Question about titles

[Duc_et_Pair]

It is the same in Spain with the title Prince/Prccness of Asturias. But still the consort a Prince of Asturias is styled Princess of Asturias. We will see if this will also be the case for a male spouse but as also the husbands of spanish Ducghesses are styled Duke of Albva etc. i think it is very likely.

That is true. But during the readings of the Bill on the Royal House 2002 the Dutch Government preferred the title of King (Queen) to be used by the bearer of the Crown exclusively. They also preferred the title Prince (Princess) of Orange by the Heir(ess) exclusively.

Between 2002 and 2013 Máxima indeed never was The Princess of Orange, without any problem, completely following the Royal House Act. Why the Cabinet thought that Máxima not being known as Queen suddenly would be "undesirable" , is a mystery. In my opinion a missed chance on a clear and fair gender-equal system of titulature.

 

[Mbruno]

In English? Her Majesty Queen Máxima, Princess of the Netherlands, Princess of Orange-Nassau? This is interesting.

Can we legally address her as 'HM The Queen of the Netherlands?'

Compared with other reiging European Queen Consorts? Is it only Máxima that has this distinct case?

No, we cannot. Her official title in English is indeed HM Queen Máxima, Princess of the Netherlands, Princess of Orange-Nassau.

Likewise, Mathilde is HM Queen Mathilde ( Marie Christine Ghislaine comtesse d’Udekem d’Acoz), Princess of Belgium. She is not HM The Queen of the Belgians.

And Letizia is SM la Reina Doña Letizia (Ortiz Rocasolano) . She is not SM la Reina de España.

The only consorts that are officially “Queen of [xxx]” are Silvia and, I believe, Sonja. Silvia for example is HM Silvia Renate, Sveriges Drottning.

Domestically of course, one would only say HM The Queen, e.g, SM la Reine, SM la Reina,, HM de Koningin, HM Drottningen.

 

[norwegianne]

In 2002, with King Harald V's consent, Princess Martha Louise's title was changed from Her Royal Highness to Her Highness. Why was her title changed?

Her title was changed so that she could earn money by having her own company and earn money, without seemingly being at odds with being a royal. Unlike when her aunts' titles changed, ML's title changed before her marriage as it was (seemingly) a decision independent of that.

Of course, the Norwegian press failed to make that distinction, so in August this year, it was also announced that ML will not use her princess title for commercial gain.

Why they did not specify that back then, beats me, but I guess it was less controversial when she was profiting from fairy tales and writing books around that aspect than when she is going on tour with a shaman.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Princess Ragnhild and Princess Astrid are the only two titled royals who have ever been registered in the Folkeregisteret with a surname.

[...]

While "of Norway" is used for convenience when dealing with international audiences, my understanding is that the official title is merely Prince or Princess. This is as stated in the announcement of his title in 2005.

It doesn't specifically state anything about him being a prince of Norway or not;

As "of Norway" is not the prince's surname, I believe it would have to have been granted in the title in order to be legally registered. However, the King's announcement states "Jeg har gitt den nyfødte tittelen prins" ("I have given the newborn the title of prince"), not prince of Norway.

they also don't refer to Ingrid Alexandra or even the king or queen as 'of Norway' but as (HRH princess Ingrid Alexandra) and HM Queen Sonja.

Which "they" do you refer to? The website of the Royal House (kongehuset.no) does refer to Norges Konge and Norges Dronning, whereas the princes(ses) are referred to as Prins(esse) only.

For comparison, the princes(ses) of Sweden and Denmark are referred to as such on their websites.

So, while I understand that within the country it is irrelevant to mention the 'of Norway', do they really not have any designation? If so, on what basis are they using it internationally? What surname would be used at school?

In my opinion "of Norway" is the most logical and readily understood designation to use outside of the country; do you think differently?

