Titles, Surname and Protocols for the Royal Family

[mariazil]

The Princess' son and grandchildren could never be princes of Greece because according to the Greek law children bear their father΄s surname and title and not their mother΄s. Princesses of Greece could never transmit their title to their children even within an "equal" marriage: Princess Irene became the Duchess of Aosta and therefore her son is an Italian prince, Princess Marina became the Duchess of Kent and her offspring are princes of Great Britain and so on. That is why Paul Brandram only bears his father΄s surname.

Now for prince Michael, he only renounced to his rights to the throne of Greece when he got married, (at the time he was third in line after princesses Alexia and Irene), he never lost his style as HRH prince Michael of Greece and Denmark so his daughters have the style of H.H.R.R.H.H., princesses Olga and Alexandra of Greece and Denmark, but of course they have no right to the succession to the(hypothetical) throne. I must add here, that both the princesses are extremely discreet when visiting Greece, which happens very often, and when princess Olga was married last year in Patmos, Greece, the Greek media barely mentioned the event. As to prince Michael's wife, I know she uses her own name professionally, on royal occasions she is Marina Karella, princess Michael of Greece and Denmark.

[Vlaha Karatsokaros]

Originally Posted by BELTRANEJA

I think the situation of Prince Michael is very similar to the Princess Catherine, she had to give up her title of Princess of Greece when she married Richard Brandram,she was daughter of kings ......

Insofar as princess Katherine was concerned, she was always referred to as princess Katherine by the Greek Royal Family, that is, both before and after her marriage. However, she had to give up her title as princess of Greece, only in relation to the United Kingdom and in order to become a British citizen. In fact, by an act of King George VI, I believe, and after she paid a fee (she recalled later jokingly), she was reduced to the standing of a Duke's daughter as Lady Brandram in a fashion similar to the case of the Battenberg princes (who were reduced to noblemen) when they assumed British nationality.

Originally Posted by mariazil

Now for prince Michael, he only renounced to his rights to the throne of Greece when he got married, (at the time he was third in line after princesses Alexia and Irene)

This is true. More precisely, at the time, he was 4th in line of succession after princess Alexia, princess Irene and prince Peter, son of prince George of Greece and Marie Bonaparte (Napoleon) although questions had been raised in 1964-5 about prince Peter's rights since he had been married to a commoner.

Originally Posted by mariazil

.... he never lost his style as HRH prince Michael of Greece and Denmark so

This is true

Originally Posted by mariazil

.... his daughters have the style of H.H.R.R.H.H., princesses Olga and Alexandra of Greece and Denmark, but of course they have no right to the succession to the (hypothetical) throne.

This is uncertain since their father's marriage was morganatic and his spouse was never elevated to princess by royal decree [as was the case of Aspasia Manos and Mrs. Leeds] or letters patent etc. As you point out, however, at this juncture all the above are irrelevant.

Originally Posted by mariazil

I must add here, that both the princesses are extremely discreet when visiting Greece.

The daughters of prince Michael are virtually unknown in Greece. To the same extent, for instance, the Greek people have no clue that King Juan Carlos first cousin's daughter, a full Borbon princess, is married to Mr. Markos Nomikos and lives permanently in Greece.

Originally Posted by mariazil

As to prince Michael's wife, I know she uses her own name professionally, on royal occasions she is Marina Karella, princess Michael of Greece and Denmark.

At the time of prince Michael's wedding, in Athens, it was announced through the Court's Circular that his spouse would be known (just) as Marina Karella. In Greece, she has always been known and referred to as Marina Karella, both professionally and socially.

[mariazil]

Thanks for clearing things out. I wasn΄t that sure myself about Marina Karella and their daughters were so often referred to as "princesses of Greece and Denmark" by the press(French and Spanish mostly) that I thought this was right. And of course you were right about prince Petros, I had completely forgotten about him...

[stef]

I agree with Vlaha Karatsokaros ,Prince Peter was in line of succession before the Prince Michael.Marie Karella, had no title of Princess.

[snowflower]

I tend to believe that King Konstantine allowed Prnce Michael's daughter to be styled as Princes Olga and Princess Alexandra of Greece more in a honorific way since their father never seized to be an HRH. Besides since they were girls, they could not pass any title to their offspring, so it wouldn't hurt anyone.

If prince Michael had a son how do you think he and his children would be styled?

[Vlaha Karatsokaros]

Originally Posted by snowflower

I tend to believe that King Konstantine allowed Prnce Michael's daughter to be styled as Princes Olga and Princess Alexandra of Greece more in a honorific way since their father never seized to be an HRH.

Even when Greece was a monarchy, all these titles were honorific anyway, meaning that there was no consitutional backing except for the King Queen and Diadoch (heir to the throne). However, traditionally, children and grandchildren (through the male line) of Greek kings were styled as HRH and addressed as princes/ses.
To the best of my knowledge, there have been four morganatic marriages of Greek princes,
1. King Alexnader's to Aspasia Manos [who, after her husband's death was elevated, by royal decree, to HRH Princess Aspasia and this was only done in order to prevent the late king's newly-born daughter from becoming a commoner which would be an embarrassment]
2. Prince Christopher's to Mme Leeds, who was elevated to HRH Princess Anastasia, but died soon without issue.
3. Prince Peter's to Mme Irina Ovtchinnikova [whose fate remained unknown and she never showed up in Greece] without issue.
4. Prince Michael's to Mme Marina Karella.

