Prince Henrik: "I Should Be King" Discussion

[Tatiana Maria]

On Reddit a Dane said that Henrik thought it was sexist against women that they weren’t able to share their titles with their husbands. While I can’t find a source for the quote he would be correct, the inequality in titles is rooted in inequality against women, not men.

That's correct. He said that on numerous occasions. That it was sexist against women - and men.

Interesting. In the interviews that I personally recall, I only remember the Prince making the argument that it was sexist against men or himself personally. Could anyone share or quote an interview where he commented on the sexism against women?

As he was a very traditional man in regards to family dynamics, no one bought that argument.

Personally (though I am not a Dane), the reason I "didn't buy" that the Prince was sincerely concerned about the undeniable gender inequality in titles wasn't because he reportedly was the dominant personality in his marriage (Grand Duchess Maria Teresa of Luxembourg is reportedly the dominant personality in her marriage, but no one would accuse her of being sexist against men), but because the Prince asked the Queen for his premarital title and name (Count of Monpezat) to be passed on to his descendants, which is a privilege female consorts were never given (Queen Ingrid's descendants never had Princess Bernadotte added to their titles and names, and Queen Mary's descendants do not have Donaldson added to their names), and moreover only asked for his male-line descendants to carry it (so that Vincent's legitimate children will be Counts of Monpezat but Isabella's will not).

 

[Muhler]

He also said that he was fine being second to his wife but couldn’t handle being third after his son.

Which didn't exactly win over the Danes either!
Danes are brought up to become individuals who take their place in the society - and as a parent you are proud when that happens. Even if it means they socially "outrank" you, so to speak. It's the Danish version of the American dream.
But for PH and men with his background, you bring your children up to take their place within the family. That's an almost alien concept among ethnic Danes. Once your children can stand on their own, they become your equals. That is deeply ingrained in our society.
Also the other way around. My mother often expressed that she would feel it as a shame if she should end up being dependent on her children. - She didn't BTW, she died before that ever became an issue.
In that context the Danes looked at PH and his arguments and asked: Does he need it? No. Does it make a practical difference for him? No. Does he deserve it? No. Will it complicate things? Yes.

Interesting. In the interviews that I personally recall, I only remember the Prince making the argument that it was sexist against men or himself personally. Could anyone share or quote an interview where he commented on the sexism against women?



Personally (though I am not a Dane), the reason I "didn't buy" that the Prince was sincerely concerned about the undeniable gender inequality in titles wasn't because he reportedly was the dominant personality in his marriage (Grand Duchess Maria Teresa of Luxembourg is reportedly the dominant personality in her marriage, but no one would accuse her of being sexist against men), but because the Prince asked the Queen for his premarital title and name (Count of Monpezat) to be passed on to his descendants, which is a privilege female consorts were never given (Queen Ingrid's descendants never had Princess Bernadotte added to their titles and names, and Queen Mary's descendants do not have Donaldson added to their names), and moreover only asked for his male-line descendants to carry it (so that Vincent's legitimate children will be Counts of Monpezat but Isabella's will not).

According to Danish law, children are free to take the maiden name of their mother, (or their estranged father's name for that matter) even if that name is otherwise protected. But that does not apply to titles.
But Isabella, Josephine and Athena can become countesses of Monpezat as a personal, non-inheritable, title. Just like Countess Alexandra. That is bestowed by the Monarch - and who knows: Perhaps King Frederik will make Isabella Countess of Monpezat on her eighteenth birthday. I'd like that personally. That would be a nice touch, while still adhering to old tradition.
After all nobility and royalty is not about equality in any shape or form. On the contrary.

PH got that, to be honest deserved, honor of bestowing his title of count to his children, as a way to stop him whining.

 

[meeralakshmi]

Interesting. In the interviews that I personally recall, I only remember the Prince making the argument that it was sexist against men or himself personally. Could anyone share or quote an interview where he commented on the sexism against women?



