Members of the Royal Family and Line of Succession - Broadest Sense

[norwegianne]

The new line of succession after the birth of Isabella is:
1. Frederik
2. Christian
3. Isabella
4. Joachim
5. Nikolai
6. Felix
7. Benedikte
8. Elisabeth

Should Frederik and Mary get a boy before the change in the law, he would come before his older sister. If they get a girl before this, she would come after Isabella.

[Victoria]

Does that mean that if Mary has had a girl before Christian then she wouldn't be the heir but her brother?

[Mandy]

As the constitution stands now, yes, a male heir takes precedence over the female. However, the Danish Parliament were in the process of revising the constitution when Christian was born, so I would imagine, it could have been altered before the birth of the second child, if need be.

[UserDane]

Originally Posted by Mandy

As the constitution stands now, yes, a male heir takes precedence over the female. However, the Danish Parliament were in the process of revising the constitution when Christian was born, so I would imagine, it could have been altered before the birth of the second child, if need be.

They probably wouldn't have had the time to effec the change before the birth of a second child since any change to the constitution has to be approved by two consecutive sitting parliaments and then be approved by 40% of all eligible voters in a referendum. However, I am 100% sure it would have been changed; had Isabella been born first, it would never had been acceptable to the politicians or the public if she had been pushed down the ladder in favour of a younger brother. The prime minister stated this intent in his Constitution speech in 2005 (Venstre - Danmarks Liberale Parti: Anders Fogh Rasmussens grundlovstale - in Danish) where he said amongst other things 'I do not feel that we should let the decision about a change of the succession act depend on whether the crown princess gives birth to a boy or girl in October."
The proposed change was presented on 4th October, 2005, and approved.
In his 2007 Constitution speech (Statsministeriet - Statsminister Anders Fogh Rasmussens grundlovstale 2007 i Fuglsang Park, Toreby og Byparken, Roskilde) Anders Fogh Rasmussen again referred to the change in the succession act and stated that it still needs to be approved by the next parliament as well and then by a referendum.

[Next Star]

Denmark goes by primogenture which means males and their descents go in front of females and their descents regardless how old they are. Before the constitution had been changed in 1972 only males were allowed to inherit the danish throne.

[UserDane]

Originally Posted by Next Star

Denmark goes by primogenture which means males and their descents go in front of females and their descents regardless how old they are. Before the constitution had been changed in 1972 only males were allowed to inherit the danish throne.

Not sure I follow you here; the succession act was changed in 1953 - which was a constitutional change - to enable the then 13 year old Margrethe to succeed her father as regent. That change provided for female regents in the absence of male heirs; the change that is now underway will give men and women equal rights to the throne.

[Next Star]

Okay I got the year wrong no one is perfect.Another thing I know why the Constituiton had been changed because Maragethe II 's late father the king only had daughters being he had no sons he wanted is eldest daughter Maragethe to succeed him as queen if had not changed the law her late uncle Prince Knud would have became king. I know the only way a female can inherit the danish throne if their are not males present in the royal family.

[UserDane]

Originally Posted by Next Star

I know the only way a female can inherit the danish throne if their are not males present in the royal family.

...untill the next Parliament and a referendum that is

[Next Star]

No that is the way it is today. Maragrethe II would not be queen if she had a brother rather he was older or younger males have a stronger claim than females when it comes to the danish throne.

[UserDane]

Originally Posted by Next Star

No that is the way it is today. Maragrethe II would not be queen if she had a brother rather he was older or younger males have a stronger claim than females when it comes to the danish throne.

I am perfectly aware of the succession rules to the throne Next Star; I was just trying to make a half-joking remark that the status quo is about to change - if you read my previous post on the matter you will see that the process is well on it's way. It's a 3-part process to to speak; the first part completed, the next two will be completed in due time if all goes as expected.

[Next Star]

The constituiton has not changed yet that is what I am trying to say. I was just speaking in general about the constitution being that males have a stronger claim than those of females. I also read the parliment is thinking about allowing equal primogenture which would be great.

[UserDane]

Originally Posted by Next Star

The constituiton has not changed yet that is what I am trying to say. I was just speaking in general about the constitution being that males have a stronger claim than those of females. I also read the parliment is thinking about allowing equal primogenture which would be great.

We are talking in circles here; please read my post #47.
Parliament is not thinking about changing the present succession - the first out of 3 steps to actually change the succession act (which amounts to a constitutional change) has actually been carried out!!!

