General Questions and Information about the Danish Royal Family


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
I wonder if Mary, as spouse of the head of state, is even allowed to have double citizenship?
 
I wonder if Mary, as spouse of the head of state, is even allowed to have double citizenship?
In theory yes, but it might present a few problems and questions in regards to her loyalty.
And I doubt very much she could act as Rigsforstander. - It would get pretty interesting if the (acting) head of state is also a foreign citizen.
 
I don’t want to speculate but Denmark might have some law regulating this issue for royals/ spouses because dual citizenship could create some conflict of interests.
 
Last edited:
I don’t want to speculate but Denmark might have some law regulating this issue for royals/ spouses because double citizenship could create some conflict of interests.
The law says that the Monarch (and Rigsforstander) cannot also reign in another country and that the Monarch has to be a Danish citizen. But as far as I recall the law does not say that the Monarch cannot have dual citizenship.
However, if the Monarch (or Rigsforstander) has dual citizenship and is not allowed to be head of state in another country, then the Monarch must logically be subject to the head of state in another country, and that wouldn't work! Because that means that the Danish Monarch is a client-king of in this case Australia, whose head of state is King Charles.

So in practice the answer is a clear: No.
 
The law says that the Monarch (and Rigsforstander) cannot also reign in another country and that the Monarch has to be a Danish citizen. But as far as I recall the law does not say that the Monarch cannot have dual citizenship.
However, if the Monarch (or Rigsforstander) has dual citizenship and is not allowed to be head of state in another country, then the Monarch must logically be subject to the head of state in another country, and that wouldn't work! Because that means that the Danish Monarch is a client-king of in this case Australia, whose head of state is King Charles.

So in practice the answer is a clear: No.
Exactly. Our passports basically say we swear allegiance to the King/Queen of Australia. This would be awkward if any of Mary's children tried to gain citizenship here especially as their father is Head of State of Denmark! Also, the Australian government can deny their application due to this very reason.
 
A new poll has been published by DR1: 'Det understreger kongehusets store popularitet': Ny meningsmåling peger på vellykket tronskifte
It's pretty good reading if you are a DRF member.

The question is: Do you believe we should preserve or abolish the monarchy in Denmark.
Red = preserve = 75 %.
Blue = abolish = 14 %.
Grey = No answer/don't know = 11 %.

The answer is pretty consistent with previous years as you can tell in another graph further down the article.

There is also another graph depicting whether you have a positive or negative view of X.
Red = positive.
Blue = negative.
Dark grey = Who?!? (Or perhaps rather: I don't know the person well enough to have an opinion. Silly option IMO.)
Light grey = Don't know.

- As you can tell the Regent Couple is standing strong and is clearly considered a team. Which in my opinion is consistent with what I hear on the street. That DK is ruled by a couple, rather than a single monarch and people seem quite pleased with that.
But QMII is still immensely respected as well as popular. She is sure getting her public reward for abdicating at the right time and in the orderly way, so to speak, it happened.
Even Joachim has gone up slightly, says the article. His 47 % rating is on par with the most popular politicians.
 
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.
It's really quite strange when you think that the only reason she and her children do not have dual citizenship is that Denmark demanded she revoke it, leaving she and the kids as just another foreign family, so to speak.
 
Exactly. Our passports basically say we swear allegiance to the King/Queen of Australia. This would be awkward if any of Mary's children tried to gain citizenship here especially as their father is Head of State of Denmark! Also, the Australian government can deny their application due to this very reason.
Only the Governor-General, members of Parliament and senators, judges, and members of the Australian Defence Force (ADF) have to swear allegiance to the King of Australia . Unlike in Canada, New Zealand, or the United Kingdom, naturalized Australian citizens are no longer required to swear allegiance to the King prior to naturalization.

Mary's children are not entitled, I believe, to Australian citizenship by descent because their mother, having formally renounced her Australian citizenship, was not an Australian citizen at the time when they were born. They can only become Australian citizens by naturalization then, which would require immigrating into Australia and becoming permanent residents therein first. Needless to say, that is highly unlikely.

On the issue of the head of state, whereas many countries require the head of state to be a citizen of the country, dual citizenship is normally permitted. Éamon de Valera, a natural-born US citizen, served as President of Ireland for example.
 
