Denmark’s Queen Margrethe removed the royal styling from four grandchildren

In 2019, Sweden’s King Carl Gustav announced that his grandchildren by his two younger children, Prince Carl Phillip and Princess Madeleine, would no longer have royal styling. Carl Philip’s sons are still technically princes, but are not the Swedish equivalent of “your royal highness.” Layered into that announcement was that only Crown Princess Victoria and her children would be expected to work for the Swedish crown, and that Carl Philip and Madeleine’s children would not work for the crown and they can do whatever they want with their lives. Well, now Denmark’s Queen Margrethe II has made a very similar declaration, stripping the royal titles from four of her grandchildren.

The Danish royal house just got a lot smaller. Queen Margrethe II of Denmark has decided to strip four of her grandchildren of their prince and princess titles, the royal palace announced on Wednesday. The children of Prince Joachim, her second son, will be known instead by His Excellency Count of Monpezat or Her Excellency Countess of Monpezat starting on January 1, 2023.

All four grandchildren — Nikolai, 23, Felix, 20, Henrik, 13, and Athena, 10 — maintain their places in the order of succession.

“With her decision, Her Majesty The Queen wishes to create the framework for the four grandchildren to be able to shape their own lives to a much greater extent without being limited by the special considerations and duties that a formal affiliation with the Royal House of Denmark as an institution involves,” the palace said in the statement.

The decision does not pertain to the four children of Crown Prince Frederik, who is heir to the throne, with his wife, Crown Princess Mary.

Unlike their cousins, Prince Christian, 16, Princess Isabella, 15, and 11-year-old twins Prince Vincent and Princess Josephine will both continue to be part of the royal house.

The Danish palace also noted that “the Queen’s decision is in line with similar adjustments that other royal houses have made in various ways in recent years.” Similarly, Sweden’s King Carl XVI Gustaf announced in October 2019 that the children of Princess Madeleine and Chris O’Neill as well as Prince Carl Philip and Princess Sofia would no longer official members of the royal house. They retained their titles of prince or princess, but the titles became personal and any future spouses or children will not have a right to them.

[From People]

People are obviously going to compare this to what’s happening now with the Duke and Duchess of Sussex and their children’s titles. The thing is, I think everyone would probably accept it for the Windsors if King Charles actually stripped *everyone* of their HRH “royal style.” As in, Princess Beatrice and Princess Eugenie are no longer HRHs. Take the royal styling away from Anne, Edward and Andrew too (since technically Andrew still has his). Take away the HRHs from everyone but William and his children, the very direct line of succession, and say that no one other than the Waleses has to work for the crown. But instead of that, we’re getting King Charles and his henchmen being highly selective about not only royal styling, but titles too. Instead of making a similarly bold decision, Charles comes across as petty, vindictive, selective and racist, because he seems to only be concerned with the royal titles and styles of his mixed-race grandchildren.

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

119 Responses to “Denmark’s Queen Margrethe removed the royal styling from four grandchildren”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. ThatsNotOkay says:

    Yes, Charles stripping just the mixed-race grandkids of titles would appear to be racially motivated. And appearances is 9/10 of the law or something. But seriously, it would actually be racist.

    • murt says:

      Think Anne’s and Edward’s children + grandchildren don’t have titles. Didn’t Anne insist Zara and Peter (or whatever his name is) not be titled even though the Queen offered?

      • Sid says:

        Anne’s children don’t have titles because she is a female child of the sovereign (so her children are not grandchildren in the male line) and because Anne’s ex-husband did not want a title when they got married.

        Edward’s children currently use Lady and Viscount. On top of that Sophie not too long ago stated that they also do have the HRH prince/ess but it would be up to them to use them when they turned 18 if they wanted to.

      • PunkPrincessPhD says:

        @Murt: this gets raised a lot on these stories, and it’s not accurate.

        Edward & Sophie’s kids have titles, and use them (Viscount Severn and Lady Louise), and they may *choose* to use the HRH but currently do not.

        Anne’s children do not have titles as her husband refused a title, and her own cannot be passed down through the female line.

        Currently, all grandchildren of the monarch through the male line are *entitled* to HRH styling and Prince/Princess titles (per the George V letters patent).

