New Titles for Queen Margrethe's Descendants: 2008 & 2022, 2024

[Tatiana Maria]

Duc_et_Pair was referring to the press, not the Queen's own family members (though I personally think royals have a duty to take questions from the media as well).

 

[kalnel]

And that kind of thinking gets her a screwed up family life like she so very obviously has now. She caused this and she now reaps what she has sown.

I'm glad they're not going quietly into the night.

I don't think that's a fair assessment at all. For all we know, everything was settled and handled just fine, until Alexandra spoke out, stirring it all up.

The Queen made a decision that was in the best interest of the monarchy, which is her job. She said she also believes it is in her grandchildren's best interest. End of story.

If Joachim isn't comfortable with this, he ought to resign his titles and status.

 

[tihkon2]

I don't think that's a fair assessment at all. For all we know, everything was settled and handled just fine, until Alexandra spoke out, stirring it all up.

The Queen made a decision that was in the best interest of the monarchy, which is her job. She said she also believes it is in her grandchildren's best interest. End of story.

If Joachim isn't comfortable with this, he ought to resign his titles and status.

I think it's just as valid an opinion as yours. And the fact she hasn't called her grandchildren after 3 days of this shows exactly how family oriented she is.
It's inexcusable that she hasn't tried to speak with them.

 

[Muhler]

Additional translations from the BT podcast, without further comments by me.

https://www.bt.dk/royale/prinsesse-marie-til-bt-datteren-bliver-mobbet-i-skolen

M: "Athena is being bullied at school. They come up to her and say: "Is it you, who is no longer a princess?
- I think we now have to defend our children. We believe there are two serious issues in this matter. The first taking away a name from a child. Our children. It's about a name, it's not about titles at all. Athena and Henrik of Denmark. That's their names.
The second is: The children were exposed publicly. With a very short warning. That means that we as parents have not had time to prepare them for the change and people's reactions.
We wished we had more time for it. That I think is unreasonable. This is about the conditions of children. (As the conditions in which they life their lives as children.) It's not so much about anything else. It's strange to all of a sudden think you can take away a name from a child. Children don't think like we do. They find it very hard to understand."

J: "I and both of us have looked each other deep in the eyes and e have experienced the feeling of not being able to express that big change (as in life-changing change) to our children. Their name."

M: "Athena says: What am I to be called now? Why don't we have the same name, mom and dad?"

 

[angieuk]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/...lations-complicated-children-lose-titles.html

Princess Marie is saying her daughter is now being bullied at school. Also, saying relations with the Crown couple are complicated.

 

[Moonmaiden23]

Is it me or is the timing of this big announcement a bit strange?

Joachim, Marie and all four of their children were in Denmark for the Jubilee. Even Joachim's former wife was there.

Wouldn't that have been a perfect time to have a family meeting?

 

[tihkon2]

Is it me or is the timing of this big announcement a bit strange?

Joachim, Marie and all four of their children were in Denmark for the Jubilee. Even Joachim's former wife was there.

Wouldn't that have been a perfect time to have a family meeting?

You would think.....

 

[Mbruno]

In a legal sense, the members of the Royal House are surnameless. The 2008 press release specified that "Count/Countess of Monpezat" was a title, and "to Denmark" is not registered as a surname either. I suppose that in 2023, "of Monpezat" will become the surname of the children who are to lose their royal titles (and "Count" and "Countess" will be their titles), just as "of Rosenborg" became the surname of Ingolf and other princes who were demoted to the "Count" title in the past.

In a practical sense, it is true that the children will be known by different "names" than their parents. But that would have happened anyway once they married and lost their titles (if Countess Alexandra's spokesperson's comments to CNN can be believed). I realize the change would be emotionally easier for an adult no longer living with their parents and making the voluntary choice to get married.

Ok. I accept your argument. But , in any case, James and Louise Mountbatten-Windsor for example also do not have in this sense the same "names" as their parents, who don't use a family name either.

Princess Marie seems to affirm categorically that she believes her children's names are "Henrik of Denmark" and "Athena of Denmark" although, as you said, "of Denmark" is not registered as a family name. Those issues always go back ultimately to confusion between territorial designation of titles and family name in many royal families.

