The position of the Royal Family and attitudes to restoration

[Von Schlesian]

I can't agree with the earlier poster. Nobody is 'rightly' referred to as the King of France, that's nuts!

Did anyone actually write "King of France"?? I don't think so. If I were to write that, then correct you'd be to challenge. However, I wrote "King of the French", which is an entirely different meaning.

To everyone else, my apologies if the content of my posts appears to be "nuts"

 

[Frothy]

LOL, no offence meant! But I do think it is "nuts", crazy, off-the-wall - let's say just very unusual to call somebody 'King of the French'. I understand the distinction you make with the post-Napoleon titles btw; but 'King of the French' is, if possible, more odd even than 'King of France' given that these same French are the ones who chose a Republic! He is plainly not their King!

Now, Constantine admits this himself on his own website. If he, himself, concedes former King, why should anyone else claim for him rank and status he does not claim for himself? The Greeks and the ex-King agree that he is not a King and not their King. Everybody else should accept this jointly agreed fact, it seems to me. My $0.02!

 

[Frothy]

As a Catholic I do not believe in divine right of Kings, but as an ardent monarchist, I believe that there is a danger to constitutional monarchy everywhere when pretenders ignore the will of the people. Sean has pointed me to a place where the British royal family refers on a website to Constantine, a private citizen, as King of the Hellenes. That is, luckily, not widely known in the UK and if it were to be discovered would give ammo to our small but determined republican movement.

For royalty to be safe in this world (and also as a matter of ethics and natural justice) the will of the people is all.

Greece is a republic, and it has neither King nor Queen nor Princes. The will of the Greek people must be respected. the ex-King does respect it, it seems his son and daughter in law do not. That's the difference.

 

[Splodger]

The British RF upset the Greeks in 1981, when the Greek president discovered he was further down the list of guests at Prince Charles & Diana's wedding than Constantine who was listed as King and not ex-King. Personaly i wouldnt have put it passed Charles or even Philip to do that on purpose for a laugh at the republics expence... on one of Philips many occasions where he expresses his opinion before thinking of the outcomes, he has expressed his less than charmed impression for them. I forget what it was in connection to, but it was something about thanking the Greeks for something and he said something on the lines of "they exciled me once, my mother twice and tried to execute my farther... what have i to thank them for."

 

[Sean.~]

QUOTE=Splodger]The style to which Constantine (and other ex-kings) are accorded is a 'political' one. If you support their claime you therefore recognise them as being 'King.' If you dont support them you then can either call them 'Ex-King' or 'Mr' depending upon whether you wish to accord them any degree of respect. Its a personal thing. [/QUOTE]

This is true, however, many also use the styles for social reasons and/or reasons of courtesy.

I

do also wish people could see the years under the Monarchy in the context of the time. Previous republics and dictatorships didn't work either. Greece had alot of problems, especialy ecanomical which the advent of tourism in the late 60s and 70s, due to affordabe commercial airlines, boosted the economy. The Republic did not invent the jumbo jet, tourism coinsided with the republic.

This can be said for other counties, too. However, while an interesting analysis, it does not negate the poor decisions made during the monarchy which in turn led to the republics. The reign of Constantine I comes immediately to mind. I deliniated the mistakes of his regime in detail in another place on this forum previously.

 

[Sean.~]

As a Catholic I do not believe in divine right of Kings, but as an ardent monarchist, I believe that there is a danger to constitutional monarchy everywhere when pretenders ignore the will of the people. Sean has pointed me to a place where the British royal family refers on a website to Constantine, a private citizen, as King of the Hellenes. That is, luckily, not widely known in the UK and if it were to be discovered would give ammo to our small but determined republican movement.

For royalty to be safe in this world (and also as a matter of ethics and natural justice) the will of the people is all.

Greece is a republic, and it has neither King nor Queen nor Princes. The will of the Greek people must be respected. the ex-King does respect it, it seems his son and daughter in law do not. That's the difference.

The ex-King respects it to a certain degree. One could also access his website by simply using King of Greece, too! Seriously, though, I think over the last decade or so he's resigned himself to the fact that he won't be invited back in. Whether he's okay with that is another story.

And in Britain (at least amongst those who follow these things), most people know that he is referred to as King of the Hellenes, at least that is the impression I get. Buckingham Palace has never made a secret of the fact that it accords him the title and style.

