The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #101  
Old 09-11-2018, 05:17 AM
Pranter's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 12,310
Uh guys...Prince Edward designed Sophie's tiara ...the Queen did not have anything to do with that.


LaRae
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #102  
Old 09-11-2018, 06:28 AM
Queen Claude's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: USA, United States
Posts: 1,160
While I won't bet the farm on it, I've read numerous articles on Sophie's tiara and I have yet to read that Edward designed the tiara, he is credited with designing Sophie's other jewels, namely the earrings and necklace but not the tiara. From what I read, the tiara is from the Queen's private collection and was designed and remodeled by the Crown Jeweler from Asprey and Garrard, now Garrard & Co. If you have credible sources indicating otherwise, will you please post in the thread on Sophie's jewelry.

More on topic, the blogger for Order of Splendor states that of the tiaras QEII gifted her three daughters-in-law, Sophie's tiara was the most important one because of it's historical provenance and if using tiaras as an indicator, then Sophie was the most favored of the three. I don't know if I agree with that particular characterization and while it is not a favorite of mine, I never thought that Sophie was short-shrifted in the tiara department.


ETA:
Note: I do think that Sophie is currently a favorite of Queen Elizabeth's but I question if Sophie was held in more esteem on her wedding day than Diana or Sarah.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #103  
Old 09-11-2018, 07:01 AM
W.Y.CII's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: 。, Hong Kong
Posts: 874
Quote:
Originally Posted by Queen Claude View Post
More on topic, the blogger for Order of Splendor states that Sophie's tiara was the most important tiara because of it's historical provenance and if using tiara's as an indicator, then Sophie was the most favored the Queen's three daughters-in-law. I don't know if I agree with that, while it is not a favorite of mime, I never thought that Sophie was short-shrifted in the tiara department.
Agree. You can hate that tiara but you can't say that tiara indicates that the Queen disapproves their marriage (it's more about taste). At least, I don't think Sophie thinks of that as she still use this piece even after she got another tiaras.

And I think there are big differences between opposition from the ruling family and from the general public. Some posters mention Haakon&M-M and W-A&Maxima, which even though the brides were not well accepted at the moment, I don't think Harald and Beatrix had opposed to the marriage. (well at least they didn't do it publicly)

Harald&Sonja (Olav), Henri&M-T (JC) are the only two I can think of?
__________________
Bad money drives out good.
Reply With Quote
  #104  
Old 09-11-2018, 07:08 AM
Muhler's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Eastern Jutland, Denmark
Posts: 14,093
Indeed.
But public opposition is something a monarch has to take into consideration. Very much so, I'd say!
And the government certainly has to take public opposition into consideration as well, if it is to advise the monarch.
Reply With Quote
  #105  
Old 09-11-2018, 08:43 AM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: -, Netherlands
Posts: 1,629
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair View Post
Pieter van Vollenhoven, the first commoner at the Dutch Court, faced considerable resistance in the royal family, in the Household, in politics and in society. It took decades before Pieter was taken au sérieux. Pieter himself told that even his parents initially were not happy with his marriage to Princess Margriet: man should not jump furtherer than the length of his pole, was his parents' stance (with other words: a Princess of Orange-Nassau was out of his league). According Pieter only his mother-in-law, Queen Juliana, was enthusiast from the very beginning. Maybe too enthusiast: the Queen more or less wanted to demonstrate that all men were equal to her (but she was blind for the fact that no matter how she tried to be a plain Mrs, she was exactly not equal at all, with her palaces, her glittering diamonds, her livered lackeys, her hofdames, etc. A peculiar black hole in her argumentation.)
True, but within her boundaries she is the most "commoner Queen" we have had up to now.
Reply With Quote
  #106  
Old 09-11-2018, 10:45 AM
loonytick's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: Tennessee, United States
Posts: 755
Quote:
Originally Posted by W.Y.CII View Post
Agree. You can hate that tiara but you can't say that tiara indicates that the Queen disapproves their marriage (it's more about taste). At least, I don't think Sophie thinks of that as she still use this piece even after she got another tiaras.
I agree.

And since then we've gotten other information about Sophie and Elizabeth that puts the tiara in interesting context; the two are both history buffs and from time to time enjoy spending time together in the palace archives. For Elizabeth to give the go-ahead to have historic jewels repurposed for Sophie's tiara may well be an indication that the two had already found that common ground and Elizabeth knew Sophie would appreciate being entrusted with something of such historic import.

