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

[Izzie]

Originally Posted by Muhler

Yes, he maintains that he is still an active royal - who right now happens to be working for his country in France.
- Which I happen to agree with. Queen and country called for him to serve in France - for a period. He didn't leave the DRF.

I assume that applies to Marie as well as she also works for the Danish Embassy and has quite a number of events for her patronages either done from Paris or in DK and she recently did a humanitarian trip to Cambodia connected to one of her patronages.

[kimebear]

Originally Posted by Muhler

I sure understand why they are upset by the way this was handled.
I do however believe it's counter-productive of them to go public.

It won't restore the titles. It won't help mend things within the DRF.
And in the end they will eventually lose public sympathy.

- If you feel you must, you can in fact express your displeasure and hurt feelings in a more dignified way by not saying you feel hurt and is angry.
Q: How do you feel about your children being stripped of their titles?
- Her Majesty has made a decision and of course we abide by it.
Q: But does it hurt you? Are you sad? Upset?
- A decision has been made. It is of course a major change very sudden change for our children, but that's how it is and now it's time to look forward.

You see what I mean? A more dignified/subdued response, but no one should be the least bit in doubt about what you really mean!

I think that Joachim, Marie and Alexandra are upset because this affects their children. It's quite different when something upsets your kids than when it just upsets you as the parent. Being dignified can be difficult when your little girl asks you why Grandma says she can't be a princess anymore like her cousins.

[Muhler]

Originally Posted by Izzie

I assume that applies to Marie as well as she also works for the Danish Embassy and has quite a number of events for her patronages either done from Paris or in DK and she recently did a humanitarian trip to Cambodia connected to one of her patronages.

Oh yes. But in contrast to Mary (and PH) she doesn't get a personal apanage. She is paid over Joachim's apanage.

Originally Posted by LadyE

I think that Joachim, Marie and Alexandra are upset because this affects their children. It's quite different when something upsets your kids than when it just upsets you as the parent. Being dignified can be difficult when your little girl asks you why Grandma says she can't be a princess anymore like her cousins.

Absolutely!
Go for my children and I go for your throat. That still applies even though both of mine are adults now.

[kimebear]

Originally Posted by Muhler

You would also be on 24/7/365 all your life from the moment you leave the palace.
And so would all your friends and not least anyone of the opposite sex (and nowadays the same sex as well) you happen to associate. Every single mistake you make will end up on the front page. Your children will be public interests.
There are strict limits what you can get away with saying and do.

So while being royals have perks and privileges, it's not that enviable.
And if you screw up, you may end up being an ex-royal.

Yet all this still applies to Nikolai and Felix, who, if they do anything wrong, will still be viewed as a member of the DRF, just without having the other "perks" that go along with it.


The Queen might say she did if for their own good, but that's not how it's going to work in reality. They are still her grandchildren, and will be viewed as such if they put one toe out of line.

Originally Posted by Muhler

Oh yes. But in contrast to Mary (and PH) she doesn't get a personal apanage. She is paid over Joachim's apanage.



Absolutely!
Go for my children and I go for your throat. That still applies even though both of mine are adults now.

Haha! Same! No matter how old they get, no one will protect them more fiercely than I would

[KristehH]

Originally Posted by Muhler

That is a big deal.

The majority, including myself, is of the opinion that it is necessary to keep the number of titled royals down.
In a country of only 5.8 million we can't have too many royals running around, before it deflates the myth of royals being something special.

And royals have limits to what they can do, who they can work for, who they can associate. If they make a wrong step, it reflects in the DRF as a whole instead of them as individuals.
It is also a major no go to profit from the royal status. The DRF cracks down hard on anyone who does that, including foreign businesses and persons.

As for the taxpayer issue. That was brought up when Joachim became an attache in France. To put it simple: No work for the DRF = No apanage. And by logic extension no title.

- So IMO it is a correct move to strip Joachim's children of their titles.
Nikolai and Felix got their titles before Frederik married Mary, so at the time Nikolai was the future heir.

The way it was executed however has been nothing short of terrible.

And I simply cannot understand why QMII chose to sack Joachim's children, with three months notice.
Something must have happened for her to make that decision. What?

And BTW congratulations on your first posts.

Thanks for the welcome, Muhler. I have enjoyed reading your thoughtful, detailed posts for a long time and particularly how you share bits of Danish culture and history.

I do understand that many people support having fewer titled royals, but I just feel that taking titles away retroactively is wrong, especially when these four young people have had their titles for years now and they are not-and never will receive appanages.

I do hope you're right about Athena's school situation and more a matter of a child being curious and not bullying.

