Question about titles

[Tatiana Maria]

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.

A reigning Queen Ingrid and an Ingrid with a wife were made possible because Parliament changed the laws of succession and marriage, respectively, to remove discrimination by gender. For Ingrid to be denied, on the basis of her gender, the same right as her father and grandfather to confer an equivalent title on her spouse would be logically inconsistent with those changes (which is not to say it will not happen).

 

[amaryllus]

But you have to be practical as well. Having two Queens or Two Kings married to each other in one country will be confusing.

 

[Heavs]

King is still an automatically higher title than Queen, which is why husbands of a Queen Regnant are usually Prince Consort, so it's actually a case of gender bias in the opposite direction which means men have to take a lower title than their female consort counter parts.

I personally do think it would be awkward to say "here come the King and Queen" when it is the Queen who is Regnant, or at least in English it would be.

I suppose if they must make the term completely "equal" between men and women (which is a funny concept in a hereditary monarchy anyway) then just go with "Royal Consort". I suppose to make everything really gender neutral you could just call her "Monarch I-A".

As for if she married a woman and she was able to convey the same title that her father did on her mother then they would have to find some way of distinguishing between the Queen Regnant and Queen Consort without writing both out in full all time time otherwise it could get confusing.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

King is still an automatically higher title than Queen,

What do you mean by a "higher title"?

which is why husbands of a Queen Regnant are usually Prince Consort, so it's actually a case of gender bias in the opposite direction which means men have to take a lower title than their female consort counter parts.

The traditional gender bias is that women are perceived as being brought into the families of their husbands, and in consequence wives traditionally take their names, and titles if applicable, from their husbands and not the other way around. A male consort is perceived as not acquiring his wife's status automatically but being given a title in his own right (according to this logic a lower title is reasonable), in contrast to a queen consort, who is perceived as automatically acquiring the feminine equivalent of her husband's title.

I suppose if they must make the term completely "equal" between men and women (which is a funny concept in a hereditary monarchy anyway) then just go with "Royal Consort".

I can't see why gender equality would be incompatible with hereditary monarchy. Inheritance can be implemented equally between men and women.

I personally do think it would be awkward to say "here come the King and Queen" when it is the Queen who is Regnant, or at least in English it would be.

As for if she married a woman and she was able to convey the same title that her father did on her mother then they would have to find some way of distinguishing between the Queen Regnant and Queen Consort without writing both out in full all time time otherwise it could get confusing.

But you have to be practical as well. Having two Queens or Two Kings married to each other in one country will be confusing.

"The Queen and King" or "the Queen and Queen Consort" would be the simple solution. Royal houses of Europe are accustomed to having multiple Queens, and less frequently multiple Kings, within the same royal house, thanks to widowhood and abdication.

 

[JR76]

Norwegian royal journalist and writer Trond Norén Isaksen has written an article in Aftenposten about the title of a potential future husband of Princess Ingrid Alexandra stating that "if the Princess marries a man he should have the title of king". He goes on writing that it was the custom in European monarchies until Queen Anne ascended the throne of England etc in 1702 and that there are nothing in the Norwegian Constitution stopping it from happening.
The article was written as a commentary on a piece by "language reporter" (?) Kristin Storrusten that I unfortunately haven't been able to read because of a paywall.

https://www.aftenposten.no/meninger/debatt/i/Rrxpga/en-dronnings-ektemann-boer-kalles-konge

 

[An Ard Ri]

I'm sure there will be much debate as there are 3 future queen regnants it will be a long time before Princess Ingrid Alexandra of Norway and Princess Estelle of Sweden becomes queens.

Crown Princess Victoria of Sweden
The Princess of Asturias (Leonor)
The Princess of Orange (Catherine Amalia)

 

[JR76]

I'm sure there will be much debate as there are 3 future queen regnants it will be a long time before Princess Ingrid Alexandra of Norway and Princess Estelle of Sweden becomes queens.