Of course, James and Louise's case is also different in the sense they have used "Mountbatten-Windsor" and not a territorial designation like "of Wessex" since they were born. In fact, Queen Elizabeth II declared that her descendants in paternal line who are not HRHs, including unmarried female descendants in paternal line, should bear the family name Mountbatten-Windsor.

Queen Margrethe II did not issue a similar statement, but when she made the decision that her descendants in paternal line (including unmarried female descendants) should have, as you stressed, the title Greve/Komtesse af Monpezat, it was implicitly understood that her intention was that their surname should become Monpezat if they ever ceased to be Princes/Princesses and had to assume a family name. In fact, it was suggested that the Queen's decision at the time was in part in response to her husband's grievances about not being able to pass his family name to his descendants.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

And that kind of thinking gets her a screwed up family life like she so very obviously has now. She caused this and she now reaps what she has sown.

I'm glad they're not going quietly into the night.

(..) The Queen caused nothing and there is nothing "to reap what she has sown". The Queen organizes her House to her own will and pleasure. That is one of her royal prerogatives.

For very valid reasons it has been decided that the circle of persons whom are Prince (Princess) of Denmark will be limited.

And so be it. It is not that The Queen has commited any crime or misdemeanour, has done anything illegal or whatever.

On the contrary: any blind could see this coming. First it was announced that only the (future) Heir will receive an apanage from the State (contrary to lavishly funded Joachim and lavishly funded Alexandra!) .

Then it became known that descendants of the late Prince Henrik were elevated into the Nobilty of Denmark with the hereditary title Greve (Komtesse) af Monpezat. That was forebode number 2.

And now the announcement that children of cadet Princes will no longer be Prince (Princess) of Denmark but will be known with their comital title.

The difference with all other changes in all other Houses is exactly the sulky and wailing Joachim with the pouty and media-sassy Alexandra running to the media to vent their displeasure. In all other Royal Houses any decisions by the Sovereign were met with royal attitude. That is all.

 

[Fence Sitter]

I believe one long term issue in the DRF is the clash between totally irreconcilable mindsets. HM The Queen is very much an artist, and a somewhat eccentric one at that. So it should be no wonder if she's fascinated by men who make no effort to conceal their emotions. Perhaps that's exactly that made her fall in love with Henri de Monpezat aka. HRH Prince Henrik. Unfortunately, she herself is the exact opposite, the last bastion of the mindset of Danish aristocracy of the past. Stiff upper lip and all that.

If my analysis is correct, then this clash was inevitable. If Joachim and his two wives, people very much seem to share his attitudes, weren't sulking now, they would be at a later point for some other reason. Make no mistake, even though this is the most public fallout between mother and son + daughter-in-law + former daughter-in-law, but there is ample evidence of past baggage as well.

It's obvious there are massive problems in the functioning of the court. Communications and PR strategy? Do they have one? I'm not so sure. In an ideal situation, The Queen would have softened the blow by wording the press release more carefully, and also by presenting the change more as a generic change that applies to future generations as well. Because that's exactly what it is. Similarly, the massive overhaul of the line of succession back in 1953 affected the whole DRF as it was then, and there was nothing that could have been seen as targeted action against a single group of princes as opposed to all of them.

But no, a differently worded press release wouldn't have prevented the fallout. I'm absolutely sure The Queen did absolutely everything, not just in May but during a longer period of time beginning perhaps already in 2008 with the creation of the Danish af Monpezat title, but Joachim, being his father's image, didn't really hear any other message than the one he absolutely wanted to hear. Now the DRF is in the horrible situation of having to deal with a public intrigue, caused by the irreconcilably different personalities of the Queen and her second son. Once again the comparison to 1953 is there: at that time, the change of the succession laws was a legal process, ratified by a referendum, and many other princes (unlike Prince Knud and his sons) actually lost their succession rights and "prins til Danmark" status altogether. Yet Princes Knud and Ingolf, the ones who had expected to become King, appeared to take the process as a personal insult against them. "A change like this can't be done retroactively" was the line that was repeated in their defence at the time, as if they were kings already.

I'm sorry, but monarchies do have to change. And when they change, there is always someone who would have another status without the change.

