General Questions and Information about the Danish Royal Family


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
I’m sure it is a consequence of each royal patronage lasting for only 5 years at a time. Then the organisations that wants to keep a royal patron will have to apply again…

The new system (wich is already implemented in Norway) gives room for more organisations getting a time-limited royal patron… That way, i’m sure the royals will have more time to spend on their specific patronages, than what would have been the case if they took on hundreds of new patronages, who would have barely seen their patron.
 
Last edited:
I wonder what affect the physical assault on the Danish Prime Minister while out and about in Copenhagen … on Friday evening … may have on the Royal Family.
When Mary and Frederik were here in Sydney the security around them was quite astounding.
Even the removal of the metallic rubbish bins in the street … using angle-grinders to cut them away … before Mary’s arrival to open the Lynggaard shop.
(I was there and watched them.)
Maybe just a one-off random thing never to be repeated, but how easy it seems to have happened.
 
Last edited:
The PET officers may stand a bit closer for a while, but that's about it, I think.
It's the balance between having a life and being protected.

An opportunity-attack like the one yesterday are rare, because the would be attackers are seldom prepared.
 
The PET officers may stand a bit closer for a while, but that's about it, I think.
It's the balance between having a life and being protected.

An opportunity-attack like the one yesterday are rare, because the would be attackers are seldom prepared.
That’s what I thought Muhler.
Some of what I’ve seen here in Sydney seems over the top.
Aside from the ceremonial aspect … many well-dressed motorcycle outriders etc for a bit of pomp … continual overhead helicopters, continual rubber-duckies zooming up and down in front of Admiralty House with scuba-divers throwing themselves off into the water every few feet, many secret service personal wandering the streets.
These last things were when President Bush senior was here, in my suburb. Talk about drawing attention, it all looked a bit silly and overdone.
I hope the Prime Minister feels secure enough to go about her life without thinking she is vulnerable to anyone/anything at a moment’s notice because this has happened once.
Sometimes things like this make us wake-up a bit to who is around us and to what is possible, and it’s a good lesson to up your alertness.
 
A curiosity I just read on a website:

King Frederik X was supposed to be called Christian, since Danish kings are alternately called Frederik and Christian - and his maternal grandfather was called Frederik. But, according to the book "Under the Beam" by Jens Andersen, the queen and Prince Henrik decided at the last minute to change the name to Frederik, so that there would be an equal number of Frederiks and Christians in the Danish line of kings - that is, 10.

 
A curiosity I just read on a website:

King Frederik X was supposed to be called Christian, since Danish kings are alternately called Frederik and Christian - and his maternal grandfather was called Frederik. But, according to the book "Under the Beam" by Jens Andersen, the queen and Prince Henrik decided at the last minute to change the name to Frederik, so that there would be an equal number of Frederiks and Christians in the Danish line of kings - that is, 10.

I thought the reason always given was that Margrethe reigning considered herself to be a "Christian" in the positioning of things? (That was after she named her kid, but still. Aside from which she was very happy to name Fred after her beloved father and make him happy.) But I suppose if it's in Frederik's book... must be at least partly true?
 
Gyles Brandreth has written a new book and quotes Queen Margrethe in it …

… When I visited the Queen of Denmark at her palace in Copenhagen, she said to me: 'Being Queen involves a lot of repetition — the same ceremonies, the same functions, the same routine. Sometimes you think: 'Here we go again!'

'But my parents taught me something useful that I have tried to pass on to my two boys. Whatever you are doing, be aware of it and stay involved.

'I have to listen to a lot of boring speeches, but I have discovered there is nothing so boring as not listening to a boring speech.

'If you listen carefully, the speech is very rarely as boring as you thought it was going to be. 'You can disagree with the speech in your head. You can think: 'He's saying it very badly,' but don't switch off. It is much better that way.'

This reminds me of an anecdote I read about Diana speaking about her Royal duties.
She said, “it’s like going to a wedding everyday, and you’re the Bride”.

(I don’t think she meant that in a good way.)
 
A curiosity I just read on a website:

King Frederik X was supposed to be called Christian, since Danish kings are alternately called Frederik and Christian - and his maternal grandfather was called Frederik. But, according to the book "Under the Beam" by Jens Andersen, the queen and Prince Henrik decided at the last minute to change the name to Frederik, so that there would be an equal number of Frederiks and Christians in the Danish line of kings - that is, 10.