Crown Princess Victoria of Sweden

The Princess of Asturias (Leonor)

The Princess of Orange (Catherine Amalia)

As far as I can remember both laws in Spain and The Netherlands states that the husband of a female monarch is a prince. Naturally the Dutch law also states that the wife of a male monarch is a princess, but that didn't really work out did it?! The Swedish constitution is silent on the matter.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

I'm sure there will be much debate as there are 3 future queen regnants it will be a long time before Princess Ingrid Alexandra of Norway and Princess Estelle of Sweden becomes queens.

Crown Princess Victoria of Sweden
The Princess of Asturias (Leonor)
The Princess of Orange (Catherine Amalia)

Actually the formal title of Máxima is HRH Princess Máxima of the Netherlands. No difference between male and female consorts and the same title and style as her male predecessors Duke Heinrich von Mecklenburg-Schwerin, Prince Bernhard zur Lippe-Biesterfeld and Jonkheer Claus von Amsberg.

But in 2013 the Government stated that, as by tradition and social custom female spouses of titled gentlemen can be addressed by their husband's title and style, this does not exclude the spouse of the King.

So the opportunity to style Máxima with her formal title is now blurred by not referring with her very own formal title but by that of her spouse. Meaning that de jure there is gender equality in the treatment of spouses but it does not show in daily use.

 

[Blog Real]

I'm sure there will be much debate as there are 3 future queen regnants it will be a long time before Princess Ingrid Alexandra of Norway and Princess Estelle of Sweden becomes queens.

Crown Princess Victoria of Sweden
The Princess of Asturias (Leonor)
The Princess of Orange (Catherine Amalia)

There are four future reigning queens, you forgot Princess Elisabeth.

 

[An Ard Ri]

There are four future reigning queens, you forgot Princess Elisabeth.

Yes I did indeed the duchess of Brabant .

 

[Mbruno]

King is still an automatically higher title than Queen, which is why husbands of a Queen Regnant are usually Prince Consort, so it's actually a case of gender bias in the opposite direction which means men have to take a lower title than their female consort counter parts.

I personally do think it would be awkward to say "here come the King and Queen" when it is the Queen who is Regnant, or at least in English it would be.

I understand your point, but I must say that such awkwardness is mostly a cultural perception. As mentioned before in TRF, the husbands of reigning queens in Spain and Portugal, and earlier even in Scotland, held the title of king (consort), but did not outrank their wives.

It is unfortunate that Spain has now abandoned that tradition and switched to a British-like system where, under the terms of the Royal Decree 1368/1987, future husbands of reigning queens (e.g. Leonor's husband) will be titled Prince with the style of Royal Highness.


In the case of same-sex royal couples, which I agree will happen eventually, maybe sooner than expected, I am pretty sure that Prince/Princess will be the title of choice for consorts and I would be very surprised otherwise.

Norwegian royal journalist and writer Trond Norén Isaksen has written an article in Aftenposten about the title of a potential future husband of Princess Ingrid Alexandra stating that "if the Princess marries a man he should have the title of king". He goes on writing that it was the custom in European monarchies until Queen Anne ascended the throne of England etc in 1702 and that there are nothing in the Norwegian Constitution stopping it from happening.
The article was written as a commentary on a piece by "language reporter" (?) Kristin Storrusten that I unfortunately haven't been able to read because of a paywall.

https://www.aftenposten.no/meninger/debatt/i/Rrxpga/en-dronnings-ektemann-boer-kalles-konge

I haven't read the Norwegian constitution in Norwegian, but the English translation uses the word "King" to refer to the monarch/ head of State/ (nominal) holder of the Executive power. In Denmark, where the constitution is similarly worded, that has been used in the past as an excuse, see our friend Mr. Muhler's posts, to argue against the reigning queen's husband (e.g. Prince Henrik) being called "King".


The modern Swedish constitution, which appears to have been written already envisaging a possible future transition to a republic, avoids this problem as the monarch is mostly referred to simply as "the Head of State" or, alternatively, in the form "the King or Queen who occupies the throne", or "the King or Queen who is the Head of State", which is a very clever wording in my opinion to avoid any ambiguity.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

While I will quote my response here, I think the thread Title & Role of a Consort would be a good place to continue the general discussion about titles of consorts which extends outside of Norway.

