Titles, Surname and Protocols for the Royal Family
 

Can people now marry into the Greek royal family still keeping their careers? Is there any criteria when it comes to choosing a wife/husband? Say it's a movie star, would she have to quit her/his career? I know italys princess clotilde didnt quit acting, but is it the same for greece? They dont have to live according to what their country will think of them anymore isnt it??

Why would there be rules if they are exhiled?

Being exhiled means that the people of the country they were born to rule do not care for them and they have been forced out of that country. While most exhiled people and families always have loyal followings (and the Greek royal family certainly has many supporters within Greece as well as outside of it), in terms of governments who set rules and laws, the individuals and families don't mean anything.

Even with all the wealthy families who support the Greek RF, there is no obligation for the King and Queen's children to seek their permission to marry or for their spouses to give up careers. The support of the Greek RF is purely a social one rather than a legal or political obligation of any sort.

As far as the people of Greece are legally and politically concerned with their exhiled royal family, the various members can do whatever and marry whomever they want. Nikolaos could marry a stripper and it wouldn't matter too much, let alone if he married an actress who would most certainly not be obligated to give up her career. (For what anyway? There are no royal duties to perform so she would sit around the Hampstead home gossiping with Anne Marie?)

ok thank you for your reply, but i wonder, do they still get curtsy'd / bowed to?

The King and Queen get courtseyed to quite often, so yes they do still get courteyed too. As for the minor members of the family, i am sure they do, but, not often as much because they are not reighning. However they are STILL all royals.

That they are "STILL" royals is relative and according to whom you ask. I think not many people in Greece would say that Constantine, Anne Marie and their children are "STILL" royal. They all may be royal born but they are not royal "STILL."

I could see why Constantine and Anne Marie get bowed to sometimes -- out of respect. But I can't see why Pavlos, Marie-Chantal, Nikolaos, Alexia, Theodora and Phillippos would be bowed to even if it was not very often but at all. What have any of them done to earn respect of others? Even if they live decent lives (especially Alexia) they haven't done anything different that other people don't do on a regular basis and they don't get bowed to so why should the children of the exhiled King and Queen of Greece?

They ARE still royal regardless, largely because of their lineage. Konstaninos' children are descended only from royalty.

Thus, they are STILL royal. The fact that they do not reign is immaterial.

I concur completely.

1. It would be more correct to state that they are of royal descent.
2. And it certainly is not immaterial. Certainly not to the majority of Greeks and the legitimate government of that country.Greece is no longer a monarchy and thus has no royal family.

Since they are also royalty from Denmark - and in fact, carry the phrase "of Denmark" in their titles - it certainly IS immaterial.

Actually that's not correct. Titles and status are generally not inherited from the mother's side (there are, of course, exceptions, but not in this case, as their mother renounced her rights). And neither are the children of Konstantine and Anne Marie Danish dynasts through their father. The Danish RF succession is limited to the descendants of King Christian and Queen Alexandrine as per the 1952 constitution. The "of Denmark" is part of the Greek title. Members of the Greek RF are not/were not Princes/Princesses of Denmark in their own right. It was clarified by the Danish court that they could never just be Princes/ss of Denmark without the "of Greece" part. Thus they are only descendant from Danish royalty (and related to), but not Danish royalty themselves.

Sean, your argument is certainly valid, but then again so is the argument to the contrary.

It's like which came first, the chicken or the egg, lol.

Actually, the contrary argument is not valid at all, as per the Danish Royal Court and the country's constitution. They are the final aribtars of who qualifies as Danish royalty. And, according to them, the Greek royals are not Danish royalty (which is, as far as I can tell, what you were so adamantly claiming in your previous post). Some members of the former GRF use a courtesy title granted at the time William/George I became King of the Hellenes (e.g. the Kings, Queens, and Crown Princes and Princesses of the Hellenes never have), but that's it. Just because someone uses/has a courtesy title does not make them royalty. Thus, again, members of the GRF are only descendant from (and related to) Danish royalty.

Yes, it IS valid. The fact that you disagree certainly doesn't make it so.

It's past time that you realized that.