And eventual firstborn son of Prince Christian will be called Frederik
 
Is not the monarchy of Denmark the only monarchy to have sovereigns who have alternating regnal names?
 
Royal immunity from the law is bestowed by Article 25 of the Kongelov (Royal Law), also known by its Latin name Lex Regia. The Lex Regia was promulgated in 1665 and served as the constitution of the kingdom of Denmark during the period when it functioned as an absolute monarchy. Today, absolute monarchy has been abolished, the Lex Regia has ceased to be the constitution of the Kingdom of Denmark, and most articles in the Lex Regia have been repealed. However, Article 25 has not been repealed and continues to be the law of the land.

Article 25 states, in full:

De skulle og for ingen Underdommere svare, men deres første og sidste Dommer skal være Kongen, eller hvem Han særdeles dertil forordner ...

Translation:

They shall answer to no inferior judge, but their first and last judge shall be the King, or whomever He shall install specially for this purpose ...​


The inclusion of the clause "or whomever He shall install specially for this purpose" grants the King the freedom to waive the person's immunity. Today, the standard practice is that the powers belonging to the King are in actuality exercised by the Government, but I wonder if the fact that the Lex Regia was written for an absolute monarchy means that "the King" should be interpreted here as "the King personally".


While Article 25 does not state who "they" are, the preceding article (Article 24), before it was repealed, referred to "Printzerne og Printzesserne aff Blodet" ("the Princes and Princesses of the blood").



The notes clarifies that "De" in §25 refers to the princes and princesses.

Interesting. I wonder why the editorial note omitted "of the blood". Is the note considered to be a binding interpretation?

If anyone else is searching for the note, it may be viewed in the Retsinformation.dk link by clicking on "Redaktionel note" above the text of the law. It reads as follows:


Redaktionel note

I epilogen til Grundloven af 1849 blev Kongeloven ophævet bortset fra art. 27-40 (om arvefølgen) og art. 21 og 25 (om de Kongelige prinser og prinsesser). Ved Tronfølgerloven af 31. juli 1853 blev art. 27-40 ophævet.

"De" i lovens art. 25 henviser til prinserne og prinsesserne.

Loven offentliggjordes i henhold til en befaling af Frederik den Fjerde, dateret den 4. september 1709.

Loven er optrykt i "Love og Forordninger samt Reskripter m.m." udgivet af Oskar Damkier og Fr. Kretz, J.H. Schultz 1884.

It would be interesting to see whether the current authorities interpret "They" to include persons who do not have Prince or Princess titles and/or are not of royal "blood". For example, if Queen Mary (not of royal descent, not in line to the throne, and not titled Princess, but bears a higher title and is a member of the Royal House) or Count Nikolai of Monpezat (not titled Prince, but of royal descent and in line to the throne) broke a law, would the authorities consider them to have immunity under Article 25 of the Lex Regia?

I couldn't find an article in the current Danish constitution that mimics Article 25 of the Lex Regia. Has it been incorporated into the Penal Code instead?

I don't know, but Article 25 remains valid law, regardless. As explained in the editorial note quoted above, the Lex Regia was repealed by the Constitution of 1849 except for Articles 21, 25 and 27-40, and subsequently Articles 27-40 were repealed by the Act of Succession of 1853. Articles 21 and 25 were never repealed and they remain in force.
 
Royal immunity from the law is bestowed by Article 25 of the Kongelov (Royal Law), also known by its Latin name Lex Regia. The Lex Regia was promulgated in 1665 and served as the constitution of the kingdom of Denmark during the period when it functioned as an absolute monarchy. Today, absolute monarchy has been abolished, the Lex Regia has ceased to be the constitution of the Kingdom of Denmark, and most articles in the Lex Regia have been repealed. However, Article 25 has not been repealed and continues to be the law of the land.

Article 25 states, in full:

De skulle og for ingen Underdommere svare, men deres første og sidste Dommer skal være Kongen, eller hvem Han særdeles dertil forordner ...

Translation:

They shall answer to no inferior judge, but their first and last judge shall be the King, or whomever He shall install specially for this purpose ...​


The inclusion of the clause "or whomever He shall install specially for this purpose" grants the King the freedom to waive the person's immunity. Today, the standard practice is that the powers belonging to the King are in actuality exercised by the Government, but I wonder if the fact that the Lex Regia was written for an absolute monarchy means that "the King" should be interpreted here as "the King personally".