I'm afraid I am not knowledgeable about how the royals are treated at school, although I believe Crown Prince Haakon once mentioned that he used his second given name Magnus when a surname was required. Perhaps someone else can answer the question?

They probably need a 'solution' of Sverre Magnus eventual children as well. Or would they be prince(ss) of Norway (without royal highness of course, as he himself isn't one either)?

No one has confirmed what titles or surname an eventual child of Prince Sverre Magnus would carry. A title would be up to the monarch (see Article 34 of the Constitution), while a surname would probably be a mutual decision between the monarch and the parents, as it was with the Behn children.

Having said that, virtually all Norwegian royal watchers, in my experience, say they see no reason to treat Prince Sverre Magnus's children differently from his cousins, who have already established the precedent of being in the line of succession without a title or official function. I will quote Royal Norway's post here, as he is quite knowledgeable about the royal family:

Would Sverre's wife be a princess? That is up to the monarch, but I don't think so. - Why? Most Norwegians (politicians, commentators, experts and myself included) are VERY keen on gender equality, and the criticism will therefore be ENORMOUS if Sverre's wife became a princess, while Erling Lorentzen, Johan Martin Ferner & Ari Behn didn't become princes.
The headlines will be something like this: ''The spouses of male non-Royal House members receives titles, while the spouses of female non-Royal House members does not. - Gender equality anyone?''

Would she give up her career once she marries? No, she won't (I will actually go so far as to say that I'm 100% sure about that). - Why? Well, because that woman will marry a prince who is not a member of the Royal House, and he will most likely have a career of his own. Their alternative is to live of a trust-fund, but the NRF isn't that rich, so that would be quite difficult.
Would she perform public duties? No, she won't (I will say that I'm 100% sure about that too). - Why? Same as above.

Would their children be princesses/princes? No, they won't (I will say that I'm 200% sure about that). - Why? Because their parents would not be members of the Royal House, not that they had received any titles, anyway (this is not Denmark or Sweden).
Would their children have professional careers? Yes, they would (I will say that I'm 200% sure about that too). - Why? Well, they will need something to live of.
Would their children be offered patronages? No way (and I couldn't be more sure). - Why? Because (as the children of Ragnhild, Astrid, and Märtha) they won't have any titles, or official functions at all.

 

[Heavs]

In my opinion "of Norway" is the most logical and readily understood designation to use outside of the country; do you think differently?

Certainly it makes the most sense when referring to HH Princess ML of Norway outside of the country when she's mentioned in the context of the royal family and her place in it.

But Martha Louise of Norway when she's not allowed to use or refer to her royal title and status for commercial ventures makes no sense. Hence the surname discussion. "Of Norway" clarifies which ML you're talking about but is basically a title.

OTOH if she started publicising herself as Martha Louise Glucksberg are even people from Scandinavia going to realise who it is without recognising the context? And people who don't royal watch from other countries will have no idea. That's why she's probably happy for companies and groups she works with to "mistakenly" use her title on their materials for a while.

It's that magic little word "Prince/ss" that brings the eyeballs and the cash and all the royals and royal-adjacent people trying to sell things know it.

 

[Somebody]

As "of Norway" is not the prince's surname, I believe it would have to have been granted in the title in order to be legally registered. However, the King's announcement states "Jeg har gitt den nyfødte tittelen prins" ("I have given the newborn the title of prince"), not prince of Norway.

My main question was, whether it was included for Ingrid-Alexandra, who unlike her brother is a royal highness (and I assume a princess of Norway - if they exist).

Which "they" do you refer to? The website of the Royal House (kongehuset.no) does refer to Norges Konge and Norges Dronning, whereas the princes(ses) are referred to as Prins(esse) only.

For comparison, the princes(ses) of Sweden and Denmark are referred to as such on their websites.

The specific reference that you included and other ones on the same government website.

In my opinion "of Norway" is the most logical and readily understood designation to use outside of the country; do you think differently?

