The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #121  
Old 02-17-2020, 05:20 PM
maria-olivia's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Brussels, Belgium
Posts: 6,006
Thanks Mr Muhler for your always fine posts.
I may understand that looks does matter. All the Royals and mostly Queens and Princesses are nowadays like Models. It is due to Coaches etc....
I have one question : Could their look be from the Wedding of Prince Knud to Princess Caroline Mathilde, they were close cousins?
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #122  
Old 02-17-2020, 05:42 PM
JR76's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Malmö, Sweden
Posts: 3,034
Quote:
Originally Posted by maria-olivia View Post
Thanks Mr Muhler for your always fine posts.
I may understand that looks does matter. All the Royals and mostly Queens and Princesses are nowadays like Models. It is due to Coaches etc....
I have one question : Could their look be from the Wedding of Prince Knud to Princess Caroline Mathilde, they were close cousins?
None of the three siblings could be described as traditionally beautiful although Prince Christian was quite statuesque in his youth. That said they all had what I myself have dubbed the "Glücksburg face" seen on several of their older relatives, Queen Margrethe, their Norwegian cousins, little Prince Henri etc... so they weren't one off in that gene pool. The descendants of Christian IX and Louise were a closeknit family and there were several intermarriages between their descendants.

Regarding the referendum involving among others the question of a change to the Law of succession it's worth noting that less than 19.000 votes (78.8% of votes cast were in favour of a change but because of a low turnout this corresponded to 45.8% of those entitled to vote) decided in favour of a change so the outcome wasn't as clear and given as we might think today.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #123  
Old 02-17-2020, 05:52 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Feb 2020
Location: The 6ix, Canada
Posts: 196
I had to google after becoming interested in what he looked like.

He's certainly not that bad! And he was more conventional-looking when younger. More than that, he seems to have a very nice character which shows through in his words and his face.

I'd be more worried about the alcoholism in those genes than anything.

The idea of being "dethroned due to ugly" seems ridiculous. The Prince of Wales is certainly no one's idea of conventional attractiveness, and though it cost him incredibly in his first marriage, he's managed.

Congratulations to him on his birthday.
Reply With Quote
  #124  
Old 02-17-2020, 05:54 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,326
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prinsara View Post
I had to google after becoming interested in what he looked like.

He's certainly not that bad! And he was more conventional-looking when younger. More than that, he seems to have a very nice character which shows through in his words and his face.

I'd be more worried about the alcoholism in those genes than anything.

The idea of being "dethroned due to ugly" seems ridiculous. The Prince of Wales is certainly no one's idea of conventional attractiveness, and though it cost him incredibly in his first marriage, he's managed.

Congratulations to him on his birthday.
If he is an alcoholic, its just as well he didn't become King...
Reply With Quote
  #125  
Old 02-17-2020, 05:58 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Feb 2020
Location: The 6ix, Canada
Posts: 196
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post
If he is an alcoholic, its just as well he didn't become King...
Frederik IX did...

(It runs in families.)
Reply With Quote
  #126  
Old 02-18-2020, 11:43 AM
Muhler's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Eastern Jutland, Denmark
Posts: 13,584
Quote:
Originally Posted by maria-olivia View Post
Thanks Mr Muhler for your always fine posts.
I may understand that looks does matter. All the Royals and mostly Queens and Princesses are nowadays like Models. It is due to Coaches etc....
I have one question : Could their look be from the Wedding of Prince Knud to Princess Caroline Mathilde, they were close cousins?
You are welcome.
I don't know.
We know from cases of incest between very close relatives, that the children are usually perfectly normal in every way, so a one-off marriage between relatives shouldn't make that big a difference, I think.
Unless of course it becomes a habit over generations to marry relatives. See the Habsburg chin for example.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JR76 View Post
None of the three siblings could be described as traditionally beautiful although Prince Christian was quite statuesque in his youth. That said they all had what I myself have dubbed the "Glücksburg face" seen on several of their older relatives, Queen Margrethe, their Norwegian cousins, little Prince Henri etc... so they weren't one off in that gene pool. The descendants of Christian IX and Louise were a closeknit family and there were several intermarriages between their descendants.

