General Questions and Information about Danish Titles

[iceflower]

* *

This thread is dedicated to general questions and information about Danish Titles.


For the particular title changes in 2008, 2022 and 2024, please see and use our extra thread instead:

"New Titles for Queen Margrethe's Descendants: 2008 & 2022, 2024"


​

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.

Happy Posting! ​

 

[Biri]

It's curious that the heir(ess) of the Danish throne doesn't have any peculiar title, just Crown Prince(ss).

Heir(ess) of the Dutch throne - Prince of Orange
Heir(ess) of the Belgian throne - Duke/Duchess of Brabant
Heir(ess) of the Spanish throne - Prince(ss) of Asturias
Heir(ess) of the British throne - Prince(ss) of Wales.

 

[Stefan]

It's curious that the heir(ess) of the Danish throne doesn't have any peculiar title, just Crown Prince(ss).

Heir(ess) of the Dutch throne - Prince of Orange
Heir(ess) of the Belgian throne - Duke/Duchess of Brabant
Heir(ess) of the Spanish throne - Prince(ss) of Asturias
Heir(ess) of the British throne - Prince(ss) of Wales.

It is the same for the Heir/Heiress in Sweden and Norway. And it used to be the case to in the different german Kingdoms, Duchies etc.

 

[iceflower]

Off topic posts have been removed. Please discuss Danish titles only.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

I wonder whether anyone could explain why some Anglophone royal watchers (not on this forum) persistently insist that the Norwegian and British royals who are male-line descendants of Danish monarchs are Princes of Denmark.

Count Ingolf of Rosenborg is a male-line descendant of Danish monarchs, yet no royal watchers seem to have any hesitation in admitting that Ingolf is not (anymore) a Prince of Denmark.

So why is there a recalcitrance among certain royal watchers to acknowledge that the Norwegian and British royals are likewise not Princes of Denmark?

 

[blooms_rulers]

I wonder whether anyone could explain why some Anglophone royal watchers (not on this forum) persistently insist that the Norwegian and British royals who are male-line descendants of Danish monarchs are Princes of Denmark.

Count Ingolf of Rosenborg is a male-line descendant of Danish monarchs, yet no royal watchers seem to have any hesitation in admitting that Ingolf is not (anymore) a Prince of Denmark.

So why is there a recalcitrance among certain royal watchers to acknowledge that the Norwegian and British royals are likewise not Princes of Denmark?

I recall reading over a decade ago that there were doubts as to whether HRH Prince Philippos of Greece and Denmark (1921-2021) legally had the ability to renounce his succession rights and titles. If he didn’t under the constitution in force at that time, then it would follow that his male-line descendants from approved marriages would have the legal rights to the Greek dynastic title which is “HRH Prince/ss of Greece and Denmark” even if they don’t use those titles in their lives. I don’t think the two sides ever came to a legal conclusion as to whether his renunciation was in line with the constitution.

I also don’t know if Prince Carl of Denmark ever renounced for himself and his son Alexander their Danish titles. I admit to not paying much attention to that time in Norwegian royal history but I recall reading that they stopped using the title—not that they renounced the title. Harald would not have married in line with Frederik IX’s marriage rules (Sonja wasn’t noble) so his children wouldn’t have Danish titles, but he and his sisters, if Olav/Alexander still had the legal right to the Danish title, would have had the right to the Danish title because Märtha would have met Christian X’s marriage requirements.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

I recall reading over a decade ago that there were doubts as to whether HRH Prince Philippos of Greece and Denmark (1921-2021) legally had the ability to renounce his succession rights and titles. If he didn’t under the constitution in force at that time, then it would follow that his male-line descendants from approved marriages would have the legal rights to the Greek dynastic title which is “HRH Prince/ss of Greece and Denmark” even if they don’t use those titles in their lives. I don’t think the two sides ever came to a legal conclusion as to whether his renunciation was in line with the constitution.

I also don’t know if Prince Carl of Denmark ever renounced for himself and his son Alexander their Danish titles. I admit to not paying much attention to that time in Norwegian royal history but I recall reading that they stopped using the title—not that they renounced the title.

Thank you very much for the response!

Indeed, as you say, those who claim the Norwegian and British royals are Princes(ses) of Denmark often claim (rightly or wrongly) that they never renounced Danish royal titles - but why do they not apply this same argument to persons such as Ingolf?

They seem to fully accept that Ingolf is no longer a Prince of Denmark simply because King Frederik IX decided he was not. The majority of them also seem to acknowledge that Nikolai is no longer a Prince of Denmark simply because Queen Margrethe II decided it, even though Nikolai made it very, very clear that he did not voluntarily renounce his title.

So, why is it that they will acknowledge the monarch's authority to unilaterally remove Danish royal titles in the cases of Nikolai and Ingolf, but not in the cases of Philip and Carl?

Harald would not have married in line with Frederik IX’s marriage rules (Sonja wasn’t noble) so his children wouldn’t have Danish titles, but he and his sisters, if Olav/Alexander still had the legal right to the Danish title, would have had the right to the Danish title because Märtha would have met Christian X’s marriage requirements.

That's a good point as well.