Taking away titles that were previously seen as birthright is never an ideal solution. In that point, and in that point only, do I genuinely sympathise with Joachim and his family. But a princely title with legal force always comes with obligations. That means a sense of duty, even when not actually carrying out royal duties. That means a sense of modesty, as a prince or princess always needs to serve the institution, not just the other way around. I'm not sure Joachim's family ever genuinely understood those considerations. Henrik and Athena are too young to understand, perhaps, but the two older brothers aren't. And Joachim, his wife and his ex-wife certainly aren't.

That outrageously imbecile Raffles commercial is out of step with the obligations of any member of a modern, responsible monarchy. If the soon to be former HH Prince Nikolai failed to see the commercial as the ultimate advert for stripping him and his siblings of their titles, something in their upbringing is very horribly wrong. And: Either the commercial was not okayed by the palace in the first place, and The Queen got to know about it first after it had already been published, or the palace only agreed with the understanding that the prince would exit the Royal House anyway sooner rather than later, because of marriage if not else.

The Queen has never, even for her own sons, allowed marriages with Danish commoners. Only foreigners, or (possibly) Danish nobles would do for a marriage to get permitted. The new policy allows for the first time ever people to be in the order of succession without the title "prins/prinsesse til Danmark". So, for Nikolai, this might turn out to be a win-win: he loses his princely status somewhat sooner than expected, but he and his offspring will have their places in the order of succession for years to come, instead of that status getting annihilated at a wedding ceremony.

I never thought my first post, after more than ten years as a passive reader would be about a soap opera like this. I think these same thoughts have been voiced here by many already, but even so, this is how I conclude my thoughts about this.

 

[Izzie]

Is it me or is the timing of this big announcement a bit strange?

Joachim, Marie and all four of their children were in Denmark for the Jubilee. Even Joachim's former wife was there.

Wouldn't that have been a perfect time to have a family meeting?

You would think....OR wasn't QMII in France recently for a whole 2 weeks on vacation in August? OR how about when the whole family gathered at Grasten in July for the photos?

OR even more recent when Joachim was in DK to surprise her at that military event? See...things seemed fine during that event. She even appeared touched he was there. So what happened between then and the press release

I mean Joachim was even in DK as recently as 9/26 and 9/27 being rigforstander.

I am not buying that Joachim was involved in or informed of any process. Doesn't reconcile. At this point I wonder if even M&F had knowledge. I think this was some arbitrary thing QMII did, sent staff to tell Joachim and then dropped the announcement. Now everyone else is left dealing with the fallout, consequences and collateral damage. Because she can set things in motion but goodness forbid anyone try to ask her about it. She gets to hide behind her sister and Mary and Frederick while THEY have microphones stuck in their faces...specifically the CP Couple.

 

[Somebody]

This is a BT interview on podcast, with J&M - on the streets in Paris.

I will translate the transcript of what is said, but it's... it's relevant in order to form a picture of what is going on.

Q: Have you spoken with the CP-couple?
M: "No."
J: "No, unfortunately."

Q: How is your relationship?
M: "As it is."
J: "As it can be." (Meaning: Given the circumstances.)

Q: That it's complicated?
M: "It's complicated. That's right. That's what it."

Q: Has the Queen tried to speak with you?"
J: "Unfortunately not. - It's also family. (Not sure what he means by that.) Or whatever we call call it now/Or whatever we wanna to call it."
M: "We would have wished that we had more time to discuss it."

If the goal was to complicate family relationships even further, I guess it was achieved. Especially Joachim questioning whether the queen can even be called family now...

Q: What do you think this is all about?
M: "That's a good question. I don't think it's modern to have wounded children."
J: (Interjecting.) "The reality should still be that whether you modernize or slim down, it has to be done in a decent way. It's about children, Decency and children. It's a very heavy thing/burdensome thing."

- Mary referred to the the titles of their children will also be looked upon when the time comes.

J: "I don't know how they feel, if they have to think that through. Now there is time for preparation. We didn't have that."

Joachim conveniently leaves out the 5 months of preparation they had. He could also have chosen to appreciate this comment of Mary that tried to publicly make it less personal and more of an ongoing issue on how to go about titles in the royal family. But he preferred to remain wounded.