Thus, the only precedent of a moragantic marriage with issue was that of King Alexander to Mme Manos and in that case the offspring became a full princess only after King Constantine (after he reascended to the throne) elevated her mother, Mme Manos - and only then Alexandra became automatically HRH Princess Alexandra of Greece and Denmark. And I believe this is a widely implemented rule within European royalty.
To conclude, as long as their mother remains a commoner, the above ladies cannot be princesses. If, however, King Constantine elevated Mme Karella to princess, then, the young ladies could perhaps be princesses. And I say, perhaps, because prince Michael is merely a king's grandson.

[snowflower]

Ok, I understand that the royals of the Gluckburg family tree have no last name . But since a last name is neccesary for all greek citizens why can't King Konstantine use the whole house name for a surnmane .And if not for him then for his descendants. I mean would for example a name like "Pavlos von Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg " be historically accurate and acceptable by greek law? ( note that I didn't use just Glucksburg but the whole title of te dynasty) I don't think the Greek royal have a reason to complain to such a surname.But that's of course my opinion

[Vlaha Karatsokaros]

Actually, the issue should have never reached such extremes. Unfortunately, the then government got somewhat vindictive and King Constantine reacted somewhat ineffectively and in the wrong direction. Specifically, King Constantine declared that he had no surname, which is an irrelevant issue, because whether one has a surname or not, she/he must choose and adopt one in order to become a citizen. The government, then, interpreted the statement as meaning that King Constantine would not adopt or was unwilling to adopt a surname.

In the interim, the Supreme Administrative Court (Symvoulio Epikrateias) decreed that of Greece was a legitimate identifier by elaborating on the issue and stating, (in paraphrase), "any phrase, sentence, words that can identify a person can stand as surname and are a surname".

The King, it is felt, did not have to indulge on the issue of whether his family had or did not have a surname. This I believe "ticked off" the government, for if he didn't have one, he could adopt any surname of his choice [not necessarily Glucksburg or the serial names accorded to the House he descends from, as you suggest].
In other words, if he returned and said, "I choose of Greece as my surname" and with the understanding that he, his family and the Greek State would recognize it as a surname and not as title of provenance, his request could not be rejected.

[BELTRANEJA]

I remember that one of the Greek Government's arguments to the claim of Constantine was "the names of places can not be surname" Greece is a "place", but Glucksburg is other place, is in Germany. If we apply the above reasoning, Greece is not surname and Glubsburg no (in Greece)

[COUNTESS]

It is all silly, becuase Constantine is king of nothing and he can call himself anything he wants. If he wants to go to Greece and the legitimate government there says, what is your last name, pick one. It could be Hanover, too. Nice name. Constantine Hanover. Would look good on a passport.

[Vlaha Karatsokaros]

Originally Posted by BELTRANEJA

I remember that one of the Greek Government's arguments to the claim of Constantine was "the names of places can not be surname" Greece is a "place", but Glucksburg is other place, is in Germany. If we apply the above reasoning, Greece is not surname and Glubsburg no (in Greece)

You are correct! And this argument of the government was as flawed and insincere as King Constantine's (in paraphrase), "I have no surname, therefore I am of Greece which is not a surname"

Originally Posted by COUNTESS

It is all silly, becuase Constantine is king of nothing and he can call himself anything he wants. If he wants to go to Greece and the legitimate government there says, what is your last name, pick one. It could be Hanover, too. Nice name. Constantine Hanover. Would look good on a passport.

Exactly and everybody will be happy thereafter!

[BELTRANEJA]

I want to specify my previous message.

King Constantine has never filed a claim demanding surname. In 1994 a Royal Decree, deprived him of his property and his passport and his surname ... The government conditional on the return of his nationality to a number of requirements including taking a surname different "Greece". The Government of Greece made several arguments between these that the places are not surname in Greece, their members of the then Government claimed that the surname of the former royal family was Gluckburg ... but this is a mistake because Gluckburg is a place, ..

[branchg]

Originally Posted by Vlaha Karatsokaros

King Alexnader's to Aspasia Manos who, after her husband's death was elevated, by royal decree, to HRH Princess Aspasia and this was only done in order to prevent the late king's newly-born daughter from becoming a commoner which would be an embarrassment

Aspasia's marriage to the late King was formally recognized and she was granted the title and style of HRH Princess Alexander of Greece by royal decree, the same as all wives of the Greek princes of the blood, whether commoners or royal.

[Vlaha Karatsokaros]

By letters patent perhaps but not by decree, that is by law. A law had to be introduced upon the return of Constantine II (during his second reign) and based on this law (which in fact was made retroactive), he was then able to elevate Aspasia Manos to a suo jure princess.
All the other ladies (except Mrs. Leeds) were already suo jure princesses and, upon, their marriage, they were not elevated to suo jure Greek princesses, thence their title and style was deriving solely from that of their husband. Examples: Princess Nicholas of Greece (even though Helen was a princess in her own rights), Princess Andrew of Greece (even though Alice was a princess, minor but still a princess), Princess George of Greece (even though Marie was a Napoleon princess), Princess Christopher of Greece (even though Francoise was an Orleans princess).
I would love to hear comments on that.

