Marriage to Commoners in Denmark

[An Ard Ri]

Originally Posted by Kataryn

Did Dagmar of Denmark loose her title and privileges when she married Jorgen Castenskiold?

Wasn't he a Danish noble?

[Muhler]

Originally Posted by An Ard Ri

Wasn't he a Danish noble?

Carstenskiold is a noble family, yes.
I believe one of them until fairly recently was a LiW for QMII.

[Tatiana Maria]

Unlike King Frederik IX, King Christian X apparently considered lesser noble houses to be of unequal standing. In addition to stripping Princess Dagmar of her title when she married the nobleman Jørgen Castenskiold, he also removed the HRH and the title "Prince of Denmark" from Prince Aage when he married Italian countess Mathilde Calvi di Bergolo. But in contrast to Dagmar, Aage was permitted to keep the title "Prince Aage" and became HH.

[Mbruno]

In Sweden, the former version of the Act of Succession explicitly said that princes of the Royal House would lose their succession rights if they married unequally (meaning, if they married someone who was not also a dynast). The law also barred princesses of the Royal House from marrying a non-royal Swedish man , even though princesses were already out of the line of succession from birth.



As far as I know, Denmark didn't have any such provisions in law, at least not in the Act of Succession of 1953, where the only requirement was that marriages of the monarch should be approved by parliament and that marriages of persons in the line of succession should be consented to by the monarch in a Council of State. Kings Christian X and Frederik IX's decisions not to consent to unequal marriages of princes, thus stripping them of their succession rights and princely status, were therefore personal decisions, rather than a legal requirement.

[Mbruno]

Originally Posted by norwegianne

If someone in line to the throne marries without the monarch's permission as given in the council of state, the person loses the right to the throne for him/herself and those children born in the marriage and the descendants of these.

A little bit off-topic, but there is a lingering doubt that has always bothered me about royal marriages.


In some countries, e.g. Denmark, the Netherlands and now the UK, the wording of the law is that, if a person marries without the required consent, that person and the person’s descendants from the marriage are disqualified from succeeding to the Crown. In other countries, such as Sweden or Norway for example, the law says simply that the person and his/her descendants (omitting "from the/that marriage") are disqualified.



Is it just of careless wording e.g. by the Swedish/Norwegian lawmakers, or are the rules actually different in those two groups of countries ? More specifically, when "from the/that marriage" is included, should we assume that descendants from previous marriages that received consent are unaffected, whereas, when the wording is "their descendants" only, all descendants are equally affected, including the issue of other marriages ? And what about descendants of future marriages, are they disqualified too ?

[JR76]

Originally Posted by Mbruno

A little bit off-topic, but there is a lingering doubt that has always bothered me about royal marriages.


In some countries, e.g. Denmark, the Netherlands and now the UK, the wording of the law is that, if a person marries without the required consent, that person and the person’s descendants from the marriage are disqualified from succeeding to the Crown. In other countries, such as Sweden or Norway for example, the law says simply that the person and his/her descendants (omitting "from the/that marriage") are disqualified.



Is it just of careless wording e.g. by the Swedish/Norwegian lawmakers, or are the rules actually different in those two groups of countries ? More specifically, when "from the/that marriage" is included, should we assume that descendants from previous marriages that received consent are unaffected, whereas, when the wording is "their descendants" only, all descendants are equally affected, including the issue of other marriages ? And what about descendants of future marriages, are they disqualified too ?

The offspring of an approved marriage of a Swedish dynast wouldn't be affected by a second unapproved marriage of a parent. It's implied in the wording that this is the case since there's no mention of the rule being retroactive and because one of the founding principles of the law is that you can't be held accountable for someone else's crime. Also the wording suggests that the approval is for each marriage at a time.
Regarding if the offspring of a second marriage of a dynast who was removed from the Line of succession because of their first unapproved marriage could be included in said succession I doubt it. As a private citizen the parent wouldn't need the approval of the monarch to get married and the monarch has no jurisdiction over the marriages of Swedish citizens anymore.