Q: Princess Marie, a couple of years ago we talked about that is was not your choice to move to France. Do you see this as a part of a discontinuation of your family's role within the DRF?
M: "Yes, of course. But we have an active role within the DRF and I think that is to be remembered. But we have always told our children that they must become independent and that they will get no apanage, but it's different matter to remove a name."

Q: How do you move on from here?
M: "I don't know. We'll see."

J: "We have two lovely children here. And then we have two lovely children - I won't say on the phone every day. But we are close. We are one and the same core/nucleus."

Marie admits that with current problems worldwide, titles and names are not the most important thing. (For the general public.)
M: "I would like to emphasize that there are of course some much more important things going in the world, especially these days. It's a bit odd to talk about the titles and names of your children, when we are facing some very serious challenges. But you have to consider the way children think. The conditions of children. And that's what's decisive."

J: "They have a different perception of the world. And that's very near. In my job (as attache) the thought are often out in the wide world. But right now we have given a full defense (defensive talk) for our children. They also need some calm now."
Marie says that it will be difficult to find that calm, because this story is global news.

- At that moment a French woman approach them and says that to her, their children will always be princes and princess. Making both of them speechless and begin cry.
Both of them make it clear they have no intention of leaving the DRF, they will continue to work for the DRF. Even if the family is divided.
M: "We have never been in doubt about that. I hope no one is in doubt about that."
J: "That's exactly what we are doing. Each of us in our position are representatives of Denmark and Danish interests. And the DRF. And the interests of the DRF."

- No comments from me at the moment.

So, should we see all of this as some kind of duty they felt towards their children to defend them in public and by doing so creating a larger rift within the family and dragging it out in the media making it only harder to process. I am pretty sure it would have been relatively minor outside of Denmark without all of their comments. They themselves are the ones blowing it up to major proportions.

 

[tihkon2]

What a nonense. The Queen caused nothing and there is nothing "to reap what she has sown". The Queen organizes her House to her own will and pleasure. That is one of her royal prerogatives.

For very valid reasons it has been decided that the circle of persons whom are Prince (Princess) of Denmark will be limited.

And so be it. It is not that The Queen has commited any crime or misdemeanour, has done anything illegal or whatever.

.

No one said she did. She was entirely within her rights to limit the titles. The way she went about it has gotten these results. Good.

And you saying she didn't cause anything is simply untrue. Her carelessness in the way she handled this matter, was devoid of compassion and the fact she still hasn't contacted her grandchildren three days later says it all. ......

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Welcome, Fence Sitter! Thank you for the perceptive and thoughtful post.

Similarly, the massive overhaul of the line of succession back in 1953 affected the whole DRF as it was then, and there was nothing that could have been seen as targeted action against a single group of princes as opposed to all of them. [...] Once again the comparison to 1953 is there: at that time, the change of the succession laws was a legal process, ratified by a referendum, and many other princes (unlike Prince Knud and his sons) actually lost their succession rights and "prins til Danmark" status altogether. Yet Princes Knud and Ingolf, the ones who had expected to become King, appeared to take the process as a personal insult against them. "A change like this can't be done retroactively" was the line that was repeated in their defence at the time, as if they were kings already.

The 1953 referendum actually was, at least in the eyes of the public, targeted action against Prince Knud and his children specifically. As this article by a respected historian states:

"Unfortunately few cared to think about the principles involved in such a change, but the debate rather took the form of a choice between King Frederik’s daughters or Prince Knud and his family. The latter were often portrayed as ugly and stupid, but, as the author Peder Christoffersen has pointed out, even though they did have protruding teeth, “they were completely normally gifted, just like Frederik, but unlike Ingrid, who was unusually gifted”."

https://trondni.blogspot.com/2010/02/man-who-would-be-king.html

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

No one said she did. She was entirely within her rights to limit the titles. The way she went about it has gotten these results. Good.

And you saying she didn't cause anything is simply untrue. Her carelessness in the way she handled this matter, was devoid of compassion and the fact she still hasn't contacted her grandchildren three days later says it all. ......

How do you know she has not contacted her grandchildren? And is that our business anyway?

