Surname of the Danish Royal Family

[GrandDuchessOlga]

I´ve heard or read somewhere that their last name is Rex (??) i don´t know if it is just because rex means king in latin that it is a part of her monogram but i just want someone´s opinion.

[Aurora810]

I think Emi is right. I did some research. Glucksburg is a region/ a small town in Germany. But I have previously thought of it as representing the family name. However, I now realize it represents the original region in which the family lines come from. Here is a link to the wikipedia page about Glucksburg: Glücksburg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Also while I was doing some research I found this article from the Copenhagen Post published back before Christian was born. The article talks about the name possibilities for Fred and Mary's first child. It clearly states down towards the bottom where all the members of the family are listed that the Danish RF has "no surname". Here is the link:
The Copenhagen Post

[Xeara]

Exactly was Emi said...I think she's right, they technically don't have a surname but if they want to do something discrete/incognito without using their royal title, they might use it...just like Edward Windsor (Prince Edward) or William Wales (Prince William) or Harry Wales (Prince Harry)...so Prince Frederik could do something under the guise of *Frederik Glucksborg* if he wished?

[JessRulz]

Originally Posted by Xeara

Exactly was Emi said...I think she's right, they technically don't have a surname but if they want to do something discrete/incognito without using their royal title, they might use it...just like Edward Windsor (Prince Edward) or William Wales (Prince William) or Harry Wales (Prince Harry)...so Prince Frederik could do something under the guise of *Frederik Glucksborg* if he wished?

I'm pretty sure if he wanted too, yes he could. While he was studying in America I think he used either Frederik Prince or Frederik Henriksen, but Glucksborg I think is their "used on occasion" last name

[Sister Morphine]

Originally Posted by JessRulz

I'm pretty sure if he wanted too, yes he could. While he was studying in America I think he used either Frederik Prince or Frederik Henriksen, but Glucksborg I think is their "used on occasion" last name

He used "Henriksen" which means "son of Henrik".

[JessRulz]

Originally Posted by Sister Morphine

He used "Henriksen" which means "son of Henrik".

Ah, thank you Sister Morphine I knew it was one of them!

[norwegianne]

Originally Posted by GrandDuchessOlga

I´ve heard or read somewhere that their last name is Rex (??) i don´t know if it is just because rex means king in latin that it is a part of her monogram but i just want someone´s opinion.

Rex wouldn't be part of a Queen's monogram - Regina (the feminine version) would. And it isn't part of their last name - it is just stating whether someone is king or queen. Margrethe Regina, for example, would mean Margrethe Queen. Harald Rex - Harald King.

[KikkiB]

I thougth that Glücksburg was the royal house of Denmark (and Norway and Greece), in the same way as Windsor, Bourbon, Orange-Nasseau etc. And that it's been used sometimes as a sir-name in the same way, as mentioned in an earlier post, Edward uses Windsor. But since Glücksburg isn't a common sir-name, in any of the countries mentioned above, I do understand why the royal people choose Henriksen and the like, since those often are quite common, and thus more incognito.

[GrandDuchessOlga]

Originally Posted by norwegianne

Rex wouldn't be part of a Queen's monogram - Regina (the feminine version) would. And it isn't part of their last name - it is just stating whether someone is king or queen. Margrethe Regina, for example, would mean Margrethe Queen. Harald Rex - Harald King.

Thanx :) didn´t think it made much sense either that their last name would be rex.

[Daneborn]

Swedish RF can use Bernadotte, and U.K can use Windsor, because it points out exactly which RF they come from.

But Glücksburg can be members from many different countries.

It doesn't give meaning for the Danish RF to use Glücksburg as family name. You wouldn't know exactly what royal Glücksburg family we are talking about.

Irena of Glücksburg, does anyone know if she's Danish, Greek, Norwegian or something different.

Anyway, I don't think royals have surnames, (other than ''of Denmark'' or ''duke of .....''), I just think it's something media wants to label them with to be able to separate them from ordinary celebrities.

If they wanted a surname for themselves they could really only chose Sønderborg since that is the only part of their house-name that is totally on (current) Danish soil.

(To my knowledge there is no royal Irena of Glücksburg. It was just a way to show how confusing and how little the Glücksburg name tells you about where the person comes from)

[trinny]

Thanks for explaining that so easily Daneborn. :)

[Philippe Egalite']

Originally Posted by Daneborn

Swedish RF can use Bernadotte, and U.K can use Windsor, because it points out exactly which RF they come from.

First of all, reigning dynasts, that is, sovereigns and (immediate) members of royal families with constitutional or legal rights to a throne (thus holding rank and title), do not have to have and do not need a surname.