 

[blooms_rulers]

So, why is it that they will acknowledge the monarch's authority to unilaterally remove Danish royal titles in the cases of Nikolai and Ingolf, but not in the cases of Philip and Carl?

I think the issue is these two, Philippos and Carl, weren't cases where the title was stripped from a Danish prince, but rather where the title may or may not have been renounced.

For Philippos, the issue comes down to the question of whether the Greek constitution in force at the time allowed for a Greek prince to renounce his Greek royal titles. If it did not, then his renunciation was invalid and his children would have been entitled to the titles of Prince(ss) of Greece and Denmark. Whether his grandchildren would have been entitled to those titles is unknown--they didn't seek out Konstantinos II's approval for their marriages, but he remained closed to the Windsors. Philippos' Danish title was an appendage of his Greek title, so what Christian X thought of his marriage (or Margrethe II thought of his chidren's marriages) and whether he would have approved his marriage (presumably Christian would have approved because Elizabeth II was equal, but Margrethe would not have because she seemingly insisted on dynasts marrying foreigners (unless that only applied to Danes)) is moot.

For Carl, there is nothing I can recall that shows that Carl ever actually renounced his Danish titles. We know that the Norwegian RF are not considered to be members of the Danish RF and are not in line to the Danish throne, but is there a document where Carl formally renounced his titles for himself, his son and his descendants? I have never heard of there being one.

I think most people accept that the Danish constitution allows the Danish sovereign to remove titles from Danish dynasts for various reasons (usually an unapproved marriage), which means that we accept the removal of the titles from Margrethe's grandchildren and her cousins. I don't know that the Danish constitution allows for the renunciation of royal titles. Perhaps it does not, and a Danish dynast who wishes to renounce a title and succession rights in olden days would simply have married unequally and forced the removal of the title and succession rights.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

I think the issue is these two, Philippos and Carl, weren't cases where the title was stripped from a Danish prince, but rather where the title may or may not have been renounced.

For Philippos, the issue comes down to the question of whether the Greek constitution in force at the time allowed for a Greek prince to renounce his Greek royal titles. If it did not, then his renunciation was invalid and his children would have been entitled to the titles of Prince(ss) of Greece and Denmark. Whether his grandchildren would have been entitled to those titles is unknown--they didn't seek out Konstantinos II's approval for their marriages, but he remained closed to the Windsors. Philippos' Danish title was an appendage of his Greek title, so what Christian X thought of his marriage (or Margrethe II thought of his chidren's marriages) and whether he would have approved his marriage (presumably Christian would have approved because Elizabeth II was equal, but Margrethe would not have because she seemingly insisted on dynasts marrying foreigners (unless that only applied to Danes)) is moot.

For Carl, there is nothing I can recall that shows that Carl ever actually renounced his Danish titles. We know that the Norwegian RF are not considered to be members of the Danish RF and are not in line to the Danish throne, but is there a document where Carl formally renounced his titles for himself, his son and his descendants? I have never heard of there being one.

I think most people accept that the Danish constitution allows the Danish sovereign to remove titles from Danish dynasts for various reasons (usually an unapproved marriage), which means that we accept the removal of the titles from Margrethe's grandchildren and her cousins. I don't know that the Danish constitution allows for the renunciation of royal titles. Perhaps it does not, and a Danish dynast who wishes to renounce a title and succession rights in olden days would simply have married unequally and forced the removal of the title and succession rights.

I think we are perhaps talking at cross-purposes, though once again I appreciate your well-considered response. While questions about whether constitutions allow renunciations and in what manner renunciations may or may not have occurred would be interesting to explore, my question was about why some royal watchers appear to apply double standards by using those questions to justify their refusal to accept the decisions of Danish monarchs in some cases, but not in other equally applicable cases.

Most royal watchers accept that Margrethe II's removal of Nikolai's Prince of Denmark title was valid (i.e., they accept that Nikolai is no longer a Prince of Denmark, even if they think he should be), even though Nikolai himself clearly never renounced his Danish royal titles.

At the same time, some royal watchers refuse to accept that Christian IX's removal of Carl's Prince of Denmark title and Christian X's removal of Philip's Prince of Denmark title were valid (i.e., they insist that they and their male-line descendants are still Princes of Denmark regardless of what the Danish monarchs say) on the grounds that these princes (seemingly) did not explicitly and formally renounce their Danish royal titles.

Why is it that some royal watchers will accept some removals of titles by Danish monarchs without a renunciation (Nikolai), but refuse to accept other removals of titles by Danish monarchs (Carl, Philip) unless there is a renunciation?

ETA: I am not sure I understand your second paragraph: is it your case that the Greek kings were entitled to decide whether their descendants bore Danish royal titles (even if it violated the will of the Danish monarchs)? If so, why would that not also apply to the Norwegian kings?

 

[blooms_rulers]

Why is it that some royal watchers will accept some removals of titles by Danish monarchs without a renunciation (Nikolai), but refuse to accept other removals of titles by Danish monarchs (Carl, Philip) unless there is a renunciation?

ETA: I am not sure I understand your second paragraph: is it your case that the Greek kings were entitled to decide whether their descendants bore Danish royal titles (even if it violated the will of the Danish monarchs)? If so, why would that not also apply to the Norwegian kings?

