Surname of the Danish Royal Family

[trinny]

Thanks for explaining that so easily Daneborn.

 

[Philippe Egalite']

Swedish RF can use Bernadotte, and U.K can use Windsor, because it points out exactly which RF they come from.

First of all, reigning dynasts, that is, sovereigns and (immediate) members of royal families with constitutional or legal rights to a throne (thus holding rank and title), do not have to have and do not need a surname.

Second, Bernadotte, albeit 100% correct and appropriate in historic terms [the surname of their ancestor, Jean- Baptiste Bernadotte, a Napoleonic general who was elected King of Sweden and named Carl XIV in 1818], does not refer to them as being Swedish, but French, and there are tons of people with that surname in France and all over the world. Because of knowledge in the subject matter, you do, but the average person all over Europe, the USA and the World has NO clue that Bernadotte points to the Swedish royal family.
Windsor is inaccurate and misleading in terms of dynastic and genealogic history, but was understandably chosen by King George V, in 1917, to appease the Brits and sway their anger against anything Germanic in the aftermath of WWI. Again, though, Windsor is a common surname in the USA and elsewhere and the average person all over the world has NO clue that it points to the British royal family.

But Glücksburg can be members from many different countries. It doesn't give meaning for the Danish RF to use Glücksburg as family name. You wouldn't know exactly what royal Glücksburg family we are talking about.

.
Based on your rationale, this could also apply to the Saxe-Coburg-Gotha s, ie. the British and Belgian reigning royals and the former royals of Bulgaria among zillion other minor Saxe-Coburg-Gotha s. This, however, doesn't prevent former King Simeon from using it as his surname in his capacity as a Bulgarian citizen (Simeon Sakskobburggotski, see Wikipedia).

Irena of Glücksburg, does anyone know if she's Danish, Greek, Norwegian or something different.

.
Again, the average person wouldn't have a clue as to whom this name refers to. Nonetheless, those who have even the slightest clue, would immediately think of princess Irene (pronounced Yriny), former Diadoch of Greece (ie. crown princess, 1964-65) and former princess of Greece (1942-74).

Anyway, I don't think royals have surnames, (other than ''of Denmark'' or ''duke of .....''), I just think it's something media wants to label them with to be able to separate them from ordinary celebrities.

.
You are correct in saying that they don't have to have or need a surname. However, they will soon need to devise one for their issue when they lose their rank and title as the case may be with princes Nikolai and Felix when they marry, or their offsprings at the latest. An easy way out, is to keep using the Rosenborg (count-ess of), that they have been employing since the 19th century for members of the family, when they become distant or lose their rights to the throne (and, therefore, their rank and title). Indeed, Rosenborg has been used consistently and so frequently, that it points the mind to cousins or junior and cadet branches of the Danish royal family.

If they wanted a surname for themselves they could really only chose Sønderborg since that is the only part of their house-name that is totally on (current) Danish soil.

.
The current dynasts of Denmark are a junior branch of the Oldenburg clan and direct descendants of the Glucksburg-Beck house. Alas, the Glucksburg-Beck, albeit 100% historically appropriate, is not very appealing for it is reminiscent of humble descent from the dukes of Glucksburg and Beck who were NOT only minor and impoverished but NOT even sovereign rulers, since they were holding their lands in fief to the sovereign dukes of Schleswig and Holstein, long lost lands to Germany.

To conclude: Am I missing something?

 

[Jo of Palatine]

Alas, the Glucksburg-Beck albeit 100% historically correct, is not very appealing for it reminds of their descent from the dukes of Glucksburg and beck who were NOT just minor and impoverished but were NOT even sovereign rulers, holding instead their lands in fief to the sovereign dukes of Schleswig and Holstein, now lost lands to Germany.

Why lost lands to Germany? Ther eis only a small Danish minority in the federal State of Schleswig-Holstein, which has been granted special privileges including their own school system and representation in the parliament. On the other hand there is a German minority in Denmark, too. Both countries have set an example in dealing with minorities from the other side of the border, IMHO.