  2. Summer says:

    I guess I’m in the minority here and I will get told off, but I don’t see why Meghan and Harry’s children should have prince and princess titles given that H and M have left the royal family. The kids won’t be working for the Royal family, so why do they need to be prince and princess as they live their lives in California?

    • Becks1 says:

      they don’t “need” it, but lets go back to the Oprah interview, when Meghan said this was being discussed when she was pregnant with Archie, that they wanted to change these rules for Archie, so that her and Harry’s child would not be HRH Prince when Charles was king.

      That’s an important point to keep in mind bc if there is such a change, then it has nothing to do with California, or working vs non working royals (Beatrice and Eugenie are not working royals), etc. And as another point – working/non working royals has never been the determining factor before in this discussion, its only come up now. When Edward got married, he was not supposed to be a working royal and yet he received the title of earl (with a promise of a future dukedom, ahem Charles). So titles, HRH etc, none of that was ever about working vs non working.

      • L84Tea says:

        Exactly, they were discussing taking away the titles from Archie when he was still in utero, when Harry and Meghan WERE still working royals. If Archie had been given his title automatically and THEN Charles decided to go in that direction of slimming down, that would be different. But let’s not kid ourselves, Summer, that’s not what was going on.

      • W says:

        Another thing I see royalists using is the “slim down” monarchy excuse. That’s he most BS argument I’ve ever heard. If Charles wanted a slim down monarchy, why did the sovereign grant for 2022 go up by 17% this year despite losing 4 working royals? Phillip became a non working member in 2017, Andrew in 2019 and Meghan & Harry in 2020. So why did they cost the taxpayers €100m in 2021-2022? Archie and Lilibet aren’t on the taxpayer’s dime so instead of worrying about their titles, Charles needs to show he’s serious about a slim down monarchy by cutting the amount of welfare money his family receives.

      • Becks1 says:

        @W oh that’s cute. It was never about slimming down the funding, only the optics, LOL.

      • Jais says:

        Yeah it’s a complete farce. A slimmed down monarchy does not mean the RF will cost the taxpayers less; it just means the heir’s family has to share less with cousins. Honestly, charlotte and Louis should not have been made hrh prince and princess at birth if the vision was a slimmed down monarchy. That doesn’t make sense. And wasn’t there a law signed that the SG money could never be reduced anyways? I swear I read that. So a slimmed down monarchy is just less sharing and more toys for the special ones.

      • CourtneyB says:

        The Way Ahead group in the 90s DID talk about taking it from Beatrice and Eugenie but decided not to as it would be stripping them. But the group led to the decision for the Wessexes not to have it at all. I totally believe the discussion was had about Archie while they were working royals. But I also think it goes back to these earlier talks. The Queen could’ve extended the LP in 2012 to cover Harry’s children as well. She didn’t. I don’t think they wanted his kids, no matter who he married, to be HRHs. That tide’s been turning a LONG time. I don’t think Louis’s future children, if he has them, will be HRHs either. We’ve seen it in Sweden, now Denmark. BUT I can see how this was viewed by the Sussexes at the time given EVERYTHING they were subjected to. In the press, behind palace doirs, behind their backs. And they found it out at Meghan’s lowest point as well—her pregnancy during which she became suicidal. I would’ve had serious objections and questions as well. And, despite the long standing plans, once Harry did marry a WOC, the situation changed. It just did. The optics HAD to be considered. The precedent they were setting. And you know how ham fisted it was presented.

    • Jacqulyn says:

      Because it is their birthday

    • Chloe says:

      They don’t. But this isn’ t about whether they need the title or not. This is about the 2 toddlers are being singled out. If charles was really serious about a slimmed down monarchy he would strip everyone not working for the firm of their hrh and prince/princess titles. Including charlotte and louis since originally their titles weren’t a guarantee either.

    • Colby says:

      You’re right, they don’t need any titles especially now that they’re in CA and won’t be working royals. I think, related to Kaisers point, if the titling etc was consistent across the board, it wouldn’t be an issue. But as it stands now it seems targeted to Harry and Meghan’s family. Remember, this whole thing started while Meghan was pregnant and still a working royal.