[Next Star]

I read that article months ago just because the law is going through the process of change means it can not be overthrown. I know a majority of those who have the power to change the law can do it if there are enough votes.

[UserDane]

Originally Posted by Next Star

Your not explaining the three ways how the constituiton is being changed and it is confusing me? Tell me what has to be done to change the constiution to make the law change. Thank You

Sorry, I thought you had read the posts from #47 and before where the process was discussed.
To bring about a change of the succession act - which is a constitutional change - it must be approved by two consecutive Parliaments and then by a referendum by 40% of all eligible votes (that is not only out of those who bother to show up at the polling stations!).
So far, this Parliament has approved the change. Nothing further can be done till we get a new Parliament then - which may be either efter the end of the present government's 4 year term or if an election is suddenly called. When the next Parliament has then approved the proposed change, there will be the said referendum.
As you see, a quite lenghty and somewhat bothersome process! It will be done though!

[MargreteI]

Originally Posted by UserDane

Sorry, I thought you had read the posts from #47 and before where the process was discussed.
To bring about a change of the succession act - which is a constitutional change - it must be approved by two consecutive Parliaments and then by a referendum by 40% of all eligible votes (that is not only out of those who bother to show up at the polling stations!).
So far, this Parliament has approved the change. Nothing further can be done till we get a new Parliament then - which may be either efter the end of the present government's 4 year term or if an election is suddenly called. When the next Parliament has then approved the proposed change, there will be the said referendum.
As you see, a quite lenghty and somewhat bothersome process! It will be done though!

Yep, and when the change has been processed by a new government we are likely to have to wait for a new government once more, so that they can process the referendum together with a normal parliament election.

I doubt they will run the risk of setting this referendum up and running on it own, since coutch potatoes who does not vote is very bad. Afterall they need 40 % of all votes to be in favour, as well as the majority of the the vote.

.

[Philippe Egalite']

Originally Posted by Next Star

Denmark goes by primogenture which means males and their descents go in front of females and their descents regardless how old they are. Before the constitution had been changed in 1972 only males were allowed to inherit the danish throne.

As the word primogeniture implies (first born), the first-born child, irrespective of sex inherits wealth, estate, throne or other office or rank or title. Absolute Primogeniture is now applied in Sweden (since 1980), Netherlands (since 1983), Norway (since 1990) and Belgium (since 1991).

There are also other types of primogeniture:
1. Agnatic Primogeniture. Inheritance according to seniority of birth, to the total exclusion of females (Salic law). For example, this was the case in Denmark until 1953. During the 19th century, most monarchies in Europe practised this law of succession, but is now extinct. This was the reason, in fact, that Luxembourg split from The Netherlands.

2. Cognatic Primogeniture. Male-preference primogeniture, where a younger brother takes over an older sister. A female, however, can still inherit the throne, if she has NO living brothers or deceased brothers with surviving children. This system applies still in Great Britain, Spain, Denmark (since 1953) and was also the case in Sweden until 1980. In Sweden, prince Carl Philip, although younger than princess Victoria, was crown prince for a short while. But the Swedish government and parliament changed the Rule to Absolute Primogeniture, thus allowing the first-born, princess Victoria to become crown princess.

3. Agnatic Cognatic Primogeniture. Females can inherit only if all eligible males are extinct. Example, the daughter of a sovereign may inherit the throne, if she has no living brothers or deceased brothers with son(s) and no living brothers or sons of brothers of her father are available either. This system is currently in effect in Luxembourg.

Originally Posted by norwegianne

The new line of succession after the birth of Isabella is:
1. Frederik
2. Christian
3. Isabella
4. Joachim
5. Nikolai
6. Felix
7. Benedikte
8. Elisabeth

Should Frederik and Mary get a boy before the change in the law, he would come before his older sister. If they get a girl before this, she would come after Isabella.

It depends on whether the new Act will be retroactive or not.

Example in case # 1: In Norway, Crown Prince Haakon was born in 1973 while Princess Martha had been born two years earlier (1971). The new law, of absolute primogeniture was introduced in 1990. However, because Prince Haakon had been raised until that time (for 17 years) as crown Prince it was deemed unfair to retroactively effect the law. So, Haakon remains Crown Prince despite the new law. Had Princess Martha and Prince Haakon been born exactly 20 years laters, SHE would be now the Crown Princess.

