Crown Prince Christian, News and Current Events Part 1: January 2024 -


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

Hans-Rickard

Super Moderator
Site Team
Joined
Feb 4, 2007
Messages
2,267
City
Stockholm
Country
Sweden
* *

Welcome to Part 1 of the thread for the Current Events of Crown Prince Christian!

You can find the old thread here:

https://www.theroyalforums.com/foru...rrent-events-part-1-october-2023-a-50875.html

Please take a look at the
TRF Community Rules & FAQs!



· Only pictures you have written permission to share can be posted here. You can post links to any pictures.
· No more than 20% of the text of an article can be posted, along with a link to the original article.
· It's a copyright violation to post translations of entire articles.
· We expect our members to treat each other and the royals and persons in these threads with respect.
· Opinions should be backed up by reference to published reports.
· Off topic and empty posts will be deleted without notice.
· Please be careful not to write in capital letters.

:flowers: Happy Posting! :flowers:
 
Last edited:
Quite a special moment for the crown prince although the law itself seems of little importance (looks like a change to an existing one).
 
While King Frederik is on an official visit to Poland, Crown Prince Christian is regent and for the first time signed off on a law.


That's great! Nothing like jumping right into your new role. It is good experience for him. And regardless of what the law is that he signed, he got the practical experience of signing off on a law. Perfect.
 
That's great! Nothing like jumping right into your new role. It is good experience for him. And regardless of what the law is that he signed, he got the practical experience of signing off on a law. Perfect.

It is a good practical experience for Christian, but, speaking from an outsider's point of view, having a totally inexperienced 18-year-old High School student sign bills into law shows how absurd hereditary monarchies can be sometimes by modern standards. But, looking from another point of view, it also underscores how contemporary monarchy is purely ceremonial and how the King or, in this case, the regent is merely a rubber stamp in practice.

Hopefully Prince Christian at least bothered to know the purpose of the law he signed, but honestly I am not sure if that was even the case.
 
Last edited:
It is a good practical experience for Christian, but, speaking from an outsider's point of view, having a totally inexperienced 18-year-old High School student sign bills into law shows how absurd hereditary monarchies can be sometimes by modern standards. But, looking from another point of view, it also underscores how contemporary monarchy is purely ceremonial and how the King or, in this case, the regent is merely a rubber stamp in practice.

Hopefully Prince Christian at least bothered to know the purpose of the law he signed, but honestly I am not sure if that was even the case.

Not more absurd that electing political leaders, who wields real power and whose intellectual capabilities, are at best questionable.

In contrast to his predecessors several of whom were in power when they were eighteen, Christian is unlikely to screw things up. And just as importantly being allowed to screw things up.

I find the idea of having a (on paper) symbolic head of state signing a law before it becomes valid is reassuring. In theory even an eighteen Christian could veto a law if it is questionable. - We have seen several such laws actually being passed here in Europe in recent years.
Freedom is not a given thing anymore.
 
It is a good practical experience for Christian, but, speaking from an outsider's point of view, having a totally inexperienced 18-year-old High School student sign bills into law shows how absurd hereditary monarchies can be sometimes by modern standards. But, looking from another point of view, it also underscores how contemporary monarchy is purely ceremonial and how the King or, in this case, the regent is merely a rubber stamp in practice.

Hopefully Prince Christian at least bothered to know the purpose of the law he signed, but honestly, I am not sure if that was even the case.

FX is an intelligent man, and QMary is an intelligent woman. I'm rather surprised that you somehow think that combined, they raised a stupid son. Or if not stupid, at least a son who is disinterested in knowing anything about the position he will hold one day. I'm not sure why, in the absence of knowing anything about these people, you've chosen to think so negatively of them.
 
If he is clever enough to study at an american universtity how could he be Regent in Denmark?
 
If he is clever enough to study at an american universtity how could he be Regent in Denmark?

He wouldn't. Not while abroad.
So someone else would simply be Rigsforstander.

Christian becomes Regent, if he is available and/or capable, each time the Monarch leaves Denmark.