I agree, unless they are officially no princes of Norway, than it is pretending to be something they are not. If they stress that some people are not princes/princesses of Norway, they shouldn't suddenly start pretending they are once out of the country. You cannot have it both ways.

I'm afraid I am not knowledgeable about how the royals are treated at school, although I believe Crown Prince Haakon once mentioned that he used his second given name Magnus when a surname was required. Perhaps someone else can answer the question?

So the question on Sverre Magnus' surname remains unanswered; it would be very hard to pass on a non-existing surname to any children.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Certainly it makes the most sense when referring to HH Princess ML of Norway outside of the country when she's mentioned in the context of the royal family and her place in it.

But Martha Louise of Norway when she's not allowed to use or refer to her royal title and status for commercial ventures makes no sense. Hence the surname discussion. "Of Norway" clarifies which ML you're talking about but is basically a title.

OTOH if she started publicising herself as Martha Louise Glucksberg are even people from Scandinavia going to realise who it is without recognising the context? And people who don't royal watch from other countries will have no idea. That's why she's probably happy for companies and groups she works with to "mistakenly" use her title on their materials for a while.

It's that magic little word "Prince/ss" that brings the eyeballs and the cash and all the royals and royal-adjacent people trying to sell things know it.

I think you make good points, and that if King Harald or the future King Haakon ever did contemplate creating an eventual spouse or child of Sverre Magnus a prince/ss, the recent controversies may harden them against it.

My main question was, whether it was included for Ingrid-Alexandra, who unlike her brother is a royal highness (and I assume a princess of Norway - if they exist).

I assume the opposite, i.e. that she is titled Princess like her aunt and brother. As far as I can tell, the Royal Court's website does not refer to her as Norges Prinsesse or Prinsesse av Norge, whereas the king and queen are Norges Konge and Norges Dronning.

I agree, unless they are officially no princes of Norway, than it is pretending to be something they are not. If they stress that some people are not princes/princesses of Norway, they shouldn't suddenly start pretending they are once out of the country. You cannot have it both ways.

I think the situation in Norway is very different from the one you characterize. It cannot be compared to monarchies such as Belgium and Luxembourg, where some princesses/princes in the royal family are "of Belgium/Luxembourg" whereas other princesses/princes are not. A Belgian/Luxembourgian princess/prince who is not "of Belgium/Luxembourg" but used the territorial designation would be pretending to a higher title than that which they are entitled to use.

In Norway, however, the princely title is the same for all princes(ses), apart from the crown prince and princess, and they are equally part of the Royal Family.

Likewise, royals in Japan (and in most monarchies outside of Europe, I would assume) do not bear the name of their country in their titles. Is it "pretending" when members of the Japanese imperial family refer to themselves as "of Japan" in English?

So the question on Sverre Magnus' surname remains unanswered; it would be very hard to pass on a non-existing surname to any children.

Princess Märtha Louise seems to agree:

One thing the couple have decided is that the baby's family name will be Behn, since, as the princess remarked "I don't have a surname."​

However, since the naming law in Norway offers numerous options and does not limit children to the surnames of their parents, I don't see any legal bars to naming a prince/ss's child Glücksburg.

 

[Somebody]

I think you make good points, and that if King Harald or the future King Haakon ever did contemplate creating an eventual spouse or child of Sverre Magnus a prince/ss, the recent controversies may harden them against it.

I don't expect they will; it would go against their current policy to keep the royal family as small as possible.

I assume the opposite, i.e. that she is titled Princess like her aunt and brother. As far as I can tell, the Royal Court's website does not refer to her as Norges Prinsesse or Prinsesse av Norge, whereas the king and queen are Norges Konge and Norges Dronning.

However, the main difference is that Ingrid-Alexandra is a royal highness - as a member of the Norwegian royal house, while her aunt and brother are not.