[Muhler]

Originally Posted by LadyE

Yet all this still applies to Nikolai and Felix, who, if they do anything wrong, will still be viewed as a member of the DRF, just without having the other "perks" that go along with it.


The Queen might say she did if for their own good, but that's not how it's going to work in reality. They are still her grandchildren, and will be viewed as such if they put one toe out of line.

In say five years they are the king's nephews and niece. - Further away.
And while still being the king's nephews and niece in 30 years - they will be even further away in the public mind.
If one of them, or their spouse, even children, screw up, it's advisable to be able to say: They are relatives but not DRF members.
The DRF in this context meaning active members and their children.

[FigTree]

Originally Posted by tommy100

I can certainly see the boys using their titles for their modelling work might have brought into focus the idea "what are we going to do with them long term" but if it really was all down to that I would hope the family aren't so dysfunctional (though starting to think they certainly are) that Margrethe would have left it all this time and has taken drastic action now vs speaking to Joachim or the boys and asking them not to use the titles in their work. It would also seem hugely unfair on the younger two to take titles away for what the eldest two have done especially as there is no saying Marie agrees with it and would allow her two to do the same.

Thinking it through more I wonder if they should have done what I've suggested before the Brits should do - created a "Royal House" like the Dutch system to signify who is a "working member of the Royal Family" vs members of the Queen's family. The Swedish RF have done this also. It is IMO a good stop gap measure that would allow a clear distinction between "official" royals and titled members of the Queen's family. As I see it Margrethe could have announced:

-the creation of a royal house to signify members of the Royal Family who represent Denmark officially and support the sovereign in undertaking their duties and are the only ones permitted to any appanages or public funding
-for now it consists of HM, The Crown Prince and Crown Princess, Christian (by birth right), Benedikte, Joachim & Marie
-all others are members of the Royal Family or the Queen's family who do not undertake official duties are are free to pursue their own careers and lives outside the Royal Court and Royal House
-the Sovereign retains the right to add or remove people from the Royal House as situations demand
-the Crown Prince / Princess' children may be added to the Royal House when they become adults or stay as part of the Royal Family only, with their titles as personal to them only
-going forward the titles held by Joachim's children will be personal titles held only by them for their lifetime and not passed to children or spouses (I think she could possibly even have got away with taking the HH style as well)
-in future only the children of the sovereign and Crown Prince will have HRH / Prince / Princess titles all others will be (insert made up French title here)

Ended by saying how this is to ensure a monarchy fit for the future and to alleviate the burden from the other members of the Queen's family who all, of course, remain dearly loved family to the Queen.

They could have announced it during her Jubilee with statements from Fred and Joachim agreeing how they support it. Now let's all go stand on a balcony and show a united front, aren't we amazing and all that.

Like the way the Swedish dealt with it, this possibility shows they could have got to Margrethe's aim in different, more upbeat and less cruel seeming ways. One of the biggest issue with what Margrethe has done IMO is she has tried to keep it all a "business" decision, hence I suspect getting the Lord Chamberlain to tell Joachim, in an attempt to make clear this is the CEO of Royal Family Inc acting not mother/grandmother Daisy. The problem is what she has announced is purely personal as there is no mention of it being the same in the future. Had it been worded along the lines as above or even just that all younger children's children would have no titles going forward it would seem less personal IMO

I think realistically they probably tried to so all that. Make it one of those public relations triumph and probably meant it around the 50th except Joachim wasn’t playing ball and was probably disrupting it. Think it it was happening anyway.

[Mbruno]

Originally Posted by LadyE

I'm not sure what you would need to constitute a lavish lifestyle. If I had a job that I couldn't be fired from, that allowed me to work in a limited capacity, paid for a full staff to attend me and covered all the expenses of my several homes, I would consider that very lavish indeed.


However, I'm not sure why you're comparing apples to oranges by using the US presidency in relation to monarchies. As you pointed out yourself, the President of the USA can be fired, unlike the Queen and DRF

The point Duc et Pair made is that the persons who answer for the Queen's actions, e.g. the prime minister, can be fired. A simple vote of no confidence in the Parliament is sufficient, unlike the POTUS, who can be fired only every 4 years unless he commits a crime, is impeached by the House of Representatives, and convicted by 2/3 of the Senate, which BTW never happened in US history.

The other point made was, I think, that the Queen and the Royal House cost less to the Danish taxpayers than the President costs to the US taxpayer, but that is not really a fair comparison as the US is a much bigger country and the Office of the President of the United States is a much bigger organization than the Danish Royal Household. In any case, the Danish monarchy, even by European standards, is relatively cheap.

