Do Royals Have To Be Born In Their Own Country?

[Lumutqueen]

I was wondering whether an a heir or baby of a royal parents for instance the crown princes of Denmark, Spain, Netherlands or Belgium has to be born in that country?

Or could the baby be born where the parents choose, like for Mary of Denmark may want one of her children born in Hobart?

Thank you.

x

 

[sgl]

I don't know the answer for reigning families, but Crown Prince Pavlos of Greece's children have been born in different places, such as New York, Los Angeles, and London. Since this royal family doesn't have a country to reign over, then this makes sense. I do know that Princess Margriet of the Netherlands was born in Canada, and she is of a reigning family. Hopefully, one of the other members knows much more than I do.

 

[Al_bina]

I think that Crown Princess is expected to give birth to her child/children in the country she has married into ( I can not find the better word). If otherwise, there might be issues related to the citizenship. Given my limited knowledge of legalities, my assumptions can be wrong.

 

[acdc1]

The present King of Thailand was born in the United States, so I guess you can still reign.

 

[Maura724]

I do know that Princess Margriet of the Netherlands was born in Canada, and she is of a reigning family.

However, the hospital room Margriet was born in was declared Dutch territory for the day so that she would technically be born in the Netherlands. I think this was necessary for her to have any rights to the throne, which would have been much more important had she been a boy and therefore the future King. So I would assume that the laws in most European countries demand monarchs to be born in the country.

 

[NotAPretender]

Often times, if a royal pregnancy is to conclude in a place other than the homeland, the spot of birth is temporarily declared to be the home country.

 

[lilytornado]

Juan Carlos was born in Rome.

 

[Maura724]

The Spanish royal family was in exile at the time, though, weren't they?

 

[iowabelle]

I think Crown Prince Peter of Yugoslavia was actually born in London, although that was during World War II, also.

 

[lucien]

I was wondering whether an a heir or baby of a royal parents for instance the crown princes of Denmark, Spain, Netherlands or Belgium has to be born in that country?

Or could the baby be born where the parents choose, like for Mary of Denmark may want one of her children born in Hobart?

Thank you.

x

Any baby born to a Monarch or his/her Heir is in line to the Throne.

So in cases like the Thai Monarch Bhumibol Adulyadej,his parents studied in Boston,or Juan Carlos,
his parents were in exile in Italy at the time,it doesn't make a difference.

But an Heir,nor his wife,can not just pick and choose any spot on the globe to deliver a baby,
that will have to be in the Country itself only unless they are in exile because of war fi,and only then.
Paul of Greece is different ofcourse,he might be an heir,but an heir without a country so it doesn't matter
where his wife delivers,it is of no consequence in any which way.Not that I wouldn't wish for him to "have"
his country ofcourse,but that will not happen.

 

[marmi]

Just for interests sake, I read - but am completely unsure of the truth - that when Princess Maxima was touring a country whilest heavily pregnant (maybe Turkey???) that they carried a jar of Dutch soil with them, in case of an early delivery.

 

[wbenson]

If it's not required, it's still going to be very likely. Heavily pregnant women, especially heavily pregnant royals, don't make very many long trips in my experience, and typically they live in the country the family reigns over.

 

[Lumutqueen]

Really, a jar of soil?
Thank you all for answering my question.

I heard somewhere that somebodies hotel room was declared a foreign state so that the baby born would still be born in that country it maybe Princess Magriet.

x

 

[marmi]

Really, a jar of soil?

Thats what I 'heard', like I say not sure how true it is.

 

[Jacknch]

I think Crown Prince Peter of Yugoslavia was actually born in London, although that was during World War II, also.

I believe that the hotel room in which Crown Prince Peter of Yugoslavia was born was temporarily declared Yugoslavian soil by the British government (headed by Winston Churchill) because the law in Yugoslavia required the heir to be born on Yugoslavian soil!

 

[MAfan]

I believe that the hotel room in which Crown Prince Peter of Yugoslavia was born was temporarily declared Yugoslavian soil by the British government (headed by Winston Churchill) because the law in Yugoslavia required the heir to be born on Yugoslavian soil!

The same is for Portugal; some doesn't recognise Dom Duarte Pio as Head of the Portuguese Royal Family because He was born in Switzerland, and not in Portugal; He and His Parents ever declared that however He was born over Portuguese soil.

 

[iowabelle]

I believe that the hotel room in which Crown Prince Peter of Yugoslavia was born was temporarily declared Yugoslavian soil by the British government (headed by Winston Churchill) because the law in Yugoslavia required the heir to be born on Yugoslavian soil!

I think you're right about the temporary Yugoslavia (although I don't know about the law). I guess WWII disrupted the normal patterns of life for most European royals, so it wouldn't have been unusual for a royal baby to be born away from its country during that period.

 

[randomlyKeira]

However, the hospital room Margriet was born in was declared Dutch territory for the day so that she would technically be born in the Netherlands. I think this was necessary for her to have any rights to the throne, which would have been much more important had she been a boy and therefore the future King. So I would assume that the laws in most European countries demand monarchs to be born in the country.