 

[Philippe Egalite']

Why lost lands to Germany? Ther eis only a small Danish minority in the federal State of Schleswig-Holstein, which has been granted special privileges including their own school system and representation in the parliament. On the other hand there is a German minority in Denmark, too. Both countries have set an example in dealing with minorities from the other side of the border, IMHO.

You are absolutely correct. I am not disputing Germany's sovereignty over these lands. Please, do not take me wrong. I was referring to the fact that Schleswig and Holstein at some points or up to some point belonged, in part or in toto, to Denmark. And again, the reference was made only in relation to the dynasty's provenance from the house of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glucksburg-Beck

 

[Daneborn]

Philippe Egalite > I think your answer to my post is rather academic and rhetorical. By your way of disputing one can prove practically any point.

I was simply offering explanations since it's a fact from real life that media in Sweden sometimes refer to the members of their own royal family using Bernadotte as if it was their surname, while I have never seen the Danish media using the Glücksburg label on the Danish royal family.

In my personal opinion it is of course wrong to label royals with surnames. I believe labelling Crown Princess Victoria as e.g. Victoria Bernadotte is either a political statement or plain ignorance.

 

[Lumutqueen]

They don't have a last name

The danish royal family do not have a last name.
Glucksborg is there house
like in the UK we have the house of Windsor
as far as i no their last name is.... of denmark

 

[Philippe Egalite']

Philippe Egalite > I think your answer to my post is rather academic and rhetorical. By your way of disputing one can prove practically any point.

I was simply offering explanations since it's a fact from real life that media in Sweden sometimes refer to the members of their own royal family using Bernadotte as if it was their surname, while I have never seen the Danish media using the Glücksburg label on the Danish royal family.

In my personal opinion it is of course wrong to label royals with surnames. I believe labelling Crown Princess Victoria as e.g. Victoria Bernadotte is either a political statement or plain ignorance.

I agree with you that it is wrong to use surnames for reigning dynasts. I would go further, in fact, and say that it is inappropriate and disrespectful or demeaning.

Often times though, there are practical issues out there. For instance, the British media would often say, "The Windsors turned up en masse to such and such event" simply because the (official) Royal Family alone is quite vast at this juncture and includes not only the Queen's children and grand children but also the Gloucesters and the Kents. As we all know, all these personages continue to be legally members of the Royal Family.

In Sweden, if I am not mistaken, when the media refer to the Bernadottes, they usually mean the numerous Bernadottes, Counts and Countesses af Wisborg, but this is also the surname of the Royal House which consists of only 6 members (King, Queen, their 3 children and Princess Lilian). I would agree again that it would certainly be inappropriate to refer to these 6 royal personages as Bernadottes.

The Danish Royal House consists of 11 personages but the wider family includes several Counts and Countesses Rosenborg. Of the 11 members of the Royal House, the two sons of Prince Joachim, Felix and Nikolai will in 20 or so years get married and have children. These young boys are princes but already non-royal highnesses, by decision of the Queen, and If I understand it correctly, their children will be commoners of sorts. Therefore, the need sooner or later will appear for a surname for the members of the Royal House as they cease to be princes/princesses, unless they will continue with the tradition of using Rosenborg as a surname.

Thus, even though the monarch and the princes/princesses need no surname, it is already certain that some of the queen's grand children, namely all of prince Joachim's issue, will need to adopt a surname and I would have thought that it would be most opportune for the queen to decide what the name shall be, before the family starts widening out.

To conclude, therefore, it is logical and mandated by life itself that all reigning royal families have a surname to be used only by their members as and when they cease to be royal and princely and as they start spreading out.

 

[norwegianne]

The Danish Royal House consists of 11 personages but the wider family includes several Counts and Countesses Rosenborg. Of the 11 members of the Royal House, the two sons of Prince Joachim, Felix and Nikolai will in 20 or so years get married and have children. These young boys are princes but already non-royal highnesses, by decision of the Queen, and If I understand it correctly, their children will be commoners of sorts. Therefore, the need sooner or later will appear for a surname for the members of the Royal House as they cease to be princes/princesses, unless they will continue with the tradition of using Rosenborg as a surname.