The perception that King is a "higher title" than Queen only seems to emerge in discussions of titles of consorts, and never elsewhere.

Nowhere in the many discussions I have read on royal websites and social media have I ever heard admirers of Queen Elizabeth II of the UK or Queen Margrethe II of Denmark bemoan that they were given "lower titles" than their fathers and other male monarchs.

Royal watchers to my knowledge have never argued that monarchies whose constitutions strictly regulate the powers and duties of a King will provoke a constitutional crisis if and when Princess Elisabeth of Belgium, for example, accedes to the throne as a Queen. On this issue, royal watchers easily accept that a Queen is precisely the same thing as a King, and therefore the constitution's regulations for reigning Kings will extend to a reigning Queen.

As for consorts, it is frequently brought up in conversations about the British royal family that under British common law, a wife has the right to take the rank and title of her husband and morganatic marriages for female consorts are impossible. But no one has claimed that if the future King Charles's wife Camilla is styled Queen, it would introduce morganatic marriages as Queen is a "lower title" than King.

Norwegian royal journalist and writer Trond Norén Isaksen has written an article in Aftenposten about the title of a potential future husband of Princess Ingrid Alexandra stating that "if the Princess marries a man he should have the title of king". He goes on writing that it was the custom in European monarchies until Queen Anne ascended the throne of England etc in 1702 and that there are nothing in the Norwegian Constitution stopping it from happening.
The article was written as a commentary on a piece by "language reporter" (?) Kristin Storrusten that I unfortunately haven't been able to read because of a paywall.

https://www.aftenposten.no/meninger/debatt/i/Rrxpga/en-dronnings-ektemann-boer-kalles-konge

Trond Norén Isaksen is a reliable historian, and his article is worth the read.

It is very questionable that commenters usually plead tradition regarding gender-discriminatory titles of European consorts, but willfully exclude the hundreds of years of tradition which were set by kings consort prior to the recent trend begun by the UK.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

I haven't read the Norwegian constitution in Norwegian, but the English translation uses the word "King" to refer to the monarch/ head of State/ (nominal) holder of the Executive power.

The only exceptions are Articles 6 and 48, which govern succession and election to the throne, and Article 3, which references the aforementioned articles.

§ 3.
Den utøvende makt er hos kongen eller hos dronningen, hvis hun har ervervet kronen etter bestemmelsene i § 6, § 7 eller § 48 i denne Grunnlov. Når den utøvende makt således er hos dronningen, har hun alle de rettigheter og plikter som ifølge denne Grunnlov og landets lover innehas av kongen.

Article 3.
The executive power is vested in the King, or in the Queen if she has succeeded to the Crown pursuant to the provisions of Article 6 or Article 7 or Article 48 of this Constitution. When the executive power is thus vested in the Queen, she has all the rights and obligations which pursuant to this Constitution and the law of the land are possessed by the King.​

The difference with the language for prince(sse)s is interesting. Every use of "prince(s)" in the Constitution from before 1990 has been substituted with "prince or princess" or "princes and princesses", but for Article 21's "De kongelige prinser må ikke bekle sivile embeter" (The royal princes must not hold senior civil offices).

https://lovdata.no/dokument/NL/lov/1814-05-17

 

[Tatiana Maria]

On the official website of the Royal House I noticed the following explanation of the membership of the Royal House and the Royal Family.

The Royal Family - The Royal House of Norway

The Royal Family

The Royal House of Norway belongs to the House of Glücksburg. The members of the Norwegian Royal House are Their Majesties King Harald and Queen Sonja and Their Royal Highnesses Crown Prince Haakon, Crown Princess Mette-Marit and Princess Ingrid Alexandra.

The members of the Royal Family are in addition the Crown Prince and Crown Princess’s other children, His Highness Prince Sverre Magnus and Mr Marius Borg Høiby; Her Highness Princess Märtha Louise, Miss Maud Angelica Behn, Miss Leah Isadora Behn, Miss Emma Tallulah Behn and Her Highness Princess Astrid, Mrs Ferner.​

I may be reading too much into it, but I wonder if the suggestion is that while all of the members of the Royal House belong to the House of Glücksburg, the remaining members of the Royal Family who are not members of the Royal House do not necessarily belong to the House of Glücksburg?

