The Future of the Danish Monarchy

[Muhler]

De facto regent couple.

The Regent Couple is the reigning couple in name and deed.

That's what M&F to a very large extent are today, in the sense that they lift the main burden of work within the DRF.
The regent couple is also, per definition the main characters in the royal roadshow - I'll claim that also cover M&F.
QMII is still there, but a little more in the background.

I will also claim that there is a considerable difference in M&F's role at present, being the IMO de facto regent couple, and actually being the Regent Couple.
As with any job, there is a considerable difference between acting in a function and having that function.
In the former you are still basically a substitute. In the latter the job is yours to shape and adapt to what you want to do with it.

I disagree with you regarding QMII during the pandemic, I actually think your argument backs my claim.

It was very much M&F who went out and encouraged people, by example, to follow the restrictions and guidelines and urge vaccinations.
In that sense M&F were the mother and father.

It was when things started to creak a little in the seams that the wise old, respected and well liked grandmother opened her mouth. Saying it's inconsiderate not comply by the restrictions.

--------------

- I have been asked why an abdication would even be necessary. what is wrong with the system as it is?

I'd like to turn that question around:
Should Frederik (and probably later on Christian) wait until he is 70 or older before he can be allowed to make his personal mark. QMII has had 50 years to put her mark on the DRF and Danish history.
Because QMII could easily live to her late 90's.

And considering their health and modern medical treatment is more than likely M&F will live long lives as well.
Christian, his generation can expect to live past 100.

Something has to happen for the first time. And the monarchies of Spain, Belgium are still around. The Netherlands have had the system of abdications for generations. That monarchy shows no serious signs of falling.
Even the Papal State recently had a head of state who abdicated.

Do we, the Danes, want to see Frederik as the next Prince Charles?

[Prinsara]

Charles keeps being brought up as the 'must avoid at all costs', but on the other hand, he's done more as Prince of Wales than any other Prince of Wales, ever, he doesn't particularly want his mother dead, and he's long ago learned to enjoy the freedoms of speech and action he has by not having the top job — the last of which I believe was already mentioned here. I think anyone who feels sorry for Charles or sees him as a negative example doesn't really understand Charles, what he's managed to do, or the fact he's pretty content as he is right now.

Frederik could and should be so lucky, frankly.

[Muhler]

Or he simply got used to it?
And made the best of it.

Of course he is not going to say: I hate being in this here waiting situation.

Nor does he wish his mother dead, surely. I sincerely hope not!

My point is: If they look like a regent couple, sound like a regent couple and walk like a regent couple - they are a regent couple. So make them the regent couple.

I will not presume to go in and tell the British that they should introduce abdications, it's not my monarchy. What works there may not work in DK and vice versa.

I will however have serious problems drumming up even five ordinary Danes on the streets who would think it's great that Frederik was still Crown Prince at 73.

[Prinsara]

Okay, you go tell Miss Daisy she's holding Fred and Denmark back and she needs to step down.

I will get the popcorn and watch.

But, again, I think it belongs in "Future of the Danish Monarchy".

[Somebody]

Originally Posted by Prinsara

Charles keeps being brought up as the 'must avoid at all costs', but on the other hand, he's done more as Prince of Wales than any other Prince of Wales, ever, he doesn't particularly want his mother dead, and he's long ago learned to enjoy the freedoms of speech and action he has by not having the top job — the last of which I believe was already mentioned here. I think anyone who feels sorry for Charles or sees him as a negative example doesn't really understand Charles, what he's managed to do, or the fact he's pretty content as he is right now.

Frederik could and should be so lucky, frankly.

Charles has also expressed that he has prepared for what you call the 'top job' his entire life; he is quite ready! So, I am quite sure he would be happy to take over, especially if that would NOT involve the death of his mother.

In addition, I don't think William is looking at Charles and thinking: I would love to be a 'trainee' until I'm in my 70s. If needed, William and Catherine could take over... While they might benefit from a few more years under their belt (and their children a little older), they don't need a few decades...

So, I fully agree with Muhler that for the health of a monarchy (and also personal happiness of the royals themselves) handing over the reigns while the heir is in their fourties is excellent timing. I don't expect future generations (i.e., the current younger generations, for example William or Frederick in the case of Denmark) to stick to the no-abdication principle. However, neither one would like to be a very short-lived monarch either, so they'll most likely try to find a balance: probably a reign of at least 20 years (if they have those years) and preferably handing over well before the heir is of retirement age (so at the latest in their 50s).