Thus, even though the monarch and the princes/princesses need no surname, it is already certain that some of the queen's grand children, namely all of prince Joachim's issue, will need to adopt a surname and I would have thought that it would be most opportune for the queen to decide what the name shall be, before the family starts widening out.

To conclude, therefore, it is logical and mandated by life itself that all reigning royal families have a surname to be used only by their members as and when they cease to be royal and princely and as they start spreading out.

The Danish royal family has managed to stay relatively small on its own, over the centuries, so I don't think the Queen needs to put extra measures in. It regulates itself via the Counts of Rosenborg issue.

The obvious thing is for Nikolai and Felix (or their children) not to ask for permission when they'll marry, and voilá - counts of Rosenborg.

 

[JessRulz]

...The obvious thing is for Nikolai and Felix (or their children) not to ask for permission when they'll marry, and voilá - counts of Rosenborg.

Just out of curiosity, what would Nikolai and Felix's children be titled if they did seek and gain permission to marry? Would their wives become HH Princess XX of Denmark?

 

[norwegianne]

Just out of curiosity, what would Nikolai and Felix's children be titled if they did seek and gain permission to marry? Would their wives become HH Princess XX of Denmark?

If they would be going by already existing example, then they would indeed be HH Prince(ss) XX of Denmark - until such a point that they either didn't ask permission for marriage, or the lines died out in the male line.

Example is the youngest son of Christian IX, Prince Valdemar. Prince Valdemar married Princess Marie of Orleans. Out of their children, several became counts of Rosenborg, but Prince Axel married Princess Margaretha of Sweden, in an equal marriage and presumably with the permission of the king. The children from this marriage, Georg and Flemming, were both born Prince of Denmark. It wasn't until Flemming's marriage that he became "of Rosenborg."

Georg, who married a niece of Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother, was allowed to keep his title, and his wife received the title Princess Anne of Denmark. (As depicted here http://www.heraldik.se/forum/forum/data/Saigal/2006530132651_DANMARK Anne af 250x333.jpg)

Monarch - son (Prince of Denmark) - grandson (Prince of Denmark) - great grandson (Prince of Denmark)...

As I mentioned above, the DRF has automatically kept themselves small either by not asking for/getting permission, by getting only girls or by not getting any children at all.

 

[Philippe Egalite']

Just out of curiosity, what would Nikolai and Felix's children be titled if they did seek and gain permission to marry? Would their wives become HH Princess XX of Denmark?

My understanding is that the children of Nikolai and Felix, as great grand children of a monarch will not be princes/princesses, whether Nikolai and Felix marry with or without permission.
I am not sure whether there is a precedent to this effect in Denmark, but HM the Queen is favoring this development as indicated by the fact that Nikolai and Felix are not Royal Highnesses, but plain hignesses. So, once a generation has ceased to be royal, the next one is expected to cease to be princely altogether!

I guess this would be in line with the British precedent whereby grandchildren of a monarch are the last generation to be princely.

 

[Philippe Egalite']

The Danish royal family has managed to stay relatively small on its own, over the centuries, so I don't think the Queen needs to put extra measures in. It regulates itself via the Counts of Rosenborg issue.

The obvious thing is for Nikolai and Felix (or their children) not to ask for permission when they'll marry, and voilá - counts of Rosenborg.

Good! You gave me the golden opportunity.
Therefore, in practice, Rosenborg is the surname of the members of the Danish Royal Family when they cease to be royal. Thus, the argument raised by many, including former king Constantine, that the Danish Royal Family has no surname is untenable.
In practice, that is, all members become Rosenborgs when they cease to be princes/princesses.

 

[JessRulz]

Thanks norwegianne for your answer I suppose we'll have to wait and see how it turns out in future!

 

[Philippe Egalite']

Georg, who married a niece of Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother, was allowed to keep his title, and his wife received the title Princess Anne of Denmark. (As depicted here http://www.heraldik.se/forum/forum/data/Saigal/2006530132651_DANMARK Anne af 250x333.jpg)

Excellent remark of historic significance. I read somewhere [but cannot remember the source] that the exemption from the "rule" was due to the fact that, while controversy about that forthcoming marriage was in progress, King George VI was somehow incensed and said something to the effect that if a Bowes-Lyon was good for a king, a Bowes-Lyon could also be appropriate bride for a prince.

