Surname of the Danish Royal Family

[Philippe Egalite']

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?

My understanding is that the children of Nikolai and Felix, as great grand children of a monarch will not be princes/princesses, whether Nikolai and Felix marry with or without permission.
I am not sure whether there is a precedent to this effect in Denmark, but HM the Queen is favoring this development as indicated by the fact that Nikolai and Felix are not Royal Highnesses, but plain hignesses. So, once a generation has ceased to be royal, the next one is expected to cease to be princely altogether!

I guess this would be in line with the British precedent whereby grandchildren of a monarch are the last generation to be princely.

[Philippe Egalite']

Originally Posted by norwegianne

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.

Good! You gave me the golden opportunity.
Therefore, in practice, Rosenborg is the surname of the members of the Danish Royal Family when they cease to be royal. Thus, the argument raised by many, including former king Constantine, that the Danish Royal Family has no surname is untenable.
In practice, that is, all members become Rosenborgs when they cease to be princes/princesses.

[JessRulz]

Thanks norwegianne for your answer I suppose we'll have to wait and see how it turns out in future!

[Philippe Egalite']

Originally Posted by norwegianne

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)

Excellent remark of historic significance. I read somewhere [but cannot remember the source] that the exemption from the "rule" was due to the fact that, while controversy about that forthcoming marriage was in progress, King George VI was somehow incensed and said something to the effect that if a Bowes-Lyon was good for a king, a Bowes-Lyon could also be appropriate bride for a prince.

[CasiraghiTrio]

Originally Posted by JessRulz

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

That was clever.

Henriksen was the surname Birgitte Duchess of Gloucester was born to right? Before she changed it to her mother's name, van Deurs, I think when she was twenty years old, apparently because of her parents' separation.

[magnik]

Brigitte took her mother's maiden name when her parents seprarated in 15 Jan 1966.

Frederik Henriksen - Frederik son of Henrik. Something light with Russian patronimics kind of second name.

[ShootingStars]

I'm sorry if this has already been posted, for i'm sure its a interesting question, but when Crown Prince Frederik and Prince Joachim were in school, and now that Prince Nikolai and Prince Felix are in school, how are they addressed? Are they called by their titles? Or do they use a last name?

Again, sorry if this is repeated.

[Lumutqueen]

They don't have a last name so more than likely on the register they are Prince .... but when in class they are/were just reffered to by there first name.

[Hereditary Thane]

Let us remember that heads of royal houses no longer make arbitary rules concerning their names. All constitutional monarchies and former European monarchies have legislation about surnames. Germany has very strict legal rules, in the UK you can call yourself what you like so long as you are not using it for illegal purposes. I believe the French republic has perhaps the most stringent laws regarding surnames. Although they may choose not to use it all European royal families have surnames.

[Tatiana Maria]

Originally Posted by Emi

Sorry to contradict everyone but I think the Danish royal family doesn't have a surname. They are descended from the House of Glucksborg, but that is their house and not their personal surname. There was an interview with Prince Pavlos posted in the GRF forum a long time ago where he stated on his business cards he is simply 'Prince Pavlos' because his family is descended from the Danish royal family and it doesn't have a surname. Similarly Martha Louise of Norway was registered as 'Princess Martha Louise' when she was born (no surname) as King Haakon was originally a Danish prince. So when Mary Donaldson married CP Frederik she became HRH Crown Princess Mary Elizabeth, not CP Mary Elizabeth Glucksborg or Mary Elizabeth Glucksborg. She has married into the House of Glucksborg, but it isn't her surname.

That's absolutely correct. And as you stated, it is Glücksburg, not "Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg".
https://www.kongehuset.dk/en/menu/ne...e-of-glcksborg

150 years of the House of Glücksborg

Friday, 15 November 2013, the House of Glücksborg celebrates 150 years on the Danish throne. The Glücksborg dynasty, to which Her Majesty The Queen belongs, is the fourth and youngest branch of the Danish royal lines that descended from Gorm the Old and Queen Thyra in the mid-900s.

The currently-reigning Glücksborg dynasty descends from Christian IX (1863-1906) and Queen Louise. Thus, it is the youngest branch in the royal lineage, whose roots go back more than a thousand years.

As for not using a surname, in an interview in December, then Prince Nikolai commented:

https://underholdning.tv2.dk/2022-12...ge-til-bestemt

Når prins Nikolai ser tilbage, har han svært ved at huske, præcis hvornår han fandt ud af, at han var lidt anderledes end gennemsnittet.