[Prinsara]

Originally Posted by Somebody

Charles has also expressed that he has prepared for what you call the 'top job' his entire life; he is quite ready! So, I am quite sure he would be happy to take over, especially if that would NOT involve the death of his mother.

In addition, I don't think William is looking at Charles and thinking: I would love to be a 'trainee' until I'm in my 70s. If needed, William and Catherine could take over... While they might benefit from a few more years under their belt (and their children a little older), they don't need a few decades...

I don't call it the top job; they do. And there is no way he's going to obtain it other than the death or incapacity of his mother, so saying he'd love another option is pointless. He's done pretty amazingly well with what he has. William has been quoted saying "I don't lie awake at night" wondering when he'll be king. The que sera sera principle works well enough for now.

Perhaps leave the Prince of Wales out of discussions of monarchies where abdication is a slight possibility or an established precedent? It's apples and pears.

[Somebody]

Originally Posted by Prinsara

I don't call it the top job; they do. And there is no way he's going to obtain it other than the death or incapacity of his mother, so saying he'd love another option is pointless. He's done pretty amazingly well with what he has. William has been quoted saying "I don't lie awake at night" wondering when he'll be king. The que sera sera principle works well enough for now.

Perhaps leave the Prince of Wales out of discussions of monarchies where abdication is a slight possibility or an established precedent? It's apples and pears.

Why is it 'apples and pears'? The situation of Charles could be the situation of heirs in monarchies where abdication is not established practice; so it provides an excellent example of what these monarchies might face in this age where people in general get much older than in past centuries. It shows very well what many think is not in the best interest of the monarchy as an institution in the long run (that doesn't mean that people don't value queen Elizabeth or queen Margrethe or Harald etc).

I don't think it is good for a monarchy if people start to pity the heir for having to wait so long and calling for him to be skipped. While Charles knows fully well that he will have to wait for his mother to die to become king; that's probably the case for several other heirs as well. So, while very few would wish their parents to die (unless they know they are suffering), at the same time heirs might (secretly) wish that they wouldn't have to wait for their parent to die to take on the position they've been preparing for their whole life and wish to do that well before their peers retire! In addition, they might also honestly wish for their parents to allow themselves to lay the burden down at a certain point and enjoy what they have left of life without the feeling that it would be a failure to do so and with the added joy of seeing their child take up the position they know so well. Again, that doesn't mean that these heirs that are 'waiting' don't try to make the best of the situation until that moment arrives.

If I am not mistaken, Margrethe herself expressed how hard that transition is: not only loosing your parent but at exactly the same time also having to follow in their footsteps (without them being around to discuss anything that you might run into; and little time to grieve).

[Mbruno]

Originally Posted by Prinsara

Okay, you go tell Miss Daisy she's holding Fred and Denmark back and she needs to step down.

I will get the popcorn and watch.

But, again, I think it belongs in "Future of the Danish Monarchy".

"Daisy" might have made up her mind on the topic of abdication, as has Queen Elizabeth, but I think future generations of royals might have a different attitude about it. The real problem is that it would be unfair for Charles, or Frederik for that matter, to give up the throne after waiting until their 70s to become King. With increased life expectancy, if someone doesn't break the cycle at some point, a situation like that of Prince Charles can keep repeating itself. Spain, Belgium and the Netherlands are in a comfortable situation because they all have kings who ascended in their 40s or early 50s and can still reign for 30 years (give or take), and "leave their marks" as Muhler said before stepping down for their successors to take over at a similarly reasonable age.

The issue of what is best for the monarchy is, however, a more complicated one. Queen Elizabeth II for example is way more popular than Prince Charles, but William appears by the polls to be nearly as popular as his grandmother. I don't know the poll numbers in Denmark to make an informed comment. In any case, I guess it is fair to say that crown princely couples in their 40s who are still reasonably good-looking and have good-looking teenage kids tend to be attractive and popular (I know those are very shallow reasons, but I am just stating what I see in practice). When a Crown Prince, however, waits too long to ascend and , as his own children move into adulthood and start to eclipse him ,his "popularity capital" begins to fade.

[Alison H]

Have people got used to having younger leaders? Joe Biden is an obvious exception, but it's now quite common for presidents and prime ministers to be in their 40s. That would have been considered too young to have the necessary experience/gravitas at one time, and some Victorian political leaders were in their 80s. That doesn't affect the position of an heir who's still "waiting" in their 70s, but I wonder if people have just got used to seeing younger men and women on the world stage.


It's actually quite strange that, as life expectancy's increased, politicians have got younger.