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


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

Believe me, Duc et Pair, the german laws about surnames are like "everything goes".

Over the "nobility" of the persons watches a comitee, Der Deutsche Adelsrechtsausschuß, but this comitee is without legal powers. Albeit, what consequences its decisions have in the social life of the nobility and royalty... I have no idea, honestly.

This comitee presides too over the "Gotha", a book which claims to know, who is "really" noble or not. Some kind of the "Who is who" of noble circles...
 
I tumbled about this in the "Portal" and I must say, I find it somewhat funny, that the title of the Countess ends with the marriage of the girl!


Who's idea was this?


I mean, Denmark has a Queen! Whatever line, under this rule, the danish royal family is french now!


Is this some kind of revenge by the deceased Prince, who never became King?

Yes, it is a bit weird.
And I do think it's a bit unfair that Athena can't become a countess in her own right.
But the whole concept about nobility and indeed royalty is anything but about equality.

It made perfect sense beforehand, when a noble girl married into her husband's family - not the other was around.
 
None of the current Continental monarchs have elevated persons outside the royal family into the hereditary nobility. Even in the UK in the last 50 years only three non-royals were given a hereditary peerage. Two of these were elder gentlemen without children. So effectively also in the UK the unofficial policy is followed that there are no elevations into the peerage outside the royal family. This confirms the general impression: the Nobility is a historic institute with historic rules. There are no new elevations so it will slowly phase out.

Spain still has a lively nobility with modernised rules which differ quite a lot from the other nobiliary systems, but also there the number of new hereditary nobles is limited. Most new hereditary creations were from the first years of King Juan Carlos.

Changing rules to allow ladies to pass their noble titles is a contradiction with the unwritten policy of slowly phasing out the Nobility.
 
Last edited:
As it appears this is the "Titles of the Danish Royal Family" thread, I will move my response to the recent title discussion here.

His wish to have the title of king comes up. And there is a paradox.
On one hand he complains that a segment of the Danes don't appreciate him (true) and on the other hand, he asks: What it does it matter to them that I am King-consort? - That's why!
Titles matters little in Danish mentality. It's who and what you are that matters, not what you are called. PH never understood that.

Well, it mattered enough for the Danes to deny him the title. But that is probably a discussion more appropriate for another thread.

The Danes didn't deny Prince Henrik the title of king. His wife The Queen did. If she had put feelers out she might have been told by constitutional experts and the government that it wasn't a wise decision to change her husband's title but in the end it would have been down to her. Berlingske tidende wrote in 2009 that there was a majority in the parliament for a title change but that the Venstre & DF parties were against it.

As for his title. It was very simple: He had the second highest position in the country, regardless of title. So it was very difficult to understand what the point was.
And complaining about it and complaining about his position in the family did not help his cause! There was a very clear majority in the public against giving him a title containing the word king. King has a particular meaning in a monarchy. And it was felt he didn't deserve it. Especially not because he was whining about it.

As for the political majority: Yes, in as far as it is up to the monarch to bestow titles. But, and this is a very important but! The politicians from the two parties that expressed opposition against PH being giving such a title, were not just anyone. They represented the government's leading party and the party that de facto led the government at the time.
In other words it was as close to an official political no, as it could get without being voted down in the Parliament.

I was responding to "Titles matters little in Danish mentality. It's who and what you are that matters, not what you are called."

Whether the ultimate decision was down to the Danish political parties, the Danish Queen, or the Danish public, the question of what he was called clearly did matter to at least some Danes. If it did not matter to anyone in Denmark, the answer to his request would have been a "why not?" rather than a "no".
 
As it appears this is the "Titles of the Danish Royal Family" thread, I will move my response to the recent title discussion here.

I was responding to "Titles matters little in Danish mentality. It's who and what you are that matters, not what you are called."

Whether the ultimate decision was down to the Danish political parties, the Danish Queen, or the Danish public, the question of what he was called clearly did matter to at least some Danes. If it did not matter to anyone in Denmark, the answer to his request would have been a "why not?" rather than a "no".