 

[CasiraghiTrio]

While he was studying in America I think he used either Frederik Prince or Frederik Henriksen, but Glucksborg I think is their "used on occasion" last name

That was clever.

Henriksen was the surname Birgitte Duchess of Gloucester was born to right? Before she changed it to her mother's name, van Deurs, I think when she was twenty years old, apparently because of her parents' separation.

 

[magnik]

Brigitte took her mother's maiden name when her parents seprarated in 15 Jan 1966.

Frederik Henriksen - Frederik son of Henrik. Something light with Russian patronimics kind of second name.

 

[ShootingStars]

How are the Royals addressed in School?

I'm sorry if this has already been posted, for i'm sure its a interesting question, but when Crown Prince Frederik and Prince Joachim were in school, and now that Prince Nikolai and Prince Felix are in school, how are they addressed? Are they called by their titles? Or do they use a last name?

Again, sorry if this is repeated.

 

[Lumutqueen]

They don't have a last name so more than likely on the register they are Prince .... but when in class they are/were just reffered to by there first name.

 

[Hereditary Thane]

Let us remember that heads of royal houses no longer make arbitary rules concerning their names. All constitutional monarchies and former European monarchies have legislation about surnames. Germany has very strict legal rules, in the UK you can call yourself what you like so long as you are not using it for illegal purposes. I believe the French republic has perhaps the most stringent laws regarding surnames. Although they may choose not to use it all European royal families have surnames.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Sorry to contradict everyone but I think the Danish royal family doesn't have a surname. They are descended from the House of Glucksborg, but that is their house and not their personal surname. There was an interview with Prince Pavlos posted in the GRF forum a long time ago where he stated on his business cards he is simply 'Prince Pavlos' because his family is descended from the Danish royal family and it doesn't have a surname. Similarly Martha Louise of Norway was registered as 'Princess Martha Louise' when she was born (no surname) as King Haakon was originally a Danish prince. So when Mary Donaldson married CP Frederik she became HRH Crown Princess Mary Elizabeth, not CP Mary Elizabeth Glucksborg or Mary Elizabeth Glucksborg. She has married into the House of Glucksborg, but it isn't her surname.

That's absolutely correct. And as you stated, it is Glücksburg, not "Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg".
https://www.kongehuset.dk/en/menu/news/150-years-of-the-house-of-glcksborg

150 years of the House of Glücksborg

Friday, 15 November 2013, the House of Glücksborg celebrates 150 years on the Danish throne. The Glücksborg dynasty, to which Her Majesty The Queen belongs, is the fourth and youngest branch of the Danish royal lines that descended from Gorm the Old and Queen Thyra in the mid-900s.

The currently-reigning Glücksborg dynasty descends from Christian IX (1863-1906) and Queen Louise. Thus, it is the youngest branch in the royal lineage, whose roots go back more than a thousand years.
​

As for not using a surname, in an interview in December, then Prince Nikolai commented:

https://underholdning.tv2.dk/2022-1...s-da-de-andre-begyndte-at-spoerge-til-bestemt

Når prins Nikolai ser tilbage, har han svært ved at huske, præcis hvornår han fandt ud af, at han var lidt anderledes end gennemsnittet.

Men måske var det tilbage i skoletiden omkring 2. klasse, da han blev spurgt om sit efternavn, tror han.

- Så har jeg skullet fortælle, at det er en spøjs historie; jeg har ikke noget efternavn. Der er en titel og så mit fornavn, siger han.


(When Prince Nikolai looks back, he has difficulty remembering exactly when he found out that he was a little different from the average.

But maybe it was back during his school days, around 2nd grade, when he was asked about his last name, he believes.

- Then I will say, it's a funny story; I don't have a last name. There is a title and then my first name, he says.)

First of all, reigning dynasts, that is, sovereigns and (immediate) members of royal families with constitutional or legal rights to a throne (thus holding rank and title), do not have to have and do not need a surname.

That is the case in Denmark but is not generalizable to other monarchies.