Example in case #2: In Sweden, Prince Carl Philip was born after Princess Victoria but became Crown Prince due to cognatic primogeniture at the time. When the new law was passed, converting cognatic to absolute primogeniture and retroactively so, Carl Philip ceased to be Crown Prince and Victoria became the Heir to the throne, in fact, to the protest and disappointment of the King.

[Philippe Egalite']

Originally Posted by GömdNatt

Anne-Marie married the then King of the Hellenes. This took her out of the line of succession and that includes her issues.

This is correct. By marrying a foreign dynast, former queen Anne-Marie of the Hellenes, has lost not only her right of succession to the Danist Throne but, also, her rank and title. Thus, she is no more princess til Danmark , but because she was born a princess of Denmark prior to the introduction of the Act (1953) she may, by courtesy, be referred to as princess af Danmark.
Similarly, former King Constantine of the Hellenes, was born (1940) prince of Greece and til Danmark, as a direct patrilinear descendant of King Christian IX. But, since the introduction of the Act of 1953, he has lost his rank and title and may only by courtesy be referred to as prince af Danmark.

Because they were all born after 1953, the children of Constantine and Anne-Marie are not princes or princesses of Denmark in any way, type or form, not even by courtesy. In fact, it would be disrespectful of the Constitution of Denmark for anyone to address them as such.

Originally Posted by michelleq

Can the Queen, or the next ruler, declare the Berleburg Children HH, Prince/Princess of Denmark?

The children of HRH Princess Benedikte are not princes either til or af Danmark, because when she married in 1968, her late father, King Frederick IX decreed that in order for them to become princes of Denmark and acquire succession rights, they would need to be raised in Denmark. This requirement was not met.

Of note, the 1953 Succession Act became part of the Constitution of Denmark. The Act specifies among other things that "when approving a marriage, the monarch can impose conditions that must be met in order for any resulting offspring to have succession rights."

Therefore, it seems that a decree by the current monarch would not be able to reverse the situation with HRH Princess Benedikte's children. Currently, only an amendment to the Act could achieve that which appears to be an elaborate process and not justified since there are plenty of people already available to inherit this old and prestigious Throne.

Originally Posted by hrhcp

The "official window of Denmark":

Denmark - Official website of Denmark

says



I find it interesting that it makes reference to a "narrow sense".

Who are all the members of the Royal House are in a "wider sense" ?
And who ranks above whom ?

Who is "Princess Elizabeth", and how is she related to the Queen ?

Actually, there is no such thing as narrow, wide, or wider sense, as far as the Danish Constitution is concerned vis-a-vis the royal family. Legally and constitutionally, the Royal House (synonymous with the Royal Family, RF) consists only of the sovereign and her/his spouse, any living consort of a deceased monarch (as was the case with HM Queen Ingrid after King Frederick's death), and those members who have rights of succession and as such hold rank and title of prince/princess, along with their spouses. Thus HRH Princess Benedikte and her husband are members of the RF.
Importantly, according to the 1953 Succession Act, all those relatives who have no rights of succession, are not members of the Royal Family. Thus, HRH Princess Benedikte's children who have no Danish rank and title, are not members of the RF. Likewise, the former queen of Greece, her husband and her children have no Danish rank or title and are not members of the RF.

However, queen Anne-Marie, king Constantine, their children and the children of Princess Benedikte are still very close relatives of The Queen and members of her family, the term family considered here only in a private/personal sense. Thus, when HM The Queen uses the expression "in a narrow sense", she is just being polite, not meaning to alienate her sister queen Anne-Marie, former queen of the Hellenes and her children as well as the children of Princess Benedikte.

[MargreteI]

Originally Posted by Philippe Egalite'

Because they were all born after 1953, the children of Constantine and Anne-Marie are not princes or princesses of Denmark in any way, type or form, not even by courtesy. In fact, it would be disrespectful of the Constitution of Denmark for anyone to address them as such.

You are very wrong. They indeed carry a genuine title as Prince and Princess of Denmark and so does all the children.

2000-01, 1. samling - Svar på § 20-spørgsmål: Om kong Konstantin har dansk pas.

Im sorry, but when the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and The Ministry of Justice say so and it is in plain writing on the Parliaments website, as well as on the Royal Familys website, then obviously you can not be correct.

There really isn't all that much room for discussion.
.

[Philippe Egalite']

Originally Posted by MargreteI

You are very wrong. They indeed carry a genuine title as Prince and Princess of Denmark and so does all the children.

2000-01, 1. samling - Svar på § 20-spørgsmål: Om kong Konstantin har dansk pas.