Last edited:
Only the Governor-General, members of Parliament and senators, judges, and members of the Australian Defence Force (ADF) have to swear allegiance to the King of Australia . Unlike in Canada, New Zealand, or the United Kingdom, naturalized Australian citizens are no longer required to swear allegiance to the King prior to naturalization.

Mary's children are not entitled, I believe, to Australian citizenship by descent because their mother, having renounced her Aistralian citizenship, was not an Australian citizen at the time when they were born. They can only become Australian citizens by naturalization then, which would require immigrating into Australia and becoming permanent residents therein. Needless to say, that is highly unlikely.

On the issue of the head of state, whereas many countries require the head of state to be a citizen of the country, dual citizenship is normally permitted. Éamon de Valera, a natural-born US citizen, served as President of Ireland for example.
Mary's children can only become Australian citizens if Mary reacquires, and lives in the country for a minimum of two years. Since she renounced after 4 April 2002, they cannot apply using the "born from a previous Australian citizen". Had she married Frederik prior to that date, then they could apply for it and would receive it.

The citizen pledge is loyalty to Australia, meaning that we implicitly pledge our loyalty to the Commonwealth thus King/Queen of Australia. The wording was changed in 1994 , however the meaning is essentially the same. I remember studying this in High School many many many moons ago!
 
Mary's children can only become Australian citizens if Mary reacquires, and lives in the country for a minimum of two years. Since she renounced after 4 April 2002, they cannot apply using the "born from a previous Australian citizen". Had she married Frederik prior to that date, then they could apply for it and would receive it.

The citizen pledge is loyalty to Australia, meaning that we implicitly pledge our loyalty to the Commonwealth thus King/Queen of Australia. The wording was changed in 1994 , however the meaning is essentially the same. I remember studying this in High School many many many moons ago!
Thanks for the clarification. I believe that restoration of Australian nationality is possible under the law provided that the person in question would have been subject to hardship had he or she not renounced Australian citizenship, or was
automatically deprived of their Australian citizenship before 2002 Mary doesn't seem to qualify in either count. Is there another possibility in Australian nationality law for regaining citizenship after a renunciation?

On the oath issue, my point was that in the UK, Canada, and New Zealand, naturalized citizens have to swear an explicit oath of allegiance to the King (or make a solemn affirmation of allegiance instead). For example, in the UK, the oath of citizenship is:
I, [name], [swear by Almighty God] [do solemnly, sincerely and truly affirm and declare] that, on becoming a British citizen, I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to His Majesty Charles III, his heirs, and successors, according to law.
The oath is followed by a separate pledge of citizenship:

I will give my loyalty to the United Kingdom and respect its rights and freedoms. I will uphold its democratic values. I will observe its laws faithfully and fulfil my duties and obligations as a British citizen.

In Canada, there is only an oath, and no pledge, currently:
I swear (or affirm) that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to His Majesty King Charles the Third, King of Canada, His Heirs and Successors, and that I will faithfully observe the laws of Canada, including the Constitution, which recognizes and affirms the Aboriginal and treaty rights of First Nations, Inuit and Métis peoples, and fulfil my duties as a Canadian citizen.

In Australia, on the other hand, the oath of allegiance for naturalized citizens has been scrapped and replaced with a simple "pledge of commitment", which contains no explicit reference to the King. The pledge is as follows:
From this time forward, [under God],I pledge my loyalty to Australia and its people,whose democratic beliefs I share,whose rights and liberties I respect,and whose laws I will uphold and obey.
 
Thanks for the clarification. I believe that restoration of Australian nationality is possible under the law provided that the person in question would have been subject to hardship had he or she not renounced Australian citizenship, or was
automatically deprived of their Australian citizenship before 2002 Mary doesn't seem to qualify in either count. Is there another possibility in Australian nationality law for regaining citizenship after a renunciation?