[kimebear]

Originally Posted by Muhler

In say five years they are the king's nephews and niece. - Further away.
And while still being the king's nephews and niece in 30 years - they will be even further away in the public mind.
If one of them, or their spouse, even children, screw up, it's advisable to be able to say: They are relatives but not DRF members.
The DRF in this context meaning active members and their children.

Which is why it would have been more diplomatic to limit titles going forward rather than taking them away from ones who already have them.


Make an announcement that titles will go to the children of the monarch and children of the heir. It's easy, it's clean and no one is singled out.

[camelot23ca]

Originally Posted by Erin9

I wonder about that too. This appears to be a form of communicating since NO ONE is communicating with each other.

This is just mind blowing. And it obviously starts at the top with The Queen herself staffing this out.

It seems sad, odd, and counter productive to behave in this manner- no one talking.

I’m flashing back to a TV show called The West Wing where the president got his staff to do his dirty work for him regarding a job related issue with his wife. Didn’t work out well for him either. Fictional show- but accurate in how people feel about this sort of thing.

I think it’s clear the Queen and her advisors could have handled this better, but right now we have only one side of the story, and that’s the only side we’re likely to get, at least in this amount of detail. Queen Margrethe isn’t in the position to be able to respond to everything her son, his wife, his ex and her grandson have said over the past several days. As the Queen she can’t get dragged into publicly debating a family spat. As a mother, she’s not likely to say she thinks her son’s version of events is untrue (it’s too bad “recollections may vary” is already taken because I imagine it’s a great phrase to sum up what’s happening here).

Who knows how the family is used to communicating? There’s been tension at least between Joachim and his mother for quite awhile now. Maybe Margrethe hasn’t tried to talk to Joachim since the announcement because he hasn’t been receptive in the past when she has reached out? Or maybe she did try to speak with him while he was back in Denmark, he didn’t like what she had to say, wouldn’t engage with her at the time, but is now choosing to tell the public there’s been no communication.

I don’t feel sympathy for any of the adults involved. I do feel bad for the children, and if it’s true Queen Margrethe didn’t insist on speaking to her grandchildren before this became public, that was very poorly done and I hope she makes a genuine effort to make amends.

[KristehH]

Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair

Queen Margrethe is not only mother and grandmother, she is also Queen. And because of that Joachim and his first spouse received (and receive) a lavish annual apanage from the taxpayer, could live on their own splendid estate (Shackenborg), holidaying in idyllic Château de Caïx and being appointed in a fancy post at the Danish Embassy in Paris ("coincidentally" Marie's homeland) . All this was only possible because Margrethe is the Queen.

But now Margrethe should suddenly not act as Queen but as "a mother and grandmother". Spare me the hypocrisy...

Yes, I specifically said that Margrethe is queen and within her rights, did I not?

She is a mother and a grandmother as well as a queen, is she not?

Being able to negotiate, find compromises, and attempt to keep various parties as satisfied as possible are good diplomatic skills for a monarch as well for anyone else.

Has Joachim made a full-time career of serving crown and country? Working royals normally do receive generous benefits.

Just because a person is a monarch, and even acting within their rights, does not mean they are immune from criticism. People have differing opinions on stripping away the kids' titles, and we all have the right to say what we think and why. But many people do seem to think that Margrethe could have handled this situation better, even if they agree with taking the titles.

Joachim, Marie, and Alexandra may not be handling it in the best way, but neither did Margrethe herself.

[kimebear]

Originally Posted by Mbruno

The point Duc et Pair made is that the persons who answer for the Queen's actions, e.g. the prime minister, can be fired. A simple vote of no confidence in the Parliament is sufficient, unlike the POTUS, who can be fired only every 4 years unless he commits a crime, is impeached by the House of Representatives, and convicted by 2/3 of the Senate, which BTW never happened in US history.

The other point made was, I think, that the Queen and the Royal House cost less to the Danish taxpayers than the President costs to the US taxpayer, but that is not really a fair comparison as the US is a much bigger country and the Office of the President of the United States is a much bigger organization than the Danish Royal Household. In any case, the Danish monarchy, even by European standards, is relatively cheap.

I do understand the argument, which is why I made my point. If a monarch takes the position that they don't have to answer for their actions, because an elected official will in their stead, then they run the risk (to the official) of making unpopular decisions which might cost that official their job in the next election. Do that often enough, and your citizens will start to think of their royal family as more of a burden than an asset.



If QM is looking to QEII as an example on how to run a royal house, the first thing she should have learned was that QEII always kept public perception in mind with every word she said and every move she ever made.