Sigh. It is NOT valid. Members of the former GRF are not Danish royals. Your arguing by assertion does not make it so. And it's not that I disagree. Danish law doesn't agree with your assertion that they are Danish royals. It's past time that you realized that, as it is quite easy to comprehend. Indeed, I think I've explained it succinctly enough.

Rather than arguing by assertion (and erroneously at that), provide legal evidence to back-up your claim. That is, if you hold the Danish constitution and the royal court to be wrong, tell us why you hold the position that you do (like I have) rather than repeating ad-nauseum that your assertion is valid. This matter has already come before the Danish parliament (as late as a couple of years ago). The former GRF (with the exception of Anne-Marie) are only members of the Queen of Denmark's family (like the Rosenbergs). Not the royal family.

For some people (obviously some people in this thread) Constantine, Anne Marie, Pavlos, Nikolaos, Alexia et. al. will always be royal. But the distinction must be made that they are royal only by emotional attachment to some people. When the King was overthrown by a military coup and forced to flee to Rome, the royal family of Greece ceased to be in any official, political and legal capacity.

If Anne Marie and her family were still considered to be part of the official Danish royal family (as opposed to the Queen's family as Sean.~ pointed out) then why do Anne Marie, Pavlos, Nikolaos, Alexia never take on the role of regeant when the Queen is out of the country? Because they aren't part of the royal family, only part of the Queen's family.

I see no need to spend my time proving myself to you, Sean. You have your opinion and I have mine; I already stated that. If you can't respect the fact that your interpretation is different from that of many other people, it's not my issue.

I know that sounds snotty and I'm sorry about that, but I already explained that we disagree. I really see no need to get into an argument with you.

1. Lol. My position isn't an "opinion" or "interpretatinon". It is factual (I try and make sure I know what I am talking about before getting involved in a discussion). Members of the GRF (with the exception of Anne-Marie) are NOT members of the Danish RF. That's a legal fact. And, as far as I'm concerned, if one can not prove or back-up or even explain ones assertions, then they should not adamantly assert in the first place. It's about intellectual integrity.

2. It doesn't sound snotty. It just sounds like you've been painted into a corner, and that your position is not one that can be backed-up. And I'm sorry if that sounds harsh, as it isn't meant to. You made a claim that the GRF are Danish Royals, however, the Danish royal court and constitution hold otherwise. Thus the onus is on you to prove otherwise. Again, it's about intellectual integrity.

TC.

Marie Chantal is still a princess IMO b/c she is a princess of both Greece and DENMARK. Just b/c the Greeks no longer have a monarchy doesn't mean there isn't still a royal house.

When Prince William of Denmark accepted the Greek throne to become King George I of Greece, his grandfather the King of Denmark was sceptical over the long term success of establishing a Greek Royal House (history appears to have proven his scepticism correct) therefore bestowed the title of Prince of Denmark upon the Royal House of Greece.

This has therefore made all members of the GRF's offical titles Prince X or Princess X of Greece and Denmark.

Well, I don't know about her being a princess of denmark, but for Greece, I think it means just that: she's not princess of Greece. She's as much a princess of Greece as Bobby Fisher is an american now. You can't have a royal family of a country that's a republic. I'm fine with Spoldger's explanation that it is an UNOFFICIAL title. But I still think its kind of pathetic to be clinging to it. Constantine talks a lot about his respect for the people of Greece and so on in some of his interviews. Well, I think if he and his family respects the country so much, they should let go of the whole royal thing. That would be the ultimate sign of respect to the people's wishes. I don't know how Greeks feel about it, but personally, if my country was a republic, and a new one at that, I'd be disgusted to keep reading "King Constantine of Greece", or "Princess Marie Chantal of Greece" and so on.

I read an article in the newspaper about Prince Charles' wedding guests:

From AP:
"Greece's former king and queen, Constantine and Anne-Marie — relatives of the British royals who live in London — will be there, along with Norway's Crown Prince Haakon and Crown Princess Mette-Marit, the Netherlands' Prince Constantijn and Bahrain's King Sheik Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa."

Notice constantine and Anne-Marie are not referred to as King and Queen. I guess proper news agencies are more likely to stick to official titles, compared to fashion and high society magazines.