Very simple answer: It was felt by the majority that he didn't deserve it, that it was childish, that he wanted to upstage the Monarch, that it would only confuse matters because traditionally king outranks queen.
You can call a spade a manual digging tool, but it's still a spade - and that is key to understanding Danish attitude to titles.
 
Very simple answer: It was felt by the majority that he didn't deserve it, that it was childish, that he wanted to upstage the Monarch, that it would only confuse matters because traditionally king outranks queen.

That illustrates the point I was trying to make: In the mentality of the majority, it did matter to them which title he was called by. It was important to them that he continue to be called a manual digging tool rather than a spade, just as it was important to Henrik that he be called a spade rather than a manual digging tool.

Prince Henrik clearly cared about the title issue - I didn't mean to suggest otherwise. My only point is that there were many others in Denmark who also cared about the issue.

that it would only confuse matters because traditionally king outranks queen.

Prior to the reign of Margrethe II, it was always the case that the king was the sovereign and the queen was merely his consort. I think it would be strange if the consort were to outrank the sovereign, no matter their titles or genders.

But if the mentality is that the rank is linked to the title rather than the position, then my view is that Margrethe II deserves the "higher-ranked" title of king, rather than the "lower-ranked" title of queen.
 
Last edited:
Actually PH wished to be called a manual digging tool, that sounding more fancy than a mere spade. ;)
Just as key account manager = salesman. Or a sanitation technician = garbage man.

And yes, it did matter, in the sense that people felt he didn't deserve a higher title, that wishing to be called king made absolutely no difference and there fore was silly and childish.
PH asked rhetorically in the docu what it mattered to his detractors if he were to be titled king. It mattered because he wanted to be titled king.

Queen worked and still works. She is Margrethe II R (Regina).
Of course she could be titled king, but it would sound silly and appear even sillier and make absolutely no difference - she would still be a spade, so to speak.
 
And yes, it did matter, in the sense that people felt he didn't deserve a higher title, that wishing to be called king made absolutely no difference and there fore was silly and childish.
PH asked rhetorically in the docu what it mattered to his detractors if he were to be titled king. It mattered because he wanted to be titled king.

I think I understand what you mean. In the minds of at least some of his detractors, it was his attitude which made it matter to them, and if he had originally been called king but complained that he wished to be called prince, they would likewise have wanted to refuse him, I suppose.

Queen worked and still works. She is Margrethe II R (Regina).
Of course she could be titled king, but it would sound silly and appear even sillier and make absolutely no difference - she would still be a spade, so to speak.

Well, it would make a difference in the attitude of those who sincerely believe that the rank comes from the title rather than the crown and that being titled king is superior to being titled queen. I am not in agreement with them, but I was expressing my thoughts from their point of view. :flowers:
 
Fun fact; Margarethe is Drottning/Dronning which is the female form of the Old Norse word Drots, meaning Leader. It was also the word used for God in early Christian times in the North.

Queen is also derived from Old Norse, Qvinna/Qvinde meaning Woman. :)
 
Fun fact; Margarethe is Drottning/Dronning which is the female form of the Old Norse word Drots, meaning Leader. It was also the word used for God in early Christian times in the North.

Queen is also derived from Old Norse, Qvinna/Qvinde meaning Woman. :)

Thanks. 😄

I knew of course the word drot, but I never knew it was related to dronning.
Nor the origin of queen.

Perhaps a more apt scenario was if PH had insisted in being addressed Count de Montpezat. That would have caused a stir!
 
Prior to the reign of Margrethe II, it was always the case that the king was the sovereign and the queen was merely his consort. I think it would be strange if the consort were to outrank the sovereign, no matter their titles or genders.

But if the mentality is that the rank is linked to the title rather than the position, then my view is that Margrethe II deserves the "higher-ranked" title of king, rather than the "lower-ranked" title of queen.

I don't disagree but I somehow don't think Henrik would've been any more satisfied with the title of Queen ;)

I also don't think you can chalk it down to a mentality issue. The title of King outranking the title of Queen is deeply rooted in history and isn't just a matter of people refusing to change their usual way of thinking. Historically "King consorts" have almost exclusively been elevated to co-regents.