Im sorry, but when the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and The Ministry of Justice say so and it is in plain writing on the Parliaments website, as well as on the Royal Familys website, then obviously you can not be correct.

There really isn't all that much room for discussion.
.

If you go back to post #61, you will see that I do state that queen Anne-Marie and king Constantine are still and shall remain for life princess and prince, respectively, but af Danmark and not til Danmark. The af Danmark prince or princess is a courtesy, but not constitutionally backed title. This is made crystal-clear even in the official website of the Danish Monarchy, where they are not included as members of the Royal House per se, that is, as dynasts with rights of succession to the Danish Throne.

In view of the fact that HRH princess Benedikte married a non-ruling foreign dynast, she retained her dynastic rights to the throne and her chidlren could have become princes til Danmark if the preconditions laid out by the late king Frederik on her marriage were met, but they weren't.

On the other hand, then HRH princess Anne-Marie lost upon her marriage her dynastic rights because she married a ruling foreign dynast, as per the late king Frederik's decision (1964) and this applies also to her descendants.
In the hypothetical setting that the 1953 Succession Act had not been effected, queen Anne-Marie's children would have right to the throne, albeit remote, but through their father, king Constantine who indeed is agnatic, direct, descendant (great-great-grandson) of king Christian IX and was born (1940)prince til Danmark.
However, because the 1953 Succession Act limits the succession rights to descdendants of king Christian X and queen Alexandrine, king Constantine lost his rights to the throne effective 1953, at which point he ceased to be prince til Danmark, but remains since as prince af Danmark (by courtesy).

Therefore, like princess Benedikte's children, the offsprings of queen Anne-Marie and king Constantine are not princes or princesses either til or af Danmark.

The discussion you quote is about king Constantine's obtaining a diplomatic passport as a Dane. And, indeed, he has rights to be a Dane which stem from his descent from Christian IX and the fact that he was born before the 1953 Succession Act came into effect. So, although he has lost his succession rights, he is still a prince af Danmark and a Dane. By virtue of this fact, his children could be Danes also, but there is a difference between being a Dane or having the right to become naturalized as a Dane and having rights to the throne, that is, be princes til Danmark.

And, since most of us here are not Danish speakers, I would deeply appreciate it if you translated the text of the reference so that the reader can see for and by himself.

[MargreteI]

Translation of the link given, which is a §20 question posed in parliament to the Minister of Justice :

Spm. nr. S 3937

Anne Baastrup (SF/Socialistic Peoples Party, a non-royal republican party):

»Can the Minister confirm that (King) Konstantin has a danish passport, and if so, how he got it ?«

Reason for raising the question :
We refer to the fact that Konstantin is not a danish citizen and the fact that his wife has renounced her claim to the throne, as to why Konstantin is not a member of the Royal Family.

Answer (19/9 01)

Minister of Justice (Frank Jensen):

The Ministry of Justice has in order to answer the question requested the Ministry of Foreign Affairs for a statement.

When this statement is present i will revert to this matter.

Supplementing answer (12/10 01)

Minister of Justice (Frank Jensen):

The Ministry of Justice has requested a statement from the Ministry of Justice to be used in answering this question.

It appear from the statement, that Ministry of Foreign Affairs, based on Directions for the Foreign Service, has complied with a request to issue diplomat passports to His Majesty King Konstantin, since members of the Greek Royal Family, in direct liniar line descrend from King Cristian IX and Queen Louise, which means they are decrendants of King George I (born Prince Vilhelm to Denmark), carries the title Prince, respectively Princess, of Greece and Denmark.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

This also explain why all King Konstantins children, as well as his grandchildren after Pavlos are indeed still Princess of Denmark. Marie Chantal however is not, even if married to Pavlos, since she is not a decrendants of George I. Alexias kids arent eighter since a Princess can not pass her title to
her children.

It is not coursey only. It is indeed a real title founded in historic reaons. How much it is actually worth in a whole other thing, but real it is.

You misunderstand the Succession Act and its meaning. It does not regulate who belongs to the Royal Family or not. Neighter does it regulate titles. It only regulates who can take on the throne and who can not. True that Konstantin title changed from "to Denmark" to "of Denmark" after the 1953 act, but that was a side effect. The succession Act is only like 15 linies or something. Its very short.

Think about it. The current crownprincess is also "only" Crownprincess of Denmark, but she is indeed a part of the Royal Family - it is not courtsey only. She is the future Queen.


.