It would seem reasonable to me if Marius Borg Høiby for instance is not regarded as a member of the House of Glücksburg even though he is a member of the Royal Family.

 

[ROYAL NORWAY]

From Ingrid's 18th birthday thread (link):

Regarding the title stuff that has been discussed here:
Yes, Ingrid is described as ''HKH Prinsessen'' (''HRH The Princess'') on the first page of her profile on the Royal House website (and on the page for her decorations), which in all certainty is due to her being the future heir and Monarch.
Should also be said that the Norwegian Broadcasting Corporation (NRK) since 2015 has been doing the same thing when they have referred to members of the Royal House by only their styles/titles (and not by names) when they have appeared on the palace balcony on May 17th (Norway's Constitution Day). - While Sverre Magnus OTOH (who is not part of the Royal House and therefore not a Royal Highness) was described as ''Prince Sverre Magnus'' (and not just ''the Prince'').

A question regarding the title: has Harald or Haakon ever being addressed as HRH The Prince before they became Crown Prince and when their grandfather were still alive? Is it a "newly invented" formal title or just an informal one to indicate IA's position?

Think I will describe it as a referring-title to indicate her position as a future heir.

But all such titles are referring-titles, including ''His Majesty The King!'' I mean, it would have been a bit weird for the court to use his exact title, which is: Hans Majestet Harald V, Norges Konge (His Majesty Harald V, Norway's King).

But let's go a bit more into detail of what you asked about:

Harald and Haakon: Almost impossible to know how the royal court referred to members of the RF before they launched the royal website on New Year's Eve 1999. But I've seen from digital newspaper archives that the media mostly referred to them as Prince Harald and Prince Haakon Magnus. However, since the Norwegian media have always mostly referred to the royals by using their titles-plus-names and not their styles (with the exception of the monarch), they would probably still have referred to them as Prince Harald and Prince Haakon Magnus, regardless of what the royal court was calling them.

Ingrid: The court has referred to her as ''HRH The Princess'' on the first page of her profile-site (link) for several years already.
Why is it done? Hmm, since they do it with the monarch/consort and the heir/wife, they probably thought it was a good idea to do it with the future heir as well.
However, she is described as ''HRH Princess Ingrid Alexandra'' in the official calendar, which is in contrast to her grandparents and parents, who are described as HM The King, HM The Queen, HRH The Crown Prince and HRH The Crown Princess.
So perhaps the court should make their minds up! Either she is HRH The Princess in the calendar as well, or she is HRH Princess Ingrid Alexandra on all platforms!

What about the media? Well, they mostly refer to her as Princess Ingrid Alexandra. But they also describe her as ''arveprinsessen'' (''the hereditary-princess'') and the ''princess.'' But they seldom use her style (something that is almost only done with the King, who is often referred to on television as HM The King or HM King Harald).

--------------------

BTW, I've seen that there was a discussion here in 2020 between the two posters ''Tatiana Maria'' and ''Somebody'' (in posts 64, 66, 67, 68 and 71) about whether Norwegian princes/princesses are just ''princes/princesses of nothing'' or ''princes/princesses of Norway'' (which is not clarified on the Royal House website or in the royal birth-statements from the court).
Hmmmmmmm, I do have a clear idea about it, but since it's going to be a pretty long post where I would have to write where I got the information from (etc), I have decided to do it after I'm done with the 18th birthday stuff and some other posts that I'm planning.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Arnhild Aass Kristiansen of NTB news agency inquired about a possible title for Durek Verrett. The response from the director of palace communications, Guri Varpe:

"It is His Majesty the King who according to tradition determines if someone receives a title. The princess's former spouse, the late Ari Behn, had no title, nor do their children."​

The meaning seems clear, but I wonder why she did not phrase it more directly.