    • Melissa says:

      Summer, I agree. I think Denmark and Sweden have the right idea, and UK should do the same thing. But their new King is a petty fusspot, and doesn’t have a clear vision of what he wants to do. Sounds like he is swayed by whoever got in his ear last. That’s scary. The result is, he publicly treats two children who are closer to the line of succession than a bunch of the royals, worse than them.

      • L4Frimaire says:

        Agree. Charles isn’t doing this out of some clear vision for the monarchy going forward but as a way to specifically punish Harry and Meghan. Regardless of grieving, he doesn’t seem to be exactly ready to take the reigns with confidence. This funeral and post funeral period is still focused on the Sussexes and briefing against them. If he decides to strip their titles, and only their titles, them just do it decisively. The what do they have left?

      • Elizabeth says:

        It’s the same thing in Holland. The nieces and nephews of King Willem-Alexander don’t carry the title of Prince or Princess; they only have the title of Count and Countess and are not considered part of the royal house.

    • ThatsNotOkay says:

      Let’s think of it this way: say a home owner’s association, or a Donald Trump real estate company, refuses to allow Black people to live in a certain area because those white people are racist and don’t want them there. So the Black people are forced out and move to a different area. Now let’s say that those Donald Trumps and home owners gripe about paying taxes to support public schools or developments in that other area and say things like, if they wanted the perks of a good education and other developments, they shouldn’t have moved. Does that make it clearer? You run someone out of town and then say, “Why are you complaining that you cannot have what should’ve been yours just because we made sure you couldn’t by running out out of town.” It’s circular (il)logic.

      • cleak says:

        Part of me wonders of this is something he is planning on doing. He’s only been king for like 2 weeks. The Queen would never have done this with Andrew and Edward’s kids but it does make me wonder if the reason Charles isn’t making any sweeping decisions on the Sussex kids is because he’s planning something like this once a little more time has passed since his ascension.

    • JCallas says:

      M discussed this in the Oprah interview. Her children don’t need titles. The issue is that they’re being singled out and treated differently.

    • Lexistential says:

      Under the Letters Patent convention from George V, Meghan and Harry’s kids are automatically already HRH Prince and Princess because they are grandchildren of the current monarch. They were not pronounced such because they were born while Elizabeth was alive, and at the moment, Charles is purposely holding back from openly recognizing them as Prince and Princess.

      To the rest of your point- Archie and Lilibet don’t need the titles, but the recognition of them comes with privileges of security and institutional protection. Frankly, if Letters Patent is amended so that all non-working grandchildren of a monarch are no longer Prince and Princess, there would be no issue. The problem is that only Harry and Meghan’s children are being denied recognition, and it is an ugly, obvious case of “othering.”

    • Louise177 says:

      @Summer For me it’s not so much the titles but the fact so much is Sussex specific. Changes always effect them and no one else in the family.

    • MA says:

      They haven’t left the royal family. They ARE royals and breaking protocol for the only biracial royals stripping them of their birthright is targeted and racist.

      The fallacy of this narrative is no one “needs” or “earns” royal titles when it’s all based on unearned privilege. “Working royal” is a concept made up in the last 2 years to target the only non white royals and it seems like people are falling for the royal family spin. Like Kaiser said there are other royals who have their titles who don’t work for the firm. It’s like they want to punish the biracial married in and blood royals and erase them from history. Do you really not see how malicious and ugly this all is?

    • Moderatelywealthy says:

      So, when people of a family decided to find employment not in the family business, but elsewhere, is it your reading that they ” left the family” too?

      They are not working royals, but they are obviously part of the family.

      So, accoridng to you, the York princess are also not part of the family? Because they too are not working royals.

      Stop being purposedely obtuse,will you.

    • molly says:

      They don’t “need” them, and I honestly don’t think they’d even use them, but Charles is using these titles to punish, threaten, and hold over H&M to exert his power and control.

      Americans don’t have a full appreciation for how much of a BFD titles are in UK aristo/royal circles. Whether or not the Sussexes (especially Meghan) care about some dumb letters or dumb styling doesn’t negate the fact that Charles most certainly views them as his biggest weapon to grant or deny to his family.

    • MF says:

      Oh, they absolutely don’t need it. Neither does Andrew and his daughters, or Edward and his wife and kids either. That’s why Kaiser is right: if Charles wants to slim down the monarchy, he should take the HRH from all non-working royals.