 

[Sean.~]

The British RF upset the Greeks in 1981, when the Greek president discovered he was further down the list of guests at Prince Charles & Diana's wedding than Constantine who was listed as King and not ex-King. Personaly i wouldnt have put it passed Charles or even Philip to do that on purpose for a laugh at the republics expence... on one of Philips many occasions where he expresses his opinion before thinking of the outcomes, he has expressed his less than charmed impression for them. I forget what it was in connection to, but it was something about thanking the Greeks for something and he said something on the lines of "they exciled me once, my mother twice and tried to execute my farther... what have i to thank them for."

There was a to-do at the time of Caroline of Monaco's wedding to Philip Junot. The Greek representative was quite upset at the pre-wedding ball because Constantine was there as the "King of Hellenes". The representative stated at that time that 'Greece does not have a King'.

 

[Frothy]

And in Britain (at least amongst those who follow these things), most people know that he is referred to as King of the Hellenes

But the people who follow minor Euro royalty are rare indeed in the UK. I suppose we are somewhat snobby, but I doubt that more than a third of one percent could name you the Crown princes of Europe, even, or name the King of the Belgians. How much less, then, do we care about the upstart pretensions of a deposed ex-monarch from a let's-face-it-wasn't-a-real-monarchy in the first place house?

Most thought that Princess Elizabeth married way beneath herself in choosing a Prince from a Johnny come lately house like that and there's a reason he was created Prince of the United Kingdom, so that Britons would know he had a "real" title.

But in that Buck House would be trumping, or ignoring, the will of the Greek people in referring to this guy as a King, that could, if it got out, make them look ridiculous and also anti-democratic. Kind of thing that loses monarchy referenda in Canada and Australia.

 

[Splodger]

I think most Royals consider that once a Soverign House, always a Soverign House. So they will consider an ex-King a King and their decendents there after the highest rank held by that family. In most royal events the Count of Paris is accredited as such with the Style HRH even though the monarchy was abolished in France over a hundred years ago. Therefore regardless of the chances of restoration, Constantine and his decendents are the legitimate Royal claiment to a Kingdom of Greece and are likely to be considered and treated as such by their "Royal Colleagues" until such time they no longer wish to be known as such (King Simeon played down his title when he entred Bulgarian politcs) It is also hardley suprising as they are all related anyway and its just one big exclusive club.

 

[Bubbette]

Doggy style (forgive me but the title begged that response!)

 

[branchg]

I think most Royals consider that once a Soverign House, always a Soverign House. So they will consider an ex-King a King and their decendents there after the highest rank held by that family. In most royal events the Count of Paris is accredited as such with the Style HRH even though the monarchy was abolished in France over a hundred years ago. Therefore regardless of the chances of restoration, Constantine and his decendents are the legitimate Royal claiment to a Kingdom of Greece and are likely to be considered and treated as such by their "Royal Colleagues" until such time they no longer wish to be known as such (King Simeon played down his title when he entred Bulgarian politcs) It is also hardley suprising as they are all related anyway and its just one big exclusive club.

I think people are getting confused between the difference in the courtesies extended to former reigning houses among the royal families of Europe, and the legal and diplomatic status accorded to various individuals of royal lineage.

First, the monarchy of the United Kingdom reigns above all others. The Sovereign of Great Britian, as represented by HM the Queen, holds the ultimate fount of honour among all the current European royal families, with the exception of the Imperial House of Romanov and the Danish throne, because every single one of them are descendants of Queen Victoria. As such, it is generally accepted that the Queen decides what style and titles are recognized in the UK, in consultation with the Government, and these determinations are more or less followed by the royal houses of Europe in terms of protocol with each other.

Secondly, regardless of current status, all of the royals, whether currently reigning or not, generally accord each other the appropriate precedence and style of each head of the royal houses as a matter of courtesy. Keep in mind, however, this courtesy of precedence is generally only accorded to the HEAD of the house, their spouse, and their eldest child. The rest of the members of the family are NOT considered royal if they are non-reigning families.