Second, Bernadotte, albeit 100% correct and appropriate in historic terms [the surname of their ancestor, Jean- Baptiste Bernadotte, a Napoleonic general who was elected King of Sweden and named Carl XIV in 1818], does not refer to them as being Swedish, but French, and there are tons of people with that surname in France and all over the world. Because of knowledge in the subject matter, you do, but the average person all over Europe, the USA and the World has NO clue that Bernadotte points to the Swedish royal family.
Windsor is inaccurate and misleading in terms of dynastic and genealogic history, but was understandably chosen by King George V, in 1917, to appease the Brits and sway their anger against anything Germanic in the aftermath of WWI. Again, though, Windsor is a common surname in the USA and elsewhere and the average person all over the world has NO clue that it points to the British royal family.

Originally Posted by Daneborn

But Glücksburg can be members from many different countries. It doesn't give meaning for the Danish RF to use Glücksburg as family name. You wouldn't know exactly what royal Glücksburg family we are talking about.

.
Based on your rationale, this could also apply to the Saxe-Coburg-Gotha s, ie. the British and Belgian reigning royals and the former royals of Bulgaria among zillion other minor Saxe-Coburg-Gotha s. This, however, doesn't prevent former King Simeon from using it as his surname in his capacity as a Bulgarian citizen (Simeon Sakskobburggotski, see Wikipedia).

Originally Posted by Daneborn

Irena of Glücksburg, does anyone know if she's Danish, Greek, Norwegian or something different.

.
Again, the average person wouldn't have a clue as to whom this name refers to. Nonetheless, those who have even the slightest clue, would immediately think of princess Irene (pronounced Yriny), former Diadoch of Greece (ie. crown princess, 1964-65) and former princess of Greece (1942-74).

Originally Posted by Daneborn

Anyway, I don't think royals have surnames, (other than ''of Denmark'' or ''duke of .....''), I just think it's something media wants to label them with to be able to separate them from ordinary celebrities.

.
You are correct in saying that they don't have to have or need a surname. However, they will soon need to devise one for their issue when they lose their rank and title as the case may be with princes Nikolai and Felix when they marry, or their offsprings at the latest. An easy way out, is to keep using the Rosenborg (count-ess of), that they have been employing since the 19th century for members of the family, when they become distant or lose their rights to the throne (and, therefore, their rank and title). Indeed, Rosenborg has been used consistently and so frequently, that it points the mind to cousins or junior and cadet branches of the Danish royal family.

Originally Posted by Daneborn

If they wanted a surname for themselves they could really only chose Sønderborg since that is the only part of their house-name that is totally on (current) Danish soil.

.
The current dynasts of Denmark are a junior branch of the Oldenburg clan and direct descendants of the Glucksburg-Beck house. Alas, the Glucksburg-Beck, albeit 100% historically appropriate, is not very appealing for it is reminiscent of humble descent from the dukes of Glucksburg and Beck who were NOT only minor and impoverished but NOT even sovereign rulers, since they were holding their lands in fief to the sovereign dukes of Schleswig and Holstein, long lost lands to Germany.

To conclude: Am I missing something?

[Jo of Palatine]

Originally Posted by Philippe Egalite'

Alas, the Glucksburg-Beck albeit 100% historically correct, is not very appealing for it reminds of their descent from the dukes of Glucksburg and beck who were NOT just minor and impoverished but were NOT even sovereign rulers, holding instead their lands in fief to the sovereign dukes of Schleswig and Holstein, now lost lands to Germany.

Why lost lands to Germany? Ther eis only a small Danish minority in the federal State of Schleswig-Holstein, which has been granted special privileges including their own school system and representation in the parliament. On the other hand there is a German minority in Denmark, too. Both countries have set an example in dealing with minorities from the other side of the border, IMHO.

[Philippe Egalite']

Originally Posted by Jo of Palatine

Why lost lands to Germany? Ther eis only a small Danish minority in the federal State of Schleswig-Holstein, which has been granted special privileges including their own school system and representation in the parliament. On the other hand there is a German minority in Denmark, too. Both countries have set an example in dealing with minorities from the other side of the border, IMHO.

You are absolutely correct. I am not disputing Germany's sovereignty over these lands. Please, do not take me wrong. I was referring to the fact that Schleswig and Holstein at some points or up to some point belonged, in part or in toto, to Denmark. And again, the reference was made only in relation to the dynasty's provenance from the house of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glucksburg-Beck

[Daneborn]

Philippe Egalite > I think your answer to my post is rather academic and rhetorical. By your way of disputing one can prove practically any point.

I was simply offering explanations since it's a fact from real life that media in Sweden sometimes refer to the members of their own royal family using Bernadotte as if it was their surname, while I have never seen the Danish media using the Glücksburg label on the Danish royal family.

In my personal opinion it is of course wrong to label royals with surnames. I believe labelling Crown Princess Victoria as e.g. Victoria Bernadotte is either a political statement or plain ignorance.

[Lumutqueen]

The danish royal family do not have a last name.
Glucksborg is there house
like in the UK we have the house of Windsor
as far as i no their last name is.... of denmark

[Philippe Egalite']

Originally Posted by Daneborn

Philippe Egalite > I think your answer to my post is rather academic and rhetorical. By your way of disputing one can prove practically any point.