 

[Somebody]

How do you know she has not contacted her grandchildren? And is that our business anyway?

Joachim and Marie stated that neither the CP nor the queen contacted them.

 

[tihkon2]

How do you know she has not contacted her grandchildren? And is that our business anyway?

Joachim said she had not contacted them.

And NONE of any of the things we comment on, on this whole board are any of our business, yet we all get to comment on it. That's what keeps this website alive.

 

[Prinsara]

I believe one long term issue in the DRF is the clash between totally irreconcilable mindsets. HM The Queen is very much an artist, and a somewhat eccentric one at that. So it should be no wonder if she's fascinated by men who make no effort to conceal their emotions. Perhaps that's exactly that made her fall in love with Henri de Monpezat aka. HRH Prince Henrik. Unfortunately, she herself is the exact opposite, the last bastion of the mindset of Danish aristocracy of the past. Stiff upper lip and all that.

If my analysis is correct, then this clash was inevitable. If Joachim and his two wives, people very much seem to share his attitudes, weren't sulking now, they would be at a later point for some other reason. Make no mistake, even though this is the most public fallout between mother and son + daughter-in-law + former daughter-in-law, but there is ample evidence of past baggage as well.

It's obvious there are massive problems in the functioning of the court. Communications and PR strategy? Do they have one? I'm not so sure. In an ideal situation, The Queen would have softened the blow by wording the press release more carefully, and also by presenting the change more as a generic change that applies to future generations as well. Because that's exactly what it is. Similarly, the massive overhaul of the line of succession back in 1953 affected the whole DRF as it was then, and there was nothing that could have been seen as targeted action against a single group of princes as opposed to all of them.

But no, a differently worded press release wouldn't have prevented the fallout. I'm absolutely sure The Queen did absolutely everything, not just in May but during a longer period of time beginning perhaps already in 2008 with the creation of the Danish af Monpezat title, but Joachim, being his father's image, didn't really hear any other message than the one he absolutely wanted to hear. Now the DRF is in the horrible situation of having to deal with a public intrigue, caused by the irreconcilably different personalities of the Queen and her second son. Once again the comparison to 1953 is there: at that time, the change of the succession laws was a legal process, ratified by a referendum, and many other princes (unlike Prince Knud and his sons) actually lost their succession rights and "prins til Danmark" status altogether. Yet Princes Knud and Ingolf, the ones who had expected to become King, appeared to take the process as a personal insult against them. "A change like this can't be done retroactively" was the line that was repeated in their defence at the time, as if they were kings already.

I'm sorry, but monarchies do have to change. And when they change, there is always someone who would have another status without the change.

Taking away titles that were previously seen as birthright is never an ideal solution. In that point, and in that point only, do I genuinely sympathise with Joachim and his family. But a princely title with legal force always comes with obligations. That means a sense of duty, even when not actually carrying out royal duties. That means a sense of modesty, as a prince or princess always needs to serve the institution, not just the other way around. I'm not sure Joachim's family ever genuinely understood those considerations. Henrik and Athena are too young to understand, perhaps, but the two older brothers aren't. And Joachim, his wife and his ex-wife certainly aren't.

That outrageously imbecile Raffles commercial is out of step with the obligations of any member of a modern, responsible monarchy. If the soon to be former HH Prince Nikolai failed to see the commercial as the ultimate advert for stripping him and his siblings of their titles, something in their upbringing is very horribly wrong. And: Either the commercial was not okayed by the palace in the first place, and The Queen got to know about it first after it had already been published, or the palace only agreed with the understanding that the prince would exit the Royal House anyway sooner rather than later, because of marriage if not else.

The Queen has never, even for her own sons, allowed marriages with Danish commoners. Only foreigners, or (possibly) Danish nobles would do for a marriage to get permitted. The new policy allows for the first time ever people to be in the order of succession without the title "prins/prinsesse til Danmark". So, for Nikolai, this might turn out to be a win-win: he loses his princely status somewhat sooner than expected, but he and his offspring will have their places in the order of succession for years to come, instead of that status getting annihilated at a wedding ceremony.

I never thought my first post, after more than ten years as a passive reader would be about a soap opera like this. I think these same thoughts have been voiced here by many already, but even so, this is how I conclude my thoughts about this.