Third, some former royals are officially recognized by their home countries as royal, most notably in France. The heads of the former reigning families of France, HRH the Count de Paris, Duc de France, Prince Napoleon and the dukes of the House of Bourbon are all accorded precedence and recognition by the French Government legally and diplomatically. In Germany, the former royal families are accorded legal recognition of their titles as a surname (i.e. Georg-Freidrich, Prince of Hohenzollern). Prince Ernst-August, Prince of Hanover is recognized by the German Republic as HRH and Prince of the UK as he is a British citizen and member of the British royal family.

King Constantine is considered to be a former Sovereign as he did actually reign in Greece. However, whether he is addressed as His Majesty King of the Hellenes, is a matter of private courtesy, but officially is incorrect.

 

[Sean.~]

Doggy style (forgive me but the title begged that response!)

ROTFLMAO! I'm glad you said it and not me! I was a bit perplexed when I first saw the title of the thread, too. Anyway, I didn't have the guts to post a fitting reply! Thanks for the laugh.

 

[Sean.~]

First, the monarchy of the United Kingdom reigns above all others. The Sovereign of Great Britian, as represented by HM the Queen, holds the ultimate fount of honour among all the current European royal families, with the exception of the Imperial House of Romanov and the Danish throne, because every single one of them are descendants of Queen Victoria. As such, it is generally accepted that the Queen decides what style and titles are recognized in the UK, in consultation with the Government, and these determinations are more or less followed by the royal houses of Europe in terms of protocol with each other.

With the major exception of Spain, where the Casa Real determines its own rules regarding style and titles, and these too change from time-to-time. And the the King accords precedence & recognition to indivuals who would never the see the light of Buckingham palace.

Third, some former royals are officially recognized by their home countries as royal, most notably in France. The heads of the former reigning families of France, HRH the Count de Paris, Duc de France, Prince Napoleon and the dukes of the House of Bourbon are all accorded precedence and recognition by the French Government legally and diplomatically. In Germany, the former royal families are accorded legal recognition of their titles as a surname (i.e. Georg-Freidrich, Prince of Hohenzollern). Prince Ernst-August, Prince of Hanover is recognized by the German Republic as HRH and Prince of the UK as he is a British citizen and member of the British royal family.

Titles are not legal in Germany. Thus it isn't legal recognition of the titles themselves per se. Members of the former houses, however, are not prevented from using their title as a part of their last name. For example Diane of Wurrtemberg is actually Diane Herzog von Wurrtemberg (since she takes her husband's 'last name'), but because this sounds silly a blind eye is turned to the feminization of the name to "Herzogin von Wurrtemberg". Maybe this is what you were saying, but it just wasn't clear to me.

Have a great day.

 

[Frothy]

Any royal title derives from the consent of the people in question IMO. Thus, the French royal titles that are legally recognized by France are real titles, whereas 'King of the French' is not. I have heard that Comte de Paris is legitimate for this reason, but I wonder if 'Altesse Royal' is also legitimate; I would doubt it.

The difference is clear; Greece does not admit any titles. Therefore it is quite illegitimate for them to use King, Queen or whatever. As a Brit I am all for the pre-eminence of our Sovereign Queen (natch) - but even she cannot grant a title where the people of a foreign country do not recognize it. It is wrong of Buck House to style constantine as a King.

I imagine the goverment of greece has far more problems with the Kingdom of Denmark, however, since they officially and legally style C and A-M as King and Queen of the Hellenes, and A-M has her own major site on the Danish RF site, not as her legitimate title, HRH Princess Anne-Marie of Denmark but as Her Majesty Queen Anne-Marie of the Hellenes, which of course she ain't.

 

[branchg]

With the major exception of Spain, where the Casa Real determines its own rules regarding style and titles, and these too change from time-to-time. And the the King accords precedence & recognition to indivuals who would never the see the light of Buckingham palace.

Juan Carlos holds sovereign precedence after HM the Queen as his reign is younger, however, he actually holds far more real power as Head of State in Spain. He too is a descendant of Queen Victoria through his father's line as is Sophia though her mother's line. In royal terms, HM the Queen holds precedence as the fount of honour for his family as well. However, as King of Spain and Head of State, Juan Carlos retains the fount of honour for his subjects and family, including some of the lines held by the French Bourbons.

You are correct that Juan Carlos grants precedence to individuals such as Maria Vladimirovna of the Imperial House of Romanov, who is not recognized by the House of Windsor in any manner whatsoever. He also has granted titles to questionable individuals (the widow of Baron Thyseen) in return for money or gifts of art to the Spanish state.