I was simply offering explanations since it's a fact from real life that media in Sweden sometimes refer to the members of their own royal family using Bernadotte as if it was their surname, while I have never seen the Danish media using the Glücksburg label on the Danish royal family.

In my personal opinion it is of course wrong to label royals with surnames. I believe labelling Crown Princess Victoria as e.g. Victoria Bernadotte is either a political statement or plain ignorance.

I agree with you that it is wrong to use surnames for reigning dynasts. I would go further, in fact, and say that it is inappropriate and disrespectful or demeaning.

Often times though, there are practical issues out there. For instance, the British media would often say, "The Windsors turned up en masse to such and such event" simply because the (official) Royal Family alone is quite vast at this juncture and includes not only the Queen's children and grand children but also the Gloucesters and the Kents. As we all know, all these personages continue to be legally members of the Royal Family.

In Sweden, if I am not mistaken, when the media refer to the Bernadottes, they usually mean the numerous Bernadottes, Counts and Countesses af Wisborg, but this is also the surname of the Royal House which consists of only 6 members (King, Queen, their 3 children and Princess Lilian). I would agree again that it would certainly be inappropriate to refer to these 6 royal personages as Bernadottes.

The Danish Royal House consists of 11 personages but the wider family includes several Counts and Countesses Rosenborg. Of the 11 members of the Royal House, the two sons of Prince Joachim, Felix and Nikolai will in 20 or so years get married and have children. These young boys are princes but already non-royal highnesses, by decision of the Queen, and If I understand it correctly, their children will be commoners of sorts. Therefore, the need sooner or later will appear for a surname for the members of the Royal House as they cease to be princes/princesses, unless they will continue with the tradition of using Rosenborg as a surname.

Thus, even though the monarch and the princes/princesses need no surname, it is already certain that some of the queen's grand children, namely all of prince Joachim's issue, will need to adopt a surname and I would have thought that it would be most opportune for the queen to decide what the name shall be, before the family starts widening out.

To conclude, therefore, it is logical and mandated by life itself that all reigning royal families have a surname to be used only by their members as and when they cease to be royal and princely and as they start spreading out.

[norwegianne]

Originally Posted by Philippe Egalite'

The Danish Royal House consists of 11 personages but the wider family includes several Counts and Countesses Rosenborg. Of the 11 members of the Royal House, the two sons of Prince Joachim, Felix and Nikolai will in 20 or so years get married and have children. These young boys are princes but already non-royal highnesses, by decision of the Queen, and If I understand it correctly, their children will be commoners of sorts. Therefore, the need sooner or later will appear for a surname for the members of the Royal House as they cease to be princes/princesses, unless they will continue with the tradition of using Rosenborg as a surname.

Thus, even though the monarch and the princes/princesses need no surname, it is already certain that some of the queen's grand children, namely all of prince Joachim's issue, will need to adopt a surname and I would have thought that it would be most opportune for the queen to decide what the name shall be, before the family starts widening out.

To conclude, therefore, it is logical and mandated by life itself that all reigning royal families have a surname to be used only by their members as and when they cease to be royal and princely and as they start spreading out.

The Danish royal family has managed to stay relatively small on its own, over the centuries, so I don't think the Queen needs to put extra measures in. It regulates itself via the Counts of Rosenborg issue.

The obvious thing is for Nikolai and Felix (or their children) not to ask for permission when they'll marry, and voilá - counts of Rosenborg.

[JessRulz]

Originally Posted by norwegianne

...The obvious thing is for Nikolai and Felix (or their children) not to ask for permission when they'll marry, and voilá - counts of Rosenborg.

Just out of curiosity, what would Nikolai and Felix's children be titled if they did seek and gain permission to marry? Would their wives become HH Princess XX of Denmark?

[norwegianne]

Originally Posted by JessRulz

Just out of curiosity, what would Nikolai and Felix's children be titled if they did seek and gain permission to marry? Would their wives become HH Princess XX of Denmark?

If they would be going by already existing example, then they would indeed be HH Prince(ss) XX of Denmark - until such a point that they either didn't ask permission for marriage, or the lines died out in the male line.

Example is the youngest son of Christian IX, Prince Valdemar. Prince Valdemar married Princess Marie of Orleans. Out of their children, several became counts of Rosenborg, but Prince Axel married Princess Margaretha of Sweden, in an equal marriage and presumably with the permission of the king. The children from this marriage, Georg and Flemming, were both born Prince of Denmark. It wasn't until Flemming's marriage that he became "of Rosenborg."

Georg, who married a niece of Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother, was allowed to keep his title, and his wife received the title Princess Anne of Denmark. (As depicted here http://www.heraldik.se/forum/forum/d...%20250x333.jpg)

Monarch - son (Prince of Denmark) - grandson (Prince of Denmark) - great grandson (Prince of Denmark)...

As I mentioned above, the DRF has automatically kept themselves small either by not asking for/getting permission, by getting only girls or by not getting any children at all.