If these criteria are not met, someone is appointed Rigsforstander. And as Queen Mary is the highest ranking of those who have been approved as rigsforstander, then she is the first choice so to speak - if the DRF continue to follow the unofficial rule they had during the reign of QMII.


So if Christian is in USA or Australia wherever, he can't be a Regent.

And if he is sitting in a fox-hole or running around in a forest somewhere in Jutland next year, they may decide that the most practical thing to do is to declare him unavailable, and appoint a Rigsforstander instead.
FX, when he was an aspirant for the Frogman Corps was at least once dragged out of class and had to run to a car from the court, sign a law and run back to class.
He told about that in one of the portrait books. I actually believe I translated that bit.
So that could happen to Christian as well.
 
Not more absurd that electing political leaders, who wields real power and whose intellectual capabilities, are at best questionable.

In contrast to his predecessors several of whom were in power when they were eighteen, Christian is unlikely to screw things up. And just as importantly being allowed to screw things up.

I find the idea of having a (on paper) symbolic head of state signing a law before it becomes valid is reassuring. In theory even an eighteen Christian could veto a law if it is questionable. - We have seen several such laws actually being passed here in Europe in recent years.
Freedom is not a given thing anymore.

One has to be at least 35 (!) to be President of the United States for example. Although that minimum age is probably excessive by international standards, it is still shocking that an 18-year-old, again with no preparation whatsoever, can be regent just because he is the eldest son of the King (i.e, by a mere accident iof birth). And, on the intellectual capabilities of politicians, whether they are questionable or not, at least they were judged by the voters who made a decision to put those politicians in government, and are subject to the scrutiny of the press and the civil society at large. It is a completely different situation from a hereditary (and unconditional) right to reign then.

The bottom line is that hereditary succession of the head of state is so out of touch with modern concepts of government that it has only become acceptable in European countries by making the King (or the regent) de facto powerless, i.e., a rubber stamp. Yes, in theory, the King or the regent could veto a law, or dismiss the government on his own discretion, but we know that this is not going to happen and, if it did happen, except in the most extreme circumstances, it would probably trigger a surge in support for republicanism.

I know monarchists dislike what happened in Sweden in 1974, but honestly the Swedes were right to take away the symbolic powers of the King to sign laws or appoint the government, as it was a constitutional fiction that no longer had any practical meaning.

EDIT: I apologize for being blunt and I do not want to create a controversy, but keep in mind that, not being a citizen of a monarchy, my personal perspective may be obviously different from someone who lives in Denmark. I respect that you and other monarchists in Denmark or elsewhere might disagree.
 
Last edited:
:rolleyes: Nice....considering you have no idea as to how things went.

Very well stated.
Assuming "he didn't bother to read it", where did that come from??!
From what we have seen of Christian at 18 he seems to take his role seriously. Christian can hear about and talk with his parents about being regent, and I dont doubt they have, but he needs to go through the process. Even if its an insignificant law, it still needs to be done, and he needs to SEE the process and take part.
I'm glad that this process has started, they would do him a disservice by pushing being regent off for years or keeping him in a bubble.
 
Being regent when his father is abroad is for Christian basically being within danish boarders, behave within the laws, and sign what you are told to sign by your adviser….

It’s not like he has to sit in a grand office at Amalienborg every day until Frederik is back, dressed in suit and tie, and do supercomplicated paperwork…

Here in Sweden, the monarch is not even rubber-stamping anymore… An acting regent (Riksföreståndare) is indeed the temporary head of state and as such should always be available for the Speaker and the government, and whenever it is deemed neccessary take over the King’s scheduled meetings and audiences… It has nothing to do with politics anymore…. The laws are signed by the Prime Minister.

I get that monarchy and politics is a sensitive issue…. Especially for people who does not live in a monarchy and is rather used to the thought of monarchies as something bad and outdated….. But let’s be honest about it ! Should Crown Prince Christian, Crown Prince Haakon, The Prince of Wales or anyone of their counterparts try to interfere in governmental work in any way, and try to change or stop what the democratically elected government has decided - they and their royal family will be thrown out of their royal palaces at the earliest possibility…..

The only western european monarch who has any REAL power to overrule what the government has decided and still can expect to remain in office unhurted is the Prince of Liechtenstein.
 