Henrik wanted to be King and he was well-aware of the connotations of that title. He wanted "equality" (but only for himself, he was hardly a trailblazer for equality in general) but a consort is not supposed to be equal to the sovereign.
 
Last edited:
I also don't think you can chalk it down to a mentality issue. The title of King outranking the title of Queen is deeply rooted in history and isn't just a matter of people refusing to change their usual way of thinking.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by a "mentality issue", and I'm not sure how deeply rooted it may be, but even deeply-rooted historical ways of thinking are not immune to reform. The thought that the succession rights of a Prince outranked the succession rights of a Princess was deeply rooted in history, but is no longer considered relevant, at least by Parliament.

Historically "King consorts" have almost exclusively been elevated to co-regents.

There has never been a king consort in the kingdom's history, as Margrethe II is the first official queen regnant. Outside of Denmark, both kings consort and princes consort have handled the conduct of government for their wives, but from the examples I have come to know a formal elevation to co-regent was not common, though I am open to finding out more.


I don't disagree but I somehow don't think Henrik would've been any more satisfied with the title of Queen ;)

[...]

He wanted "equality" (but only for himself, he was hardly a trailblazer for equality in general)

Yes, had he genuinely wanted equality of titles he should not have agreed to the creation of the Count/Countess of Monpezat title, at least not without asking for Frederik and Joachim's children to also carry the names of their mothers. And he should have asked for it to have a gender-equal remainder, rather than its remainder to only heirs of the male line.


but a consort is not supposed to be equal to the sovereign.

Indeed, the genuine matter of inequality was not the reasonable inequality between the consort and the sovereign, but the inequality between male sovereigns and female sovereigns.
 
Last edited:
Do I have a doubt when Princess Isabella and Princess Josephine marry their husbands will they have any title?
 
Last edited:
I believe that it was in Spain that the earliest example of a husband of a Queen Regnant was ever given the title of King . That would have been Felipe 1 when he married Juana I He did rule equally with her . The only other example I can remember would be of William of Orange who became De-facto ruler of Great Britain when his wife Mary 11 was proclaimed Queen . I do not believe that this was anything more than a ceremonial " promotion" in other countries . In Portugal there have been 2 King-Consorts , Mary 1 , her husband became King-Consort Peter 111 in 1777 . Queen Mary 11 husband became King -Consort Ferdinand 11 in 1837 . In Spain the husband of Isabel 11 , Francis became King -Consort after the birth of the first child .
 
I certainly doubt that the husbands of the Princesses will be given titles , in recent history this has only happened in Spain where Infanta Elena's husband was granted the title of Duke of Lugo , losing it upon their divorce . Infanta Christina's husband became Duke of Palma . Of course they both lost that honorific under rather different circumstances
 
I certainly doubt that the husbands of the Princesses will be given titles , in recent history this has only happened in Spain where Infanta Elena's husband was granted the title of Duke of Lugo , losing it upon their divorce . Infanta Christina's husband became Duke of Palma . Of course they both lost that honorific under rather different circumstances

We also have the example of Sweden where Chris O'Neill was offered the title of Prince but he refused.
In Denmark I have no idea what will happen.
 
I certainly doubt that the husbands of the Princesses will be given titles , in recent history this has only happened in Spain where Infanta Elena's husband was granted the title of Duke of Lugo , losing it upon their divorce . Infanta Christina's husband became Duke of Palma . Of course they both lost that honorific under rather different circumstances


But the husband of Infanta's Elena and Cristina whre not granted titles. They here given to their respective wives and the husband shared them which is also customary in the spanish nobility where for example the husbands of the late Duchess of Alba where also called Duke of Alba
 
You are quite correct Stefan , I expressed myself badly , I meant to say that they were granted the right to be known by the masculine version of the title's bestowed upon their wives by their father King Juan Carlos . Of course these titles were never intended to be inherited by any children .
As for the case of Chris O'Neill , as i understand it ,he refused the offer of a personal title of prince because he wanted to continue his business career, which would have been incompatible with becoming a Swedish prince .Which is confusing to me as Prince Carl Philip has had a career as a commercial designer for many years .
 