The spokeswoman also pointed NTB to Article 34 of the Constitution, which states:

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

https://www.aftenposten.no/norge/i/lVox89/prinsesse-martha-louise-og-durek-verrett-har-forlovet-seg

 

[ronald biver]

The history of the Norwegian Royal Family is revealed in a fantastic black & white photobook, absolutely beautful photographs (clear & sharp photos), 375 pages, all old photos (in english) title is "The Royal House of Norway" by Morten Ole Morch, very expensive book, but it is worth having it for royal fans book collection.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Why? If a girl marries a Prince, she is called a Princess. So, in our liberal times: If a boy marries a Princess, he is called a Prince, right?

Court spokeswoman Guri Varpe implied strongly that Durek Verrett will remain untitled. See the above Aftenposten link and the following from Se og Hør, which has a longer version of the statement: https://www.seher.no/kongelig/kan-durek-fa-prinsetittel/76290087

Se og Hør has been in contact with the communications director at the Palace, Guri Varpe, who says that "it is His Majesty the King who according to tradition determines if someone receives a title."

Varpe further explains that article 34 of the Constitution reads as follows: "The King shall make provisions concerning titles for those who are entitled to succeed to the Crown.".

"The princess' former spouse, the late Ari Behn, had no title, nor do their children. Nor did the spouses of Princess Ragnhild and Princess Astrid, Erling Lorentzen and Johan Martin Ferner, have titles," says Varpe.​

It remains open for spouses to be treated equally regardless of their or their spouse's gender if any future wife of Sverre Magnus also remains untitled.

No. The late lamented Ari Behn was not called "Prince".

Neither is Jack Brooksbank in England

That simply is not the way it works.

Personally, I think it is very unlikely that the King regarded the workings of the British royal family as relevant to his own decisions about Norwegian titles. (Nor would I expect Queen Elizabeth II to have compared Jack Brooksbank to Ari Behn when making her decision about his title.)

Guri Varpe's above statement implies the King followed the previous examples in the Norwegian royal house, and Princess Märtha Louise stated as much when she became engaged to Ari Behn:

- Kongen avgjør min tittel. Men jeg kan gjerne hete fru Behn!

Paret er ikke skuffet over at forfatteren ikke vil kunne stille med prinsetittel etter bryllupet 24. mai:

- Det er naturlig slik fordi det aldri har vært noen tradisjon i det norske kongehuset, forklarte Prinsessen den fremmøtte pressen.


("The King will decide on my title. But I would be happy to be called Mrs. Behn!"

The couple are not disappointed that the writer will not be able to hold a princely title after the wedding on 24 May:

"This is the natural way because there has never been any tradition in the Norwegian royal house," explains the Princess to the press in attendance.)​

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

The fact that the future King's very own stepson has no title at all and that the future King's own son "only" is a H.H. plus the examples of King Harald's sisters show that any title is out of the question for spouses of junior royals.

Add to this that Norway has ended the Nobility as an institute and only a handful scions of (primarily Danish) noble families are still around.

 

[theroyalfly]

Not sure if this has been asked but should Prince Sverre Magnus marry, will his future wife be called Princess of Norway? How about their children?

I couldn't find a precedent to this since all spares Ragnhild, Astrid and Martha-Louise were all females.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Not sure if this has been asked but should Prince Sverre Magnus marry, will his future wife be called Princess of Norway? How about their children?

Assuming that you are talking about a wife and children from a marriage concluded with the consent of the King (so that the prince and his children from the marriage will be in the line of succession to the Crown):

There is no prescriptive law. Article 34 of the Constitution simply says "The King shall make provisions concerning titles for those who are entitled to succeed to the Crown."

Nor do the Royal Family seem to have addressed this question in their interviews. (When I asked Royal Norway, an expert on the royal family, a couple of years ago, he did not recall any.)

Sverre Magnus himself is not called "of Norway" when he is in Norway, simply Prince Sverre Magnus.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Maybe she will become Princess Märtha Louise Mrs Verrett after the wedding, like Princess Astrid is Mrs Ferner, [...]

The King included a pointed reminder in the recent press releases about how his decisions about Durek Verrett's (lack of) title and official role are following the tradition of Erling Lorentzen, Johan Martin Ferner, and Ari Behn.