I think the situation in Norway is very different from the one you characterize. It cannot be compared to monarchies such as Belgium and Luxembourg, where some princesses/princes in the royal family are "of Belgium/Luxembourg" whereas other princesses/princes are not. A Belgian/Luxembourgian princess/prince who is not "of Belgium/Luxembourg" but used the territorial designation would be pretending to a higher title than that which they are entitled to use.

In Norway, however, the princely title is the same for all princes(ses), apart from the crown prince and princess, and they are equally part of the Royal Family.

I am not comparing it to any other situation in which you have different designations of princes/princesses, my main point is that you cannot just be a random prince/princess; otherwise we could all be princes and princesses (as Tessy likes to claim).

So, I guess we must assume they are all princes and princesses of Norway - even though they don't use it within the country; as in my view you cannot be a prince or princess of nothing (but I know we disagree on that).

Likewise, royals in Japan (and in most monarchies outside of Europe, I would assume) do not bear the name of their country in their titles. Is it "pretending" when members of the Japanese imperial family refer to themselves as "of Japan" in English?

Yes, if they themselves do so. I am sure the press will do it for clarification purposes; but for example, Kako and Mako are 'of Akishino'.

Princess Märtha Louise seems to agree:

One thing the couple have decided is that the baby's family name will be Behn, since, as the princess remarked "I don't have a surname."​

However, since the naming law in Norway offers numerous options and does not limit children to the surnames of their parents, I don't see any legal bars to naming a prince/ss's child Glücksburg.

So far, the children in the royal family have all had their father's surname and/or titles, so it's interesting that Märtha Louise apparently considered giving them her surname had she had one.

It will be interesting to see whether Sverre Magnus would decide to use his wife's surname for any children they may have (of course, this also requires him to marry) - using his aunt's reasoning; or if they opt for Glücksburg; as that surely will bring more status as it stresses their royal heritage (which I think is reasonable given that these children will be male-line descendants and the eldest son would have been king one day had they not changed the rules).

 

[Denville]

Is it not a custom in Norway for wives to (if they wish) take their husband's surname or for their children to use the father's surname?

 

[0325.Mikael.0929]

So far, the children in the royal family have all had their father's surname and/or titles, so it's interesting that Märtha Louise apparently considered giving them her surname had she had one.

It will be interesting to see whether Sverre Magnus would decide to use his wife's surname for any children they may have (of course, this also requires him to marry) - using his aunt's reasoning; or if they opt for Glücksburg; as that surely will bring more status as it stresses their royal heritage (which I think is reasonable given that these children will be male-line descendants and the eldest son would have been king one day had they not changed the rules).

Or perhaps they can try to use patronymics the same way it was done in Iceland now - Sverresen may be the last name of Sverre Magnus' children.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Is it not a custom in Norway for wives to (if they wish) take their husband's surname or for their children to use the father's surname?

Yes, but different married women/mothers make different choices in regard to names.

I haven't seen recent numbers, however, as of 2005:

46% of married women had two family names, the first being their own name and the second being their husband's name.

34% had their husband's name only.

20% had their own name only.


As for children:

A nationally representative survey conducted by the government in 2003 (the same year that Princess Märtha Louise had her first child) asked women and men of childbearing age about the best choice of surname(s) to give to a child.

42% of women and 37% of men were in favor of children having the names of both parents, the first from the mother and the second from the father.

25% of women and 39% of men were in favor of children having the name of their father only.

7% of women and 5% of men were in favor of children having the names of both parents, the first from the father and the second from the mother.

2% of women and 3% of men were in favor of different surnames being given to different siblings.

2% of women and 1% of men were in favor of children having the name of their mother only.

22% of women and 15% of men answered "other" or "don't know".

I am not comparing it to any other situation in which you have different designations of princes/princesses, my main point is that you cannot just be a random prince/princess; otherwise we could all be princes and princesses (as Tessy likes to claim).

So, I guess we must assume they are all princes and princesses of Norway - even though they don't use it within the country; as in my view you cannot be a prince or princess of nothing (but I know we disagree on that).