Last edited:
One has to be at least 35 (!) to be President of the United States for example. Although that minimum age is probably excessive by international standards, it is still shocking that an 18-year-old, again with no preparation whatsoever, can be regent just because he is the eldest son of the King (i.e, by a mere accident iof birth). And, on the intellectual capabilities of politicians, whether they are questionable or not, at least they were judged by the voters who made a decision to put those politicians in government, and are subject to the scrutiny of the press and the civil society at large. It is a completely different situation from a hereditary (and unconditional) right to reign then.

The bottom line is that hereditary succession of the head of state is so out of touch with modern concepts of government that it has only become acceptable in European countries by making the King (or the regent) de facto powerless, i.e., a rubber stamp. Yes, in theory, the King or the regent could veto a law, or dismiss the government on his own discretion, but we know that this is not going to happen and, if it did happen, except in the most extreme circumstances, it would probably trigger a surge in support for republicanism.

I know monarchists dislike what happened in Sweden in 1974, but honestly the Swedes were right to take away the symbolic powers of the King to sign laws or appoint the government, as it was a constitutional fiction that no longer had any practical meaning.

EDIT: I apologize for being blunt and I do not want to create a controversy, but keep in mind that, not being a citizen of a monarchy, my personal perspective may be obviously different from someone who lives in Denmark. I respect that you and other monarchists in Denmark or elsewhere might disagree.

The types of monarchies you are describing in an archaic and negative fashion are very much in these years.
I can without problem mention a string of elected (often several times) heads of states who either are absolute monarchs in anything but name, would very much like to be absolute monarchs , are working on becoming absolute monarchs or who would crown themselves kings in a heartbeat if they thought they could get away with it.
Dictators, wannabes or otherwise being de facto absolute monarchs.
Some of them are even hereditary: North Korea and Syria springs to mind.

Most of the countries that score top marks in regards to securing human rights, democracy, freedom of speech etc. oddly enough have a monarch as head of state, so perhaps monarchy - even when the regent happens to be only 18 - isn't that outdated?

As for being 35+ even to be elected. Well, I can't say that impress me the slightest bit, considering the selection of both elected politicians as well as candidates in a certain large country that shall remain unnamed, I have seen quite a lot of 15 years old who act and talk more mature than them.
And if the voters, for whatever reasons, vote for shall we say power-hungry politicians and that has happened many times, what extra stop gap is there? Who else might have the public and political gravitas to oppose such a politician?

There are a number of democracies right now that IMO are 1-3 general elections from going fascist.

The press you say. Ha! - Almost all the press in one of these countries is extremist and so is their coverage.
A free press is of limited value if a large segment of the voters don't care or worse choose to ignore different views or declare it to be "fake news."

You say monarchies are out of touch. An interesting observation as it is well known that the monarchs or Norway, Denmark, Spain, Belgium, Japan, the Netherlands, Britain are known to be very much in touch and to be extremely well informed about political trends.

So the point is: When choosing between a high school student signing laws to make them valid or a populist signing these laws, I know which one I feel more safe with.
 
How right you are, dear Muhler. It isn't as if the Crown Prince made the law, he just signed in what the democrated voted in parliamentarians wanted.
 
This is Denmark's business ... not the business of anyone who lives in another country especially one without a monarchy. If Denmark is O.K. with this ... then so be it.

Don't rain on the CP's parade. Really people ... get a life!
 
This is Denmark's business ... not the business of anyone who lives in another country especially one without a monarchy. If Denmark is O.K. with this ... then so be it.

Don't rain on the CP's parade. Really people ... get a life!

I believe both positive and negative opinions about monarchy or aspects of monarchy, including from people who reside in countries without monarchies, are permitted under the forum rules, and do not think proponents of ceremonial monarchy or republicans need to "get a life" more than traditional monarchists.
 
Last edited:
SE og HØR discovered Prince Christian's first girlfriend. Her name is Jaqueline Adams, who Christian has known since 9th grade.

She confirmed to the magazine that she dated Christian:
"It's true that we were sweethearts, but other than that I have no comments."