Personally (though I am not a Dane), the reason I "didn't buy" that the Prince was sincerely concerned about the undeniable gender inequality in titles wasn't because he reportedly was the dominant personality in his marriage (Grand Duchess Maria Teresa of Luxembourg is reportedly the dominant personality in her marriage, but no one would accuse her of being sexist against men), but because the Prince asked the Queen for his premarital title and name (Count of Monpezat) to be passed on to his descendants, which is a privilege female consorts were never given (Queen Ingrid's descendants never had Princess Bernadotte added to their titles and names, and Queen Mary's descendants do not have Donaldson added to their names), and moreover only asked for his male-line descendants to carry it (so that Vincent's legitimate children will be Counts of Monpezat but Isabella's will not).

Do we know that he asked for the count of Monpezat title to only be inheritable through the male line? I read that as it was created as a Danish noble title it can only be inherited through the male line because that’s the rule of Danish nobility. I personally don’t think it was too much to ask that his descendants have his title as a subsidiary title because the male-line descendants of other prince consorts have a subsidiary title relating to their agnatic house (prince/princess of Bourbon-Parma in Luxembourg, count/countess of Polignac in Monaco which is presently only held by Princess Stéphanie, jonkheer/jonkvrouwe van Amsberg in the Netherlands, and the Mountbatten-Windsor surname in the UK). Since the Netherlands had three queens regnant in a row Queen Juliana had the subsidiary title of duchess of Mecklenburg-Schwerin from her father and her four daughters had the subsidiary title of princess of Lippe-Biesterfeld from theirs.

 

[Muhler]

Weeell, if PH really was that much into gender equality, he could - and should - have asked for his granddaughters to be given the title of countess, personal of course. But perhaps it slipped his mind...

 

[meeralakshmi]

Which didn't exactly win over the Danes either!
Danes are brought up to become individuals who take their place in the society - and as a parent you are proud when that happens. Even if it means they socially "outrank" you, so to speak. It's the Danish version of the American dream.
But for PH and men with his background, you bring your children up to take their place within the family. That's an almost alien concept among ethnic Danes. Once your children can stand on their own, they become your equals. That is deeply ingrained in our society.
Also the other way around. My mother often expressed that she would feel it as a shame if she should end up being dependent on her children. - She didn't BTW, she died before that ever became an issue.
In that context the Danes looked at PH and his arguments and asked: Does he need it? No. Does it make a practical difference for him? No. Does he deserve it? No. Will it complicate things? Yes.

According to Danish law, children are free to take the maiden name of their mother, (or their estranged father's name for that matter) even if that name is otherwise protected. But that does not apply to titles.
But Isabella, Josephine and Athena can become countesses of Monpezat as a personal, non-inheritable, title. Just like Countess Alexandra. That is bestowed by the Monarch - and who knows: Perhaps King Frederik will make Isabella Countess of Monpezat on her eighteenth birthday. I'd like that personally. That would be a nice touch, while still adhering to old tradition.
After all nobility and royalty is not about equality in any shape or form. On the contrary.

PH got that, to be honest deserved, honor of bestowing his title of count to his children, as a way to stop him whining.

Mary has a higher title than Christian. The same couldn’t be said for Henrik and Frederik. Mary didn’t exactly need or “deserve” to become queen either, it was just automatically given to her because her husband became king. The same should apply to a male consort. It wouldn’t have complicated things to make Henrik king, if anything it’s more complicated to most people that the wife of a king is a queen but the husband of a queen isn’t a king. Isabella, Josephine, and Athena already are all countesses of Monpezat, they just can’t share the title with their spouses and children.

 

[Muhler]

Mary has a higher title than Christian. The same couldn’t be said for Henrik and Frederik. Mary didn’t exactly need or “deserve” to become queen either, it was just automatically given to her because her husband became king. The same should apply to a male consort. It wouldn’t have complicated things to make Henrik king, if anything it’s more complicated to most people that the wife of a king is a queen but the husband of a queen isn’t a king. Isabella, Josephine, and Athena already are all countesses of Monpezat, they just can’t share the title with their spouses and children.