[branchg]

The only question of Aspasia's status was whether Constantine would recognize the marriage as being valid. At the time, the house laws required princes of the blood to marry equally and with consent from The King.

Since Aspasia married a reigning King, she obviously had permission at the time. There was then a question of whether the marriage itself was legal in Greece. The courts eventually ruled it was a legal marriage and the King's decree then followed.

Technically, she was, albeit briefly, Queen Aspasia of the Hellenes. But she accepted this was impossible and was happy to be officially recognized as HRH Princess Alexander and their daughter declared legitimate as HRH Princess Alexandra.

[Vlaha Karatsokaros]

Originally Posted by branchg

The only question of Aspasia's status was whether Constantine would recognize the marriage as being valid.

The issue came up at some point before it was known what type of wedding (civil or religious ceremony) had taken place, since it was kept secret. According to the book by Dr A Zaoussis, the wedding took place in an Athenian house, the Archimandrite of the Palace officiated and politician Mr Christos Zalokostas was the best man. In the Greek Orthodox rite, divorce can be granted but marriages do not and cannot get anulled if performed by a member of the clergy. The Orthodox scripta dictate, "Those that God united, no man shall split". Thus, no power on earth has authority to annull (ie invalidate) a properly conducted religious Orthodox ceremony.

Originally Posted by branchg

At the time, the house laws required princes of the blood to marry equally and with consent from The King. Since Aspasia married a reigning King, she obviously had permission at the time.

It goes without saying!!! You are absolutely right here, but the house laws issue is a separate one and pertains only to dynastic matters, titles etc. The marriage, per se, was legal simply because in Greece the Church is a Branch of the State and the Clergy are civil servants.

Originally Posted by branchg

There was then a question of whether the marriage itself was legal in Greece. The courts eventually ruled it was a legal marriage and the King's decree then followed.........
Technically, she was, albeit briefly, Queen Aspasia of the Hellenes......

In the end, the "legality" issue had nothing to do with the validity of the marriage or the house rules (which could easily be overcome by letters patent etc). The problem, I believe, was that the Greek Law did not permit the granting of titles of nobility to Greek citizens. Thus, a Greek citizen, albeit allowed to marry a prince [eg Greek commoner M Karella who married prince Michael] or even the king [eg Aspasia Manos], could not become a noble person or be granted titles etc.
It would be extremely interesting to see how the then scholars of Constitutional Law overcame the obstacle. I guess there were possible ways. For instance, arguing that the titles of the members of the royal family are not titles of nobility. Once, then, she became the spouse of the king, house rules could be applied at the discretion of the monarch.

[branchg]

Originally Posted by Vlaha Karatsokaros

The problem, I believe, was that the Greek Law did not permit the granting of titles of nobility to Greek citizens. Thus, a Greek citizen, albeit allowed to marry a prince [eg Greek commoner M Karella who married prince Michael] or even the king [eg Aspasia Manos], could not become a noble person or be granted titles etc.
It would be extremely interesting to see how the then scholars of Constitutional Law overcame the obstacle. I guess there were possible ways. For instance, arguing that the titles of the members of the royal family are not titles of nobility. Once, then, she became the spouse of the king, house rules could be applied at the discretion of the monarch.

The Constitution forbade members of the Greek royal house from marrying Greek nationals. Titles of noblility were forbidden, but that did not apply to royal styles held by members of the royal family. It simply meant there could not be a constitutional power reserved for a titled Peerage.

The Court of First Instance upheld the validity of the marriage on the grounds that the constitutional prohibition applied to members of the royal family, but not The King himself. That still left the problem of Aspasia's status (her daughter, Alexandra was recognized from birth as a Princess of Greece & Denmark).

At Queen Sophie's request, Constantine issued the decree recognizing the marriage formally and granting Aspasia her royal style and title.

[snowflower]

I ve found some very interesting informations yesterday concerning King Paul. I knew that while he was on his second exile ( 1923 to 1935) he was parted for some years from the rest of the family and lived in the USA, but I didn't knew that he worked there! He was employed to a factory for a while when he first arrived at the country , working at an administration position ( accountant I think). When he went there and asked for a job, his future employer told him that he would be happy to offer him a job , but it would be better if he worked incognito, keeping his HRH a secret from the rest and using a name and a last name. King Paul agreed and, in order to choose his surname he went really back in his geneology to The Dukes of Schlewig Holstein Sonderburg Beck, and he was employed as Mr Paul Beck and that's the name he used socially for most of the time he stayed in the USA. Why did he choose it? I guess because it was a family connection ( although quite dinstant), simple and american sounding. What do you think?

[BELTRANEJA]

I remember have read this in an interview of Queen Sofia and Prince Pavlo talked about it .

[Vlaha Karatsokaros]

I've read that also many times. I was of the impression, however, that he worked in England rather than the USA.