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

[Tatiana Maria]

If the former princes and princess were given the legal treatment of non-royal nobility, their surname ought to be "af Monpezat" and their title ought to be simply "greve" or "komtesse". But the article seems to be implying that they are still registered as members of the Royal House and therefore registered with no surname at all.

What seems reasonably clear is that before 2023, Monpezat was part of their title and not a surname. The 2008 press release, announcing the creation of Queen Margrethe II and Prince Consort Henrik's descendants as Counts and Countesses of Monpezat, varied from the usual form and specified the complete designation of "Count of Monpezat" or "Countess of Monpezat" was a title. Thus, the then princes and princesses did not acquire a surname.

Titlen føres endvidere af efterkommere født i lovligt ægteskab, i overensstemmelse med de almindelige regler, der gælder herom, hvilket vil sige, at titlen ’greve af Monpezat’ videreføres af mandlige descendenter, medens kvindelige descendenter fører titlen ’komtesse af Monpezat’.

[Muhler]

Did some checking.

There are no titles on documents issued by the state: I.e. passport, drivers license, social security card etc.

So it must be Nikolai Monpezet.

He can write his title on his door or greeting card. He can also insist on being titled Greve af Monpezat, like to his bank and they will style letters (almost exclusively online anyway, so no postman will be impressed) as such, but that would no doubt be seen as snobbish.

[Tatiana Maria]

If the article is wrong (or I have misinterpreted the article) and Nikolai et al do have a surname, then it must be af Monpezat (of Monpezat), not plain Monpezat. In the same way, the surname of the counts and countesses of Rosenborg is af Rosenborg (of Rosenborg), which is the reason the female-line grandchildren of Queen Margrethe II's cousin Christian bear the "af" even though as female-line descendants they are not allowed to inherit the comital title.

[Muhler]

That would be the equivalent of von or van - and that doesn't exist in DK.

Never heard of anyone with a surname like: af Rosenborg, or af Thott.

Monpezat is (as I see it) a slægtsnavn, like the other noble names in DK.
A slægtsnavn is a last name passed on within a family after very specific rules. These rules stems back to the Name-law of 1526 and here it was laid out who could use what name within noble families in DK.
(A more general name-law was made in 1828, because it became common for people at that time to take a surname as a family name. Prior to that most people simply called themselves say Thomas Jenssøn after the father, Jens. Or Marie Kirstensdatter after her mother, Kirsten.)
Basically that meant that a (noble) name was passed on to sons of legal marriages only.

In contrast to many countries DK has for 500 years had a specific law regarding names.

The Danish rules for last names is here:
https://familieretshuset.dk/navne/na...navn-efternavn
In Danish.
Last name = efternavn.
You can only have one last name in DK.
You can combine two last names with a hyphen.
(That would means af-Monpezat - and that makes no sense in Danish.)

If you have both your mother and your father's last names in your name, say Theodor Friis Hansen, then your father's name automatically becomes your last name, unless you drop your father's last name, and is called Theodor Friis, or you take another last name, say Persephone then it's Theodor Friis Hansen Persephone.
Or you use a hyphen then it's Theodor Friis-Hansen.
- The Danish name law is very detailed!

There are at present some 146.668 approved last names in DK.
You cannot freely take a last name that is used by less than 2.000 persons. Unless each and everyone of them give their permission.

There is a reason why some of the nobles in the circle of friends around M&F are called Ahlefeldt-Laurvig-Bille - rather than say Michael Greve af Ahlefeldt.

[Tatiana Maria]

Originally Posted by Muhler

That would be the equivalent of von or van - and that doesn't exist in DK.

Never heard of anyone with a surname like: af Rosenborg, or af Thott.

You can verify the number of Danes who are legally registered with the surname "af Rosenborg" at the official website of the Danish statistics bureau:

https://www.dst.dk/da/Statistik/emne...avne/HvorMange

I am surprised that you have never heard of the female-line grandchildren surnamed "af Rosenborg" whom I mentioned in the previous post, but here is an article about one of them:

https://www.billedbladet.dk/kendte/i...a-stolt-af-ham

Surnames with the particle "von" are also registered in Denmark according to the database above.

Originally Posted by Muhler

You can combine two last names with a hyphen.
(That would means af-Monpezat - and that makes no sense in Danish.)

The surname is "af Rosenborg"; "af" is not a surname of its own.

[Muhler]

I stand corrected then.

It does make sense if they are slægtsnavne. There are specific rules for such names.
The rules regarding slægtsnavne mostly apply to nobles. And I must confess I haven't had a closer look at these rules.
There are IRRC some 180-something noble names in DK at present.

But for mere red-blooded names the rules must be as I explained previously and there is no af or von.
(Von is accepted because you can't force foreigners to change their last names once they are allowed to settle in DK, get citizenship and assimilate.