The Raffles commercial that seems to cause so much uproar now was covered here when it came out. It basically caused no interest and certainly not of "this should cause you to lose a title" kind, other than watching his title be corrected for broadcast and noting Nik deferred to Queen Margrethe when asked to do something that could have caused the DRF embarrassment.

It's interesting you choose to view Joachim as Henrik's son. I think he's very much Daisy's. He not only has her face but her stiffness, awkwardness, and lack of self-esteem. But he also got her brain and her deep appreciation for history and the DRF... qualities which have not been much appreciated for several years. I don't think they're a case of irreconcilable but "too much alike".

 

[kimebear]

This is not Hollywood, where you live. This is Her Majesty The Queen, the doyenne of all European Sovereigns, now reigning for 50 years. A Queen answers no questions flung into her face.

A Queen answers to her citizens if she wants to keep her crown. She's not above questioning, as she is funded by the Danish taxpayer who have the right to know why she makes the decisions she makes. When she is a private citizen, she can refuse questions.

 

[Fence Sitter]

Welcome, Fence Sitter! Thank you for the perceptive and thoughtful post.



The 1953 referendum actually was, at least in the eyes of the public, targeted action against Prince Knud and his children specifically. As this article by a respected historian states:

"Unfortunately few cared to think about the principles involved in such a change, but the debate rather took the form of a choice between King Frederik’s daughters or Prince Knud and his family. The latter were often portrayed as ugly and stupid, but, as the author Peder Christoffersen has pointed out, even though they did have protruding teeth, “they were completely normally gifted, just like Frederik, but unlike Ingrid, who was unusually gifted”."

https://trondni.blogspot.com/2010/02/man-who-would-be-king.html

Thank you for the feedback!

And when it comes to 1953, this is exactly what I meant. In Denmark changes in the Royal House tend to get personal. This title deprivation mess regarding Joachim's children is now seen by the public as a targeted action, because of Joachim and his family's reaction. In 1953 the situation was the same, precisely because it was so well known that Prince Knud and his sons were unhappy to be demoted. There was no way Queen Margrethe could have avoided the change to be seen as a targeted action against individuals, if Joachim's family absolutely want so see themselves as victims. Back in 1953 media was more interested in personal drama than constitutional principles, and in 2022 it's hardly any different.

 

[Mbruno]

A Queen answers to her citizens if she wants to keep her crown. She's not above questioning, as she is funded by the Danish taxpayer who have the right to know why she makes the decisions she makes.

Yes and no. The Queen is not like the president of a republic. When she makes resolutions " relating to legislation and government", such resolutions must be countersigned by one or more ministers to be legally valid, and the minister or ministers who countersign it become responsible for the resolution (Part III, S.14 of the Danish constitution). The Queen herself is not responsible since she is merely rubber-stamping a decision made by the Parliament or the council of ministers. That is compatible with the general principle that Denmark is a parliamentary democracy.

When the Queen makes, however, decisions relating to her own household, including titles of members of her family, my understanding is that her decisions are absolute unless or until Parliament decides to limit that prerogative by law, which has not happened yet, since there is no law AFAIK on princely titles in Denmark.

 

[Muhler]

Assuming that everything that has been said by QMII, Mary, Benedikte (with Mary and Benedikte not really saying anything that could not be expected) Alexandra, Nikolai, Joachim and Marie is true.
There are still a number of questions that needs to be answered before any sense can come out of this:

Why are the titles removed now?
Why was the first proposal changed so radically?
Why no discussions between May and September? There were plenty of opportunities to talk face to face. And they do have working phones in France, as far as I'm informed.
Why no family meeting? You'd think that was a natural thing to do.
To what extent was Frederik involved?
And if he was involved, why was he so passive?
If Joachim, Marie and Alexandra are so upset, why have they not tried calling QMII, Frederik or Benedikte before talking to the press?

Presuming Joachim's version is absolutely correct, if I were him I would be on the phone to QMII within five nanoseconds after getting the message from the Chief of Court! In fact I wouldn't even need a phone, they would be able to hear me shout all the way from Paris!
And if she didn't answer I would be on the next flight to Copenhagen.
And on the way to the airport I would call Frederik to ask what on earth is going on.

