I spend two hours yesterday responding to your posts, it looks like I'm about to spend three hours today...
And yet we continue going around in circles.
Thanks, Mbruno, and you are right in regard to the point which I was trying to make.
I am happy to try and clarify.
Firstly, the claims I have expressed are limited to the current legal provisions, namely, the Constitution of 1953.
I have refrained from making any claims concerning monarchs' prerogatives under absolutism or older versions of the constitution, or the potential for future Parliaments to enact new laws saying something else.
I have been referring only to what is theoretically permissible under the (current) Constitution, not what is politically realistic.
You can't separate the two. That's not how the world works.
Where there is a political will to solve a problem, i.e. a surplus number of royals and potential heirs, a way
will be found.
Separating the two only works in classrooms.
econdly, the matters of succession and titles are distinct (according to my interpretation).
I agree with you as far as, given the current laws, the monarch cannot change the heir's rights of succession - unless she denies her consent to his marriage.
I disagree with the claim that the law prohibits the monarch from altering the title of the heir. We may assume she would never attempt it in real life, particularly if the Parliament raised any objections, but the law does not include a ban on changes to the title of the heir, as far as I can tell.
Ah, so here we get to the core of your argument.
Okay, no QMII cannot do anything about Frederik being the heir (unless X, Y, Z..) and certainly not without the Parliament screaming their heads off!
Constitutionally speaking the Constitution refers to all hears as "tronfølgeren". But in theory there should be nothing to hinder QMII Frederik's title from Crown Prince to say The Duke of Jutland. That won't happen because there is a centuries old tradition for the firstborn son of a king being title the crown prince.
Thirdly, I have not made any claim in relation to voluntary renunciation (of which your hypothetical case using Nikolai is an example, and of which the hypothetical mariachi enthuasist runaway Frederik
might be an example), although after reading Mbruno's post, I think he has presented a good argument that it would require a legal amendment in order to be valid.
No, an ordinary bill passed in the Parliament would suffice. If that is even necessary. - There is still the little sentence: Unless another law says something else.
No amendment or change in the Constitution or the Law of Succession is needed, it's merely a question of interpreting the paragraphs.
It boils down to: If QMII wish to boot someone out of the Line of Succession and the government and the Parliament don't have any objections, it
will happen.
From a political perspective as long as it doesn't rock the boat, the politicians have no objections to the number of royals (and heirs) being reduced from time to time. Nor has the public!
That's the cold political realities. So again, if the monarch (perhaps spurred on by the government and the public believe a DRF member should be booted out, it
will happen. One way or another...
Any DRF-member going out saying: "I wanna remain a prince, I wanna remain as the 11th in the Line of Succession!" Would not only be ridiculed, but also soon become the most unpopular person in DK since Erik Bloodaxe, killed Svend Skull-Splitter's pet-rabbit!
It would be a PR-suicide.
I refer you again to my posts #95 and #100 and also to #111; the points I expressed have all recognized that §5 of the Act of Succession permits the monarch to remove someone from the Line of Succession by denying her consent to their marriage.
Pretext or not, § 5 is a clear legal basis. It meant that Ingolf and Christian and their descendants, and the descendants of Princess Benedikte (because the King gave his consent to her marriage subject to conditions and she did not fulfill those conditions), were removed from the line of succession by the provisions of § 5 and not merely by the will of the monarch.
§5, is such a nice little paragraph! It is so useful for shorting the list of heirs.
The Rosenborgs were stripped of their status using that paragraph. Why do you think PH's noble title was so inflated? So that the Rosenborgs couldn't officially point their fingers at him, saying: "Hey, he's sort of a commoner too!"
And no one battered an eyelid when Joachim and Frederik married commoners. Had the Rosenborg objected, as pretty much the only ones, it would have been a PR-suicide.
As for Benedikte. How do you think it worked? Should QMII have called her one day saying: Hi, Benedikte. Just wanted to let you know you children can't be on the list, we have an heir and a spare. Too bad, eh? Bye."
Of course not. Benedikte knew the rules. And that's how it has been working within the DRF for centuries.
Again, don't look only at the text in the law.
The issue on which we differ is whether the monarch, under the law as it currently stands, can remove someone from the Line of Succession anytime she likes merely by expressing her will.
Can you document any examples, since 1953, of someone being removed from the line of succession only by the monarch's will, without utilizing § 5?
No, because there haven't been any, since 1953.
But I can assure you the Rosenborgs weren't exactly happy about being sidelined and later being reduced to mere nobles! That is no secret at all.
But Frederik IX had the backing of both the Parliament and the public opinion, and he was the one signing the papers, even
if he may have felt sorry for his brother's family, which I honestly doubt.
Under the Act of Succession of 1953, only the descendants of King Christian IX and Queen Alexandrine are eligible for the throne:
§ 1
The throne shall be inherited by the descendants of King Christian X and Queen Alexandrine.
Even if no exclusions had been made, there would only be about two dozen descendants in the line of succession today.
Ah, that's where we spoke past each other. I was referring to a centuries old custom within the DRF about reducing the number of royals and heirs from time to time.
§1 is just about that: Reducing the number of royals and heirs even more.
Who knows by the next Constitutional change §1 may be changed to "only descendants of Frederik X."
I'm unsure as to which point you believe I am attacking. My point of view is that legally acknowledged succession rights are protected and can only be removed/lost in the several ways that the Constitution allows; my understanding was that you believe succession rights are not protected at all except for the rights of the crown prince/ss.
Like Mbruno, I think that after the introduction of constitutional monarchy, the surplus members and their descendants were removed in accordance with the provisions of the constitution, and no loopholes were needed.
This has been an hour-long debate about the exact wording in the Constitution contra the realities of life.
And as for loopholes. Weeeell, the Rosenborg did not get concent to their marriages, so they were booted out. But Joachim and Frederik? No problems at all. - So don't tell me there isn't a lot of room for "interpretation" in §5.
And again there are more loopholes.
Lets go forward to 2040, at dinnertime. Crown Prince Christian has just buried an axe in the head of his chef, because the sauce was ruined. Now, while some of us might find that a very reasonable reaction, the Parliament may decide that he is unfit and certainly unworthy of remaining the heir, and decide to bypass him.
But what about §2 &5? Well the Parliament will simply decide that Christian is unfit (he's a complete loon! - Even though must of us will think that executing your cook for ruining the sauce is a perfectly sane ting to do.) and as such Isabella is now the heir. No change of the Constitution needed, no amendment, just a bill in the Parliament.
- Remember: Unless a law says something else. - In this case Christian will be declared insane and stripped of his citizens rights and issued a guardian. The law says that in order to act as Regent/Rigsforstander you have to be of legal age. I.e. have full citizens rights. - Another loophole circumnavigating §2.
- There is always a way.
ADDED: I'll take a little break from this discussion and concentrate on other things for a couple of days.