As for the case of Chris O'Neill , as i understand it ,he refused the offer of a personal title of prince because he wanted to continue his business career, which would have been incompatible with becoming a Swedish prince .Which is confusing to me as Prince Carl Philip has had a career as a commercial designer for many years .
We don't know if Chris O'Neill was offered both the Titles Prince of Sweden and or to share the ducal Titles of his wive. This is what had been announced for Jonas Bergström athis engagement to Madeleine. But i think Chris also declinced the Titles because then it was expected that he would ask for swedish nationality
 
We don't know if Chris O'Neill was offered both the Titles Prince of Sweden and or to share the ducal Titles of his wive. This is what had been announced for Jonas Bergström athis engagement to Madeleine. But i think Chris also declinced the Titles because then it was expected that he would ask for swedish nationality

Chris O'Neill was offered to share the Princessly title of his wife. The king of Sweden did indeed expect him to apply for Swedish nationality and give up his commercial career if he accepted and became a prince.

Titles of the Swedish RF and Changes 2019

We don't know what was offered to Jonas Bergström, only the end decision that he would continue his commercial career and become only a duke and not a prince.
 
I'm not sure I understand what you mean by a "mentality issue", and I'm not sure how deeply rooted it may be, but even deeply-rooted historical ways of thinking are not immune to reform. The thought that the succession rights of a Prince outranked the succession rights of a Princess was deeply rooted in history, but is no longer considered relevant, at least by Parliament.

(...)

Indeed, the genuine matter of inequality was not the reasonable inequality between the consort and the sovereign, but the inequality between male sovereigns and female sovereigns.

I mean, going off of the Danish constitution, even after the amendment in 1953, the sovereign is exclusively referred to as the King. I'd say that's a pretty good example of how deep-rooted the issue of a King outranking a Queen is.

Then, as you've touched upon yourself, one can of course make the argument that constitutionally speaking, QMII's title is incorrect. Which is a very legitimate argument since the Act of Succession from 1953 doesn't elaborate on the title of a female sovereign and as such, QMII functions as the King in the constitutional sense of the word and merely calls herself the Queen.

So if Henrik's true intention was securing equality between male and female sovereigns, his argument should either have been that QMII's title should be King Margrethe II (making him Queen Henrik), or he should've argued for a change of the constitution to equate the title of Queen with the title of King, thereby equating the title of King consort with the title of Queen consort.

But he didn't. And I don't believe that was his true intention 😄

Yes, had he genuinely wanted equality of titles he should not have agreed to the creation of the Count/Countess of Monpezat title, at least not without asking for Frederik and Joachim's children to also carry the names of their mothers. And he should have asked for it to have a gender-equal remainder, rather than its remainder to only heirs of the male line.

That, I agree with.
 
Do I have a doubt when Princess Isabella and Princess Josephine marry their husbands will they have any title?

Your guess is as good as anybody's.

It is solely up to the monarch, and that is most likely to be Frederik.

I believe it depends on whether Isabella and/or Josephine will be working members of the DRF. If so, it's IMO likely that their husbands will be given a title.
Isabella I think is destined to be a spare, just in case, and as such will at the very least be a part time working royal. She may have another, supposedly main income, but as a spare she won't be able to just have any job or be employed by anyone. She will be a kind of Joachim.
So unless Isabella opts out of the DRF one way or another, the twins are destined to work out a living for themselves and in that case their spouses won't need a title.

Another question is whether Isabella, Vincent, Josephine and Joachim's children will opt out of the Line of Succession voluntarily or otherwise. In that case the boys at least can keep the title of Count of Monpezat.
The girls can of course be given a (non-hereditary) title by the monarch, that could be say countess of Marselisborg and Schackenborg in the case of Athena. And I doubt their spouses would get a title. Why should they?
In short: They will be doing a Rosenborg.
 
Last edited:
I mean, going off of the Danish constitution, even after the amendment in 1953, the sovereign is exclusively referred to as the King. I'd say that's a pretty good example of how deep-rooted the issue of a King outranking a Queen is.