The clips didn't turn out to make a well-designed tiara, but their use ticks some very big boxes in regards to their good connection to each other.
Reply With Quote
  #107  
Old 09-11-2018, 11:35 AM
ROYAL NORWAY's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: somewhere, Norway
Posts: 3,804
Quote:
Originally Posted by W.Y.CII View Post
Agree. You can hate that tiara but you can't say that tiara indicates that the Queen disapproves their marriage (it's more about taste). At least, I don't think Sophie thinks of that as she still use this piece even after she got another tiaras.

And I think there are big differences between opposition from the ruling family and from the general public. Some posters mention Haakon&M-M and W-A&Maxima, which even though the brides were not well accepted at the moment, I don't think Harald and Beatrix had opposed to the marriage. (well at least they didn't do it publicly)

Harald&Sonja (Olav), Henri&M-T (JC) are the only two I can think of?
To those who are interested, here's some information about it:

Haakon has said in interviews that when he told his parents about MM's past, the King said, "Is it more?" To which Haakon replied "no" - and the King said that "Dette klarer vi!" (''We'll manage this!'')

And then to the constitutional stuff:

According to the then Prime Minister, Jens Stoltenberg, the King called him to the palace before the engagement - and informed him that Haakon wanted to marry MM.
He told the PM that he knew about Article 36 in the Constitution, which states:
Quote:
A Prince or Princess entitled to succeed to the Crown of Norway may not marry without the consent of the King. Nor may he or she accept any other crown or government without the consent of the King and the Storting. For the consent of the Storting two thirds of the votes are required.

If he or she acts contrary to this rule, they and their descendants forfeit their right to the throne of Norway.
He explained that he understood that when the word "King" is written in the Constitution, it had to be interpreted as "the King in Council of State'' (which, today, means the government).

But after that, the King said the following: ''Men akkurat når det gjelder denne paragrafen om at kongen må godkjenne kronprinsens ekteskap, vil jeg mene at kongen faktisk er kongen, det vil si meg – og ikke deg''.
("But just when it comes to this Article about that the King must approve the Crown Prince's marriage, I would think that the King is actually the King, that means me - and not you.")

And then it was done, neither Stoltenberg nor any other prime minister could do anything about it.
__________________
Norwegians are girls who love girls, boys who love boys, and girls and boys who love each other. King Harald V speaking in 2016.
Reply With Quote
  #108  
Old 09-11-2018, 12:06 PM
Duc_et_Pair's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: City, Netherlands
Posts: 10,764
It really goes far to read approval or disapproval on the style of a bridal diadem. Come on.
Reply With Quote
  #109  
Old 09-11-2018, 12:19 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: san diego, United States
Posts: 9,150
Quote:
Originally Posted by Muhler View Post
I think we should look at the process for a moment.

It's no secret that when Frederik wanted to propose to Mary he mentioned it to his chief of staff who at the time was his closest confidante.
It's no secret either that the Danish embassy in Australia made inquiries about Mary. That goes through the Foreign Ministry, which means the government was unofficially noticed.
I'm also very certain that Mary at some point had a talk with a senior court official, about whether she had any skeletons in her closet. So that a strategy could be prepared if they ever came out. - And perhaps also to check if she was willing to tell everything? - "Anything in my past? Noo, nothing at all." Not mentioning her little prank about cutting off the heads of fifteen budgies with a pair of scissors, putting the heads on lollypop sticks and planting them in the ground in front of the local kindergarten when she was 22.

Once the background check was complete and QMII had done her personal assessment of Mary, then Frederik proposed. Of that I'm certain.
Then the government was officially asked to give it's consent and the engagement could be announced. - With the delighted PM telling the public that the government happily gave it's consent and anyway they wouldn't dream about opposing the marriage, because that's a private matter within the royal family. It's a mere formality - and happy days are here again...
That actually pretty much sums up what the PM said at both Alexandra, Mary and our Marie's engagements being announced.

Then the whole matter was laid before the Parliament for a vote. Don't know how it is in other countries, but in DK it's tradition that the politicians never vote against a recommendation/bill by the government in the Parliament when it concerns the DRF. It is expected that any problems are solved before it gets to this point.
If it's a no go, it shouldn't even get to this point. That's a failure by both the DRF and the government. Mary should have got a "dear John" letter from Frederik before it got this far.