- If you put five of the best communications experts and diplomats on the planet is a room and told them to outline the worst possible way of handling this, they couldn't do a worse job!
The only consolation for me is that we are probably in for just as much drama in Norway and UK within a short while. It'll keep us entertained while we sit warming ourselves around a candle this winter. - If it gets real cold, we'll light the candle...

 

[Erin9]

New Titles for Queen Margrethe's Descendants: 2008 & 2022

Is it me or is the timing of this big announcement a bit strange?



Joachim, Marie and all four of their children were in Denmark for the Jubilee. Even Joachim's former wife was there.



Wouldn't that have been a perfect time to have a family meeting?

One would think.

TQ really doesn’t seem to be one for personal communication.

Has she still not communicated with her grandchildren?

 

[Adda]

I believe one long term issue in the DRF is the clash between totally irreconcilable mindsets. HM The Queen is very much an artist, and a somewhat eccentric one at that. So it should be no wonder if she's fascinated by men who make no effort to conceal their emotions. Perhaps that's exactly that made her fall in love with Henri de Monpezat aka. HRH Prince Henrik. Unfortunately, she herself is the exact opposite, the last bastion of the mindset of Danish aristocracy of the past. Stiff upper lip and all that.

If my analysis is correct, then this clash was inevitable. If Joachim and his two wives, people very much seem to share his attitudes, weren't sulking now, they would be at a later point for some other reason. Make no mistake, even though this is the most public fallout between mother and son + daughter-in-law + former daughter-in-law, but there is ample evidence of past baggage as well.

It's obvious there are massive problems in the functioning of the court. Communications and PR strategy? Do they have one? I'm not so sure. In an ideal situation, The Queen would have softened the blow by wording the press release more carefully, and also by presenting the change more as a generic change that applies to future generations as well. Because that's exactly what it is. Similarly, the massive overhaul of the line of succession back in 1953 affected the whole DRF as it was then, and there was nothing that could have been seen as targeted action against a single group of princes as opposed to all of them.

But no, a differently worded press release wouldn't have prevented the fallout. I'm absolutely sure The Queen did absolutely everything, not just in May but during a longer period of time beginning perhaps already in 2008 with the creation of the Danish af Monpezat title, but Joachim, being his father's image, didn't really hear any other message than the one he absolutely wanted to hear. Now the DRF is in the horrible situation of having to deal with a public intrigue, caused by the irreconcilably different personalities of the Queen and her second son. Once again the comparison to 1953 is there: at that time, the change of the succession laws was a legal process, ratified by a referendum, and many other princes (unlike Prince Knud and his sons) actually lost their succession rights and "prins til Danmark" status altogether. Yet Princes Knud and Ingolf, the ones who had expected to become King, appeared to take the process as a personal insult against them. "A change like this can't be done retroactively" was the line that was repeated in their defence at the time, as if they were kings already.

Taking away titles that were previously seen as birthright is never an ideal solution. In that point, and in that point only, do I genuinely sympathise with Joachim and his family. But a princely title with legal force always comes with obligations. That means a sense of duty, even when not actually carrying out royal duties. That means a sense of modesty, as a prince or princess always needs to serve the institution, not just the other way around. I'm not sure Joachim's family ever genuinely understood those considerations. Henrik and Athena are too young to understand, perhaps, but the two older brothers aren't. And Joachim, his wife and his ex-wife certainly aren't.

That outrageously imbecile Raffles commercial is out of step with the obligations of any member of a modern, responsible monarchy. If the soon to be former HH Prince Nikolai failed to see the commercial as the ultimate advert for stripping him and his siblings of their titles, something in their upbringing is very horribly wrong. And: Either the commercial was not okayed by the palace in the first place, and The Queen got to know about it first after it had already been published, or the palace only agreed with the understanding that the prince would exit the Royal House anyway sooner rather than later, because of marriage if not else.

I never thought my first post, after more than ten years as a passive reader would be about a soap opera like this.

Fellow recently-registered passive reader here, however, I could have never expressed myself as you did. Thank you for sharing your analysis.