Why?

You arguments are basically based on how you think it should be. Without consideration of practicality, tradition, public opinion, local customs, historical context and what was done at various times, in various monarchies in various situations.
QMII was the first female monarch in Danish history. The role and title of PH was the solution to what was seen as the best thing to do, in the eyes of Frederik IX, Queen Ingrid and their advisors.

I too sit in my little corner of the world with a clear opinion of things should be elsewhere. Unfortunately/fortunately that's not how it works, and I'll just have to accept that things are done differently. There is admittedly also the remote possibility that I might be wrong and there are actually good reasons why things are done differently elsewhere and that it works better that way.

 

[meeralakshmi]

Why?

You arguments are basically based on how you think it should be. Without consideration of practicality, tradition, public opinion, local customs, historical context and what was done at various times, in various monarchies in various situations.
QMII was the first female monarch in Danish history. The role and title of PH was the solution to what was seen as the best thing to do, in the eyes of Frederik IX, Queen Ingrid and their advisors.

I too sit in my little corner of the world with a clear opinion of things should be elsewhere. Unfortunately/fortunately that's not how it works, and I'll just have to accept that things are done differently. There is admittedly also the remote possibility that I might be wrong and there are actually good reasons why things are done differently elsewhere and that it works better that way.

There was no tradition for what to call a male consort in Denmark because they had never had one before. Had they made Henrik king from the beginning I doubt the public would have cared much. They didn’t even make him prince consort but just a prince, he only got the prince consort after decades of protesting.

 

[blooms_rulers]

If Henrik had been more popular, would Danish opinion possibly have allowed for him to be made King Consort? Or is that just an impossibility in Denmark, regardless of the popularity of the gentleman in question?

 

[meeralakshmi]

If Henrik had been more popular, would Danish opinion possibly have allowed for him to be made King Consort? Or is that just an impossibility in Denmark, regardless of the popularity of the gentleman in question?

Possibly, not sure though. I’m sure that he’s made Denmark think about what they might do differently the next time they get a male consort.

There was no tradition for what to call a male consort in Denmark because they had never had one before. Had they made Henrik king from the beginning I doubt the public would have cared much. They didn’t even make him prince consort but just a prince, he only got the prince consort after decades of protesting.

* prince consort title

 

[iceflower]

Once again this thread has been cleaned up, see also the mod post on the previous page of this thread.

 

[Muhler]

There was no tradition for what to call a male consort in Denmark because they had never had one before. Had they made Henrik king from the beginning I doubt the public would have cared much. They didn’t even make him prince consort but just a prince, he only got the prince consort after decades of protesting.

Giving PH the title of king back in 1972?!? The public would have disapproved strongly and the feminist movement would have been up in arms. They used the idea of a female monarch to further their arguments. And now her husband was made king, because (that's how it would be seen) of course a woman can't become head of state, she needs a man to keep an eye on her.
And people in general would have wondered why we suddenly had a king, who was second to his wife, but had a higher title.
We weren't that progressive back in 1972. I was after all around back then.
It might actually have killed off the monarchy in DK.
It was QMII, and not least the fact that she was a woman, that raised the popularity of the monarchy to the heights it has today.

I think I by now have explained several times why PH did not become king and why the concept won't work in DK.

----------------------
(Blooms_Rulers)
"If Henrik had been more popular, would Danish opinion possibly have allowed for him to be made King Consort? Or is that just an impossibility in Denmark, regardless of the popularity of the gentleman in question?"

PH was actually pretty popular at the time. He was a charming and dashing man, who hadn't yet begun to annoy people by keep speaking "circus-Danish" (*) and saying unfortunate things or walking in front of his wife at official events. (It was according to my family widely believed that Queen Ingrid knocked PH on the head in regards to the protocol).
No, PH did not get a title with a king in it, because it would be confusing and unnecessary and politically unpalatable at the time vis a vis the feminist movement. In fact there was at the time a considerable pride in us having a female monarch and also in how she handled that, in a very male-dominated profession, as head of state in general and a monarch in particular was, and still is.