In Belgium, for example, it was the fact that the royal family was legally required to have a surname under the Civil Code which forced King Philippe to reclaim his family's Saxon titles in 2015 after almost a century, even though he had no wish to use them.

In my personal opinion it is of course wrong to label royals with surnames. I believe labelling Crown Princess Victoria as e.g. Victoria Bernadotte is either a political statement or plain ignorance.

Why is it wrong to label royals with surnames which are, in fact, their surnames? Particularly when, as in the Swedish royal family, they label themselves by said surnames.

My understanding is that the children of Nikolai and Felix, as great grand children of a monarch will not be princes/princesses, whether Nikolai and Felix marry with or without permission.
I am not sure whether there is a precedent to this effect in Denmark, but HM the Queen is favoring this development as indicated by the fact that Nikolai and Felix are not Royal Highnesses, but plain hignesses. So, once a generation has ceased to be royal, the next one is expected to cease to be princely altogether!

From 1853 to 2022 all persons with a right to inherit the throne were Princes or Princesses to Denmark, including Prince Georg and Prince Flemming (as norwegianne mentioned above), who were only the great-grandchildren of a king.

That Prince Joachim's children were Highnesses and not Royal Highnesses followed the precedent of the past few generations of younger sons' children - Prince Knud's children, Prince Harald's children and Prince Carl's children were only Highnesses.

Therefore, in practice, Rosenborg is the surname of the members of the Danish Royal Family when they cease to be royal. Thus, the argument raised by many, including former king Constantine, that the Danish Royal Family has no surname is untenable.
In practice, that is, all members become Rosenborgs when they cease to be princes/princesses.

But those individuals ceased to be members of the Royal House at the same time they became Rosenborgs, and the surname was not automatic, but bestowed case-by-case by the Kings together with the noble title of Count. That is why one of the soon to be former princes requested the King to bestow a different surname on him (and was rejected).

Frederik Henriksen - Frederik son of Henrik. Something light with Russian patronimics kind of second name.

Until the late 19th century or thereabous, most commoners in Scandinavian countries identified themselves patronymics rather than family names.

But then again, before Prince Philip, the family name shouldn't have been even Windsor. The family name came from Prince Albert who was a Saxe-Coburg-Gotha. The BRF like to play fast and loose with their family name The Danes are much more conservative.

The British royal family was registered with Prince Albert's titles, but Queen Victoria's family name.

 

[Toledo]

This is interesting because just yesterday I was watching a short YouTube video, the mini ones, on a person claiming to state surnames started during the black plague or so. And the comments from people all over the world disputing this exaggerated generalization since surnames in every country had a different origin.

I see surnames as a telephone number or zip code, an identifier to state the first name belongs to a specific group of related individuals in some part of the world.

 

[CyrilVladisla]

Can the house name be considered the surname of the monarch?

 

[Iain]

Can the house name be considered the surname of the monarch?

I don't see why not. In Scotland the house name was the surname of the monarch, as in Kenneth Macalpin, Robert Bruce and Mary Stuart. It was the same in England as in Edward Plantagenet or Elizabeth Tudor.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Hmm, not really.

The DRF has traditionally been above noble dynasties for I don't know how many centuries and as such the monarch, his heir and the children of the heir (the core-DRF-family) had no family name. Younger sons and daughters eventually reverted into nobility, unless they married a royal.
So the DRF being Oldenburg or Glücksburgs is strictly speaking a foreign construct, for historical references and for people who study dynastic lines. But QMII, Frederik, Christian etc is neither. They have no family name.
Joachim's children have one now, Monpezat. And Isabella, Josephine and Vincent (Even though I think there will be a semi-role for Isabella) or at least their children are also likely to revert into Monpezats.

Frederik and Christian is not and will not be Monpezats. As I understand it (at least in DK) Majesties and Heir trumps noble titles, because they already are a monarch or is destined to become one. So the dynastic name, even if it's not used in practice, follow the majesty, not the husband.
Otherwise Princess Margrethe should have become Countess Margrethe Monpezat upon marrying PH. She didn't, Heir trumps Count.