The problem is that it (the general subject of princes and princesses "of nothing", not the specific question about Norway) isn't only a matter of assumption, but a question of facts which in theory can be settled by observation: Does every title throughout every culture and every period of history comprise an "of something" designation?

As I said, I suspect the "of country X" designations are mostly a feature of European monarchies, but I will leave that to someone with more knowledge of Asian and African customs. However, even in modern Europe, the princesses/princes of the Belgian nobility for example are formally "princes and princesses of nothing" (there are official sources for that here).

Likewise, royals in Japan (and in most monarchies outside of Europe, I would assume) do not bear the name of their country in their titles. Is it "pretending" when members of the Japanese imperial family refer to themselves as "of Japan" in English?

Yes, if they themselves do so. I am sure the press will do it for clarification purposes; but for example, Kako and Mako are 'of Akishino'.

I guess our opinions differ. For me it would be more "pretending" if the Japanese emperor were to refer to himself as simply "the Emperor" when he is in, for example, the UK, as that might risk creating the impression that he is claiming to be the emperor of the UK.

It will be interesting to see whether Sverre Magnus would decide to use his wife's surname for any children they may have (of course, this also requires him to marry) - using his aunt's reasoning; or if they opt for Glücksburg; as that surely will bring more status as it stresses their royal heritage (which I think is reasonable given that these children will be male-line descendants and the eldest son would have been king one day had they not changed the rules).

Or perhaps they can try to use patronymics the same way it was done in Iceland now - Sverresen may be the last name of Sverre Magnus' children.

Or Magnusen, as Prince Sverre Magnus is known as Magnus within his family.

 

[Mbruno]

As I said, I suspect the "of country X" designations are mostly a feature of European monarchies, but I will leave that to someone with more knowledge of Asian and African customs. However, even in modern Europe, the princesses/princes of the Belgian nobility for example are formally "princes and princesses of nothing" (there are official sources for that here).

We don't even have to go that far. Children of British sovereigns are "princes/princesses of nothing". Only Prince Philip, I think, is formally referred to in his LPs as "Prince of the United Kingdom". Otherwise, it is HRH The Prince Charles, HRH The Prince Andrew, HRH The Prince Edward, etc.


The way I see it, at least for the Brits, one thing is the titular dignity of Prince/Princess that is prefixed to their Christian names under the LPs of 1917 and 2012 and a different thing are the titles that they were given by specific LPs applying to each of them individually and which are postponed to their Christian names. Hence,


HRH The Prince Charles (Philip Arthur George), Prince of Wales
HRH The Prince Andrew (Albert Christian Edward), Duke of York
HRH Prince William (Arthur Philip Louis), Duke of Cambridge


HRH The Prince of Wales, HRH The Duke of York or HRH The Duke of Cambridge are only short styles for daily use corresponding to the above in my point of view.


The Belgian system, always controversial here in TRF, is not different IMHO. The princes and princesses carry a titular dignity that is prefixed to their name, followed by their given names (and family names if used), their dynastic titles, and then the title of Prince of Belgium when applicable. Hence


SAR la Princesse Élisabeth (Thérèse Marie Hélène), Duchesse de Brabant, Princesse de Belgique


The only main difference is that, in the UK, under the LPs of 1917 and 2012, HRH is attached to the prefix Prince/Princess, who is turn attached to the given names (it is a style that applies to ALL people entitled to be called Prince/Princess under the said LPs, regardless of any other title that they might hold).



Conversely, in Belgium, HRH is also prefixed to Prince/Princess and the given names, but it is attached to also holding the title of Prince/Princess of Belgium. Anna-Astrid for example is not a Princess of Belgium, and not an HRH accordingly, but nonetheless uses the prefix Princess before her name.