    • Blithe says:

      As I understand it, the Sussexes haven’t “left the royal family” — they are no longer “working royals”, which is significantly different. Summer, I’m curious: how do you KNOW that the “kids won’t be working for the royal family? At this point, they’re toddlers. None of us knows where they will be living or what they will be doing twenty years from now. And none of us knows what they “might need” — or might “need to be” as adults”.

      Two things strike me about this sort of imagined prescience. There’s a bizarre assumption that what the kids might need and how they might want to live their lives should be determined by where their parents have chosen to live right now. For the most part, birthrights and inheritances don’t work that way. There’s also an insistence on applying these envisioned standards solely to the Sussex kids. Should Eugenia’s kid, now living at least part time in Portugal, be considered not a part of the Royal family, and left out of any inheritances or titles?

      So many twists and turns to justify wrenching their birthrights away from these two kids — and ONLY these two kids. Why? What’s that about? Really?

    • ABritGuest says:

      The whole premise of royalty is based on bloodlines etc. So living abroad & not doing royal duties doesn’t have anything to do with titles. Many of the British royal family don’t do duties but have titles so this distinction for H&M’s kids seems odd.

      Otherwise why didn’t they remove titles from Princess Beatrice & Eugenie when it was clear they wouldn’t do duties & had their taxpayer funded security removed in their 20s & they both lived in America for a few years?

      Meghan said she wasn’t told of the reason for the proposed change when she was doing duties & was pregnant with Archie.

      If the palace wants to make changes it should be uniform across the board ie if it’s no HRH/Prince/princess title because you don’t/won’t do duties in the future then it should apply to everyone from Prince Michael to Princess Eugenie to Louise to Princess Lilibet (my understanding is her & Archie now have the titles as grandchildren of the monarch). Not sure how the palace can justify rule changes just applying to Archie & Lili without it looking discriminatory.

    • murt says:

      Agree – monarchy is a racist institution…. Why would they want their children to have that association? Don’t get it – esp when other grandchildren don’t have titles.

      • Becks1 says:

        The other grandchildren are all HRH Prince/ss.

      • CindyP says:

        William & kate’s children are HRH Prince/ss
        Archie & Lili are equally related to the king

      • Blithe says:

        Um, IMO and experience, many, if not most institutions are either racist or embedded in histories of racism. Since my goal — which I share with many — is to eradicate racism and sexism and other forms of discrimination, I’ll gently suggest that most of us want access and opportunities for ourselves, our children, and future future generations. I’d imagine that Harry and Meghan are no different in that they want their children to have access to their heritages, their birthrights, and the opportunities afforded all of the members of their families.

        That — as multiple people have pointed out — ALL of the other grandchildren actually do have titles, highlights the efforts of many to view and treat the Sussex kids differently.

        Full disclosure: I’ve lived in neighborhoods, attended schools, pursued career goals, and enjoyed many social and economic opportunities that my grandparents and even my parents were legally denied by “racist institutions “ — starting with the US Federal Government.

        murt, my personal and political beliefs about the importance of access to opportunities and even “racist institutions “ may differ strongly from yours. I’m not sure what it is about access to opportunities and status you “don’t get”, but I’d be happy to explore these issues further — within the limits of this topic.

      • Blithe says:

        Correction to my earlier comment: I meant to say that ALL of the Queen’s grandchildren had the opportunity to have titles. Reading through the comments, though, I see that even this, too, would have been incorrect. I had thought that Anne’s kids had the opportunity to choose to use titles as adults, and, realize after reading through the comments that this might not have been the case.

      • ABritGuest says:

        Murt they have that association because they are RELATED in case you missed that. Taking away Archie & Lili’s titles isn’t going to change that but it will be more confirmation of the institution’s racism if rule changes are not applied consistently.

    • CindyP says:

      This has nothing to do with working or not working. This is their birthright; their father is the the King’s son, they are his grandchildren. Geez, please stop listening to the racist royal rota

    • Lady D says:

      @Summer, they didn’t leave the RF, they were driven out.

    • poppy says:

      They were offered lesser titles, presumably with the HRH attached, and they refused them. Harry’s children were always going to be more akin to Edward’s because sentiment and convention changes. Moving forward, the titled members of the monarchy will be less numerous than the past. Perhaps Charles will retroactively strip Andrew’s daughters and the Queen’s cousins of their titles, but it seems unlikely. I suspect they will be a throwback to another era and not indicative of the future.