[Tatiana Maria]

Originally Posted by Mbruno

I am not sure why everyone is assuming a priori that Nikolai would lose his title if he married his Danish girlfriend. It is true that marriages in the past of Danish princes to Danish brides were denied consent, but that was more because they were expected to marry equally and, to do that, unless they married their own Danish cousins, they necessarily had to marry a foreign princess. There is only one Royal House in Denmark, and marriage to any Danish subject who was not a member of the Royal House, even someone from the nobility, would be unequal.

It is also true that Joachim and Frederik married foreign women, but, now that the requeriment of equal marriages is no longer enforced, we can't automatically assume that someone as low as Nikolai in the order of succession would be denied consent to marry if he wanted to marry a Dane. In fact, if he asked for consent in King Frederik X's reign, I would be very surprised if Frederik denied it.

The press secretary to Countess Alexandra said he and his siblings would lose their royal titles on marriage in her interview with CNN (shared earlier by Iolanthe):

https://edition.cnn.com/2022/09/29/e...ntl/index.html

In a telephone conversation with CNN, Helle von Wildenrath Løvgreen, press secretary to Countess Alexandra, said the countess was “very sad and in shock.

“She can’t believe why and why now, because there’s no good reason. They would lose their titles anyway when they get married one day. Her sons are young men so maybe they might get married in the near future so why shouldn’t it wait until that day so that the titles would disappear on a happy day?”

Originally Posted by Archduchess Zelia

I think BT has a running poll in all their articles on the subject if you're interested. Currently stands at 55% in favour of QMII's decision, 33% not in favour and 12% not having an opinion on the matter across 265.128 votes.

Originally Posted by tommy100

I saw somewhere here earlier that 55% of Danes agree with the decision, that is a majority but by Danish RF polling standards it also seems pretty low.

If I understand the original post, the poll is open to anyone visiting BT's website to vote and thus not a representative sample of the public. Of course, social media comments are likely to be even less representative.

I would be interested in seeing the results of a scientifically conducted poll on this question.

Originally Posted by Fence Sitter

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.

Thanks for the response!

I think the situations differ. In 1953, the persons ultimately responsible for the demotion of Knud and Ingolf (namely, the members of the public who voted the referendum proposal through) openly discussed their sentiments that Prince Knud (and for some, Prince Ingolf as well) was unsuitable to be king. (Naturally not every voter, but many of them.) Thus it was the drivers of the demotion who first made their "targeting" public knowledge, regardless of how Knud and Ingolf subsequently reacted.

In 2022, on the other hand, the Queen has made no comment suggesting she is targeting her four grandchildren personally, and even the parents haven't expressly accused her of intentionally doing so.

[polyesco]

Originally Posted by camelot23ca

I think it’s clear the Queen and her advisors could have handled this better, but right now we have only one side of the story, and that’s the only side we’re likely to get, at least in this amount of detail. Queen Margrethe isn’t in the position to be able to respond to everything her son, his wife, his ex and her grandson have said over the past several days. As the Queen she can’t get dragged into publicly debating a family spat. As a mother, she’s not likely to say she thinks her son’s version of events is untrue (it’s too bad “recollections may vary” is already taken because I imagine it’s a great phrase to sum up what’s happening here).

Who knows how the family is used to communicating? There’s been tension at least between Joachim and his mother for quite awhile now. Maybe Margrethe hasn’t tried to talk to Joachim since the announcement because he hasn’t been receptive in the past when she has reached out? Or maybe she did try to speak with him while he was back in Denmark, he didn’t like what she had to say, wouldn’t engage with her at the time, but is now choosing to tell the public there’s been no communication.

I don’t feel sympathy for any of the adults involved. I do feel bad for the children, and if it’s true Queen Margrethe didn’t insist on speaking to her grandchildren before this became public, that was very poorly done and I hope she makes a genuine effort to make amends.

Exactly. Only one side. Their side. They are not going to mention any of their own shortcomings.

[BriarRose]

I feel immense sympathy for Joachim's children.

Anyone who watches the news would have advised the Danish Court that this would explode into a media frenzy, because of a recent media frenzy regarding questions about titles and children.

Unless something is about to happen that is quite serious, there was plenty of time to mediate this privately within the family this year, and still make an announcement of the change within a few months. In a few months, this may have also been a minor blip in the press.

At a minimum, the Queen certainly had time to explain the decision personally to her grandchildren. I cannot see how she didn't owe them such. She waited until all four were certainly old enough to understand what is happening. If she wanted to avoid conflict, she should have rescinded the titles when the oldest was a baby.

To punt the children into a media frenzy at this particular time, when the press was obviously going to run with it for other purposes, lacks all sense and feeling. It has completely changed my opinion of the Queen and those that advise her.