 

[EmpressRouge]

He too is a descendant of Queen Victoria through his father's line as is Sophia though her mother's line. In royal terms, HM the Queen holds precedence as the fount of honour for his family as well.

Queen Sofia of Spain is a descendant of Queen Victoria on her father's side too. King Paul of the Hellenes was the grandson of Vicky, Princess Royal and Queen Fredericka was Vicky's great-granddaughter, thus making them first cousins once removed.

 

[Sean.~]

Juan Carlos holds sovereign precedence after HM the Queen as his reign is younger, however, he actually holds far more real power as Head of State in Spain. He too is a descendant of Queen Victoria through his father's line as is Sophia though her mother's line. In royal terms, HM the Queen holds precedence as the fount of honour for his family as well. However, as King of Spain and Head of State, Juan Carlos retains the fount of honour for his subjects and family, including some of the lines held by the French Bourbons.

Um, I'm already aware of all this, and didn't post anything to the contrary. The fact remains that the Royal House of Spains decides what titles and styles it will bestow/recognize individuals with, and the precedence they receive at the Spanish court. That's what I originally posted. I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "fount of honour"". If you mean that the Spanish RF defers to (or must defer to) decisions of 'recognition' by the British Court, then we disagree. Actually, several of the European courts (Sweden, Belgium, Denmark, etc.) recognize individuals that Buckingham palace would not give the time of day to. The Spanish recognize some of the more questionable individuals, IMO.

In any case, non of the courts aret bound by any kind of precedent set by the British Queen. They are all independent of each other and do as they deem fit.

You are correct that Juan Carlos grants precedence to individuals such as Maria Vladimirovna of the Imperial House of Romanov, who is not recognized by the House of Windsor in any manner whatsoever. He also has granted titles to questionable individuals (the widow of Baron Thyseen) in return for money or gifts of art to the Spanish state.

 

[grecka]

Recognition of the Greek royal family by other royal families, in my opinion, is justified, as they're related to the Greek royal family. The Greek royals are perhaps the most extensively married royal family in Europe, and, as they are related to nearly every king and queen in Europe, they're accorded respect. As for Constantine at the court of Denmark and in the Scandinavian countries, he's accorded respect there, likely, as the husband of Anne-Marie.

 

[Idriel]

Monarchies are more expensive than republics of the same or similar size.

Hi Sean! First I want to say I always love your posts.
I am interested in your point as I have a totally different opinion. What Monarchies are you talking about? Could you please elaborate (details, figures, back-ups)?
Thanks.

 

[tiaraprin]

Recognition of the Greek royal family by other royal families, in my opinion, is justified, as they're related to the Greek royal family. The Greek royals are perhaps the most extensively married royal family in Europe, and, as they are related to nearly every king and queen in Europe, they're accorded respect. As for Constantine at the court of Denmark and in the Scandinavian countries, he's accorded respect there, likely, as the husband of Anne-Marie.

I agree with Grecka on this one.

It is also true that each Royal House determines who they recognize and who they do not. Her Majesty the Queen is going to recognize the Greek Royal Family due to her husband and other family ties that go back generations. In many royal circles, Constantine and Anne-Marie are the King and Queen of the Hellenes.

 

[Sergius]

Constantine restaured

Hi! I am new here, I am not a royalist, but very much interested in modern history. Got fascinated by the recent history of Constantine and the Greek Royal Family and their involvement in politics/Coup of 1967, argument about their titles, citizenship, ability to visit and stay in Greece, properties and sell of royal artifacts by Christie's. I spent DAYS reading about recent history of Greece, and my conclusion is that is quite unfair, in general what the Greek goverment is doing and has done to the Royal Family. The man TRULY seems to have tryied to stop any possibility of blood bath when he left Greece after the coup. I would have done the same. And that was quite a remarkable action for such a young man. Nobody seems to give him that. I wonder why the Greek public is so fantically against the Royal Family (apart from their unjustified meddling in politics, granted). Would love to hear opinions about this. Thank you very much

 

[BeatrixFan]

Well, not all the Greek public are 100% against them. Certainly on the smaller islands, Constantine and Anne Marie seem to have respect and loyalty. When I was last in Greece, I found that some people wouldn't discuss them, some got angry at the mention of their names and the older Greeks got excited and told me that they had never stopped being their King and Queen as far as they were concerned. It's a mixed reception.