Regarding the referendum involving among others the question of a change to the Law of succession it's worth noting that less than 19.000 votes (78.8% of votes cast were in favour of a change but because of a low turnout this corresponded to 45.8% of those entitled to vote) decided in favour of a change so the outcome wasn't as clear and given as we might think today.
It was very close indeed!
45 % of all voters was needed to change the Constitution (it's 40 % now) in 1953.

It's no secret at all that the referendum regarding the change in the Law of Succession was attached to the referendum about the new Constitution in order to get enough people to vote - so there must have been a considerable public interest in the subject.

The then PM; HC Hansen, was a close personal friend of Frederik IX, which means he knew Frederik and his family intimately and being a PM he would also have knows Prince Knud and at least his wife, Caroline-Mathilde.
He would also have known that Frederik IX was anything but delighted about the prospect of his oldest daughter becoming monarch one day. It was a burden he wouldn't pass on to his daughter.

The idea about linking the referendum about the Constitution with a referendum about a change in the Law of Succession must have come up in earnest around 1950 or so. Because it was expected that the turnout would be very low as most people viewed the changes in the Constitution as something pretty abstract. Hence the linking.

But around 1950 both Margrethe and Ingolf would have been around ten years old, and apart from photos and newsreels, pretty much unknown to the general public, so what was the basis of peoples vote?

As I see it this is why people voted:
Most people would never have met members of the DRF in person and up close. Even fewer would have met them in an intimate setting. So what they knew about the DRF must mainly have been based on what other people talked/gossiped about and what they had seen and read in newsreels, papers and magazines.
Even though Frederik IX's family was well featured and very popular, especially during WWII, the reports and documentaries from their home, having tea and what now, really only started during the 50's - mainly after the referendum in 1953. So there was little "propaganda" so to speak.
So why did the PM HC Hansen, go against the wishes of Frederik IX and doing so presumably in the certainty that people would turn out in numbers to vote, and to vote in favor of the change in the Law of Succession?

So this is what I think people based their vote on:
A) Because they believed in the principle of gender equality in regards to equal opportunities for both genders to have the same role. In this case being a monarch.
But this was 15-20 years before this topic became something that genuinely concerned the general public.
And according to that principle, Princess Elisabeth should have been the next monarch, not Ingolf.

B) Because they believed in the principle of primogeniture. Under the condition there were no sons. Well, then the oldest daughter has to take over. No need to go to another branch of the DRF.

C) Because it was basically a popularity contest between Frederik and Knud (and their wives. And probably to a lesser extent their children.) Frederik won.
- For whatever reason.
Perhaps a dislike for Knud. He was certainly nowhere near as folksy as his brother.

D) A general belief that Knud wasn't too bright. (There is a very famous song from that period, where the refrain has become a saying here in DK: "One more time for Prince Knud." - Today it means explaining something twice to someone who is a bit slow.) And as such not qualified to become king.

E) A general opinion that Knud, and his wife and his children, weren't particularly presentable looking. - And not only in looks but also in their behavior and interaction with the public. That they paled in comparison to Frederik IX, his very presentable wife, Queen Ingrid, and the cute Three Little Princesses.
The "too ugly factor", even though it sounds and is harsh.

F) And this one I actually believe factored high as well in many people's minds: It was felt to be unfair towards Frederik IX and his wife, if their children were bypassed.
Because QMII was democratically elected as the next monarch. For the first time since before 1660. (And back then de facto only in principle.) But it was a gamble. Hardly anyone casting their vote knew Margrethe and Ingolf personally. They only knew of them, at best. Everything else was based on photos, films and gossip.