Men måske var det tilbage i skoletiden omkring 2. klasse, da han blev spurgt om sit efternavn, tror han.

- Så har jeg skullet fortælle, at det er en spøjs historie; jeg har ikke noget efternavn. Der er en titel og så mit fornavn, siger han.


(When Prince Nikolai looks back, he has difficulty remembering exactly when he found out that he was a little different from the average.

But maybe it was back during his school days, around 2nd grade, when he was asked about his last name, he believes.

- Then I will say, it's a funny story; I don't have a last name. There is a title and then my first name, he says.)

Originally Posted by Philippe Egalite'

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.

That is the case in Denmark but is not generalizable to other monarchies.

In Belgium, for example, it was the fact that the royal family was legally required to have a surname under the Civil Code which forced King Philippe to reclaim his family's Saxon titles in 2015 after almost a century, even though he had no wish to use them.

Originally Posted by Daneborn

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.

Why is it wrong to label royals with surnames which are, in fact, their surnames? Particularly when, as in the Swedish royal family, they label themselves by said surnames.

Originally Posted by Philippe Egalite'

My understanding is that the children of Nikolai and Felix, as great grand children of a monarch will not be princes/princesses, whether Nikolai and Felix marry with or without permission.
I am not sure whether there is a precedent to this effect in Denmark, but HM the Queen is favoring this development as indicated by the fact that Nikolai and Felix are not Royal Highnesses, but plain hignesses. So, once a generation has ceased to be royal, the next one is expected to cease to be princely altogether!

From 1853 to 2022 all persons with a right to inherit the throne were Princes or Princesses to Denmark, including Prince Georg and Prince Flemming (as norwegianne mentioned above), who were only the great-grandchildren of a king.

That Prince Joachim's children were Highnesses and not Royal Highnesses followed the precedent of the past few generations of younger sons' children - Prince Knud's children, Prince Harald's children and Prince Carl's children were only Highnesses.

Originally Posted by Philippe Egalite'

Therefore, in practice, Rosenborg is the surname of the members of the Danish Royal Family when they cease to be royal. Thus, the argument raised by many, including former king Constantine, that the Danish Royal Family has no surname is untenable.
In practice, that is, all members become Rosenborgs when they cease to be princes/princesses.

But those individuals ceased to be members of the Royal House at the same time they became Rosenborgs, and the surname was not automatic, but bestowed case-by-case by the Kings together with the noble title of Count. That is why one of the soon to be former princes requested the King to bestow a different surname on him (and was rejected).

Originally Posted by magnik

Frederik Henriksen - Frederik son of Henrik. Something light with Russian patronimics kind of second name.

Until the late 19th century or thereabous, most commoners in Scandinavian countries identified themselves patronymics rather than family names.

Originally Posted by ysbel

But then again, before Prince Philip, the family name shouldn't have been even Windsor. The family name came from Prince Albert who was a Saxe-Coburg-Gotha. The BRF like to play fast and loose with their family name The Danes are much more conservative.

The British royal family was registered with Prince Albert's titles, but Queen Victoria's family name.

[Toledo]

This is interesting because just yesterday I was watching a short YouTube video, the mini ones, on a person claiming to state surnames started during the black plague or so. And the comments from people all over the world disputing this exaggerated generalization since surnames in every country had a different origin.

I see surnames as a telephone number or zip code, an identifier to state the first name belongs to a specific group of related individuals in some part of the world.

[CyrilVladisla]

Can the house name be considered the surname of the monarch?

[Iain]

Originally Posted by CyrilVladisla

Can the house name be considered the surname of the monarch?

I don't see why not. In Scotland the house name was the surname of the monarch, as in Kenneth Macalpin, Robert Bruce and Mary Stuart. It was the same in England as in Edward Plantagenet or Elizabeth Tudor.

[Tatiana Maria]

Originally Posted by Muhler

Hmm, not really.

The DRF has traditionally been above noble dynasties for I don't know how many centuries and as such the monarch, his heir and the children of the heir (the core-DRF-family) had no family name. Younger sons and daughters eventually reverted into nobility, unless they married a royal.
So the DRF being Oldenburg or Glücksburgs is strictly speaking a foreign construct, for historical references and for people who study dynastic lines. But QMII, Frederik, Christian etc is neither. They have no family name.
Joachim's children have one now, Monpezat. And Isabella, Josephine and Vincent (Even though I think there will be a semi-role for Isabella) or at least their children are also likely to revert into Monpezats.