On the oath issue, my point was that in the UK, Canada, and New Zealand, naturalized citizens have to swear an explicit oath of allegiance to the King (or make a solemn affirmation of allegiance instead). For example, in the UK, the oath of citizenship is:

The oath is followed by a separate pledge of citizenship:



In Canada, there is only an oath, and no pledge, currently:


In Australia, on the other hand, the oath of allegiance for naturalized citizens has been scrapped and replaced with a simple "pledge of commitment", which contains no explicit reference to the King. The pledge is as follows:
She had to renounce based on the requirements of her new position as Crown Princess of Denmark and she couldnt hold dual citizenship in Denmark prior to 2012. Say, for example, the whole debacle with Frederik was true and she subsequently divorced him. If she wanted to come back to Australia and resume citizenship, then based on the requirements imposed on her, she could reacquire it as she was a previous citizen, irrespective of the 4 April 2002 rule.

In terms of the oath, yes, naturalised citizens take the pledge and must take it. By pledging loyalty to Australia, you are pledging to the Commonwealth of Australia, and since we are a constitutional monarchy, a pledge to Australia is a pledge to the King/Queen. Prior to 1994, those becoming Australian citizens explicitly pledged to the Queen. This was taken out to reflect our society, thus pledging loyalty to "Australia". It's the same thing, it is now implicit. If you are an MP, senator or serving member of the ADF, it's still explicit
 
A new poll has been published by DR1: 'Det understreger kongehusets store popularitet': Ny meningsmåling peger på vellykket tronskifte
It's pretty good reading if you are a DRF member.

The question is: Do you believe we should preserve or abolish the monarchy in Denmark.
Red = preserve = 75 %.
Blue = abolish = 14 %.
Grey = No answer/don't know = 11 %.

The answer is pretty consistent with previous years as you can tell in another graph further down the article.

There is also another graph depicting whether you have a positive or negative view of X.
Red = positive.
Blue = negative.
Dark grey = Who?!? (Or perhaps rather: I don't know the person well enough to have an opinion. Silly option IMO.)
Light grey = Don't know.

- As you can tell the Regent Couple is standing strong and is clearly considered a team. Which in my opinion is consistent with what I hear on the street. That DK is ruled by a couple, rather than a single monarch and people seem quite pleased with that.
But QMII is still immensely respected as well as popular. She is sure getting her public reward for abdicating at the right time and in the orderly way, so to speak, it happened.
Even Joachim has gone up slightly, says the article. His 47 % rating is on par with the most popular politicians.
Thank you for posting Muhler! That's wonderful. This poll shows proof of what a fantatsic job King Frederik and Queen Mary have done in their first year as the official royal couple. Plus, it is a credit to the smoothness of the transition and how the change of throne has been handled. No major hiccups or faux pas! And no one can say that the royal couple sat on their laurels either with four state visits, an ascension visit to Germany, trips to Brazil and Poland, the summer cruise to four municipalities, and a big official trip to Greenland, etc. Not to mention all the bts changes and adjustments that had to be made.

Also, nice to see the support for Crown Prince Christian too as he settles into his role as heir. Quite alot of changes for him too and he's handled them well.

Not shocked to see QMII take the top spot. I think it is due to a sense to giving her her flowers and the sense of deep respect, admiration and gratitude for her decades of reign and also for the way she also handled the change of throne. She was beloved as the reigning Queen and her stepping down as such is not going to change that.

And the results for the B Team as the article referred to them is also a great sign that there is approval down the line as well.

Great news all the way around! IMO any royal would love having these sorts of approval ratings in their first year as monarch/royal couple. And I agree, the results shows that the King and Queen are very much a team and rule as a team. Fantatsic!
 
A new poll has been published by DR1: 'Det understreger kongehusets store popularitet': Ny meningsmåling peger på vellykket tronskifte
It's pretty good reading if you are a DRF member.

The question is: Do you believe we should preserve or abolish the monarchy in Denmark.
Red = preserve = 75 %.
Blue = abolish = 14 %.
Grey = No answer/don't know = 11 %.

The answer is pretty consistent with previous years as you can tell in another graph further down the article.

There is also another graph depicting whether you have a positive or negative view of X.
Red = positive.
Blue = negative.
Dark grey = Who?!? (Or perhaps rather: I don't know the person well enough to have an opinion. Silly option IMO.)
Light grey = Don't know.