Jaqueline's mother is the well-known fashion designer Elsa Adams, who has long had relations with the royal house. She is among Countess Alexandra's best friends.

https://www.seoghoer.dk/kongelige/se-og-hoer-afsloerer-her-er-kronprins-christians-foerste-kaereste
 
Last edited:
I get the feeling that’s a Google mistranslate and the young lady meant they were what Muhler would call “sweethearts”, rather than the sense that would cause even more comment.
 
Se og Hør also broke the news of Princess Ingrid Alexandra's boyfriend shortly after her 18th birthday... Interesting that the girlfriend confirmed (ETA: especially since they are no longer a couple).
 
Last edited:
Oh God, and so it begins, no peace until he gets married.
 
One has to be at least 35 (!) to be President of the United States for example. Although that minimum age is probably excessive by international standards, it is still shocking that an 18-year-old, again with no preparation whatsoever, can be regent just because he is the eldest son of the King (i.e, by a mere accident iof birth). And, on the intellectual capabilities of politicians, whether they are questionable or not, at least they were judged by the voters who made a decision to put those politicians in government, and are subject to the scrutiny of the press and the civil society at large. It is a completely different situation from a hereditary (and unconditional) right to reign then.

The bottom line is that hereditary succession of the head of state is so out of touch with modern concepts of government that it has only become acceptable in European countries by making the King (or the regent) de facto powerless, i.e., a rubber stamp. Yes, in theory, the King or the regent could veto a law, or dismiss the government on his own discretion, but we know that this is not going to happen and, if it did happen, except in the most extreme circumstances, it would probably trigger a surge in support for republicanism.

I know monarchists dislike what happened in Sweden in 1974, but honestly the Swedes were right to take away the symbolic powers of the King to sign laws or appoint the government, as it was a constitutional fiction that no longer had any practical meaning.

EDIT: I apologize for being blunt and I do not want to create a controversy, but keep in mind that, not being a citizen of a monarchy, my personal perspective may be obviously different from someone who lives in Denmark. I respect that you and other monarchists in Denmark or elsewhere might disagree.

I'm from the U.S., with no direct knowledge of the Danish monarchy, but I am sure that Crown Prince Christian's grandmother and mother were close by to guide him if anything really important came up. What a great opportunity for him to get his feet wet in the roll. ?
 
I have always heard that there is an unwritten rule in the Danish royal family that they have to marry people who are not from Denmark. Is that true?
 
I have always heard that there is an unwritten rule in the Danish royal family that they have to marry people who are not from Denmark. Is that true?

I posted my answer, quoted below, to the thread Marriage to Commoners in Denmark. If anyone is interested in discussion of the marriage rules I propose we take the conversation there. :flowers:

Possibly. Section 5(3) of the Act of Succession states:

(3) If a person who is entitled to succeed to the throne decides to marry without the King’s or reigning Queen’s consent which shall be given during a meeting of the Council of State, he/she forfeits his/her right to succeed to the throne and so do his/her children born in lawful wedlock and their issue.​

https://english.stm.dk/media/8875/the-act-of-succession-of-march-27.pdf

Up until now, no monarch has given their consent in the council of state to the marriage of a person in line to the throne and a Danish commoner. Queen Margrethe's cousins Elisabeth, Ingolf, and Christian chose partners who were Danish commoners, but King Frederik IX and Queen Margrethe II refused to give their consent in council to these marriages.

Ingolf and Christian opted to marry their partners anyway and thus lost their places in line to the throne (which, according to custom, meant they ceased to be Princes to Denmark), while Elisabeth chose to live with her partner without marrying him in order to remain a princess.
 
Last edited:
:rolleyes: Nice....considering you have no idea as to how things went.
IMHO he would have noted every comma as it is the first time he has signed anything into law. This is a succession of "firsts" for him and each step is a milestone.t
I also believe he will not want to look and sound ignorant and lazy when either this week or ten years from now some journalist asks him about this, his very first occasasion as "Regent" standing in the shadow od both hus grandmother, the last Queen and his father, the present King.
 
Prince Christian was photographed at a party in Copenhagen.


 
Back
Top Bottom