While his intention was surely to stave off accusations of racism from non-Norwegians, it would only be consistent with that statement to make the same decision regarding Princess Märtha Louise's title as he did on the occasion of her first marriage, which was that she would not add Mrs. Behn to her title.

"In a break with tradition, the royal bride is keeping her maiden name and will still be known as Princess Martha Louise, the palace announced on Thursday."

BBC NEWS | Europe | Norwegian princess weds author​

As you said, it was different with the princess's aunts, but the marriage with Ari Behn is the most recent precedent.

That said, if Durek Verrett insists on his wife taking his surname, I could see the King acquiescing for the sake of peace. But in spite of his insistence concerning other matters, Durek already responded amicably to the King's decision about his own title (which is more than can be said for many other members of European royal families).

 

[Toledo]

When she wakes up is going to be one costly settlement for her and the royal family. All I see in this individual is the typical Hollywood celebrity predatory behavior where expert scammers stalk the Gweneth Paltrow's scene for money schemes. One notorious guy is the young one that likes to speak to celebrity ghost relatives on TV. Darek/Durek here seems cut out of the same mold.

50% of the blame I'll give to Martha Louise falling into this crowd associated with Hollywood scammers. And race has nothing to do with this, but him using the so called in the USA race card and not the facts, he seems to be working on his best deal, is the red flag in his claims

 

[Tatiana Maria]

The fact that the future King's very own stepson has no title at all and that the future King's own son "only" is a H.H. plus the examples of King Harald's sisters show that any title is out of the question for spouses of junior royals.

In Norway he is not even an H.H.:

https://www.kongehuset.no/seksjon.html?tid=27163&sek=26940

But I am not sure if it necessarily implies a female spouse of Sverre Magnus would remain untitled. It would depend on what is meant by "tradition" in the King and Princess's comments: tradition concerning a male spouse of a female royal, or tradition concerning any spouse of a royal who is not a member of the Royal House?

In Norway, the majority of married women affix the family name of their husband to their own family name (for example, Princess Astrid's daughter Cathrine Ferner Johansen or her daughter-in-law Anna-Stina Slattum Ferner), so one could argue that the wife of Prince Sverre Magnus taking the title Princess would be the equivalent of that usage.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

............

 

[Tatiana Maria]

To continue my ideas about a "Durek Dynasty"... What are the laws about family names in Norway like?

Is it possible, that their, the Shaman and the Princess, eventual offspring goes by the name "of Norway" or even perhaps "Prince/ss of Norway"?

In Germany it would!

Now, they are alledgedly marrying in Norway - but I wonder, if the Princess will take the name "Verett"... And so it could begin...

I am just asking not to troll, but in Monaco this Alexandre claims to go now by the name Grimaldi or Grimaldi-Coste. So, I just wonder about the legal implications. And while Prince Albert of Monaco has some financial leverage over his kids, from what I did read, Princess Märtha-Louise of Norway seems to be financially very much on her own.

"of Norway" is not part of the legal title or name of the Norwegian royals. It is simply a convenient description to refer to them as "of Norway" when communicating with non-Norwegian audiences, as it is necessary to make clear what country's royal family they are from, but "of Norway" is not part of their official title.

Refer to Princess Astrid's birth certificate, for example: Her parents are named as "H.R.H. Crown Prince Olav" and "H.R.H. Crown Princess Märtha". There is no "of Norway".

Birth certificate of Princess Astrid

For a more recent example, see the title announcement made by King Harald when Prince Sverre Magnus was born: It states "I have given the newborn the title of Prince" - not Prince of Norway.

Communication of 5 Dec 2005 concerning the birth and name of Prince Sverre Magnus

So no, not even Märtha Louise herself has a legal claim on "of Norway".

 

[PhillyMonarchist]

"of Norway" is not part of the legal title or name of the Norwegian royals. It is simply a convenient description to refer to them as "of Norway" when communicating with non-Norwegian audiences, as it is necessary to make clear what country's royal family they are from, but "of Norway" is not part of their official title.

Refer to Princess Astrid's birth certificate, for example: Her parents are named as "H.R.H. Crown Prince Olav" and "H.R.H. Crown Princess Märtha". There is no "of Norway".