- As you can tell the Regent Couple is standing strong and is clearly considered a team. Which in my opinion is consistent with what I hear on the street. That DK is ruled by a couple, rather than a single monarch and people seem quite pleased with that.
But QMII is still immensely respected as well as popular. She is sure getting her public reward for abdicating at the right time and in the orderly way, so to speak, it happened.
Even Joachim has gone up slightly, says the article. His 47 % rating is on par with the most popular politicians.
I think these are good numbers for the DRF. :)
 

This is a review of the year in the DRF, but produced by an American couple who have lived in DK for six or so by now.
It's interesting in the sense that is an outsider and at the same time an insider view on the monarchy, the DRF and the Danes, by people who are beginning to truly understand the Danish mindset (even though they occasionally miss the target completely).
I post it here because it is in English and because they may have a different angle and approach that some of you who do not live in a monarchy may relate to.

I haven't even seen the whole thing myself yet. It's basically in the form of a video-podcast.

As for the producers. They are a well educated gay couple (they got married in DK) from Boston IIRC, who have certainly embraced the inner-city Copenhagen lifestyle and I dare say outlook on things. They may also less reverently be described as belonging to the cafe-latte segment.
 

This is a review of the year in the DRF, but produced by an American couple who have lived in DK for six or so by now.
It's interesting in the sense that is an outsider and at the same time an insider view on the monarchy, the DRF and the Danes, by people who are beginning to truly understand the Danish mindset (even though they occasionally miss the target completely).
I post it here because it is in English and because they may have a different angle and approach that some of you who do not live in a monarchy may relate to.

I haven't even seen the whole thing myself yet. It's basically in the form of a video-podcast.

As for the producers. They are a well educated gay couple (they got married in DK) from Boston IIRC, who have certainly embraced the inner-city Copenhagen lifestyle and I dare say outlook on things. They may also less reverently be described as belonging to the cafe-latte segment.
I've watched many of their videos. They used to just do videos just the 2 of them talking about their experiences pro and con of being an American gay couple living in Denmark and also about what they did right and wrong as they acclimated themselves. Now they also do a podcast where they interview others about their experiences. I've always enjoyed their videos.
 
It is so windy here in the UK as well. A number of outdoor celebrations have had to be cancelled.

Any news on where or what Daisy will be doing for NY now she doesn't have to make the speech? She always use to go to a party at friends after didn't she? Or is she not in Copenhagen? Anne-Marie was in the UK for Christmas with her family at Pavlos and MCs house and they are now in Barbados so I wonder if she has gone to join her sister for NY?
 
It is so windy here in the UK as well. A number of outdoor celebrations have had to be cancelled.

Any news on where or what Daisy will be doing for NY now she doesn't have to make the speech? She always use to go to a party at friends after didn't she? Or is she not in Copenhagen? Anne-Marie was in the UK for Christmas with her family at Pavlos and MCs house and they are now in Barbados so I wonder if she has gone to join her sister for NY?
You are probably far from the only ones who will think of QMII and her way.

Good question.
She usually celebrated New Years Eve with a group of friends, always four couples as I recall and they always dressed up according to a theme. QMII one New Year was so well dressed up that she managed to walk past the photographers before they managed to recognize her. PH of course was never overlooked...
But QMII is 84 and some of her friends have died away or must be pretty frail. Perhaps she will spend the night at Amalienborg and retire early. She's after all to make an appearance tomorrow.
 
Hmm, it's quite amazing when you consider the knock-on effect of her Abdication. I think she may be quite lonely with her entire life undergoing a complete overhaul. There are many things she has done every year such as the Queen's Speech. (I wondered if she wrote them herself or if the dictates of the government impeded her self-expression.) I am unsure as to whether or not the traditional dinner after the speech was continued or if at this time, so many have lost a spouse, that the very nature of the dinner changed and perhaps ended.

There is a time in life that we "retire" and have fun with those friends in similar situations but, Margrethe left her abdication to a time where not only were most of her friends retired, but had started to die off, so to speak. That is very lonely whether you are the Queen or the Greengrocer. However, unlike the majority of her peers, she has utterly amazing gifts in in plural, many areas of the arts and endeavours she started when she was a young queen are still thriving and she is now at liberty to throw herself into these fields unreservedly, with her only constraints now being self-imposed.

One way or another I am hoping she is having a terrific retirement, and that this first NY will bring as much joy and happiness as her first unencumbered Christmas. As to friends? there is nothing like family and she and her two sisters are all at an age where they can spend time with each other while "the youngsters" do their required duties.
 
Back
Top Bottom