We don't know yet, but I believe that Nicolas' and Aymeric's children, or Louise's and Maria Laura's for that matter, will also be Princes/Princesses of nothing without an HRH and so will be all legitimate descendants of Albert II in perpetuity as, that is my reading of the Royal Decree of 2015, but, again, we don't know that yet. Hopefully the Courts will clarify that in the context of Delphine's case.


Anyway, there are other examples too. Carl Gustaf's sisters, or Carl Gustaf's grandchildren other than Estelle and Oscar, are not HRHs, but are Princes/Princesses followed by their names only (and family name if they use it in their identity documents; for the sisters, followed by their husbands' names).



To me, "of country" is not the rule, but rather the exception, signifying membership of the Royal House (at least in some countries).

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Until the modifications of 1990, Article 34 of the Constitution regulated the titles of the blood members of the Royal House.

Art. 34. The nearest heir to the Throne, if he is the son of the reigning King, shall bear the title of Crown Prince. The other persons entitled to succeed to the Throne shall be called Princes, and the daughters of the Royal House, Princesses.​

In 1990, Article 34 was modified so that titles are now a matter for the King.

Article 34
The King shall make provisions concerning titles for those who are entitled to succeed to the Crown.​

However, Article 118 is interpreted by royal experts to forbid the King from granting the titles of Count/ess or Baron/ess.

Article 118
No earldoms, baronies, entailed estates or fidei commissa may be created in the future.​

 

[An Ard Ri]

I'd forgotten that Norway had abolished noble titles in the 1820's

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Until the modifications of 1990, Article 34 of the Constitution regulated the titles of the blood members of the Royal House.

Art. 34. The nearest heir to the Throne, if he is the son of the reigning King, shall bear the title of Crown Prince. The other persons entitled to succeed to the Throne shall be called Princes, and the daughters of the Royal House, Princesses.​

Related to the discussions upthread, note that the old Constitution stipulated the titles as Prince(ss), rather than Prince(ss) of Norway, and did not clarify whether the Princes(ses) should be HRH or not.

And does the Norwegian public really make a difference between an H(R)H prince(ss) and a plain prince(ss)? I would think that the title of a prince(ss) would be more important than an H(R)H for the most people...

I don't believe they do. From what I have gathered from the Norwegian media, the senior royals are normally addressed and referred to by members of the public as King/Queen/Crown Prince(ss), rather than Majesty or Royal Highness.

 

[Mbruno]

Until the modifications of 1990, Article 34 of the Constitution regulated the titles of the blood members of the Royal House.

Art. 34. The nearest heir to the Throne, if he is the son of the reigning King, shall bear the title of Crown Prince. The other persons entitled to succeed to the Throne shall be called Princes, and the daughters of the Royal House, Princesses..​

What did "daughters of the Royal House" mean exacty ?

 

[Somebody]

What did "daughters of the Royal House" mean exacty ?

I assume daughters of those entitled to succeed to the throne (as they themselves were not); as two categories are discussed within one senctence: 'the men', i.e. next to the nearest heir to the throne, all other persons (read: men) entitled to succeed to the throne; and the 'women' which must be derived from who is or is not part of that royal house that was indirectly identified as being those entitled to succeed to the throne.

Art. 34. The nearest heir to the Throne, if he is the son of the reigning King, shall bear the title of Crown Prince. The other persons entitled to succeed to the Throne shall be called Princes, and the daughters of the Royal House, Princesses.

 

[Mbruno]

I assume daughters of those entitled to succeed to the throne (as they themselves were not); as two categories are discussed within one senctence: 'the men', i.e. next to the nearest heir to the throne, all other persons (read: men) entitled to succeed to the throne; and the 'women' which must be derived from who is or is not part of that royal house that was indirectly identified as being those entitled to succeed to the throne.

Yes, I think your interpretation is right.


It surprises me that Norway moved from all persons in the line of succession and their daughters being princes/ princess to the current minimalist Royal House.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

This is an interesting analysis from Dag T. Hoelseth, a Norwegian royal historian, regarding the debate over the King's prerogative to remove titles and apanages.