So what happens when there is a stand-off? - It's pretty difficult to avoid it going public if it's the heir, who won't back down.
The first thing that springs to mind is a "compromise" where the royal in question "voluntarily" give up his/her place in the succession.
That's most annoying when it's the spare! But IMO no particular problem when it's anyone under the spare.
- In that way everyone are happy - at least publicly...

thanks!
I remembered you explained this process a little when the documentary on the Danish monarchy came out years ago. The process through the State Council, and how it really would not have reached that level if there were problems ...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Muhler View Post
Summary of segment seven about the DRF, as shown on DR1: ...
While Frederik talk about the State Council and among other things how they approved his engagement to Mary, Mary jokingly breaks in: “What would have happened if they had not approved the engagement”. Frederik responds that this is a very hypothetical situation. – (The approval of the is only a formality as the engagement has long since been presented to the Prime Minister and the Parliament and should there be any objections, the State Council wouldn’t even have had it on the agenda).
...
Reply With Quote
  #110  
Old 09-11-2018, 12:37 PM
Muhler's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Eastern Jutland, Denmark
Posts: 14,093
Quote:
Originally Posted by polyesco View Post
thanks!
I remembered you explained this process a little when the documentary on the Danish monarchy came out years ago. The process through the State Council, and how it really would not have reached that level if there were problems ...
Thanks, Polyesco.

However, the Parliament also had to go through the process, because:
A) The government recommend the go ahead of X marrying Alexandra/Mary/our Marie in case there are objections. - There are none. No one votes against a recommendation about the DRF put up by the government.
B) The Parliament votes in favor of granting Danish citizenship to Alexandra/Mary/Marie upon marriage to X, without going through the usual procedures.
Normally the Parliament vote about granting citizenships to applicants as a group. Say a list of 477 names.
In this case the far-left and republican Unity List abstain from voting. Because while heartily congratulating the happy couple, they will out of principle not put them before everybody else applying for citizenship. I.e. no special treatment.
C) In the case of Mary she was also granted 10 % of Frederik's apanage, which at the same time was raised. Also requiring a vote in Parliament. Again no one will vote against such a bill.

All that had to go through the usual three motions (voting), before being passed and made a law.
Then the law was presented to QMII to sign, making the law valid.
To be published for all to see in Statstidende shortly after. And once published Alexandra/Mary/Marie could go ahead and get married.
Reply With Quote
  #111  
Old 09-11-2018, 01:45 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 8,191
Quote:
Originally Posted by Muhler View Post
Indeed.
But public opposition is something a monarch has to take into consideration. Very much so, I'd say!
And the government certainly has to take public opposition into consideration as well, if it is to advise the monarch.
But the original question was had the brides/grooms been disapproved of by the various Royal families....
Reply With Quote
  #112  
Old 09-11-2018, 01:50 PM
Muhler's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Eastern Jutland, Denmark
Posts: 14,093
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post
But the original question was had the brides/grooms been disapproved of by the various Royal families....
Yes, but surely we can discuss the wider aspects as well?
Reply With Quote
  #113  
Old 09-11-2018, 01:51 PM
Duc_et_Pair's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: City, Netherlands
Posts: 10,764
Usually in the Netherlands Bills of Consent have been approved without a vote. This happens when all fractions have spoken in the debate and the Speaker concludes that, having heard the contributions in the debate, there is a general agreement in the assembly and proposes the most esteemed fellow members that the States-General agrees with the Bill, adding congratulations and best wishes to the happy couple.

Only in the case of Princess Beatrix there was a real vote: 132 to the Yes, 9 to the No and 9 abstinences. A single Member of Parliament is enough to request a vote.
Reply With Quote
  #114  
Old 09-11-2018, 03:05 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 3,407
Quote:
Originally Posted by ROYAL NORWAY View Post
To those who are interested, here's some information about it:

Haakon has said in interviews that when he told his parents about MM's past, the King said, "Is it more?" To which Haakon replied "no" - and the King said that "Dette klarer vi!" (''We'll manage this!'')