This Norwegian article states that Prince Joachim was once fined for speeding.


Since Joachim is a prince of Denmark and blood royal, he is certainly covered by the law stating that "They shall answer to no inferior judge, but their first and last judge shall be the King, or whomever He shall install specially for this purpose".

Therefore, was his fine imposed by the then Queen or Queen in Council (Government), or did the Queen/Government waive his immunity to permit him to be sentenced by a court? Was there any discussion about whether the Queen/Government would or should allow him to be fined for speeding?
 
In the case with Joachim's fine, he simply opted to pay for the fine that was send to him. Thus ending that story.
Otherwise QMII could have told him to pay or issued her own fine.
I can't remember the details of hand. He was probably caught by a speed camera. So I imagine that Joachim, like everybody else, cussed for about half an hour, loudly! And then paid the ticket.
Members of the DRF are actually very rarely held accountable for minor infractions. I know of two cases where senior DRF members were admonished by a police officer and told to in case A: Let your girlfriend drive the car! B: No driving a moped without a helmet.
Danish police are normally not in the habit of issuing warnings. For years they were actually told to issue a fine regardless.
There have been a number of infractions by DRF members, clearly witnessed by both the public and police officers that were simply ignored.
And in cases where the DRF members has been escorted by by PET, nothing was done.

There was one example that delight me to this day.
I'm personally of the conviction that parking wardens are evil by nature, who had they not found a way to earn a salary by outliving their evil tendencies as parking wardens would have become serial killers.
You may recall that Queen Mary a few years back hit a cyclist in downtown Copenhagen (almost unavoidable BTW as all cyclists are insane). She jumped out of her car to check on the cyclist leaving her car in the middle of a small street. Her PET escort also left their car. While that happened a traffic warden approached, because here was an illegally parked car and that was all he could fathom so he began to write a ticket until told to get lost by PET.
That was observed with some obvious glee by bystanders.

(You'll find the episode described in an article somewhere on this forum.)
 
Thank you for your answer, Muhler. I wonder if Joachim and/or the police forgot his immunity from the courts when they issued/he paid the fine, or if Joachim simply did not want to invoke his immunity over such a matter.

From your other anecdotes, it seems most police officers have been educated about the royal immunity law and have been instructed to interpret Article 25 of the Lex Regia as applying to consorts as well. It would be interesting to know whether they have received any instructions about whether Article 25 still applies to the Monpezats.
 
Speed cameras know no difference between royals and commoners. Such a fine is calculated and shipped out automatically (back then by letter) to the registered owner of the car, after a police officer (also back then) looked at the photo to see if the face of the driver could be seen on the photo.
 
It's now been almost a year since King Frederik became Monarch and on that occasion the serious newspaper, Berlingske, has had a survey made by Verian. A survey institute I'm not familiar with.
The next link is from Berlingske, but that's behind a paywall:
BT and Berlingske BTW belongs to the same publishing house, just an FYI.

80 % believe King Frederik is "a good king".
2 % believe he is "not a good king."
With 17 % "don't know."

However, fewer now, than previously, believe he will be a better monarch than QMII.

- There should IMO be reason to be very pleased indeed at home at Amalienborg!
Because the first year is usually the most difficult. And QMII was, and still is, after all very respected and very popular as well.

The BT article discuss why: The transition being smooth. The Madrid incident not being an issue (or perhaps more correctly not believed to be infidelity by the public). The changes they have made have been few and fairly limited. They haven't screwed up.
The main events this past year has been state visit and the Royal Run, something that is popular and presents the DRF in a good light. And they haven't had to make an unpleasant or unpopular decision.

- To that I will add that they don't have unfortunate family members running around making a spectacle of themselves either.
And the Danish press has watched every single change FX&QM have made and dissected them. Keeps them on their toes.
So all in all very good reading for the DRF, QMII in particular (she does read Berlingske every day BTW), and for monarchists here.
That doesn't mean further changes shouldn't be made and of course at some point the DRF or a DRF member will do or say something stupid and the real test at that point will be how the DRF will handle that.
 
Last edited:
Those are great numbers! Literally an 80% approval rating for their first year. Any politician would love to have that approval number, not to mention, other recent new monarchs in their first year and the favorable view of the family as a whole. And of course QMII still has such a favorable view...she is loved and respected and reigned for 52 years and I am sure that there are many maybe older Danes that are reticent to see any changes made by the new and younger King. I think QMII can be nothing but delighted and proud by these results. And it is lovely that she's been able to be around to see her son do so well as he embarks on his reign.
 