The Constitution of Norway Article 34 says that "The King shall make provisions concerning titles for those who are entitled to succeed to the Crown."

However, at the time Princess Märtha Louise was born, the article read: "The nearest heir to the Throne, if he is the son of the reigning King, shall bear the title of Crown Prince. The other persons entitled to succeed to the Throne shall be called Princes, and the daughters of the Royal House, Princesses."

So the first question would be if "the King" in this situation means the king in person or "the King in Council" (i.e. government). One leading constitutional expert, Arne Fliflet, belives it is the former. Another question is whether the original reading could give the title more "protection" than the present reading. One thing is for sure, if the government asks the king to do something about the title, he will certainly oblige. I don't think this is very realistic at the moment. Before the princess gave up her apanage (from 1 January 2002), the interpretation in the Ministry of Justice was that she would have to give it up personally, it couldn't be taken away from her by force (cf. my "Report on the Norwegian Royal House's civil list and the state-owned properties at its disposial", 2001). She was kindly asked to give it up and she obliged. I think there is a parallell to the title issue, as it also derives from the Constitution. It is easier to give something than to take away something. Generally, there is little precedence on the matter, so one should be careful about being too categorial about what could happen or not.

I think the princess has got the point and will be more careful in the future.

Regarding the last question, the answer is a definite no. The Constitution forbids the creation of new nobility. The king only has the right to give royal titles (i.e. Prince or Princess and Crown Prince and Crown Princess), as the prreparatory work before the constitutional changs in 1990, the current reading of Article 34 has to be read with background in the previousn reading.

DTH​

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Historically (it's different now because I don't think Sverre is either HRH or HH), I think the CP's children have all been HH until their father ascends the throne, at which point they become HRH.

The children of then Crown Prince Olav and then Crown Prince Harald were HRH from birth, which is the reason the decision regarding Sverre Magnus was considered a break with tradition.

He is not related to a royal in anyway, there is no logical reason he should be given one. If Haakon chooses to give him one out of sentimentality then that's far enough. However it would mean Marcus would have to perform duties for the RF, which I doubt he wants to.

At present, only the HRH title is linked to performing duties for the royal family. The King has supported the right of his daughter to retain the title of Princess even though she has mostly ceased to represent the monarchy.

It is the same in Spain with the title Prince/Prccness of Asturias. But still the consort a Prince of Asturias is styled Princess of Asturias. We will see if this will also be the case for a male spouse but as also the husbands of spanish Ducghesses are styled Duke of Albva etc. i think it is very likely.

The decree regulating royal titles in Spain stipulates that male and female spouses of Princesses/Princes of Asturias will also be styled Prince/Princess of Asturias, as is the Spanish tradition.

Her HRH was removed. In Norway she is no longer a (royal) highness. It is just abroad that she is acknowledged as highness (just like her nephew prince Sverre Magnus).

That's interesting! I always assumed Sverre Magnus was an HH. A prince (or princess) without an HH (or HRH) is an interesting concept. Are there only HRHs in Norway (and no HHs)- so he can only be that or "just" a prince?

Somebody is correct. You will notice that the Norwegian version of the official website of the monarchy does not use HH (or HRH) for princesses and princes who are not members of the Royal House, whereas the English version does. This follows the King's decision that the princesses and princes who have no predicate in Norway would be allowed to use HH when they are abroad, as HRH/HH titles have little significance in Norway but are given more importance in some foreign countries.

There have been no HHs in Norway for over 200 years. The Swedish Royal House, which reigned over Norway from 1814 to 1905, does not use HH.

So far, the children in the royal family have all had their father's surname and/or titles, so it's interesting that Märtha Louise apparently considered giving them her surname had she had one.

So far all princes of the current royal family who have had children have been crown princes, so it would have been odd if their children did not have their fathers' titles.