      • ABritGuest says:

        If this was always going to be the case for Harry’s children why didn’t the palace announce or brief on this years before Harry got married? With Edward I believe the palace discussed styling for his future kids around his wedding. The palace had loads of time to deal with this. They could even have discussed this around time there was a last LP change for William’s kids if this was a long decided plan. But instead my guess (based on the Oprah interview) was first time Harry was hearing of these ‘long considered plans’ was when Meghan was pregnant. That’s why even the press were querying about their baby’s prospective titles before Meghan gave birth.

  3. Becks1 says:

    What surprises me about this is that two of the kids are “old” – 23 and 20. I would think it would be weird to be a prince for the first 20/23 years of your life and then you’re “just” a count? (but I guess still a grandchild of the monarch.) I mean rich people problems and all that lol.

    Was there any kind of push in Denmark for this?

    And I did see this and I definitely thought “oh this is going to be Charles’ excuse for stripping Archie and Lili of their titles and styles.” But it will be interesting to see if he touches Beatrice and Eugenie’s, or makes clear that Louise and James are not HRH, etc.

    • Hanne says:

      A push in Denmark for this? Not really, no. It was already decided that only the crown prince’s eldest would receive money from the state, his siblings and cousins won’t (completely fair – taking away their titles, maybe a little petty, and I say that as someone who would rather do away with the monarchy). It’s also worth noting that the titles count/countess of Monpezat are their grandfather’s French title, not a Danish title.

      • Becks1 says:

        Thanks for the response!

        Is that Christian? (Frederick and Mary’s oldest?) So why don’t they take the titles from the other three if only the eldest is going to receive money from the state? Would that be considered a line too far?

      • Hanne says:

        Becks1: Yes, Christian as the future-future king. The other three I suppose will have to get some kind of a job. Which is for the best, I think.

    • Eurydice says:

      Yes, it will be interesting to see how this goes. I think it will eventually affect the Yorks and the Wessexes. He can’t go straight across a generation, because that would affect Will’s children – so, I’m guessing he’s going to go by family. Like the York family also includes what to do about Andrew. And the Wessex family includes what to do about Edward’s title and are he and Sophie going to be working royals. The Sussexes are easy – just paperwork at this point.

    • BeanieBean says:

      I don’t understand how all three boys (two of whom are in their 20s, so actually young men) would be styled ‘His Excellency Count of Monpezat’. Isn’t there usually just one count of this or that at a time? How can all three be Count of Monpezat? At least the daughter doesn’t have to share her title with a sister.

      • zengirl says:

        It is odd and I don’t pretend to understand it, but Crown Princess Mary is also Countess of Monpezat, and Crown Prince Frederik is also Count of Monpezat. So all the non-children of the current (prior to the change) senior royal family seem to hold these titles already (so do Prince Joachim and Princess Marie (in addition to their Prince/Princess)).

    • Grace says:

      I think Margrethe’s decision is wise and she’s made it after a long consideration. I’m a bit younger than her sons, but I’ve followed them my whole life. Joachim has had great difficulties carving out his role. He was supposed to become a farmer with a castle he inherited in Denmark (Schackenborg) but it didn’t work out. He never really found his role and never represented the Royal house very actively. I must admit that even this position in France he’s holding now seems a bit tailored for his needs as he’s never profiled as a military attaché type before. But his family with the two young children is living in France now, his wife is French and I wouldn’t be surprised if his younger children decided to live in France even later in life. What comes to his adult sons, they’re living rather anonymous lives and don’t have any official roles in the Royal house. Not being burdened by titles will make life easier for all the four in the future. Joachim’s ex-wife Alexandra turned out to be a very Fergie like figure after a promising start as a member of the Royal house and a divorce from Joachim, so I wouldn’t pay much attention to what she’s saying. I honestly don’t think any of Joachim’s children has built their identity on being a prince or princess, and I’m sure Joachim and Marie are not happy about her outburst. I’m sure they’ve been involved in the decision, and grown-up sons don’t need their mother to speak for them.