There is no evidence of there being a removal by Christian IX from Carl or a renunciation from Carl. We know that Carl and his descendants do NOT use a Danish title. That--the non-usage--does not equate to the "removal of (a) title." It is simply non-usage. Think about it this way. We do not have a document or statement from Christian IX that says "Carl is no longer a Prince to/of Denmark and is no longer entitled to that title." We also do not have a document or statement from Carl stating that "I am no longer a Prince to/of Denmark and am no longer entitled to that style." All we have is that Carl changed his and his son's names, and he stopped using the title. That is not a renunciation or the removal of the title.

The Greek title is Prince of Greece and Denmark for those who are dynasts to the now-defunct Greek throne. For those who are not dynasts, like the late Prince Michael's two daughters, the title is simply "Prince(ss) of Greece" and the style is "Highness" instead of HRH. That marriage, of Michael to Marina, is the only time a non-dynastic marriage in Greece produced offspring that were not eventually upgraded (Queen Alexandra of Yugoslavia was upgraded). It is a completely different title and style created for Michael's descendants and presumably, should the monarchy have continued, would have been the way non-dynasts would have been treated going forward.

The Greeks have always maintained both titles, even when reigning. The Norwegians, since 1905, have only used their Norwegian title. That doesn't mean the Norwegians weren't entitled to the Danish title. Olav/Alexander could have been Prince Olav of Norway and Denmark. Haakon/Carl simply chose not to use the Danish title.

The case of Margrethe with Nikolai and his siblings and Frederik with Ingolf and Christian doesn't apply. We have evidence of the titles being removed by the monarchs in those cases. There is no evidence of either a renunciation by Carl/Haakon or Philippos/Philip or the removal of a title by Christian IX of Denmark or George II of Greece.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Thank you again for the response; I think I better understand your arguments after reading it.

Before responding to the points you made, I would like to ask for further clarifications:

1. In your most recent posts, are you speaking on your own behalf or also on behalf of most of the royal watchers who say that the Norwegian and British male-line royals are Princes of Denmark? I.e., do most of them base their argument on the same reasons you have cited?

2. Do you believe that Kings Christian IX / Christian X through Frederik X consider(ed) the Norwegian/British royals to be Princes of Denmark (whether you agree with them or not)?

 

[blooms_rulers]

Thank you again for the response; I think I better understand your arguments after reading it.

Before responding to the points you made, I would like to ask for further clarifications:

1. In your most recent posts, are you speaking on your own behalf or also on behalf of most of the royal watchers who say that the Norwegian and British male-line royals are Princes of Denmark? I.e., do most of them base their argument on the same reasons you have cited?

2. Do you believe that Kings Christian IX / Christian X through Frederik X consider(ed) the Norwegian/British royals to be Princes of Denmark (whether you agree with them or not)?

I, personally, don't believe that either the Norwegian or British are/were Danish dynasts. Obviously none of them would by dynasts now, due to marriage requirements not being met. But the arguments I recall reading were that the titles were no longer used by the Norwegians and that the Greek royal constitution in place when Philippos chose to become a naturalised British citizen did not allow for renunciation. I've never been one who's focused on the legal aspect of royalty, so I didn't ask more questions at the time.

I don't think any of the kings thought of either the Norwegian or British royals to be Danish princes, but, perhaps they may have thought of the Greek princes to be Danish princes, which is an oxymoron of sorts. The Greek princes certainly retain(ed) their link to Denmark through their title, where the Norwegian and British royals didn't use foreign titles.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

I, personally, don't believe that either the Norwegian or British are/were Danish dynasts.

Apologies for the late response and for misunderstanding your own position. It requires much perceptiveness to outline the arguments for a position that you yourself do not fully agree with - if anything, my confusion was caused by how articulately you explained their point of view. I appreciate your doing it.

There is no evidence of there being a removal by Christian IX from Carl or a renunciation from Carl. We know that Carl and his descendants do NOT use a Danish title. That--the non-usage--does not equate to the "removal of (a) title." It is simply non-usage. Think about it this way. We do not have a document or statement from Christian IX that says "Carl is no longer a Prince to/of Denmark and is no longer entitled to that title." We also do not have a document or statement from Carl stating that "I am no longer a Prince to/of Denmark and am no longer entitled to that style." All we have is that Carl changed his and his son's names, and he stopped using the title. That is not a renunciation or the removal of the title.
[...]
The case of Margrethe with Nikolai and his siblings and Frederik with Ingolf and Christian doesn't apply. We have evidence of the titles being removed by the monarchs in those cases. There is no evidence of either a renunciation by Carl/Haakon or Philippos/Philip or the removal of a title by Christian IX of Denmark or George II of Greece.

That does explain very well why people who insist that the British and Norwegian agnates never lost their Danish princely titles are nonetheless willing to admit that Nikolai lost his Danish princely title: Queen Margrethe II’s press release remains live on the internet and easily Googleable, and, even more importantly, the interviews with Nikolai and his parents expressing their shock and anger at Nikolai and his siblings losing their Danish princely titles are plastered all over the internet, and all of this occurred only 2-3 years ago. So even for a casual royal watcher, the “evidence” of their losing their titles is in-your-face and difficult to deny.