G) Your suggestion.
Reply With Quote
  #127  
Old 02-18-2020, 12:29 PM
JR76's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Malmö, Sweden
Posts: 3,034
Quote:
Originally Posted by Muhler View Post
You are welcome.
I don't know.
We know from cases of incest between very close relatives, that the children are usually perfectly normal in every way, so a one-off marriage between relatives shouldn't make that big a difference, I think.
Unless of course it becomes a habit over generations to marry relatives. See the Habsburg chin for example.



It was very close indeed!
45 % of all voters was needed to change the Constitution (it's 40 % now) in 1953.

It's no secret at all that the referendum regarding the change in the Law of Succession was attached to the referendum about the new Constitution in order to get enough people to vote - so there must have been a considerable public interest in the subject.

The then PM; HC Hansen, was a close personal friend of Frederik IX, which means he knew Frederik and his family intimately and being a PM he would also have knows Prince Knud and at least his wife, Caroline-Mathilde.
He would also have known that Frederik IX was anything but delighted about the prospect of his oldest daughter becoming monarch one day. It was a burden he wouldn't pass on to his daughter.

The idea about linking the referendum about the Constitution with a referendum about a change in the Law of Succession must have come up in earnest around 1950 or so. Because it was expected that the turnout would be very low as most people viewed the changes in the Constitution as something pretty abstract. Hence the linking.

But around 1950 both Margrethe and Ingolf would have been around ten years old, and apart from photos and newsreels, pretty much unknown to the general public, so what was the basis of peoples vote?

As I see it this is why people voted:
Most people would never have met members of the DRF in person and up close. Even fewer would have met them in an intimate setting. So what they knew about the DRF must mainly have been based on what other people talked/gossiped about and what they had seen and read in newsreels, papers and magazines.
Even though Frederik IX's family was well featured and very popular, especially during WWII, the reports and documentaries from their home, having tea and what now, really only started during the 50's - mainly after the referendum in 1953. So there was little "propaganda" so to speak.
So why did the PM HC Hansen, go against the wishes of Frederik IX and doing so presumably in the certainty that people would turn out in numbers to vote, and to vote in favor of the change in the Law of Succession?

So this is what I think people based their vote on:
A) Because they believed in the principle of gender equality in regards to equal opportunities for both genders to have the same role. In this case being a monarch.
But this was 15-20 years before this topic became something that genuinely concerned the general public.
And according to that principle, Princess Elisabeth should have been the next monarch, not Ingolf.

B) Because they believed in the principle of primogeniture. Under the condition there were no sons. Well, then the oldest daughter has to take over. No need to go to another branch of the DRF.

C) Because it was basically a popularity contest between Frederik and Knud (and their wives. And probably to a lesser extent their children.) Frederik won.
- For whatever reason.
Perhaps a dislike for Knud. He was certainly nowhere near as folksy as his brother.

D) A general belief that Knud wasn't too bright. (There is a very famous song from that period, where the refrain has become a saying here in DK: "One more time for Prince Knud." - Today it means explaining something twice to someone who is a bit slow.) And as such not qualified to become king.

E) A general opinion that Knud, and his wife and his children, weren't particularly presentable looking. - And not only in looks but also in their behavior and interaction with the public. That they paled in comparison to Frederik IX, his very presentable wife, Queen Ingrid, and the cute Three Little Princesses.
The "too ugly factor", even though it sounds and is harsh.

F) And this one I actually believe factored high as well in many people's minds: It was felt to be unfair towards Frederik IX and his wife, if their children were bypassed.
Because QMII was democratically elected as the next monarch. For the first time since before 1660. (And back then de facto only in principle.) But it was a gamble. Hardly anyone casting their vote knew Margrethe and Ingolf personally. They only knew of them, at best. Everything else was based on photos, films and gossip.