There are several examples of female monarchs marrying but not taking the name of their husbands. Mary I springs to mind. - And he was also told to mind his own business in regards to England!
She cynically speaking married her husband for political reasons and because she needed a sperm-donor. She certainly did not marry into his family.

- And with that very simplified post, I bid you goodnight.

Interesting. In regards to the paragraph I've bolded:

As the website of the Royal House explains it, the Queen belongs to a continuous Danish royal line which extends as far back as Gorm the Old in the mid-900s; however, this thousand-year royal line is subdivided into direct and cadet line. The Queen belongs to the house of Glücksborg, a side branch of the house of Oldenborg, which itself is a side branch of the original royal dynasty from Gorm the Old.

The Glücksborg dynasty, to which Her Majesty The Queen belongs, is the fourth and youngest branch of the Danish royal lines that descended from Gorm the Old and Queen Thyra in the mid-900s.

The currently-reigning Glücksborg dynasty descends from Christian IX (1863-1906) and Queen Louise. Thus, it is the youngest branch in the royal lineage, whose roots go back more than a thousand years.

When Frederik VII (1848-1863) died without leaving heirs, his successor was, as a result of the Throne Succession Law of 1853, Prince Christian of Glücksborg, who belonged to a side-branch of the House of Oldenborg stemming from Christian III (1536-1559).

https://www.kongehuset.dk/en/menu/news/150-years-of-the-house-of-glcksborg
​

Note that the arms of the Queen (and the arms of the Crown Prince) use the arms of the house of Oldenborg as the inescutcheon (the superimposed smaller shield which traditionally represents the bearer's family heritage).

https://www.kongehuset.dk/en/the-monarchy-in-denmark/the-royal-symbols/the-royal-coat-of-arms/#

 

[Mbruno]

Interesting. In regards to the paragraph I've bolded:

As the website of the Royal House explains it, the Queen belongs to a continuous Danish royal line which extends as far back as Gorm the Old in the mid-900s; however, this thousand-year royal line is subdivided into direct and cadet line. The Queen belongs to the house of Glücksborg, a side branch of the house of Oldenborg, which itself is a side branch of the original royal dynasty from Gorm the Old.

The Glücksborg dynasty, to which Her Majesty The Queen belongs, is the fourth and youngest branch of the Danish royal lines that descended from Gorm the Old and Queen Thyra in the mid-900s.

The currently-reigning Glücksborg dynasty descends from Christian IX (1863-1906) and Queen Louise. Thus, it is the youngest branch in the royal lineage, whose roots go back more than a thousand years.

When Frederik VII (1848-1863) died without leaving heirs, his successor was, as a result of the Throne Succession Law of 1853, Prince Christian of Glücksborg, who belonged to a side-branch of the House of Oldenborg stemming from Christian III (1536-1559).

https://www.kongehuset.dk/en/menu/news/150-years-of-the-house-of-glcksborg
​

Note that the arms of the Queen (and the arms of the Crown Prince) use the arms of the house of Oldenborg as the inescutcheon (the superimposed smaller shield which traditionally represents the bearer's family heritage).

https://www.kongehuset.dk/en/the-monarchy-in-denmark/the-royal-symbols/the-royal-coat-of-arms/#

Crown Prince Frederik, however, will be the first monarch of the House of Monpezat while his mother is now the last Danish monarch of the House of Glücksburg..

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Crown Prince Frederik, however, will be the first monarch of the House of Monpezat while his mother is now the last Danish monarch of the House of Glücksburg..

I don't think that has been stated anywhere.

 

[Mbruno]

I don't think that has been stated anywhere.

No, but that is what the traditional laws of European genealogy dictate, based on patrilineal family naming.

Of course, King Frederik X may choose to take a different family name, but the fact that Nikolai and Felix appeared to have taken the surname Monpezat (?) is encouraging for traditionalists.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

No, but that is what the traditional laws of European genealogy dictate, based on patrilineal family naming.

Of course, King Frederik X may choose to take a different family name, but the fact that Nikolai and Felix appeared to have taken the surname Monpezat (?) is encouraging for traditionalists.

Tradition is that a family names itself to the most important fiefdom or castle.