However, that still leaves the question of why people who insist that the British and Norwegian agnates never lost their Danish princely titles also admit that Ingolf lost his Danish princely title (instead of attempting the “he still has the title, he only stopped using it” argument they use for the British and Norwegians). I very much doubt that many, if any, of them have ever seen a document or statement from King Frederik IX saying “Ingolf is no longer a Prince to Denmark and is no longer entitled to that title”. In my experience, those of us who spend time searching for the legal statements of title bestowals and removals are very much in the minority - most royal watchers never bother. And even I have never seen such a document or statement from King Frederik IX.

Additionally, once one grants a title there tends to be lands and assets attached therefore why would a family condone granting a title to someone who married into the family knowing this title would be granted to the spouses heirs hence assets that had historically been a part of the families for generations- would be passed on to another family line diminishing the wealth of the family who granted the title and subsequent assets.

This is not only a matter of Title but Assets

That’s not the case in modern-day Denmark (or in most of the world). In the Middle Ages, European royal and noble titles were indeed created in connection with grants of lands and/or offices. But the connection between royal/noble titles and lands/assets was terminated long ago in Denmark (and in most of Europe). No Danish royal title in the 20th or 21st century, whether granted to a born family member or a consort, has had land or assets attached to it.

(That is not to say that consorts have never been granted family property – I think some members here have mentioned Prince Joachim’s ex-wife being granted some royal family jewelry, or something in that vein – but that property is not attached to a title.)

 

[Tatiana Maria]

As they were mentioned in another subforum, I thought of reposting a couple of title-related answers from old interviews:

Prince Richard zu Sayn-Wittgenstein-Berleburg (1934-2017), husband of Princess Benedikte, on his refusal to become a Prince of Denmark:

About his rejection of a Danish princely title:

"I never regretted, and I never took the proposal seriously. Neither did I take it seriously when it was suggested from Danish quarters that I should give up Berleburg and settle in Denmark. I spat out a ‘No’ as fast as I could."

The Scandinavian Royals Message Board: In memory of Prince Richard

i On the sad occasion of Prince Richard's death I'll re-post this message - which I first posted here in 2009. i - - - Prince Richard is not a person who keeps his thoughts to himself as these quotes from old interviews show. They are of course taken out of context but at least they...

web.archive.org

Princess Elisabeth (1935-2018), cousin of Queen Margrethe II, on what would have happened to her title if she had married Claus Hermansen, her partner for over 20 years until his death in 1997:

Q: You (informal you) were very fond of Claus. Why didn't you marry?

Elisabeth: "Then I'd become Mrs. Hermansen and that we both thought was a bit silly considering that we were not to have any children. That was a decision we both agreed on".

Princess Elisabeth, Current Events Part 1: April 2004 - June 2018

I wonder why the State of Denmark, however I do admire its generosity, now gives the usufuct of Sorgenfri to Princess Elisabeth while she had her own independent living and housing? I mean, Sorgenfri becomes empty and suddenly Princess Elisabeth, almost 80, sells her properties and move into...

www.theroyalforums.com

 

[meeralakshmi]

As they were mentioned in another subforum, I thought of reposting a couple of title-related answers from old interviews:

Prince Richard zu Sayn-Wittgenstein-Berleburg (1934-2017), husband of Princess Benedikte, on his refusal to become a Prince of Denmark:

About his rejection of a Danish princely title:​

​

"I never regretted, and I never took the proposal seriously. Neither did I take it seriously when it was suggested from Danish quarters that I should give up Berleburg and settle in Denmark. I spat out a ‘No’ as fast as I could."​

​

The Scandinavian Royals Message Board: In memory of Prince Richard

i On the sad occasion of Prince Richard's death I'll re-post this message - which I first posted here in 2009. i - - - Prince Richard is not a person who keeps his thoughts to himself as these quotes from old interviews show. They are of course taken out of context but at least they...

web.archive.org

​

Princess Elisabeth (1935-2018), cousin of Queen Margrethe II, on what would have happened to her title if she had married Claus Hermansen, her partner for over 20 years until his death in 1997:

Q: You (informal you) were very fond of Claus. Why didn't you marry?​

​

Elisabeth: "Then I'd become Mrs. Hermansen and that we both thought was a bit silly considering that we were not to have any children. That was a decision we both agreed on".​

​

Princess Elisabeth, Current Events Part 1: April 2004 - June 2018

I wonder why the State of Denmark, however I do admire its generosity, now gives the usufuct of Sorgenfri to Princess Elisabeth while she had her own independent living and housing? I mean, Sorgenfri becomes empty and suddenly Princess Elisabeth, almost 80, sells her properties and move into...

www.theroyalforums.com

​

It’s interesting that Benedikte’s husband was offered a title but Elisabeth would have lost her title had she married her boyfriend. Maybe because Benedikte was a member of the senior line and Elisabeth was a member of the junior line or because Richard was a prince and Claus was a commoner. Had Richard accepted the title Henrik would have had an even stronger argument since they would have had the same title even though Henrik was married to the queen and Richard was married to a princess (Henrik didn’t receive the prince consort title until 2005).

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Megafon conducted a survey for TV 2 which shows that 56% of Danes support Princess Isabella representing Denmark as a member of royalty in the future.