 

[kalnel]

And you saying she didn't cause anything is simply untrue. Her carelessness in the way she handled this matter, was devoid of compassion and the fact she still hasn't contacted her grandchildren three days later says it all. ......

You don't know that she was careless. The palace said this has been discussed since last May. Just because Joachim and family can't come to terms doesn't mean the Queen was careless.

 

[Sister Morphine]

A Queen answers to her citizens if she wants to keep her crown. She's not above questioning, as she is funded by the Danish taxpayer who has the right to know why she makes the decisions she makes. When she is a private citizen, she can refuse questions.

The Danish taxpayers should only be consulted if the decisions the sovereign makes will affect them. Four of her grandchildren going from prince/princess to count/countess does not affect the Danish taxpayer in any shape, form, or size. Not even on a fractal level. Especially since none of them, including their parents, I believe, get money from the average Danish taxpayer.

If Charles wanted to take the HRH away from the York girls or from the Sussex kids, should he have to explain why to the British taxpayer? Absolutely not. One, the York girls don't get money from the British public, and two, the Sussexes don't live in the UK anymore. Hell, neither does Eugenie, come to think of it.

There are times when the sovereign owes an explanation to the people for what they say and do. This is not one of those times.

 

[Prinsara]

There was no way Queen Margrethe could have avoided the change to be seen as a targeted action against individuals, if Joachim's family absolutely want so see themselves as victims.

I'm not sure why people keep assuming Joachim and family would have had the same reactions however they were treated, rather than the more logical "if this wasn't such a unnecessary sh*tshow, none of this would be happening".

But like QEII had scars from the Abdication, maybe Margrethe remembers controversy from 1953 all too well and her uncle who was meant to be king. Maybe it's hard enough that she tried to ostrich her way through this via courtier and handwave. Unfortunately and unsuccessfully.

 

[tihkon2]

You don't know that she was careless. The palace said this has been discussed since last May. Just because Joachim and family can't come to terms doesn't mean the Queen was careless.

And you don't know she wasn't careless. And the Palace has not said it has been discussed since May. It says it was brought up in May. That could have been the last time it was mentioned until 7 days ago.
I would argue that somewhere she was very careless to have her son and grandchildren be this unhappy with her.

 

[kalnel]

And you don't know she wasn't careless. And the Palace has not said it has been discussed since May. It says it was brought up in May. That could have been the last time it was mentioned until 7 days ago.
I would argue that somewhere she was very careless to have her son and grandchildren be this unhappy with her.

There's nothing to suggest that she was careless. It's not her job as queen to keep Joachim and his family happy.

For goodness sake, she's the queen of Denmark. She shouldn't have to run around consoling and explaining herself to her grandchildren.

Joachim has been in the royal house for more than 50 years now. If he doesn't understand how things work -- and can't explain that to his wives and children -- he should walk away and spare them all the whining.

 

[RoyalMusings]

Additional translations from the BT podcast, without further comments by me.

https://www.bt.dk/royale/prinsesse-marie-til-bt-datteren-bliver-mobbet-i-skolen

M: "Athena is being bullied at school. They come up to her and say: "Is it you, who is no longer a princess?
- I think we now have to defend our children. We believe there are two serious issues in this matter. The first taking away a name from a child. Our children. It's about a name, it's not about titles at all. Athena and Henrik of Denmark. That's their names.
The second is: The children were exposed publicly. With a very short warning. That means that we as parents have not had time to prepare them for the change and people's reactions.
We wished we had more time for it. That I think is unreasonable. This is about the conditions of children. (As the conditions in which they life their lives as children.) It's not so much about anything else. It's strange to all of a sudden think you can take away a name from a child. Children don't think like we do. They find it very hard to understand."

J: "I and both of us have looked each other deep in the eyes and e have experienced the feeling of not being able to express that big change (as in life-changing change) to our children. Their name."

M: "Athena says: What am I to be called now? Why don't we have the same name, mom and dad?"

It all seems a little dramatic, the announcement was only made days ago, I’m sure the children haven't suffered greatly. It should have been handled better, no doubt about it. I’ve always felt there was a slight, ‘issue’ between Mary and Marie. Not on the Catherine and Meghan level but just they weren’t very close. Sounds like this will not be helping the situation.