Frederik and Christian is not and will not be Monpezats. As I understand it (at least in DK) Majesties and Heir trumps noble titles, because they already are a monarch or is destined to become one. So the dynastic name, even if it's not used in practice, follow the majesty, not the husband.
Otherwise Princess Margrethe should have become Countess Margrethe Monpezat upon marrying PH. She didn't, Heir trumps Count.

There are several examples of female monarchs marrying but not taking the name of their husbands. Mary I springs to mind. - And he was also told to mind his own business in regards to England!
She cynically speaking married her husband for political reasons and because she needed a sperm-donor. She certainly did not marry into his family.

- And with that very simplified post, I bid you goodnight.

Interesting. In regards to the paragraph I've bolded:

As the website of the Royal House explains it, the Queen belongs to a continuous Danish royal line which extends as far back as Gorm the Old in the mid-900s; however, this thousand-year royal line is subdivided into direct and cadet line. The Queen belongs to the house of Glücksborg, a side branch of the house of Oldenborg, which itself is a side branch of the original royal dynasty from Gorm the Old.

The Glücksborg dynasty, to which Her Majesty The Queen belongs, is the fourth and youngest branch of the Danish royal lines that descended from Gorm the Old and Queen Thyra in the mid-900s.

The currently-reigning Glücksborg dynasty descends from Christian IX (1863-1906) and Queen Louise. Thus, it is the youngest branch in the royal lineage, whose roots go back more than a thousand years.

When Frederik VII (1848-1863) died without leaving heirs, his successor was, as a result of the Throne Succession Law of 1853, Prince Christian of Glücksborg, who belonged to a side-branch of the House of Oldenborg stemming from Christian III (1536-1559).

https://www.kongehuset.dk/en/menu/ne...e-of-glcksborg

Note that the arms of the Queen (and the arms of the Crown Prince) use the arms of the house of Oldenborg as the inescutcheon (the superimposed smaller shield which traditionally represents the bearer's family heritage).

https://www.kongehuset.dk/en/the-mon...coat-of-arms/#

[Mbruno]

Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria

Interesting. In regards to the paragraph I've bolded:

As the website of the Royal House explains it, the Queen belongs to a continuous Danish royal line which extends as far back as Gorm the Old in the mid-900s; however, this thousand-year royal line is subdivided into direct and cadet line. The Queen belongs to the house of Glücksborg, a side branch of the house of Oldenborg, which itself is a side branch of the original royal dynasty from Gorm the Old.

The Glücksborg dynasty, to which Her Majesty The Queen belongs, is the fourth and youngest branch of the Danish royal lines that descended from Gorm the Old and Queen Thyra in the mid-900s.

The currently-reigning Glücksborg dynasty descends from Christian IX (1863-1906) and Queen Louise. Thus, it is the youngest branch in the royal lineage, whose roots go back more than a thousand years.

When Frederik VII (1848-1863) died without leaving heirs, his successor was, as a result of the Throne Succession Law of 1853, Prince Christian of Glücksborg, who belonged to a side-branch of the House of Oldenborg stemming from Christian III (1536-1559).

https://www.kongehuset.dk/en/menu/ne...e-of-glcksborg

Note that the arms of the Queen (and the arms of the Crown Prince) use the arms of the house of Oldenborg as the inescutcheon (the superimposed smaller shield which traditionally represents the bearer's family heritage).

https://www.kongehuset.dk/en/the-mon...coat-of-arms/#

Crown Prince Frederik, however, will be the first monarch of the House of Monpezat while his mother is now the last Danish monarch of the House of Glücksburg..

[Tatiana Maria]

Originally Posted by Mbruno

Crown Prince Frederik, however, will be the first monarch of the House of Monpezat while his mother is now the last Danish monarch of the House of Glücksburg..

I don't think that has been stated anywhere.

[Mbruno]

Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria

I don't think that has been stated anywhere.

No, but that is what the traditional laws of European genealogy dictate, based on patrilineal family naming.

Of course, King Frederik X may choose to take a different family name, but the fact that Nikolai and Felix appeared to have taken the surname Monpezat (?) is encouraging for traditionalists.

[Duc_et_Pair]

Originally Posted by Mbruno

No, but that is what the traditional laws of European genealogy dictate, based on patrilineal family naming.