I would say the opposite. That the sovereign is referred to in the constitution as the King, but is currently referred to in most (all?) situations outside of the constitution as the Queen, shows that the titles are effectively considered not just equally ranked but the same in meaning.

Then, as you've touched upon yourself, one can of course make the argument that constitutionally speaking, QMII's title is incorrect. Which is a very legitimate argument since the Act of Succession from 1953 doesn't elaborate on the title of a female sovereign and as such, QMII functions as the King in the constitutional sense of the word and merely calls herself the Queen.

So if Henrik's true intention was securing equality between male and female sovereigns, his argument should either have been that QMII's title should be King Margrethe II (making him Queen Henrik), or he should've argued for a change of the constitution to equate the title of Queen with the title of King, thereby equating the title of King consort with the title of Queen consort.

But he didn't. And I don't believe that was his true intention 😄

I agree. As you said, he himself (inaccurately, in my opinion) framed the issue as one of equality between him and his wife, and he did not seem to consider the inequality between male and female sovereigns.
 
But the husband of Infanta's Elena and Cristina whre not granted titles. They here given to their respective wives and the husband shared them which is also customary in the spanish nobility where for example the husbands of the late Duchess of Alba where also called Duke of Alba

You are quite correct Stefan , I expressed myself badly , I meant to say that they were granted the right to be known by the masculine version of the title's bestowed upon their wives by their father King Juan Carlos . Of course these titles were never intended to be inherited by any children .

And the titles were granted to the Infantas for their husbands to use. It made no difference to the Infantas themselves, since Spain does not follow the British pattern of royal princes(ses) being known by their ducal titles. Infantas Elena and Cristina were still styled with their Infanta titles.

Note that the Spanish royal family always applied the same systems of titles to the spouses and children of Infantas as to the spouses and children of male Infantes. A wife of a hypothetical younger brother of King Felipe VI would not have shared the Infante title of her husband, nor would their children have been titled.
 
I certainly doubt that the husbands of the Princesses will be given titles , in recent history this has only happened in Spain [...]

We also have the example of Sweden where Chris O'Neill was offered the title of Prince but he refused.
In Denmark I have no idea what will happen.

There are recent (European) examples found in Denmark and Belgium as well.

The husband of Princess Astrid of Belgium was granted the title of Prince of Belgium two years after the couple returned to Belgium from Switzerland and took up an official role.

The husband of Princess Benedikte of Denmark was offered the title of Prince (of Denmark) but refused because, much like Chris O'Neill, he would have been expected to give up running his family estate and settle in 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."​

In Norway, the husband of Princess Märtha Louise was not given a title, but I am not sure if that was a matter of gender. It is unclear if a possible wife of Prince Sverre Magnus can expect to be given a title.


Another question is whether Isabella, Vincent, Josephine and Joachim's children will opt out of the Line of Succession voluntarily or otherwise. In that case the boys at least can keep the title of Count of Monpezat.
The girls can of course be given a (non-hereditary) title by the monarch, that could be say countess of Marselisborg and Schackenborg in the case of Athena. And I doubt their spouses would get a title. Why should they?
In short: They will be doing a Rosenborg.

We may have an idea of what might happen if and when Prince Nikolai marries.

Wouldn't the wives of the Counts of Monpezat take the title Countess of Monpezat?
 
We may have an idea of what might happen if and when Prince Nikolai marries.

Wouldn't the wives of the Counts of Monpezat take the title Countess of Monpezat?

Women become countesses if they marry a count or is given the title - personally only.
It cannot be passed on to children nor can it be shared with a husband. (Or wife for that matter.)
That seems to the way internationally.

So to answer your question: Yes, they can.

What if a count marry a man?
 
The DRF does have a tendency not to deal with problems until they're standing square in the middle of them, I'll give Joachim that. (For example, the primogeniture was changed but they still haven't got a solution for the consequences of it. As it is right now, Isabella, who presumably will function as a spare, isn't able to pass on any titles while her younger brother and three male cousins, provided they're given permission to marry, all theoretically are allowed to pass on theirs. This could have been dealt with when they introduced the Monpezat titles but they were only made hereditary in the male line.)