(*) According to circus-clown tradition in DK, the two most clumsy clowns always speak Danish with a heavy (German) accent and with the same grammatical mistakes as PH continued to make. While the third white clown speak normal Danish. Their attire was mocking the janissaries of the Ottoman empire. A much feared enemy. Quite an interesting little historical detail.

 

[Mbruno]

Mary has a higher title than Christian. The same couldn’t be said for Henrik and Frederik. Mary didn’t exactly need or “deserve” to become queen either, it was just automatically given to her because her husband became king. The same should apply to a male consort. It wouldn’t have complicated things to make Henrik king, if anything it’s more complicated to most people that the wife of a king is a queen but the husband of a queen isn’t a king. Isabella, Josephine, and Athena already are all countesses of Monpezat, they just can’t share the title with their spouses and children.

The consort of the Queen doesn't have to be titled King to have higher precedence than the heir to the throne as precedence is not necessarily tied to succession rights or having a constitutional role.

(..)

 

[Muhler]

The consort of the Queen doesn't have to be titled King to have higher precedence than the heir to the throne as precedence is not necessarily tied to succession rights or having a constitutional role.
(..)

But PH (just like Queen Mary) outranked the Crown Prince, except in constitutional matters. So PH had no reason to be angry.
PH (just like Queen Mary) cannot perform tasks that have to carried out by the head of state if the Crown Prince is there. It's the law.
PH represented the family, then CP Frederik represented the state. PH refused to accept that difference. - And that makes it PH's personal problem.

Let's update the scenario.
New Years court for the diplomatic corps, King Frederik is indisposed. Queen Mary and CP Christian is present.
Queen Mary welcomes the diplomats as the highest ranking representative of the family. Because she in regards to protocol equals her husband, so she is the official host of this gathering.
But Christian accepts and returns the well wishes from the doyen of the diplomatic corps, because that's the job of the (acting) head of state. The diplomats are protocol wise the personal representatives of the head of state of their countries and are as such treated as if they were heads of states.
And the Constitution is clear: If the monarch is absent or indisposed and the crown prince/ss is in the country he/she automatically become Regent.
Queen Mary (or PH) could only represent the family as well as the state if she was acting as Rigsforstander and Christian was not present.

It's a bit like the diplomatic corps in USA being both welcomed and having their well-wishes accepted and returned by the First Lady, while the Vice President is standing behind her.

PH whining about that really hurt his reputation!

The sum up: Queen Mary/PH represents the family as the host, while the CP represents the state.

 

[Silverpot]

I think it's also important to point out that it's not always possible to just translate an English wording to another language and think it means the same. In Swedish, a King consort means "Kungagemål" = King's consort, with that very significant added s, ie the Queen. Don't know if this is the same in the other Scandinavian languages.

 

[Mbruno]

I think it's also important to point out that it's not always possible to just translate an English wording to another language and think it means the same. In Swedish, a King consort means "Kungagemål" = King's consort, with that very significant added s, ie the Queen. Don't know if this is the same in the other Scandinavian languages.

I don't understand. Are you saying there is no grammatical difference then between "The King Consort" and "The King's consort" as there is in English?

 

[Silverpot]

I don't understand. Are you saying there is no grammatical difference then between "The King Consort" and "The King's consort" as there is in English?

Yes, the word Kungagemål in Swedish translates to King's consort, meaning the King's wife. The "a" in the word stands for the possessive form. You can't say Kung Gemål, they're just two words without connection.

 

[maria-olivia]

The sad thing is that King Frederic died to early and so short after their Wedding.
I remember the Princess and the Prince were seen so often at Glittering Events in Paris.
In 1972 all changed for them. Prince Henrik was one of the 3 Prince Consorts . He never complained when Sylvia and Sonja became Queens of Norway and Sweden.

 

[meeralakshmi]

Yes, the word Kungagemål in Swedish translates to King's consort, meaning the King's wife. The "a" in the word stands for the possessive form. You can't say Kung Gemål, they're just two words without connection.