And then to the constitutional stuff:

According to the then Prime Minister, Jens Stoltenberg, the King called him to the palace before the engagement - and informed him that Haakon wanted to marry MM.
He told the PM that he knew about Article 36 in the Constitution, which states:

Quote:
A Prince or Princess entitled to succeed to the Crown of Norway may not marry without the consent of the King. Nor may he or she accept any other crown or government without the consent of the King and the Storting. For the consent of the Storting two thirds of the votes are required.

If he or she acts contrary to this rule, they and their descendants forfeit their right to the throne of Norway.
He explained that he understood that when the word "King" is written in the Constitution, it had to be interpreted as "the King in Council of State'' (which, today, means the government).

But after that, the King said the following: ''Men akkurat når det gjelder denne paragrafen om at kongen må godkjenne kronprinsens ekteskap, vil jeg mene at kongen faktisk er kongen, det vil si meg – og ikke deg''.
("But just when it comes to this Article about that the King must approve the Crown Prince's marriage, I would think that the King is actually the King, that means me - and not you.")

And then it was done, neither Stoltenberg nor any other prime minister could do anything about it.
This is extremely interesting. It's difficult to imagine a reason why the word "King" would take on a different meaning in Article 36 in comparison to every other article in the Constitution, and I suspect the reality was that King Harald wished to avert any potential debate and the government thought there was no advantage to challenging the king's plan of action, given that the government probably would have approved the marriage in any case.

Quote:
Originally Posted by QueenEmpath View Post
Emperor Akihito's mother was against his decision of marrying Michiko who was a commoner
And if my memory serves me correctly, Empress Kojun's own marriage was opposed as well.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Friedrich Karl II View Post
Just wondering has in modern era (let's say after 1950) any member of royal family lost his place in succession line due non-approved marriage.
During the 1960s and 1970s, Princes Ingolf and Christian of Denmark lost their places due to unapproved marriages and Infantas Pilar and Margarita of Spain renounced their places in the line of succession due to unequal marriages.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Muhler View Post
I think with Elisabeth it was more a question of her not wishing to lose her title and perhaps some sort of rebellion? Her partner was a former member of the resistance and a documentarist, so nothing unsuitable there. After all the other Rosenborgs married pretty ordinary people.
I think Queen Claude was raising the issue of Queen Margrethe II's reason for refusing to approve a marriage between Princess Elisabeth and her partner, since presumably Princess Elisabeth have kept her title if she married with the Queen's consent.
Reply With Quote
  #115  
Old 09-11-2018, 03:06 PM
Somebody's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 5,924
Quote:
Originally Posted by Friedrich Karl II View Post
And he was dropped from succession line.


Just wondering has in modern era (let's say after 1950) any member of royal family lost his place in succession line due non-approved marriage.
You just gave one example: prince Friso but also his aunts Irene and Christina and his cousins Pieter-Christiaan and Floris, although the latter was more practical. The queen didn't see the need to ask for approval as she had already grandchildren and they would be dropped as soon as Willem-Alexsnder would ascend the throne.

In Denmark for example the brothers prince Ingolf and prince Christian lost both their place and title.
Reply With Quote
  #116  
Old 09-11-2018, 03:24 PM
Muhler's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Eastern Jutland, Denmark
Posts: 14,093
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
I think Queen Claude was raising the issue of Queen Margrethe II's reason for refusing to approve a marriage between Princess Elisabeth and her partner, since presumably Princess Elisabeth have kept her title if she married with the Queen's consent.
Elisabeth would have lost her title and become a Rosenborg had she married her lifetime partner. She said as much in an interview posted somewhere in the Elisabeth thread.
And since they were determined not to have any children and it was back in 70's and 80's it really didn't matter, so they just lived together.
Reply With Quote
  #117  
Old 09-11-2018, 03:25 PM
Somebody's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 5,924
Quote:
Originally Posted by Muhler View Post
I think we should look at the process for a moment.

It's no secret that when Frederik wanted to propose to Mary he mentioned it to his chief of staff who at the time was his closest confidante.
It's no secret either that the Danish embassy in Australia made inquiries about Mary. That goes through the Foreign Ministry, which means the government was unofficially noticed.
I'm also very certain that Mary at some point had a talk with a senior court official, about whether she had any skeletons in her closet. So that a strategy could be prepared if they ever came out. - And perhaps also to check if she was willing to tell everything? - "Anything in my past? Noo, nothing at all." Not mentioning her little prank about cutting off the heads of fifteen budgies with a pair of scissors, putting the heads on lollypop sticks and planting them in the ground in front of the local kindergarten when she was 22.