G) Your suggestion.
Could Princess Caroline-Mathilde's mum, Princess Helena, who was a very vocal Nazi collaborator during the occupation and was exiled by Christian X for several years after the war, play a part in the family being unpopular?
Reply With Quote
  #128  
Old 02-18-2020, 01:09 PM
Gentry
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Cambridge, United Kingdom
Posts: 73
I think that your suggestion has great merit , certainly as Muhler has pointed out the public as such ,knew very little about the individual qualities of either Ingolf or Margrethe ,yet the rabid Nazi beliefs held by Princess Helena were very well known .
Reply With Quote
  #129  
Old 02-18-2020, 01:26 PM
Muhler's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Eastern Jutland, Denmark
Posts: 13,584
Quote:
Originally Posted by JR76 View Post
Could Princess Caroline-Mathilde's mum, Princess Helena, who was a very vocal Nazi collaborator during the occupation and was exiled by Christian X for several years after the war, play a part in the family being unpopular?
Very plausible, IMO.

It certainly wouldn't have helped endearing the Knud family to the public!
Reply With Quote
  #130  
Old 02-18-2020, 01:37 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Feb 2020
Location: The 6ix, Canada
Posts: 196
Quote:
Originally Posted by Muhler View Post
Very plausible, IMO.

It certainly wouldn't have helped endearing the Knud family to the public!
Not living in Denmark or even in Europe, the Nazi-related issue was always the first thing I've heard of. Though I suppose that's easier and far less shallow.

Can we flip this around, Muhler? If Knud and his family had been attractive and personable, even despite vocal Nazi relatives and Salic law unfairness, there would have been no referendum, and we'd have Frederik X (Ingolf) and his artistic cousin Daisy?
Reply With Quote
  #131  
Old 02-18-2020, 01:49 PM
Muhler's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Eastern Jutland, Denmark
Posts: 13,584
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prinsara View Post
Not living in Denmark or even in Europe, the Nazi-related issue was always the first thing I've heard of. Though I suppose that's easier and far less shallow.

Can we flip this around, Muhler? If Knud and his family had been attractive and personable, even despite vocal Nazi relatives and Salic law unfairness, there would have been no referendum?
I've been thinking that myself.

I don't think there would have been a referendum. There wouldn't have been a need for such a referendum in the eyes of the public IMO.
The whole concept of gender equality simply didn't have enough public appeal to basically vote for Elisabeth, rather than Ingolf.

I think there would have been an increased risk of DK becoming a republic, if the Knud family was seen as too Nazi-friendly and/or if Knud and his wife were generally disliked. I.e. downright unpopular.
One Christian X character was more than enough for one century here in DK. Two would be tempting fate!

So no, I don't think it would have been possible to get people off their backsides and to the voting booth just for that. On the contrary it might have sparked a public debate about the monarchy being needed.
The support for the monarchy was pretty low after WWII, and actually also when QMII took over. Around 50-50 IIRC.
Despite Frederik IX being folksy and he and his family being well liked, it was also an old fashioned, a bit stiff and somewhat distant from the people.
QMII changed that, and first Alexandra but in particular Mary changed the DRF to becoming more open and less formal and more eye-to-eye with the people.
Reply With Quote
  #132  
Old 02-18-2020, 01:58 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Hamburg, Germany
Posts: 2,161
Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post
It's interesting how people have expressed concerns for Carl-Philip no longer being in direct line to the throne while he was only a baby when the change came about, while Ingolf was 'robbed' of the throne when he was 13 years old (and his father much older) - to be replaced by his also 13 year old cousin. How many people expressed such concern at that time or was it widely seen as the right thing to do?

Something like that could surely make anyone depressed, especially if part of the (informally) expressed reason was that you weren't presentable enough (because you were too ugly).
I cannot recall any concerns in the broad swedish society, not to mention the government, about C Ph being no longer the Crown Prince as a baby. I only know about the King and Queen originally not being too fond of this idea because, I guess the King has been socialised in a monarchy in which only male succession was familiar (in his own Bernadotte dynasty there was not a single Queen Regnant before) and as a man himself, he might have secretly prefered his first born son to succeed him as King.
I remember the Queen of Sweden saying in an interview she personally had concerns for Victoria as a woman and perhaps being a mother herself one day, to be able to fulfill that heavy task of being head of state at the same time. Well, this attitude, in times of gender equality, seems to be a bit outdated these days, but perhaps she also wanted to agree on her husband.