62% believe that Crown Prince Christian, Princess Isabella, Prince Vincent and Princess Josephine should keep their titles as princes and princesses.

Prinsesse Isabellas store fejring: Gennemtænkt familiestrategi

Der er tænkt på Isabellas fremtid, når hun modtager kæmpe fejring i forbindelse med sin 18-års fødselsdag.

www.billedbladet.dk

Danskerne går imod kongehuset og bakker op om prinsesse Isabella

Skal prinsesse Isabella arbejde for kongehuset, have årpenge og beholde sin titel som prinsesse? Her er, hvad danskerne mener.

nyheder.tv2.dk

Thanks. For me it makes sense that Isabella, Vincent and Josephine keep their titles. They are in a different category then their cousins, being children of the monarchs. They are the Benedikte/Joachim of this generation.

Exactly, imho children of the monarch should remain princes and princesses. I guess Mary wanted to soften the blow when the titles of Joachim's children were taken away - but by doing so, for the rest of their lives, the question of her children's titles will keep coming up because of that comment (while they are in a different position). Any children of Isabella, Vincent and Josephine should not become princes and princesses, given that those titles were removed from Joachim's children.

It is true that Isabella, Vincent and Josephine are in the same position as Benedikte and Joachim. On the other hand, both Benedikte and Joachim 1) remained full- or part-time working royals for all of their adult lives, 2) never entered into a business career, and 3) received constitutional approval from the monarch to remain in line to the throne after marriage. Given the changes in expectations in society, those three criteria may or may not hold true for Isabella, Vincent and Josephine in the future.

 

[Somebody]

That's true, things are always evolving, however, so far, it seems that in Europe the current consensus is that children of a monarch are princes and princesses, regardless of whether they are full-time, part-time or non-working royals (and in some royal families this also applies to either all or male-line grandchildren). In most cases, they also are royal highnesses (or serene highnesses if applicable). Norway is the exception.

Belgium: both siblings of king are prince(sse)s with the style of royal highnesses
Denmark: sibling of king is a prince with the style of royal highness
Liechtenstein: all siblings of sovereign prince are prince(sse)s with the style of serene highnesses (same as Fürst)
Luxembourg: all siblings of grand duke are prince(sse)s with the style of royal highness
Monaco: both sisters of sovereign prince are princesses; one with the style of serene highness, the other as royal highness due to her marriage
Netherlands: surviving sibling of king is a prince with the style of royal highness
Norway: surviving sister of king is a princess but lost her style as royal highness (which is also applied to the next generation; and the one after - the first one who never was royal highness)
Spain: both sisters of king are infantas with the style of royal highness
Sweden: sisters of king are princesses but lost the style of royal highness upon marriage; in the next generation they are also prince(ss) and kept the style of royal highness
United Kingdom: siblings of king are prince(sse)s, brothers are also peers/dukes, all with the style of royal highness

 

[Stefan]

That's true, things are always evolving, however, so far, it seems that in Europe the current consensus is that children of a monarch are princes and princesses, regardless of whether they are full-time, part-time or non-working royals (and in some royal families this also applies to either all or male-line grandchildren). In most cases, they also are royal highnesses (or serene highnesses if applicable). Norway is the exception.

Belgium: both siblings are prince(sse)s with the style of royal highnesses
Denmark: sibling is a prince with the style of royal highness
Liechtenstein: all siblings are prince(sse)s with the style of serene highnesses (same as Fürst)
Luxembourg: all siblings are prince(sse)s with the style of royal highness
Monaco: both sisters of Albert are princesses; one with the style of serene highness, the other as royal highness due to her marriage
Netherlands: surviving sibling is a prince with the style of royal highness
Norway: sibling is a princess but lost her style as royal highness (which is also applied to the next generation; who never was royal highness)
Spain: both sisters of Felipe are infantas with the style of royal highness
Sweden: siblings are prince(sse)s with the style of royal highness
United Kingdom: siblings are prince(sse)s, brothers are also peers/dukes, all with the style of royal highness

In Sweden none of the surving sisters of the King are royal Highness

 

[Tatiana Maria]

That's true, things are always evolving, however, so far, it seems that in Europe the current consensus is that children of a monarch are princes and princesses, regardless of whether they are full-time, part-time or non-working royals (and in some royal families this also applies to either all or male-line grandchildren). In most cases, they also are royal highnesses (or serene highnesses if applicable). Norway is the exception.