It was not declared Dutch, it was declare "extraterritorial", if I am not mistaken. It is in no way legal to declare any part of an established country owned by another for any amount of time without legal actiions preceeding it, and heavy paperwork, etc. The ward was considered "unaffiliated", making it pretty much no-man's land while the princess was being born.

And technically, citizenship does not necisarilly lean on which country you were born. I was born in Monaco, but they do not consider anyone born in their country to have automatic citizenship. You must reside there to be a citizen. I hold duel American and English citizenship, though I was born in neither place. And my sister was born in America, but she holds citizenship in the UK because our mother is a citizen of that country.

But enough of my familial story; I believe that a child born in another country would still be considered citizens and heirs in their home country, though the government and monarchy would only let it happen in extenuating circumstances (such as during WWII). It's patriotism and respect towards their country that their children are born in the country that their reign over.

 

[Charlotte1]

I believe that the hotel room in which Crown Prince Peter of Yugoslavia was born was temporarily declared Yugoslavian soil by the British government (headed by Winston Churchill) because the law in Yugoslavia required the heir to be born on Yugoslavian soil!

It wasn't Peter as he was already King during WW2. It was his son Crown Prince Alexander II ( current crown prince). The room he was born in Claridges Hotel in London in 1945 was declared Yugoslav soil so that the baby could be born on Yugoslav soil, it was more symbolic that actually necessary to royal laws.

The story of Maxima pregnant and a jar of Dutch soil during a trip to Turkey was a myth, it was denied at the time by the Dutch Royal House.

 

[Lobo]

I believe it all depends on the constitution, and whether there is an article says where the heir should be born!

 

[IE3K]

It is rumoured, that Queen Victoria was born in Southern Germany ... it is said, that her mother only made it to an English ship on the "Neckar". But unfortunately (for the city of "Eberbach") the story is not proved.

 

[sancakli70]

After the ottoman imperian family exiled, the members born in france, lebanon, egypt and england the first member who born after the exile born in turkey was prince Sehzade Abdulhamid kayihan Osmanoglu after 55 years exile in 1979. Today the members born in turkey an England

 

[Skippyboo]

It is rumoured, that Queen Victoria was born in Southern Germany ... it is said, that her mother only made it to an English ship on the "Neckar". But unfortunately (for the city of "Eberbach") the story is not proved.

At the time British royal births had to be witnessed by a government official to make sure know one pulled a baby switcheroo. This didn't end until Prince Charles birth when George VI stopped it.

 

[Josefine]

We know now that in sweden it works at least of you are a child of younger siblings to the king

Princess Leonore of sweden was born in new york, USA

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

King Juan Carlos was born in Rome, Italy. He did spend part of his youth in Portugal. In general for most of today's monarchies (if not all) we can say that the succession is arranged by primogeniture and not by location.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

However, the hospital room Margriet was born in was declared Dutch territory for the day so that she would technically be born in the Netherlands. I think this was necessary for her to have any rights to the throne, which would have been much more important had she been a boy and therefore the future King. So I would assume that the laws in most European countries demand monarchs to be born in the country.

It was not necessary, since the Dutch Constitution mentions no word about the birthplace of a successor. It was just a nice, symbolical tribute that with the European part of the kingdom occupied, there was still a royal princess born "on Dutch soil". Apparently it was a geste by the Governor-General of Canada, Prince Alexander of Teck, the Earl of Athlone. (His spouse, Princess Alice, was a full cousin to Queen Wilhelmina of the Netherlands).

 

[nascarlucy]

If the constitution said that any heir to the throne would have to be born in the country then it would be a big deal. Some people might make it an issue even if there was not written about it.

 

[NotHRH]

Prince Alois of Lichtenstein's oldest son, who is 2nd in direct succession to that country's throne, was born in London because will one day also be the claimant to the Jacobite throne (direct descendant of the last Catholic monarchs of the UK.)

 

[Mbruno]

I was wondering whether an a heir or baby of a royal parents for instance the crown princes of Denmark, Spain, Netherlands or Belgium has to be born in that country?

Or could the baby be born where the parents choose, like for Mary of Denmark may want one of her children born in Hobart?

Thank you.

x

As far as I know, there is no legal requirement in any European monarchy that royal babies be born in the country over which their families reign. Some countries like Sweden require , however, that they be raísed in the country to stay in the line of succession.

 

[Mbruno]

It was not necessary, since the Dutch Constitution mentions no word about the birthplace of a successor. It was just a nice, symbolical tribute that with the European part of the kingdom occupied, there was still a royal princess born "on Dutch soil". Apparently it was a geste by the Governor-General of Canada, Prince Alexander of Teck, the Earl of Athlone. (His spouse, Princess Alice, was a full cousin to Queen Wilhelmina of the Netherlands).

Furthermore, the Netherlands, like most European countries, does not follow "jus solis". Princess Margriet would have Dutch citizenship anyway even if she had been born on Canadian soil.