When it comes to that 1953 situation in Denmark, I must ask: there was this referendum about it and, as a consequence, if the majority of the Danes were in favour of female succession, could you still argue the Count was "robbed" of his right to succeed?!
I can well and truely understand the position that you want your very popular monarch´s own child to be your future head of state, and not the son of the monarch´s brother or sister!
There is a similar case nowadays in Japan. Although the little emperor´s nephew might be a great kid, it is my firm view that the current Emperor and Empresse´s own child, a daughter as we all know, should succeed and not her male cousin (only because of his male gender!)!
Reply With Quote
  #133  
Old 02-18-2020, 02:36 PM
Muhler's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Eastern Jutland, Denmark
Posts: 13,584
Agree.

In fairness it was more Elisabeth who was cheated of the crown.

And I too wonder how a referendum would turn out in Japan. Would the Japanese feel it was unfair to by-pass the Emperor's daughter?

For those who wish to know more about Princess Helena and Count Schalburg who was also an embarrassment for the DRF during WWII:
(External links.)
https://www.theroyalforums.com/forum...ml#post1618163
Reply With Quote
  #134  
Old 02-18-2020, 02:49 PM
Gentry
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Cambridge, United Kingdom
Posts: 73
Despite the outcome of the referendum , there was obviously a recognition that Ingolf had had his "birthright " removed through no fault of his own , he was only 13 . Because of this both he, and his father were awarded appenages from the state . In the case of HIH Princess Aiko , her uncle is about to be formally invested as Crown Prince , leaving no doubt that his son Prince Hisahito will follow , one can hardly see a situation in which the new Crown Prince will stand aside for his niece . Considering the pressure the current Empress , and former Empress , and Princess Mako have faced would her parents truly wish her to be in such a position .
__________________

Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
count christian of rosenborg, count ingolf of rosenborg


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
HSH Prince Hans-Adam II (1945- ) and HSH Princess Marie (1940- ) Mandy Princely Family of Liechtenstein 140 04-14-2020 02:38 AM
Prince Michael, writer (1939-) and Marina Karella, artist (1940- ) vangeliskirialanis The Royal Family of Greece 85 02-27-2020 03:09 AM
Duarte Nuno, Duke of Braganca and Princess Maria Francicsa of Orleans-Braganca -1942 Marengo Historical Royal Weddings 3 12-03-2016 07:28 PM
Princess Marie (1876-1940), later Grand Duchess Maria Georgievna of Russia George Greek Royal History 23 10-22-2016 07:56 PM
Death and Funeral of Count Christian of Rosenborg (1942-2013): May 21 and 29, 2013 Ilse Royal House of Denmark 44 11-02-2013 04:38 PM




Popular Tags
anastasia once upon a time ancestry armstrong-jones belgian royal family belgium chittagong countess of snowdon cover-up crown princess victoria danish royalty dna dubai dutch royal family dutch royals emperor family tree games haakon vii henry v hill history house of bourbon house of glucksburg interesting introduction israel italian royal family jumma kids movie king salman list of rulers mailing mary: crown princess of denmark monaco history monogram nepalese royal jewels nobel prize norwegian royal family prince charles prince dimitri princess chulabhorn walailak princess elizabeth princess ribha pronunciation queen mathilde queen maud rown royal balls royal court royal events royal family royal jewels royal spouse royalty royal wedding saudi arabia serbian royal family shakespeare spain spanish royal spencer family startling new evidence sweden swedish history thailand tracts united states of america unsubscribe videos wedding gown


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:30 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2020
Jelsoft Enterprises
×