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

[Tatiana Maria]

For the royal watchers who have said they are disappointed about the male-line descendants of the counts of Oldenburg losing the Danish throne after Crown Prince Frederik's accession, who is seen as the "correct" agnatic heir to the Danish throne in the generation after Queen Margrethe II? (Count Ingolf is childless and the same age as the queen.)


Edit: I have asked about the parallel scenario in relation to the Spanish throne in its own thread.

[Stefan]

Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria

For the royal watchers who have said they are disappointed about the male-line descendants of the counts of Oldenburg losing the Danish throne after Crown Prince Frederik's accession, who is seen as the "correct" agnatic heir to the Danish throne in the generation after Queen Margrethe II? (Count Ingolf is childless and the same age as the queen.)


Edit: I have asked about the parallel scenario in relation to the Spanish throne in its own thread.

That should be Count Ulrik of Rosenborg and his son Count Philipp. Count Ulrik is the son of Count Oluf, born Prince of Denmark, younger son of Prince Harald. He lost his succession rights when he married a commoner in 1948.

[Prinsara]

Why not Haakon in Norway?

[Tatiana Maria]

Averting a union of crowns would be one possible reason, which I wondered about.

On a related question: Was Prince Knud only understandably upset that the adoption of the 1953 Act of Succession would displace the existing heirs (himself and his oldest son) who had the expectation of becoming kings, or was he also displeased with women having rights to the throne? That is, would he have been upset if a granddaughter of his was to become Queen of Denmark following himself and his sons?

[JR76]

Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria

Averting a union of crowns would be one possible reason, which I wondered about.



On a related question: Was Prince Knud only understandably upset that the adoption of the 1953 Act of Succession would displace the existing heirs (himself and his oldest son) who had the expectation of becoming kings, or was he also displeased with women having rights to the throne? That is, would he have been upset if a granddaughter of his was to become Queen of Denmark following himself and his sons?

The Prince felt obligated to formally protest in Council for the sake of his sons. After that formal protest was logged he did nothing to stop the change to the Order of Succession. Both because he knew he couldn't stop it and out of respect for the will of the people. The formal protest goes: - "I anledningen af at regeringen i dag i statsrådet har fremsat et lovforslag, der tilsigter at ændre de i tronfølgeloven af 31. juli 1853 indeholdte arveregler, ønsker jeg at udtale, at en sådan ændring efter min opfattelse er i strid med de traktater og overenskomster, der danner det retlige grundlag for tronfølgeloven. På mine sønners og egne vegne må jeg derfor anmode om, at mit skriftlige forbehold herimod må blive fremlagt til statsrådets protokol".

"On the occasion that the Government has today submitted a bill to the Council of State which intends to amend the rules of succession contained in the Succession Act of 31 July 1853, I would like to state that such an amendment is in my opinion contrary to the treaties and agreements which forms the legal basis for the Succession Act. On behalf of my sons and myself, I must therefore request that my written reservation to this effect be submitted to the minutes of the Council of State".

One of his granddaughters has said that both her grandparents were conservative (politically and morally) and very strict so one could speculate that Knud would argue that as long as there was a male heir to the throne, he should go before any female like it had happened during the extinction of the old Oldenburg line.

[Prinsara]

Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria

Averting a union of crowns would be one possible reason, which I wondered about.

The crowns can be easily not-united by giving it to Sverre Magnus if that’s so. Right?

[Tatiana Maria]

Originally Posted by JR76

The Prince felt obligated to formally protest in Council for the sake of his sons. After that formal protest was logged he did nothing to stop the change to the Order of Succession. Both because he knew he couldn't stop it and out of respect for the will of the people. The formal protest goes: - "I anledningen af at regeringen i dag i statsrådet har fremsat et lovforslag, der tilsigter at ændre de i tronfølgeloven af 31. juli 1853 indeholdte arveregler, ønsker jeg at udtale, at en sådan ændring efter min opfattelse er i strid med de traktater og overenskomster, der danner det retlige grundlag for tronfølgeloven. På mine sønners og egne vegne må jeg derfor anmode om, at mit skriftlige forbehold herimod må blive fremlagt til statsrådets protokol".

"On the occasion that the Government has today submitted a bill to the Council of State which intends to amend the rules of succession contained in the Succession Act of 31 July 1853, I would like to state that such an amendment is in my opinion contrary to the treaties and agreements which forms the legal basis for the Succession Act. On behalf of my sons and myself, I must therefore request that my written reservation to this effect be submitted to the minutes of the Council of State".

One of his granddaughters has said that both her grandparents were conservative (politically and morally) and very strict so one could speculate that Knud would argue that as long as there was a male heir to the throne, he should go before any female like it had happened during the extinction of the old Oldenburg line.

Thanks. It is interesting to see that Prince Knud's protest cited the treaties which formed the basis for the 1853 Act of Succession, just as his appeal to Stalin on the issue apparently cited the international agreements at the Congress of Vienna.

It is true that there were treaties with Russia and other European nations concerning the Danish succession in the 19th century, but did those treaties remain legally binding in 1953? If so (I haven't seen the treaties) would they mandate male succession in perpetuity as Knud suggested, or would the conditions be satisfied provided the succession continued to follow the descendants of Christian IX? In practice, whatever the 19th-century treaties state, it is hard to imagine Stalin, Churchill, et al even thinking of intervening on Prince Knud's behalf. But it might be interesting to see what the conclusion would be if one of the male-line Rosenborgs were to sue to claim the Danish throne.

ETA: It is also interesting that he protested on behalf of his teenage sons; does that indicate they shared their father's views?

Originally Posted by Prinsara

The crowns can be easily not-united by giving it to Sverre Magnus if that’s so. Right?

Theoretically, but I assume that the people who want Queen Margrethe II to be followed by an agnatic relative instead of her son would also want Sverre Magnus to inherit the Norwegian throne instead of his sister.

[JR76]

Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria

Thanks. It is interesting to see that Prince Knud's protest cited the treaties which formed the basis for the 1853 Act of Succession, just as his appeal to Stalin on the issue apparently cited the international agreements at the Congress of Vienna.



It is true that there were treaties with Russia and other European nations concerning the Danish succession in the 19th century, but did those treaties remain legally binding in 1953? If so (I haven't seen the treaties) would they mandate male succession in perpetuity as Knud suggested, or would the conditions be satisfied provided the succession continued to follow the descendants of Christian IX? In practice, whatever the 19th-century treaties state, it is hard to imagine Stalin, Churchill, et al even thinking of intervening on Prince Knud's behalf. But it might be interesting to see what the conclusion would be if one of the male-line Rosenborgs were to sue to claim the Danish throne.



ETA: It is also interesting that he protested on behalf of his teenage sons; does that indicate they shared their father's views?









Theoretically, but I assume that the people who want Queen Margrethe II to be followed by an agnatic relative instead of her son would also want Sverre Magnus to inherit the Norwegian throne instead of his sister.

To my knowledge the Russian emperors were only involved in questions regarding the Danish succession in a roundabout way since it affected their previous dynastic holdings in the Duchy of Holstein-Gottorp and because of their, after the extinction of the Danish Royal line, position of seniority within the House of Oldenburg. Even if Stalin rightly ignored Knud's plea (which was a surprise to me) I wonder if it was the Head of State of Russia who had a say on the issue or the heir to the dukes of Holstein-Gottorp? If you understand what I mean?