- The most simple solution to clarify all this is to write the court.

[Tatiana Maria]

The full text of the general Name Law is here:

https://www.retsinformation.dk/eli/lta/2021/1815

It currently doesn't forbid prefixes in surnames such as af, de, von or van.

But there are certain rules for surnames which are newly created (as opposed to changing to an existing surname). The rules are that a newly formed surname cannot be confused with a protected surname, a company name or trademark etc., a stage name, a famous person's name, or a first name, and a new surname cannot be inappropriate or offensive.


§ 6. Navne, der ikke bæres som efternavn her i landet, kan tages som efternavn, medmindre navnet

1) let kan forveksles med et beskyttet efternavn, jf. § 3,

2) indgår i eller let kan forveksles med navnet på et selskab, en forening, et varemærke eller lignende, som er anmeldt efter stk. 2,

3) er et almindeligt kendt kunstnernavn, som er anmeldt efter stk. 2, eller let kan forveksles hermed,

4) er navnet på en almindeligt kendt udenlandsk eller historisk person eller let kan forveksles hermed,

5) er et egentligt fornavn,

6) er uegnet til at blive anvendt som efternavn her i landet eller

7) er upassende eller kan vække anstød.

[Muhler]

Yes, it's quite a lengthy process to change your last name to a completely newly invented one. And far from always successful.

It's easier with a first name, but there are still similar rules as well.
You can't name yourself Coca Cola, or the Danish equivalent of B'tthead or something silly like Hassssmannn.

I guess the change to Monpezat went quite smoothly for obvious reasons.

[Toledo]

I have to say I love when you explain traditions and language differences in Denmark to differentiate names, particles, last name usage by nobles vs non nobles. This is a fascinating forum conversation.

[Archduchess Zelia]

For once, an interesting albeit brief article from Billed Bladet with the DRF's former (and first ever) Director of Communications, Lis M. Frederiksen, about the title debacle:

* Kongehusets tidligere pressechef: Det er en barsk omgang for familien *

She notes that the debacle has been tough for the family but otherwise doesn't have an opinion on it. She goes on to add:

"I had a great partnership with the Queen. That I can only speak enthusiastically about. The Queen is a formidable person. But you have to make sure to be informed and well-prepared, or else...," Lis M. Frederiksen smiles.

Nothing new per se that QMII hates a dawdler but said alongside her comments on the title removals, I can't help but relate it to that. I can vividly imagine QMII being so fed up at potentially months going by without receiving the alternative solution from Joachim that she just decided to remove the titles at once.

[Silverpot]

Originally Posted by Archduchess Zelia

For once, an interesting albeit brief article from Billed Bladet with the DRF's former (and first ever) Director of Communications, Lis M. Frederiksen, about the title debacle:

* Kongehusets tidligere pressechef: Det er en barsk omgang for familien *

She notes that the debacle has been tough for the family but otherwise doesn't have an opinion on it. She goes on to add:



Nothing new per se that QMII hates a dawdler but said alongside her comments on the title removals, I can't help but relate it to that. I can vividly imagine QMII being so fed up at potentially months going by without receiving the alternative solution from Joachim that she just decided to remove the titles at once.

Yup, that's what I think happened too. And I would've done the same, being irritated by not getting a valid response or a better idea from J.

[Prinsara]

Despite the fact that there's no evidence of this, it's highly unlikely media-savvy Alexandra would have gone on the instantaneous offensive had Joachim been at fault, the press has not uncovered any evidence or received any helpful leaks Joachim was responsible, Joachim is a respected military aide and not known to be a ditherer while Margrethe is known for poor familial communication...?

Sure, let's continue to blame Joachim.

[kalnel]

Originally Posted by Archduchess Zelia

Nothing new per se that QMII hates a dawdler but said alongside her comments on the title removals, I can't help but relate it to that. I can vividly imagine QMII being so fed up at potentially months going by without receiving the alternative solution from Joachim that she just decided to remove the titles at once.

Add to that QMII being in pain from her back and seeing firsthand the situation in England, and she was probably determined to get this settled immediately.

[Toledo]

Originally Posted by kalnel

Add to that QMII being in pain from her back and seeing firsthand the situation in England, and she was probably determined to get this settled immediately.

Now I see how wise and brave QMII was when she decided to take this action last year even if it meant to start a micro war between the brothers, wives and one ex-wife. I have no doubt she would have stripped of all titles any relative, or wife, that becomes a nuisance and disrespectful of her role as monarch.

In the end, she gave Frederick less to worry about when he becomes king. Hope his UK cousin Will is that lucky.

[Archduchess Zelia]

Originally Posted by kalnel

Add to that QMII being in pain from her back and seeing firsthand the situation in England, and she was probably determined to get this settled immediately.