The Swedish royals also laid out the best way to do this: work it out internally over time, then release joint statements. I don't think it was necessarily an easy discussion within that family, but they obviously worked through it privately, then presented a united front publicly. Why the Queen didn't follow this plan is a shame, and possibly something she can never set right with her grandchildren.

[Mbruno]

Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria

The press secretary to Countess Alexandra said he and his siblings would lose their royal titles on marriage in her interview with CNN (shared earlier by Iolanthe):

https://edition.cnn.com/2022/09/29/e...ntl/index.html

In a telephone conversation with CNN, Helle von Wildenrath Løvgreen, press secretary to Countess Alexandra, said the countess was “very sad and in shock.

“She can’t believe why and why now, because there’s no good reason. They would lose their titles anyway when they get married one day. Her sons are young men so maybe they might get married in the near future so why shouldn’t it wait until that day so that the titles would disappear on a happy day?”

.

But where was it mentioned by the press secretary that losing his title when getting married is tied to Nikolai marrying his Danish girlfriend, which is what I was questioning?

[samitude]

Originally Posted by Mbruno

But where was it mentioned by the press secretary that losing his title when getting married is tied to Nikolai marrying his Danish girlfriend, which is what I was questioning?

I thought all Danish royal family members had to marry people outside of Denmark in order to either 1)keep their titles or 2) stay in succession. I'm not sure which one. It may be considered an unwritten rule/expectation. No Danish family/person is going to be considered "above" other ones. That's why the royals marry outside of the country. I think it's neat seeing which country they will choose. Joachim and Frederick when surprising routes for their marriages (at least Joachim's first).

[Queen Claude]

I have been trying to keep up with this thread but every time I step away to attend to my pesky real life responsibilities, when I come back there are several more pages to catch up on. I am glad the comment that Joachim's children were going to lose their titles upon marriage was bumped because that was the for me.

So according to Alexandra's spokesperson, who is also authorized to speak on behalf of Joachim and Marie, it was known that Joachim's children were going to lose their titles upon marriage. So, assuming they got married at fairly youngish ages, Joachim's children were going to spend the better part of their lives as His Excellency Count of Monpezat or Her Excellency Countess of Monpezat, and this has been known since when, May 2022? 2008? So if I am understanding correctly, all this expressed "shock", "sadness" "confusion" is really over Margrethe changing the timing and circumstances regarding Joachim's children losing their princely titles. The date stamp for the CNN article was Thursday morning EDT and it's been going on three days and no one has corrected that statement.

But upon further thought, the indicators are that the issue is with Joachim's children losing their princely titles. And if that was the case, was there even a chance that there could be a Sweden type way of handling this matter? Not IMO because there was not going to be any kind of compromise that would be satisfactory.

Yeah I see the point that Margrethe handled it in a cold and callous way. She is probably asleep right now, but I am visualizing that she spent the better part of the day decoupaging whilst taking numerous drags on her cigarettes, while her son, current daughter-in-law, ex-daughter-in-law and their spokespeople are burning up the airwaves. I think that while there are claims that Margrethe has not reached out to her affected grandchildren, there are also tacit admissions that they have not reached out to her either, remember they knew about this 5 days before the announcement, and it seems to me that Joachim et famille spent their energies working with their PR people.

[Toledo]

Originally Posted by Queen Claude

I have been trying to keep up with this thread but every time I step away to attend to my pesky real-life responsibilities, when I come back there are several more pages to catch up on...

I made the mistake of checking a box to get thread alerts by email and now when away I see my phone making sounds every time there's a reply on this on-going subject.

The topic is interesting if you place yourself in terms of a grandmother who is the CEO, but she needs to cut down staff for the next quarter. I like when the dialogue is about the situation and how it affects all parties involved. But when it turns into a "get rid of monarchies!" "They waste taxpayers' money!" I think wow! some choose the wrong place to vent out opinions about other countries political systems.

I grew up under a dictator supported by the greatest democracy in the world. I recall his family used to brag they will stay for a thousand years ruling from El Pardo Palace in Madrid. And then came a King who took charge, eliminated the dictatorship and gave us more freedom of expression than in the World's greatest democracy.

From afar I can tell QMII is a lot like her Spanish cousin, his vintage version. She made the right decision to keep modernizing the institution of the monarchy. Her delivery was awful but as Machiavelli stated the end justifies the means. And seems the end was to protect her Heir from doing this later by her taking the heat now. Right or wrong is done and into the countdown to January 2023.

[ronald biver]

I don't think there is or was a problem in the kingdom of the Netherlands when princess Beatrix of the Netherlands was queen, she made the rules and all members of the house of Orange knew where they stand, so there was no problem at all.