Yes, she must be so proud and I'm very glad she got to see this.

The big oncoming test will be King Frederik's New Year speech. Because there is a lot of interest in how he will do - and also what he will say and what may be different from QMII.
I personally believe he will play safe on this first New Year speech and stay traditional. Some segments in the press will of course criticize that, but IMO it's about surviving this first New Year speech.
So I think it's safe to say that the New Year speech this year will be watched by a record number of people! - And as is, the New Year speeches already have extremely high viewer numbers.
 
The royal name badges have been changed:


Today, the shields at Amalienborg bear His Majesty the King's name badge 💂 The process of replacing the King's name badge extends over a long period. The royal name badge was established by His Majesty the King in the Council of State on 14 January 2024. The royal name badge, also called the monogram, consists of two mirrored F's, between which is placed the Roman numeral X (10), the whole crowned by the royal crown. The name badge was chosen by the King and was designed and drawn by the royal armorial painter Ronny Skov Andersen with digital assistance from the artist Stefan Lægaard. The royal name badge is used, among other things, on royal rescripts, the Life Guard's shields and shoulder straps, on the Guardhussar Regiment's sabre bags and valdrap (saddle blanket) and in a wide range of other contexts.

 
"Here is the Danes' verdict on King Frederik's first year as regent
King Frederik is far more popular today than his own mother was just a year ago."
"And support for the monarchy has remained largely unchanged in the year he has been regent, with 76 percent of Danes supporting it.
"In 2023, 38 percent answered that Queen Margrethe was the best representative of the Danish royal family. 29 percent thought it was then-Crown Prince Frederik.
In the latest poll conducted by Megafon, 49 percent say that King Frederik is the best representative, while Queen Margrethe has dropped to 17 percent."
 
Indeed.

It was a smooth transition and so far without mistakes or controversy.

Also, many felt it was the right time and right decision QMII made by abdicating.

Not to mention the FX&QM have been very well prepared over many years now.

- Personally, I'm absolutely delighted that QMII got to see her son taking over so well and the beginning of his reign being so well received by the people as well.
While QMII has always been deeply respected, she is now IMO as popular as she has ever been.

It was, like it was in the Netherlands, a happy transience.
 
Indeed.

It was a smooth transition and so far without mistakes or controversy.

Also, many felt it was the right time and right decision QMII made by abdicating.

Not to mention the FX&QM have been very well prepared over many years now.

- Personally, I'm absolutely delighted that QMII got to see her son taking over so well and the beginning of his reign being so well received by the people as well.
While QMII has always been deeply respected, she is now IMO as popular as she has ever been.

It was, like it was in the Netherlands, a happy transience.
I agree! I watched the 2024 Year in Review the other day and it was fascinating to see the commentary of the media on 12/31/2023 - a few knew this was coming (Larsen was one of them). I thoroughly enjoyed listening to their POV as everything was unfolding. QMII made the right decision. I cannot imagine she is anything but extremely pleased, thrilled and proud of the job M&F have done in their first year as the royal couple. And it is wonderful that she is here to see it all. Plus, by stepping down she was able to rightfully receive all her flowers (as the saying goes) while still around. The transition was able to be celebrated with happiness instead of a change of throne being mired in grief, sadness.
 
When did Mary receive Danish citizenship and did she give up her Australian citizenship?
 
No, and I don't know (but doubt) that they would have any advantage over other applicants in obtaining an Australian citizenship. (Their mother is after all a foreign citizen.) In some countries you can obtain citizenship via your family line, say grandparents. But I doubt that's the case in Australia.
 
IIRC Mary had dual citizenship (Australian and British) and she had to give up both.
 
Thanks, so her children don't have Australian citizenship either (nor are they eligible to apply for it).
Right now, Mary's children cannot apply for Australian citizenship as she was not an Australian citizen at the time of their birth. However, she can reapply for Australian citizenship as dual citizenship now exists and hence they can the apply to be Australian citizens. The biggest requirement is that Mary must reside for two years in Australia after gaining back her citizenship before herchildren can apply. Australia has one of the strictest requirements for citizenship.

Only advantage is if they wish to move here and work
 
Back
Top Bottom