Of course, King Frederik X may choose to take a different family name, but the fact that Nikolai and Felix appeared to have taken the surname Monpezat (?) is encouraging for traditionalists.

Tradition is that a family names itself to the most important fiefdom or castle.

The principality of Orange is a good example, the families naming themselves to this fief despite hopping over genealogically:

1181 House of Baux named Orange
1388 House of Châlon named Orange
1544 House of Nassau named Orange
1702 House of Orange-Nassau
1732 House of Orange-Nassau + House of Hohenzollern (Treaty of Partage 1732)
1948 House of Mecklenburg-Schwerin named Orange-Nassau + House of Hohenzollern
1980 House of Lippe-Biesterfeld named Orange-Nassau + House of Hohenzollern
2013 House of Amsberg named Orange-Nassau + House of Hohenzollern

In German such a construction is called a Gennantname in which the name of an estate, or of a House, or of a Court "overwrites" the own real surname. An example is the countly family Von Zech gennant von Burkersroda. In 1815 an untitled nobleman Johann von Burkersroda was adopted by his childless and widowed aunt Louise Gräfin von Zech. With approval of the King of Prussia, the adopted nobleman could use the surname Von Zech genannt von Burkersroda (of Zech named Burkersroda), inhert his aunt/adoptive mother's estate with the right to her hereditary title of a Graf (Gräfin) for himself and his descendants of the body male (so in essence a female could pass her title but with a constructed name to detect the origins of said title).

[Tatiana Maria]

Originally Posted by Mbruno

No, but that is what the traditional laws of European genealogy dictate, based on patrilineal family naming.

Of course, King Frederik X may choose to take a different family name, but the fact that Nikolai and Felix appeared to have taken the surname Monpezat (?) is encouraging for traditionalists.

Of course patrilineal family naming has been the general tradition, and at times the literal law, in European societies. However, I expect Frederik X will be an exception because the same exception has been made with the child(ren) of every other female sovereign in Europe from the 18th century on (including women who reigned in an era when patrilineal naming was applied much more strictly than in 21st-century Denmark).

Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair

Tradition is that a family names itself to the most important fiefdom or castle.

Excellent point. Naming conventions vary by region, era, and so on, but generally speaking, western European royal or noble families did not commonly adopt true family names (name which followed the family line independent of their dominions, fiefdoms or castles) until the modern era.

Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair

The principality of Orange is a good example, the families naming themselves to this fief despite hopping over genealogically:

1181 House of Baux named Orange
1388 House of Châlon named Orange
1544 House of Nassau named Orange
1702 House of Orange-Nassau
1732 House of Orange-Nassau + House of Hohenzollern (Treaty of Partage 1732)
1948 House of Mecklenburg-Schwerin named Orange-Nassau + House of Hohenzollern
1980 House of Lippe-Biesterfeld named Orange-Nassau + House of Hohenzollern
2013 House of Amsberg named Orange-Nassau + House of Hohenzollern

Moved response to the Dutch Royal History subforum, here:

Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria

I'm not sure if that is the best example. There were only one or two "hops" in the succession to the principality or princedom of Orange: First when Prince René bequeathed the principality, which he had inherited from his maternal uncle, to his paternal first cousin Willem of Nassau, and arguably a second time when King William III of Great Britain bequeathed it to his first cousin once removed, Johan Willem Friso of Nassau (but Johan Willem Friso was still a great-grandson of a prior Prince of Orange).

On all other occasions, Orange descended in more or less direct lineage from parent to child, sibling to sibling, and in one case uncle to nephew.

The addition of various other family names such as Baux, Chalon, Mecklenburg (not Mecklenburg-Schwerin), Lippe-Biesterfeld and Amsberg resulted from the children of ruling princesses of Orange and queens of the Netherlands adopting the names of both parents.

[Muhler]

Well, the Monpezat dynasty, was invented so to speak by QMII.
It may be a French family name, but not a noble line.

It's a Danish title, that can be inherited through males.
Apart from placating PH, when he had his tantrum, I think it's a name and title invented to give to redundant DRF members. Just like Rosenborg.

QMII has not taken the title of Countess of Monpezat, according to Danish royal customs she's above all that.

But it will be interesting to see whether Frederik will keep his title of Count of Monpezet when he becomes king.

Again the DRF may stem from a dynastic line, but they don't use that name.
That in contrast to UK where Windsor is an acknowledged and common name for the BRF.
Or in Sweden where the name Bernadotte is used with pride.
No such thing in Denmark.