 

[Sergius]

hey Beatrix! Thank you very much for your prompt response. I've also been to Greece many times, but honestly didnt ask what do they think about their former Royals. I personally met Princess Irene, here in Cape Town, long ago in a charity fonction. She was a very humble and lovely woman. But in any case, I also found that the referedum of 1974 is morally (to be 'soft') UNVALID. They didnt allow the King to go and defend himself. I read that Brazil, got a referendum a couple of years ago to see if their monarchy should be restaured or not, since someone questionned the validity of the monarchy abolished in 1889. The Brazilians went to the polls and, surprisingly, aprx a 23%, even MORE than 100 years after, voted for the restauration. Wonder what would be the percentage if a referendum got place in Greece today.

 

[Bella]

Well, not all the Greek public are 100% against them. Certainly on the smaller islands, Constantine and Anne Marie seem to have respect and loyalty. When I was last in Greece, I found that some people wouldn't discuss them, some got angry at the mention of their names and the older Greeks got excited and told me that they had never stopped being their King and Queen as far as they were concerned. It's a mixed reception.

I agree. While I have never been to Greece myself, members of my family have as well as many of my friends. I've been told that in some areas it's almost dangerous to bring up the deposed GRF as the public there are very much against them. While in other areas ppl simply shake their heads and are almost reluctant to speak well of the GRF, even if they like them. I have talked to some residents of Greece and it does seem the older people are more pro monarchy (one gentleman even said restoring the monarchy would add much needed "class" to his country) while the younger ppl could care less.

 

[lucien]

First, the monarchy of the United Kingdom reigns above all others.
[/quote]

Just in the United kingdom that is.Sorry.

And King Constantine can very well still be referred to as HM King Constantine,the referendum was as twisted/corrupted as could possibly be,and Hellas was not recognised for a loooooong time as a republic as a result,especially not by the European Courts.

I never had any problems talking about the Greek Royal family while in Greece,let alone that it was "almost dangerous"to do so,nonsens,some are not really open to it,yes,but then don't forget that the junta,and the subsequent petty spoiled rats in the subsequent governments have done everything within their power to almost errase anything and everything linked to their RF for decades,and more so,trashing and bashing.Small wonder the younger generations don't really care,or better,know what to think.I never miss the chance to explain when there tho,defending them against the brainwashed points of view.

Still,I'm very pleased that whenever the Family,or any member of them,is in Greece they are cheered and warmly welcomed,except for the leftists ofcourse,but then their opposition is nothing more then another matter they just oppose too as that is the thing to do in those circles down there regardless the issue,not because they can find a single,factually correct,argument against the RF.

 

[Daytona]

I dont believe the greek royals have many followers.They have made a foundation(i dont know the english terme,something like friends of the royal regime) and all of the enrolled followers recieve cards from the king and make dinner parties.According to the king there are also politiacians who are followers.I think we are indifferent for the royal family.Most of us dont know where Tatoi palace is.

 

[lucien]

Indifference as opposed to ignorance perhaps.

Tatoi Palace and the RF are part of the Greek history,unless one prefers the black pages of either the junta or those petty leftists in Greece,and the worse ever corruption and incompetence by both the latter two unseen before in Hellas history....oh well,avrio....yamas!

 

[Royalist0007]

King Constantine II of Greece.

He's not "the King". I really don't understand why people are calling him King Constantine and the King. Greece is a Republic. He's ex-King Constantine if you must use the word 'King' at all.

Frothy,King Constantine II has never signed any instrument of abdication,so therefore,he is still regarded as a king,albeit,a non-reigning one.

As to King Constantine being unpopular in Greece,I believe that he was never given the opportunity to prove himself.If the colonels had not taken over at all,then Greece could possibly be a very well-run country today,not a banana republic that has rampant corruption & active terrorist organisations.He is possibly very unlike his father.

Aidan.

 

[Bella]

Do you think there is a chance that, in another generation or so (say, when Pavlos is a bit older and if Constantine passes away) there is a chance of restoring the monarchy? After all, by then most of those involved w the coup will be gone and new govt. officials will be in power. Do you think they might be more open to a GRF with Pavlos as King?

 

[Saturn]

Thankyou for your interesting and informatives posts, Sean.