Belgium: both siblings are prince(sse)s with the style of royal highnesses
Denmark: sibling is a prince with the style of royal highness
Liechtenstein: all siblings are prince(sse)s with the style of serene highnesses (same as Fürst)
Luxembourg: all siblings are prince(sse)s with the style of royal highness
Monaco: both sisters of Albert are princesses; one with the style of serene highness, the other as royal highness due to her marriage
Netherlands: surviving sibling is a prince with the style of royal highness
Norway: sibling is a princess but lost her style as royal highness (which is also applied to the next generation; who never was royal highness)
Spain: both sisters of Felipe are infantas with the style of royal highness
Sweden: siblings are prince(sse)s with the style of royal highness
United Kingdom: siblings are prince(sse)s, brothers are also peers/dukes, all with the style of royal highness

True, but in Europe there is also a general consensus that children of a monarch work only for the monarchy, state, or family and/or refrain from making money through private business, so it makes sense that titles still reflect the current situation rather than the possible future trends:

Belgium: The full siblings of King Philippe (born 1962 and 1963) are part-time working royals in receipt of dotations, and it remains to be seen whether his younger children (born 2003-2008) will become part-time working royals (but Parliament has decided they will not receive dotations).
Denmark: The sibling of King Frederik X (born 1969) works full-time for the state and receives a dotation, and it remains to be seen whether his younger children (born 2007-2011) will become working royals, though the intention is that they will not receive dotations.
Liechtenstein: The brothers of Hereditary Prince Alois (born 1969 and 1972) work(ed) for the Liechtenstein family companies; his sister (born 1973) is a homemaker. I am not informed about his younger children (born 1996-2000), but in any case there is still plenty of time for them to join the family firm if they have not already.
Luxembourg: The brother of Grand Duke Henri who remained in line for the throne (born 1963) was a part-time working royal during the previous reign and his sisters (born 1954 and 1957) were homemakers. The siblings of Grand Duke Guillaume (born 1984-1992) have private business careers.
Monaco: The sisters of Sovereign Prince Albert II (born 1957 and 1965) were/are part-time working royals; I believe the Prince has said his daughter (born 2014) is expected to support her brother as well.
Netherlands: The sibling of Queen Beatrix (born 1943) and the sibling of King Willem-Alexander (born 1969) who remained in line for the throne were full- or part-time working royals. It remains to be seen whether the sisters of the Princess of Orange (born 2005 and 2007) will be working royals, though they will not receive dotations.
Norway: The sibling of King Harald V who remained in Norway (born 1932) is a part-time working royal. The sibling of Crown Prince Haakon (born 1971) had the option to become a working royal but chose to become a fully private businesswoman. The crown prince has said his younger son (born 2005) is expected to become a part-time working royal.
Spain: The siblings of King Felipe V (born 1963 and 1965) were part-time working royals during the previous reign; it appears his younger daughter (born 2005) will be expected to do the same during his reign.
Sweden: The siblings of Crown Princess Victoria (born 1979 and 1982) are part-time working royals; it remains to be seen what will happen with her younger child (born 2016).
United Kingdom: The siblings of King Charles III (born 1950-1964) and the sibling of the Prince of Wales (born 1984) were/are full-time working royals. It remains to be seen what will happen with the younger children of the Prince of Wales (born 2015 and 2018).

Thus, I would say Luxembourg is the only European monarchy which has already established as a general rule that younger children of monarchs will not take on public/royal duties and will be free to earn their living in the business of their choice, although there have been individual cases in other monarchies. But for better or for worse, there will probably be more children of monarchs following that path in the near future, and it is not unlikely to happen in Denmark, especially as Isabella, Vincent and Josephine already have the example of their cousin Nikolai.

 

[Somebody]

In Sweden none of the surving sisters of the King are royal Highness

Thanks, you are right. I was thinking about the next generation (for Norway as well); made changes to reflect the situation for the siblings of current monarchs.

True, but in Europe there is also a general consensus that children of a monarch work only for the monarchy, state, or family and/or refrain from making money through private business, so it makes sense that titles still reflect the current situation rather than the possible future trends:

Belgium: The full siblings of King Philippe (born 1962 and 1963) are part-time working royals in receipt of dotations, and it remains to be seen whether his younger children (born 2003-2008) will become part-time working royals (but Parliament has decided they will not receive dotations).
Denmark: The sibling of King Frederik X (born 1969) works full-time for the state and receives a dotation, and it remains to be seen whether his younger children (born 2007-2011) will become working royals, though the intention is that they will not receive dotations.
Liechtenstein: The brothers of Hereditary Prince Alois (born 1969 and 1972) work(ed) for the Liechtenstein family companies; his sister (born 1973) is a homemaker. I am not informed about his younger children (born 1996-2000), but in any case there is still plenty of time for them to join the family firm if they have not already.
Luxembourg: The brother of Grand Duke Henri who remained in line for the throne (born 1963) was a part-time working royal during the previous reign and his sisters (born 1954 and 1957) were homemakers. The siblings of Grand Duke Guillaume (born 1984-1992) have private business careers.
Monaco: The sisters of Sovereign Prince Albert II (born 1957 and 1965) were/are part-time working royals; I believe the Prince has said his daughter (born 2014) is expected to support her brother as well.
Netherlands: The sibling of Queen Beatrix (born 1943) and the sibling of King Willem-Alexander (born 1969) who remained in line for the throne were full- or part-time working royals. It remains to be seen whether the sisters of the Princess of Orange (born 2005 and 2007) will be working royals, though they will not receive dotations.
Norway: The sibling of King Harald V who remained in Norway (born 1932) is a part-time working royal. The sibling of Crown Prince Haakon (born 1971) had the option to become a working royal but chose to become a fully private businesswoman. The crown prince has said his younger son (born 2005) is expected to become a part-time working royal.
Spain: The siblings of King Felipe V (born 1963 and 1965) were part-time working royals during the previous reign; it appears his younger daughter (born 2005) will be expected to do the same during his reign.
Sweden: The siblings of Crown Princess Victoria (born 1979 and 1982) are part-time working royals; it remains to be seen what will happen with her younger child (born 2016).
United Kingdom: The siblings of King Charles III (born 1950-1964) and the sibling of the Prince of Wales (born 1984) were/are full-time working royals. It remains to be seen what will happen with the younger children of the Prince of Wales (born 2015 and 2018).

