in England. Tradition and heritage is very important to royals, even we commoners find it a little silly.

[Ish]

Originally Posted by NotHRH

I know that - but actually if you would read about this topic, it is a big deal to Princess Sophie of Liechtenstein, who will hold that position before her son, and Sophie's family. Her father is 1st in line for the "Duke in Bavaria, Prince of Bavaria" title, then the title goes to Sophie, then to her son. I think it's ridiculous also, but royals are very into their family heritage. Sophie wanted to give birth in London so her son would eventually be the 1st claimant to Jacobite throne in 150+ years to be born in England. Tradition and heritage is very important to royals, even we commoners find it a little silly.

Um... Not really.

None of the Jacobites claimants have actually claimed the succession since the death of Henry Benedict Stuart.

Joseph Wenzel was born in London because his parents were living there at the time - they lived there from 1993-1996, as Alois was working in London, and Joseph Wenzel was born in 1995. Jacobites may make a big deal out of Joseph Wenzel being born in London, but the family doesn't and didn't arrange it because of the claim.

Also, Sophie isn't in line to the title Duke of Bavaria - the title's succession operates under Salic law, so the next in line after her father is Prince Luitpold of Bavaria, a distant cousin. The Jacobite claim doesn't operate under Salic law, which is why it will to Sophie and her descendants (her uncle, Franz, is the current claimant to both titles, and has never married).

[miss whirley]

Well, Margaret was Queen Regent of Scotland even though she was Norwegian born and never stepped foot in Scotland.

I don't think location of birth has ever been that important. It's always been about gender, wedlock born, birth order, and religion.

[Duc_et_Pair]

Originally Posted by NotHRH

[...] Her father is 1st in line for the "Duke in Bavaria, Prince of Bavaria" title, then the title goes to Sophie, then to her son. [...]

You are mixing two different cases. The Jacobite one and the Bavarian one. Note that the Bavarians have never, ever pursued any claim whatsoever on the Stuart legacy. For them it is an interesting fait-divers in their family history and nothing more. Princess Sophie is not in line of succession of the Bavarian or Liechtenstein successions. Only in the -extremely unlikely and purely theoretic- "Jacobite succession" she possibly finds herself back.

Jacobite succession:
1 - The Duke of Bavaria - 1933 (residence: Schloss Nymphenburg)
2 - Max Emanuel, Duke in Bavaria - 1937 (residences: Schloss Tegernsee and Schloss Wildenwart)
3 - Princess Sophie of Liechtenstein, Duchess in Bavaria - 1967 (residences: Schloss Vaduz and Palais Liechtenstein)
4 - Prince Joseph Wenzel of Liechtenstein - 1995
5 - Prince Georg of Liechtenstein - 1999
6 - Prince Nikolaus of Liechtenstein - 2000
7 - Princess Marie of Liechtenstein - 1996

Bavarian succession:
1 - The Duke of Bavaria - 1933 (residence: Schloss Nymphenburg)
2 - Max Emanuel, Duke in Bavaria - 1937 (residences: Schloss Tegernsee and Schloss Wildenwart)
3 - Luitpold, Prince of Bavaria - 1951 (residences: Schloss Kaltenberg and Schloss Leutstetten)
4 - Ludwig, Prince of Bavaria - 1982 (residence: Kaltenberg hunting lodge)
5 - Heinrich, Prince of Bavaria - 1986
6 - Karl, Prince of Bavaria - 1987

[Mbruno]

Originally Posted by NotHRH

I know that - but actually if you would read about this topic, it is a big deal to Princess Sophie of Liechtenstein, who will hold that position before her son, and Sophie's family. Her father is 1st in line for the "Duke in Bavaria, Prince of Bavaria" title, then the title goes to Sophie, then to her son. I think it's ridiculous also, but royals are very into their family heritage. Sophie wanted to give birth in London so her son would eventually be the 1st claimant to Jacobite throne in 150+ years to be born in England. Tradition and heritage is very important to royals, even we commoners find it a little silly.

That is news to me. As far as I know, Princess Sophie has always distanced herself from the Jacobite claim.

[NotHRH]

Originally Posted by Ish

Um... Not really.

None of the Jacobites claimants have actually claimed the succession since the death of Henry Benedict Stuart.

Joseph Wenzel was born in London because his parents were living there at the time - they lived there from 1993-1996, as Alois was working in London, and Joseph Wenzel was born in 1995. Jacobites may make a big deal out of Joseph Wenzel being born in London, but the family doesn't and didn't arrange it because of the claim.

Also, Sophie isn't in line to the title Duke of Bavaria - the title's succession operates under Salic law, so the next in line after her father is Prince Luitpold of Bavaria, a distant cousin. The Jacobite claim doesn't operate under Salic law, which is why it will to Sophie and her descendants (her uncle, Franz, is the current claimant to both titles, and has never married).

Thanks for the clarifications on this topic. Didn't realize the "Duke in Bavaria, Prince do Bavaria" title is under Salic law. There was some confusion on my part.

[CyrilVladisla]

King Haakon VII and Queen Maud of Norway's son Prince Alexander (King Olav V) was born in England.

[Countessmeout]

Originally Posted by CyrilVladisla

King Haakon VII and Queen Maud of Norway's son Prince Alexander (King Olav V) was born in England.

That's because at the time Alexander was born, his parents were Prince Carl and Maud of Denmark. The couple had been given Appleton house as an estate by Maud's father as a home for their frequent stays in England. It wasn't until Alexander was two, that his parents were named King and Queen of Norway.

It would have been a very different situation if he had been born after they had been crowned king and queen. His birth place and name.

Beyond being born when the family is in exile like Juan Carlos, the other major reason a heir may be born outside their country is if they were not the heir to the throne at their birth, like Alexander.

I see Rama IX was mentioned on the previous page, he is another example. Thailand didn't have a clear line of succession in those days. The likelihood the throne would pass to any children of his father were limited. He also had an older brother (who was king before him) though his brother was born in Germany.


Princess Margriet of the Netherlands is an interesting issue. It wasn't about the country she was born in. But about Nationality. Of an heir to the throne being a citizen of a different country. The Netherlands may not practice Jus soli, but Canada does which is what matters. Any child born on Canadian soil is entitled to Canadian citizenship. While Margriet would have been entitled to Dutch citizenship through her mother, she would also had Canadian. Making it an extra territorial region for her birth, meant she was basically born in international space, meaning she only took her nationality from her mother. I don't know if there was an actual rule about the monarch having dual citizenship but there may have been question of split loyalties if she was also Canadian. It was simpler to make sure she was only Dutch.