Indeed! I also imagine she's known the surgery was coming – or at least was on the table – for a while. A 82-year-old having an extensive procedure done under lengthy anaesthesia certainly is at a risk for complications.

Originally Posted by Prinsara

Despite the fact that there's no evidence of this, it's highly unlikely media-savvy Alexandra would have gone on the instantaneous offensive had Joachim been at fault, the press has not uncovered any evidence or received any helpful leaks Joachim was responsible, Joachim is a respected military aide and not known to be a ditherer while Margrethe is known for poor familial communication...?

Sure, let's continue to blame Joachim.

I don't understand the argument about Alexandra? I think media-savviness is written all over the framing of the title removal. Joachim's side has been extremely vocal – even in spite of QMII's expressed wishes – yet there's lots of information and context that's been left out.

For example, Joachim explicitly said his response to the 5 May proposal was to ask for consideration time but he's never elaborated on whether or not he ever did return with an answer.

There's "no evidence" that Joachim dragged his feet, no, but there's no evidence to the contrary either.

As for leaks, that sort of goes without saying. Unlike the BRF, the DRF doesn't practice briefing against one another. If they have something to say, they put their full voices behind it Add to that that the only part of the family that routinely vents to the press is Joachim's and they have no interest in briefing against themselves.

Can't speak for anyone else but I'm not "blaming" Joachim (and I don't actually remember seeing anyone here absolve QMII of blame in this – what I have seen, though, is people who back Joachim's side completely deny that he shares at least part of the blame in the flawed communication) If my theory is right, QMII getting fed up with waiting and just getting it overwith is clearly not the ideal or healthy way to solve an issue.

[Tatiana Maria]

Originally Posted by JR76

One of my main points was that the style and titles of the Greek royal family and other deposed houses are regulated by European traditions and protocol that is shared by all the courts of Europe. Most likely also by the non-European courts. For instance as we saw in the official announcement of the marriage between Prince Ghazi of Jordan and Princess Miriam of Bulgaria she was referred to as both a princess and a royal highness.
According to other traditions Queen Margrethe as the head of her house regulates the titles and status of the members of her family. King Carl Gustav referred to, and made use of, the same right and traditions ("the ancient right of princes") in his decision to reorganize his house. I've read that many of these traditions were put in print by the Congress of Vienna, but they also referred back to more ancient traditions of the Holy Roman Empire.

Yes, I'm aware that other European courts (and, from what you said, at least some of the non-European courts) behave in the same manner. Earlier in this thread I commented to defend the Queen by noting that the double standard is also practiced by her fellow European monarchs. In the original post which began this discussion, I also made that clear:

Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria

While the Queen's actions are no different with the actions of other European monarchs, I am not sure how she could argue in good faith that the same behavior she fully accepts from her sister is unacceptable from her grandson.

I'm also aware that there is a long tradition of these actions, although it is not quite as simple as saying that they were shared by all the courts of Europe. As just one example, after King James I & VI (correction: II & VII) of Great Britain and his wife and son were deposed by his son-in-law and daughter, his successors on the British throne strenuously objected to the decision of the French and other courts to continue titling James as King and his son as Prince of Wales.

All of that does not change my point though that Queen Margrethe II, and yes, also other European and at least some non-European monarchs - in no way do I mean to criticize her in particular - assert the right to remove royal titles but do not respect the right of other heads of state to do the same.

[Mbruno]

Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria

I'm also aware that there is a long tradition of these actions, although it is not quite as simple as saying that they were shared by all the courts of Europe. As just one example, after King James I & VI of Great Britain and his wife and son were deposed by his son-in-law and daughter, his successors on the British throne strenuously objected to the decision of the French and other courts to continue titling James as King and his son as Prince of Wales.

All of that does not change my point though that Queen Margrethe II, and yes, also other European and at least some non-European monarchs - in no way do I mean to criticize her in particular - assert the right to remove royal titles but do not respect the right of other heads of state to do the same.

I believe you meant King James II & VII of England and Scotland. I think the situation of the Queen's grandchildren is, however, slightly different from that of former ruling families. When the extant royal courts refer to members of former ruling famiies by their royal styles, I believe they are implicitly disputing the legitimacy of republics to abolish titles that proceed from another sovereign authority which predates them . The titles (or, rather, the right to use them) may be abolished domestically (i.e., within the Republic's jurisdiction), but they continue to exist, from their point of view, in international law, which is also the same approach that the International Commission on Orders of Chivalry takes, by the way, on orders of knighthood awarded by former ruling families.

In the case of Prince Joachim's children, their titles were awarded and are now being removed by the same sovereign authority, i.e., the Crown of Denmark, which has full control over them. If, for example, King Charles III decided tomorrow that Archie and Lilibet would no longer be Prince/Princess, I am pretty sure that the Danish court, by the same logic, would not call them Prince/Princess either.