Birth certificate of Princess Astrid

For a more recent example, see the title announcement made by King Harald when Prince Sverre Magnus was born: It states "I have given the newborn the title of Prince" - not Prince of Norway.

Communication of 5 Dec 2005 concerning the birth and name of Prince Sverre Magnus

So no, not even Märtha Louise herself has a legal claim on "of Norway".

off topic but if Ingrid marries before the current king passes what would her husband title be?

 

[Heavs]

All three of her current children took the surname of their father and have no royal titles, so in the unlikely event that ML and Durek have children then they would simply take his surname.

I suppose it's possible she will go by Princess Martha Louise, Mrs Verrett ala her aunts. She doesn't even currently hold the style of HH and definitely not HRH.

If she were planning on simply being "Mrs Martha Verrett" then I don't think the NRF would have gone through all the "she's not a member of the Royal House and won't do any duties but is still a Princess technically" that they did recently.

Durek once claimed that should ML become Queen of Norway he would have to immediately divorce her (I'm so sure!) because he didn't want to become king of Norway! Well, if you've already held the job once in a previous life I suppose it's just boring.

Evidently he doesn't appear to understand how the system works or was just showboating for effect.

off topic but if Ingrid marries before the current king passes what would her husband title be?

Perhaps His Highness or just "Prince XYZ" to differentiate him from his wife's status? As they don't have any noble titles to bestow. I'm not sure it as ever happened with a future Queen Regnant that they be married when their Monarch grandparent is still alive, at least not recently. Although there may be someone I'm blanking on.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

The continuing pattern of every marriage in the Glücksburg royal dynasty being embroiled in controversy only underlines that, far from it being too soon to discuss the titles and roles of Princess Ingrid Alexandra and Prince Sverre Magnus's possible future spouses, it would be a sensible precaution to make those decisions and put them on the record early.

I do not think it was coincidental that King Harald V and the Royal Court have repeatedly commented that Durek Verrett is being treated equally to Ari Behn, Johan Martin Ferner, and Erling Lorentzen in terms of not being granted a title or a public role. There is less leeway for accusations of personal motives when there is a settled precedent.

But in the next generation, Princess Ingrid Alexandra will be the first female sovereign in the history of the Kingdom of Norway, and Prince Sverre Magnus is the first male royal prince outside the direct line of succession to the crown since the kingdom established its own monarchy independent of Sweden. In either case, because of the novelty of their genders, many people will deem there to be no precedent for their spouses if they marry (and at least one of them almost certainly will, in view of their position).

Any decision about titles or roles which is announced after an eventual spouse has already become their partner may be interpreted as biased in favor of or against the specific partner. Better to make and announce those decisions before any future spouses have set eyes on them.

I think it is of special importance if (and I know it is a big if) the plan is for any possible wife of Sverre Magnus to be treated equally to the husbands of his aunt and great-aunts, i.e., be untitled and without a royal role. It would be the only truly equitable decision if the future of the monarchy develops as expected, but traditional gender discrimination continues to take precedence over equality in nearly all European monarchies and aristocracies in the matter of princes' wives becoming princesses and not the other way around.

Without a prior announcement about titles etc., it is likely that a woman who became engaged to Prince Sverre Magnus would expect at minimum to become a princess in title (and, especially if she is not Norwegian, she might also expect life as a princess to involve the perceived inherent perks such as publicity, galas and tiaras). If her expectations for marrying a prince were not borne out, it would be a rude awakening for her, with the possibility that she might react poorly.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

On the first day of their wedding celebrations, a VG reporter asked Durek Verrett if Princess Märtha Louise will take his surname. He answered "no".

Prinsesse Märtha og Durek Verrett er tause om ekteskapskontrakt

Om prinsesse Märtha (52) og Durek Verrett (49) har skrevet særeiekontrakt før bryllupet, svarer de ikke på.

www.vg.no

By the decision of King Harald V, Princess Märtha Louise did not take her first husband Ari Behn's surname when they married in 2002.

BBC NEWS | Europe | Norwegian princess weds author