Thus, I would say Luxembourg is the only European monarchy which has already established as a general rule that younger children of monarchs will not take on public/royal duties and will be free to earn their living in the business of their choice, although there have been individual cases in other monarchies. But for better or for worse, there will probably be more children of monarchs following that path in the near future, and it is not unlikely to happen in Denmark, especially as Isabella, Vincent and Josephine already have the example of their cousin Nikolai.

Times change, and it is indeed hard to look into the future, but I would disagree with your general statement that they are all expected to work for the monarchy (for life) and not make money privately and therefore retain their title. I don't think that's the current expectation in each royal family. So, I wouldn't say that the current siblings (or non-heir adult children) can all be considered working full-time or part-time for the monarchy. Unless, any royal who ever shows up at a royal engagement is considered a 'part-time royal'. In that case, I would expect all siblings to remain on as 'part-time royals' in the future as well. For now, that has not led to removal of their titles.

In Liechtenstein, they don't work for the monarchy but the family business - and given the huge number of princes vuz Liechtenstein are unlikely to loose their title any time soon in this or the next generation.

In the Netherlands, I would not consider prince Constantijn and princess Laurentien part-time working royals (they definitely would not consider themselves as such); and neither was prince Friso (who was removed from the line of succession but remained a royal highness and prince (of Orange-Nassau)). Princess Margriet definitely was but they have their private careers and only show up occasionally at royal functions - which seems a very feasible plan going forward for most monarchies.

In Norway, princess Märtha Louise is no longer working for the monarchy but retains her title of princess - even amidst a lot of controversy.

In Spain, both infantas previously indeed did part-time royal work but were 'kicked out' over 10 years ago and retain their title. So, their title and style are not linked to them being a working royal or not.

In Sweden, Madeleine can hardly be seen as a part-time working royal. She has not worked for the monarchy for the last 10 years and only occasionally shows up. Again, that is what I would expect for most siblings going forward. Prince Carl-Philip also has his own business but both he and princess Sofia also take on a few royal engagements a year.

In the UK, the siblings (in both generations) who for various reasons no longer take on royal engagements kept their titles.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Times change, and it is indeed hard to look into the future, but I would disagree with your general statement that they are all expected to work for the monarchy (for life) and not make money privately and therefore retain their title. I don't think that's the current expectation in each royal family. So, I wouldn't say that the current siblings (or non-heir adult children) can all be considered working full-time or part-time for the monarchy. Unless, any royal who ever shows up at a royal engagement is considered a 'part-time royal'. In that case, I would expect all siblings to remain on as 'part-time royals' in the future as well. For now, that has not led to removal of their titles.

In Liechtenstein, they don't work for the monarchy but the family business - and given the huge number of princes vuz Liechtenstein are unlikely to loose their title any time soon in this or the next generation.

In the Netherlands, I would not consider prince Constantijn and princess Laurentien part-time working royals (they definitely would not consider themselves as such); and neither was prince Friso (who was removed from the line of succession but remained a royal highness and prince (of Orange-Nassau)). Princess Margriet definitely was but they have their private careers and only show up occasionally at royal functions - which seems a very feasible plan going forward for most monarchies.

In Norway, princess Märtha Louise is no longer working for the monarchy but retains her title of princess - even amidst a lot of controversy.

In Spain, both infantas previously indeed did part-time royal work but were 'kicked out' over 10 years ago and retain their title. So, their title and style are not linked to them being a working royal or not.

In Sweden, Madeleine can hardly be seen as a part-time working royal. She has not worked for the monarchy for the last 10 years and only occasionally shows up. Again, that is what I would expect for most siblings going forward. Prince Carl-Philip also has his own business but both he and princess Sofia also take on a few royal engagements a year.

In the UK, the siblings (in both generations) who for various reasons no longer take on royal engagements kept their titles.

Good point about former part-time working royals retaining their titles even after withdrawing or being removed from royal duties. But should that extend to those who have never been working royals at any stage?
It seems we agree that this remains for the most part a hypothetical question in regards to children of European monarchs, most of whom still seem expected to show up for some royal engagements during at least their younger years, even if they otherwise lead private lives and careers. (..)

 

[iceflower]

The ongoing off-topic discussion has been shortened, please get back to the topic of this thread: Danish titles. Thank you!

 

[Tatiana Maria]

As this question (which hasn't been answered yet) concerns Danish titles and has previously been discussed in the Danish forum, I will repost it here:

From some previous posts it appears that most believe Queen Margrethe II of Denmark permitted her relatives in the former royal family of Greece to remain Prince(ss) of Denmark even after her own junior-line grandchildren were stripped of that title effective January 1, 2023.