However queen consort translates to drottninggemål and prince consort translates to prinsgemål. Is there a reason only the translation of king consort requires an A between the words?

The sad thing is that King Frederic died to early and so short after their Wedding.
I remember the Princess and the Prince were seen so often at Glittering Events in Paris.
In 1972 all changed for them. Prince Henrik was one of the 3 Prince Consorts . He never complained when Sylvia and Sonja became Queens of Norway and Sweden.

Are we sure about that? When was the first time he voiced his discontent?

Yes, the word Kungagemål in Swedish translates to King's consort, meaning the King's wife. The "a" in the word stands for the possessive form. You can't say Kung Gemål, they're just two words without connection.

While Google Translate isn’t the most reliable source king consort translates to kungagemål whereas king’s consort translates to kungens gemål.

The consort of the Queen doesn't have to be titled King to have higher precedence than the heir to the throne as precedence is not necessarily tied to succession rights or having a constitutional role.

(..)

Fair enough, however one could argue that prince consort is a higher title than crown prince but Henrik didn’t even have that then.

 

[Silverpot]

While Google Translate isn’t the most reliable source king consort translates to kungagemål whereas king’s consort translates to kungens gemål.

Yes, and that is the exact same meaning. As I said in my previous post, the "a" in Kungagemål is equivalent with a possessive "'s" in English.

However queen consort translates to drottninggemål and prince consort translates to prinsgemål. Is there a reason only the translation of king consort requires an A between the words?

Yes, because Drottninggemål isn't in a possessive form, neither is Prinsgemål. But it would also sound really odd to put an "a" in the middle. If you want to adress the Queen's consort, you'll have to put it like that.

 

[meeralakshmi]

Yes, because Drottninggemål isn't in a possessive form, neither is Prinsgemål. But it would also sound really odd to put an "a" in the middle. If you want to adress the Queen's consort, you'll have to put it like that.

Is there a reason king consort in particular is a possessive form?

 

[Silverpot]

Is there a reason king consort in particular is a possessive form?

I'm not sure I understand your question. But, as I tried to explain, it would sound really odd to say Drottningagemål. It's not wrong but linguistically akward. If you mean to say the Queen's consort, that's how you must express it, with a genitive s.

 

[meeralakshmi]

I'm not sure I understand your question. But, as I tried to explain, it would sound really odd to say Drottningagemål. It's not wrong but linguistically akward. If you mean to say the Queen's consort, that's how you must express it, with a genitive s.

I meant to ask why it is that king consort translates to king’s consort but queen consort and prince consort don’t.

 

[Silverpot]

I meant to ask why it is that king consort translates to king’s consort but queen consort and prince consort don’t.

Well, I've tried to explain that king consort can't be translated into Swedish, those two words have no meaning standing alone. We simply don't say it like that. If a King has a wife, she is the King's consort, Kungagemål.

 

[meeralakshmi]

Well, I've tried to explain that king consort can't be translated into Swedish, those two words have no meaning standing alone. We simply don't say it like that. If a King has a wife, she is the King's consort, Kungagemål.

Then would a king consort be called the queen’s consort then?

Then would a king consort be called the queen’s consort then?

Didn’t mean to say then twice lol. Wish the edit button didn’t expire.

 

[Silverpot]

Then would a king consort be called the queen’s consort then?

Yes, because the Swedish word for consort, gemål, is just another word for spouse, when standing alone. Thus, Daniel will be the Queen's consort or spouse.

 

[Luc122]

It must place him in a difficult position, but other consorts themselves one turns to the UK and sees a prince consort is not given the title of King. Precedence, I refer to the UK states that only a monarch who inherits the throne is granted the title King much like King Charles. Moreover, to grant a title of King to someone who married into the family is...odd. 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

 

[iceflower]

The latest posts have been moved to the thread „Precedence - Who Outranks Who?“ at the General Royal Discussion subforum.