The principality of Orange is a good example, the families naming themselves to this fief despite hopping over genealogically:

1181 House of Baux named Orange
1388 House of Châlon named Orange
1544 House of Nassau named Orange
1702 House of Orange-Nassau
1732 House of Orange-Nassau + House of Hohenzollern (Treaty of Partage 1732)
1948 House of Mecklenburg-Schwerin named Orange-Nassau + House of Hohenzollern
1980 House of Lippe-Biesterfeld named Orange-Nassau + House of Hohenzollern
2013 House of Amsberg named Orange-Nassau + House of Hohenzollern

In German such a construction is called a Gennantname in which the name of an estate, or of a House, or of a Court "overwrites" the own real surname. An example is the countly family Von Zech gennant von Burkersroda. In 1815 an untitled nobleman Johann von Burkersroda was adopted by his childless and widowed aunt Louise Gräfin von Zech. With approval of the King of Prussia, the adopted nobleman could use the surname Von Zech genannt von Burkersroda (of Zech named Burkersroda), inhert his aunt/adoptive mother's estate with the right to her hereditary title of a Graf (Gräfin) for himself and his descendants of the body male (so in essence a female could pass her title but with a constructed name to detect the origins of said title).

 

[Tatiana Maria]

No, but that is what the traditional laws of European genealogy dictate, based on patrilineal family naming.

Of course, King Frederik X may choose to take a different family name, but the fact that Nikolai and Felix appeared to have taken the surname Monpezat (?) is encouraging for traditionalists.

Of course patrilineal family naming has been the general tradition, and at times the literal law, in European societies. However, I expect Frederik X will be an exception because the same exception has been made with the child(ren) of every other female sovereign in Europe from the 18th century on (including women who reigned in an era when patrilineal naming was applied much more strictly than in 21st-century Denmark).

Tradition is that a family names itself to the most important fiefdom or castle.

Excellent point. Naming conventions vary by region, era, and so on, but generally speaking, western European royal or noble families did not commonly adopt true family names (name which followed the family line independent of their dominions, fiefdoms or castles) until the modern era.

The principality of Orange is a good example, the families naming themselves to this fief despite hopping over genealogically:

1181 House of Baux named Orange
1388 House of Châlon named Orange
1544 House of Nassau named Orange
1702 House of Orange-Nassau
1732 House of Orange-Nassau + House of Hohenzollern (Treaty of Partage 1732)
1948 House of Mecklenburg-Schwerin named Orange-Nassau + House of Hohenzollern
1980 House of Lippe-Biesterfeld named Orange-Nassau + House of Hohenzollern
2013 House of Amsberg named Orange-Nassau + House of Hohenzollern

Moved response to the Dutch Royal History subforum, here:

I'm not sure if that is the best example. There were only one or two "hops" in the succession to the principality or princedom of Orange: First when Prince René bequeathed the principality, which he had inherited from his maternal uncle, to his paternal first cousin Willem of Nassau, and arguably a second time when King William III of Great Britain bequeathed it to his first cousin once removed, Johan Willem Friso of Nassau (but Johan Willem Friso was still a great-grandson of a prior Prince of Orange).

On all other occasions, Orange descended in more or less direct lineage from parent to child, sibling to sibling, and in one case uncle to nephew.

The addition of various other family names such as Baux, Chalon, Mecklenburg (not Mecklenburg-Schwerin), Lippe-Biesterfeld and Amsberg resulted from the children of ruling princesses of Orange and queens of the Netherlands adopting the names of both parents.

 

[Muhler]

Well, the Monpezat dynasty, was invented so to speak by QMII.
It may be a French family name, but not a noble line.

It's a Danish title, that can be inherited through males.
Apart from placating PH, when he had his tantrum, I think it's a name and title invented to give to redundant DRF members. Just like Rosenborg.

QMII has not taken the title of Countess of Monpezat, according to Danish royal customs she's above all that.

But it will be interesting to see whether Frederik will keep his title of Count of Monpezet when he becomes king.

Again the DRF may stem from a dynastic line, but they don't use that name.
That in contrast to UK where Windsor is an acknowledged and common name for the BRF.
Or in Sweden where the name Bernadotte is used with pride.
No such thing in Denmark.