However, has that been established as a fact, or is it merely an assumption at this point? I am not sure that one can rule out the possibility that Queen Margrethe II may have also removed the Danish princely titles from the Greek former royal family without issuing any public announcements. Unlike Prince Joachim's children, the Greek cousins almost never used their Danish titles, and the average Danish citizen may not even have been aware of them.

Is there evidence that members of the Greek ex-royal family have claimed or utilized the title or name "of Denmark" since January 1, 2023?

For what it is worth, the English version of the family's official website does not appear to reference Danish titles. For example, the following is quoted from its FAQ:

Here is the correct form of address: Queen Anne-Marie, former Queen of the Hellenes. All other members of the family are similarly styled.
​

FAQ

greekroyalfamily.gr

And the press releases of family weddings and funerals naturally do not use it either:

The funeral service of Prince Michael of Greece was held on Thursday, August 1st, 2024, at the Church of Saint Theodores in the First Cemetery of Athens.

The Greek Orthodox wedding ceremony of HRH Princess Theodora and Mr. Matthew Kumar will take place on Saturday, September 28th 2024 at 5:30 pm at the Metropolitan Cathedral of the Annunciation in Athens.

The Greek Orthodox wedding ceremony of HRH Prince Nikolaos, now known as Nikolaos De Grèce, and Ms. Chrysi Vardinogianni will be held on Friday, February 7th, 2025, at 6:00 pm at the Holy Church of Saint Nicholas Ragavas in Athens in a private ceremony amongst close family and friends.

On Friday, February 7, 2025, at 18:00, the Greek Orthodox wedding of Nikolaos De Grèce and Chrysi Vardinogianni took place at the Holy Church of St. Nicholas Rangavas in Athens.​

The Greek title is Prince of Greece and Denmark for those who are dynasts to the now-defunct Greek throne.

Moved response to the Greece forum:

The Greek title was simply Vasilopais (or, more informally, Prince/Princess) of Greece. During and after the monarchy, the family has treated the Danish title as a subsidiary title which was not in everyday usage. It is comparable to the current Princes to Denmark being also Counts of Monpezat, but rarely if ever using the Monpezat title.

See for illustration the birth certificate of Prince Philippos in 1921, in which his father is entered as "Α.Β.Υ. ο Βασηλοπαισ τησ Ελλαδοσ Ανδρεασ" (H.R.H. the Vasilopais of Greece Andreas).

Personally, I wish that Anglophone royal watchers and websites would cease the frequent references to "of Greece and Denmark", as it is not reflective of the normal (non-)usage of the titles.

 

[meeralakshmi]

It is true that Isabella, Vincent and Josephine are in the same position as Benedikte and Joachim. On the other hand, both Benedikte and Joachim 1) remained full- or part-time working royals for all of their adult lives, 2) never entered into a business career, and 3) received constitutional approval from the monarch to remain in line to the throne after marriage. Given the changes in expectations in society, those three criteria may or may not hold true for Isabella, Vincent and Josephine in the future.

In my opinion royal titles don’t have to come with royal duties; they’re simply a family name.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Will repost Crown Princess Mary's statement of September 30, 2022, since the Royal House recently referred back to it as standing policy:

"[...] We will also have to look at the title of our children, when it's time for that."

Q: Does that also mean that Your children can also lose the titles of prince and princess?

"We cannot see today what the royal house will look like when it's Christian's time or when Christian's time is approaching."

New Titles for Queen Margrethe's Descendants: 2008 & 2022, 2024

Business is a perfectly acceptable career for both children and grandchildren of the monarch in the Netherlands, all styled Princes. I don't know why Denmark would be any different in that regard. I am not sure if you have seen this post by Muhler, but I think it explains it well. To the...

www.theroyalforums.com

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Gæsteliste ved fødselsdagsforestilling i Det Kongelige Teater den 15. april 2025

Gæsteliste ved fødselsdagsforestilling i Det Kongelige Teater den 15. april 2025 i anledning af H.K.H. Prinsesse Isabellas 18-års fødselsdag. Den kongelige familieHans Majestæt KongenHend...

www.kongehuset.dk

Den kongelige familie
Hans Majestæt Kongen
Hendes Majestæt Dronningen
Hans Kongelige Højhed Kronprinsen
Hendes Kongelige Højhed Prinsesse Isabella
Hans Kongelige Højhed Prins Vincent
Hendes Kongelige Højhed Prinsesse Josephine
Hendes Majestæt Dronning Margrethe
Hans Excellence Greve Nikolai af Monpezat
Hans Excellence Greve Felix af Monpezat
Hendes Kongelige Højhed Prinsesse Benedikte
Hendes Majestæt Dronning Anne-Marie
Hans Højhed Prins Gustav zu Sayn-Wittgenstein-Berleburg
Hendes Højhed Prinsesse Carina zu Sayn-Wittgenstein-Berleburg​

Note that, as always, the Royal House styles Princess Benedikte as "Her Royal Highness Princess Benedikte" with no surname, differently than her son, whom the Royal House styles as "His Highness Prince Gustav zu Sayn-Wittgenstein-Berleburg".

It is another example of how the Royal House treats and titles Princess Benedikte as first and foremost a Princess to Denmark and member of the Danish Royal House, rather than a member of the Sayn-Wittgenstein-Berleburg family.