Once the background check was complete and QMII had done her personal assessment of Mary, then Frederik proposed. Of that I'm certain.
Then the government was officially asked to give it's consent and the engagement could be announced. - With the delighted PM telling the public that the government happily gave it's consent and anyway they wouldn't dream about opposing the marriage, because that's a private matter within the royal family. It's a mere formality - and happy days are here again...
That actually pretty much sums up what the PM said at both Alexandra, Mary and our Marie's engagements being announced.

Then the whole matter was laid before the Parliament for a vote. Don't know how it is in other countries, but in DK it's tradition that the politicians never vote against a recommendation/bill by the government in the Parliament when it concerns the DRF. It is expected that any problems are solved before it gets to this point.
If it's a no go, it shouldn't even get to this point. That's a failure by both the DRF and the government. Mary should have got a "dear John" letter from Frederik before it got this far.

So what happens when there is a stand-off? - It's pretty difficult to avoid it going public if it's the heir, who won't back down.
The first thing that springs to mind is a "compromise" where the royal in question "voluntarily" give up his/her place in the succession.
That's most annoying when it's the spare! But IMO no particular problem when it's anyone under the spare.
- In that way everyone are happy - at least publicly...
Willem-Alexander's strategy was a little different. He proposed on January 19 but their engagement was only announced on March 30. They needed almost 2 1/2 months to figure things out regarding her father and finally were able to convince him not to attend the wedding. Had parliament not approved I am quite sure that Willem-Alexander would have given up the throne (as he previously stated that he would choose love over duty if he truly had to make that choice).

Of course, Willem-Alexander knew he had the support of his mother and the PM also wanted to make it work somehow...
Reply With Quote
  #118  
Old 09-11-2018, 03:31 PM
JR76's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Malmö, Sweden
Posts: 3,330
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
And if my memory serves me correctly, Empress Kojun's own marriage was opposed as well.
Although the future empress came from a very suitable background it was discovered that there were colourblindness in her family something not deemed acceptable for the wife of a living god.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
During the 1960s and 1970s, Princes Ingolf and Christian of Denmark lost their places due to unapproved marriages
It's worth noting that, according to Prince Christian himself, his uncle had nothing personal against neither him marrying a commoner nor Anne-Dorthe herself, but felt that he had to obey the law.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
since presumably Princess Elisabeth have kept her title if she married with the Queen's consent.
According to Elisabeth herself she would've lost her title upon marriage so since the couple had no intentions of having children they decided not to marry.
The two Scandinavian monarchs have generally accepted their predecessors decisions as applicable on the former generations while making their own decisions for their children's generation during their reign. Therefore QMII would've found her father's decision regarding Ingolf and Christian applicable on Elisabeth as well while although CXVIG did allow Bertil to retain his title he did not approve the application of his uncles and cousin to regain their titles.
Reply With Quote
  #119  
Old 09-11-2018, 03:34 PM
Somebody's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 5,924
Quote:
Originally Posted by Muhler View Post
(I've allowed myself to add numbers to your quote.)

1) I can't say what was required back then. But Benedikte's children are not listed as being in the Line of Succession. I think it was very much on Benedikte's insistence they maintained a close affiliation with DK. After all QMII and PH very quickly produced an heir and a spare.

2) Very brutal: In the interest of the country. - And in the interest of the family.
The primary working royals in any monarchy is the monarch and the heir and the spare and not least their spouses.
No one, as in no one at all, not even republicans, wish to see their monarchy turned into a soap opera. There is too much at stake.
Apart from personifying the country internally, they also personify their country abroad, not least in regards to diplomacy, and export. (I know the BRF don't focus much on promoting the export, but mainly on general good PR, but other monarchies do!) You want your royals to present the best possible image of your country.