Since the Prince/ss titles are regulated by the Queen's will exclusively, I suppose that in the eyes of the law all of the royal children are already equal in their ability/inability to pass on their titles.

It would not be an unprecedented situation if the future King Frederik X were to let his daughters pass on their titles. When Princess Benedikte married, the King chose to condition a Danish princely title for her husband and a place in the line of succession to the Danish throne for her children on the couple taking up residence in Denmark. The couple did not comply, but they were given the right to choose. Her husband's comments on his refusal are quoted in post #115.

I am not sure the Queen's choice of male-line-only inheritance pertaining to the Monpezat title automatically insinuates that she or the next King will choose male-line-only inheritance for the titles of the Royal House. In the Netherlands and Belgium, for instance, there have recently been cases of a higher title being passed onto a princess's children at the same time that lesser titles are hereditary in male line only.
 
Since the Prince/ss titles are regulated by the Queen's will exclusively, I suppose that in the eyes of the law all of the royal children are already equal in their ability/inability to pass on their titles.

It would not be an unprecedented situation if the future King Frederik X were to let his daughters pass on their titles. When Princess Benedikte married, the King chose to condition a Danish princely title for her husband and a place in the line of succession to the Danish throne for her children on the couple taking up residence in Denmark. The couple did not comply, but they were given the right to choose. Her husband's comments on his refusal are quoted in post #115.

I am not sure the Queen's choice of male-line-only inheritance pertaining to the Monpezat title automatically insinuates that she or the next King will choose male-line-only inheritance for the titles of the Royal House. In the Netherlands and Belgium, for instance, there have recently been cases of a higher title being passed onto a princess's children at the same time that lesser titles are hereditary in male line only.


The Danish tradition is that all persons in the line of succession to throne are Prins/Prinsesse til Danmark. Under the present Act of Succession, the title should apply then to Queen Margrethe's descendants in maternal line unless, for example, they marry without consent and are excluded from the succession.



The title of Count of Monpezat, on the other hand, conforms to the traditional rule in the Danish nobility, which is transmission in male line only.
 
Women become countesses if they marry a count or is given the title - personally only.
It cannot be passed on to children nor can it be shared with a husband. (Or wife for that matter.)
That seems to the way internationally.

So to answer your question: Yes, they can.

What if a count marry a man?


IMHO this follows along the lines that as a man cannot take on/share his wife's titles, he cannot do it for his husband's. We'll see what happens if Prince Christian decides to marry a man and to rely on his sisters or brother's offspring for an heir to the throne. But as long as parliament and the queen do not decide to change the laws about nobility, Christian's husband might be elevated to the position of prince and later Prince Consort, but I don't see him becoming a Count of Monpezat.
 
But as long as parliament and the queen do not decide to change the laws about nobility, Christian's husband might be elevated to the position of prince and later Prince Consort, but I don't see him becoming a Count of Monpezat.

Yes, while I'm no expert on the laws of nobility, my understanding is that they have yet to even remove the rule which strips married women of their own titles upon marriage. Having said that, members of the public and the media now frequently use titles for married daughters of the nobility in spite of the rule.

Not only due to that, but also because here in Denmark (at least before the change of the AoS in 2005) a Crown Princess is married to a Crown Prince.

Not in every case (see the discussion here).

Previously titles were not passed on through the female line - unless direct heir to the throne.

The last time when female-line descendants other than direct heirs were in line to the throne was in 1853, and under the semi-Salic system of succession then in place, they ranked behind all of the male lines.

I guess this question is faced by most royal families these days with the change to equal succession and countries/monarchies are handling it diffrently, so it will be interesting to see what option the Danes pick and whether they still support that decision one or two generations later (which we might not live to see); the Belgians turned from their new ways pretty quickly...

Without going too off-topic, I think it is too soon to tell whether the Belgians will turn from their new ways and treat female-line descendants in the next generation differently from male-line descendants. It is at least possible to interpret the current laws in a fashion which would provide for equal treatment.
 
Back
Top Bottom