Princesses Ragnhild and Astrid had no choice to make. The laws of the day required married women to take the names of their husbands, which also affected the children of the marriages. You will notice that most of their grandchildren were given the surnames of both parents, as has become the norm in both Norway and Brazil.

Under the 2002 name legislation, Princess Märtha Louise and Prince Sverre Magnus (unless new legislation is passed before he has children, or his children are made princesses/princes and do not require a surname) had/have many more options. A child can be given the surname of any of their parents, grandparents, great-grandparents or great-great-grandparents or any surname to which the child has a special connection. The child can also be given any common surname which is registered as the surname of over 200 people in Norway, or the parents can create a new surname. A patronymic or matronymic based on the forename of the parent (e.g. Magnusen) may also be given as the child's surname.

 

[rchainho]

What title would the future's husband of ingrid would have?

https://www.aftenposten.no/kultur/i/L14rJJ/spraaket-vaart-blir-det-kong-ingrid-den-foerste

 

[amaryllus]

Who says it will be a husband?

 

[Blog Real]

Who says it will be a husband?

Yes that is also true. But in any case, it's still a few years before Princess Ingrid Alexandra gets married. It's too early to talk about your spouse's title.

 

[wartenberg7]

What title would the future's husband of ingrid would have?

https://www.aftenposten.no/kultur/i/L14rJJ/spraaket-vaart-blir-det-kong-ingrid-den-foerste

"King Ingrid"...?! ? ridiculous!

 

[Tatiana Maria]

What title would the future's husband of ingrid would have?

https://www.aftenposten.no/kultur/i/L14rJJ/spraaket-vaart-blir-det-kong-ingrid-den-foerste

But in any case, it's still a few years before Princess Ingrid Alexandra gets married. It's too early to talk about your spouse's title.

I think it would be preferable to discuss it and publicly come to a decision before the arrival of any marriage candidates on the scene, as that will minimize any perceived personal discrimination for or against a specific partner, and the same applies to Sverre Magnus.

Who says it will be a husband?

In the same vein, who says there will be a spouse? Royals who have remained unmarried until the end of their lives have been much more plentiful than royals who have married a person of their gender (no members of reigning royal houses as yet). It is also a possibility that the princess will die or lose her position before she reaches the age for marriage.

But as far as I can see, the article is not stating as a fact that there will be a husband. It is simply discussing the most likely scenario.

 

[amaryllus]

Wouldn’t it be Prince or Princess Consort? Why reinvent the wheel here.

 

[Blog Real]

I think this issue has to be discussed among all the royal houses and a consensus reached. And it may even already have been treated in secret.
If eventually Princess Ingrid Alexandra (just to give one example) marries a woman, what title would her wife have? I believe she would have the title of princess, mainly to distinguish herself from the title of the wife who is the monarch.
The issue of homosexuality in European, modern and 21st century royal houses has not yet arisen, but I don't think it is a really big problem with regard to titles and even society is already open-minded enough to accept it.

Wouldn’t it be Prince or Princess Consort? Why reinvent the wheel here.

Exactly. Why complicate what is simple.

 

[Stefan]

What title would the future's husband of ingrid would have?

https://www.aftenposten.no/kultur/i/L14rJJ/spraaket-vaart-blir-det-kong-ingrid-den-foerste

Most likely he will be given the Title HRH Prince on their Wedding Day.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Wouldn’t it be Prince or Princess Consort? Why reinvent the wheel here.

Exactly. Why complicate what is simple.

The spouses of the current King and Crown Prince are Queen and Crown Princess, not Princess Consort.

 

[amaryllus]

Ok. Not trying to open a can of worms but If such a thing came to be Queen Ingrid and Her wife Queen So and so just sounds silly and confusing. If A Queens husband is a Princes Consort logically and fairly her wife should be Princess Consort.

I mean it’s the 21st century and same sex Royals are going to happen sooner rather than later. Open title Discussion needs to start.