That means:
1) No divorce. - It happens, but we'd prefer it didn't. So think very careful before marrying!
2) Be intelligent and well educated enough not to say or do something stupid. - It happens, but don't make a habit of it.
3) Have people skills. - Be naturally nice, extrovert and don't have any psychopathic traits.
4) Have an uninteresting past. - Your past shouldn't be a story. So no drugs, preferably don't have any children, no criminal record, no shady dealings financially, no extremists or criminals among your past friends. And so on...
5) Have a strong psyche. - No story about mental breakdowns or issues. It's hard enough as it is. So don't do a Masako!
6) Have a discreet and respectable family who can keep their mouths shut. - Their purpose in life is to remain in the background and look happy.
7) Be diplomatic. - Keep your personal opinion about everything to yourself, unless you have an OK from the government. So keep your activist traits in check, please! And close your Twitter account...
8) Have no ambitions of your own but to serve your country and support the royal family. - No Wallis, please!
And so on.
- I think you get the picture.

Failing on one of the above is unfortunate but can be acceptable.
Failing on two is problematic. A "The government is happy for the young couple and we wouldn't interfere with the internal affairs of the royal family, but..."
Failing on three is a "We won't recommend" from the government.
Failing on more than three of the above is a "We cannot endorse" from the government!
- An important job of any government is to help protect the royals from themselves.

In this world today, with Google translate and the Internet. Anything negative goes worldwide in hours. Not to mention that the world opinion has become much less tolerant, much more politically correct and much more sensitive to the slightest affront be that perceived or real.
On top of that nationalism is on the rise. Embarrassing your country is much less something to "see the funny side of" than it was just a couple of decades ago.

Queen Maxima. The ideal spouse. Intelligent, extrovert, great people skills, well educated, diplomatic - but there is the thing about her father... That was very controversial when she got married. Would she get through the filter today?
Meghan. Extrovert, intelligent, discreet, pretty uninteresting personal past. Albeit with some activist tendencies and divorced. - But a most unfortunate family! I think Meghan can be very happy her family live on another continent! And for Brexit...
Otherwise... - "Her Majesty's government will advise more time for reflection before considering a marriage."
I get the picture. I mainly wondered why you think the decision would turn out differently nowadays (or in the future) as over the last 20 years we've seen that almost anyone will be approved of. Within the SRF I am still surprised thst there was apparently so much oppossition against Daniel and so little against Sofia. Probably she profitted from the king's earlier decision on Daniel?!
Reply With Quote
  #120  
Old 09-11-2018, 03:42 PM
JR76's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Malmö, Sweden
Posts: 3,330
Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post
I get the picture. I mainly wondered why you think the decision would turn out differently nowadays (or in the future) as over the last 20 years we've seen that almost anyone will be approved of. Within the SRF I am still surprised thst there was apparently so much oppossition against Daniel and so little against Sofia. Probably she profitted from the king's earlier decision on Daniel?!
I'm sure that Sofia benefited from the trailblazing Daniel, but they were generally treated the same. Both had to wait a few years to get scrubbed up and improve their public image. What Sofia had working for her was that Carl Philip isn't the heir while, according to Victoria, the doubts her parents had about Daniel was if he would be able to cope with being the husband of the future Head of State.
__________________

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
Shortest Royal Marriages HMTLove23 Royal Weddings General Discussion 37 01-21-2021 05:22 AM
Royal-Royal Marriages Today Hereditary Mapmaker Royalty Past, Present, and Future 124 11-25-2019 01:09 AM
Royal Marriages: Biggest Age Difference HMTLove23 Royalty Past, Present, and Future 29 01-09-2015 07:12 PM
European/Japan royal marriages Australian Imperial Family of Japan 37 03-19-2013 07:32 PM
The Royal Marriages Act of 1772 and Royal Marriages branchg British Royals 99 12-31-2012 09:24 PM




Popular Tags
abu dhabi american history anastasia anastasia once upon a time ancestry archie mountbatten-windsor background story baptism british british royal family british royals brownbitcoinqueen carolin china chinese commonwealth countries countess of snowdon customs doll dresses duke of sussex family tree general news thread george vi gradenigo gustaf vi adolf history house of windsor imperial household intro italian royal family jack brooksbank jacobite japan jewellery kids movie king edward vii line of succession list of rulers luxembourg maxima meghan markle monarchy nepalese royal jewels prince constantijn prince dimitri princess alexia (2005 -) princess chulabhorn walailak princess ribha queen consort queen elizabeth ii queen maxima queen victoria random facts royal dress-ups royal jewels royal marriage royal re-enactments. royal wedding serbian royal family spain sussex swedish queen taiwan tradition unfinished portrait united states of america wedding gown welsh wittelsbach


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:47 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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