      • Haylie says:

        Joachim only found out 5 days ago that they were stripping titles immediately. He too, has spoken to the media, not just Alexandra. He said he and his children are hurt. He and Marie were not involved in the decision making.

        It’s best to let them speak for themselves instead of cooking up a narrative based on your opinions.

  4. Noki says:

    I dont think stripping Beatrice,Eugenie and ones that have had it since birth is a good look and frankly not fair and would be rather embarassing. There needs to be a clear and direct plan moving forward.

    • Barbara says:

      But from birth, Harry was raised to believe his future children would be Prince/ess. Isn’t it just as embarrassing that his own father will likely take their titles away? His own father saying there was no money for his wife and that she could just go back to acting wasn’t already embarrassing?

      If he wants to remove Archie and Lili’s titles, fine. But he needs to decide on what makes everyone royal and entitled to titles, money and protection and apply it evenly across everyone.

    • Nic919 says:

      If Charles removes the HRH from Archie and Lili he has to be retroactive against all, including Beatrice and Eugenie. Otherwise he’s only targeting the biracial grandkids. Archie and Lili now have the HRH as per the letters patent of 1917. They are no different now than Beatrice, Eugenie, Louise, James and even Anne, Andrew and Edward.

      There is nothing in any letters patent about working royals. It is only about bloodline.

  5. Amy Bee says:

    I suspect that Joachim had the same issues as Harry about being a spare. The difference is the Danish Royal Family have kept those issues private and sought to support him in his attempt to have a different life. His ex wife Countess Alexandra is not happy with the Queen’s decision to take away her children’s titles btw. I agree with Kaiser that Charles’s moves would be acceptable if he didn’t only single out Archie and Lili for changes and had included the entire line after George. The Queen made a mistake giving royal titles to William’s children she should have left that for Charles.

    • L84Tea says:

      Ooh boy, I bet Alexandra doesn’t like it. Even though she divorced Joachim, she seems still very attached to the royal life–not in a bad way, I like Alexandra a lot.

      • molly says:

        I like her a lot too. They all seem to work hard to remain supportive and drama free for the sake of the children.

        But yeeeeeah, once you have a title as a European royal, folks get REAL salty about getting it taken away.

      • ArtHistorian says:

        She is very unhappy about this decision and she’s not being quiet about it.

      • Grace says:

        Alexandra is naturally attached to the royal family of Denmark as mother of two of the Queen’s grandchildren, but after the divorce many of her actions have been rather unfortunate. She should let her sons speak for themselves in case they want to comment the Queen’s decision, in which they certainly have been involved. Both have decided to lead private lives, which I think speaks for itself.

    • TheOriginalMia says:

      Didn’t Joachim quit his military position after he & his family moved to Paris? Wasn’t there a big kerfuffle about it because it was a nepotism job, but an important one and he just didn’t want to do it.

      • Amy Bee says:

        Joachim is the military attache at the Danish Embassy in Paris so no he didn’t quit his position. I think there were some grumbling that he got the job in Paris but recently his wife got a job at the same Embassy.

      • zengirl says:

        Marie commented to the press about being unhappy and having been made to go to Paris when she and Joachim wanted to remain in Denmark, plus some grumbling about not having a say in royal matters at times. It was a rare drama shared with outsiders for this family. I wonder if this change is 1) a way to distance the main royals from further drama like this in the future (putting everyone in their place a little), or 2) allowing Joachim, Marie and kids to have choice instead of having to do what they are told. Overall the Danes are less drama, but I was still surprised by this announcement, especially as it affects young adults who are used to being styled as princes.

  6. Hanne says:

    It’s more dramatic than the article quoted here makes it sound though. Alexandra, the mother of the two eldest soon to be ex-princes, is all over Danish media criticising the decision and claiming to also speak on behalf of Prince Joachim and his current wife, when she says the children feels cast out of the family.

    • TheOriginalMia says:

      I bet Alexandra is upset. Marie probably is too, but since she’s seen as the dutiful daughter in law, she won’t come out and say anything directly. Alexandra, though…she does not give af.

      • zengirl says:

        But…Marie has not always been so dutiful, even though historically she is less verbal than Alexandra, it’s true. Marie complained directly to the press about not having wanted to be “stationed” in Paris and not having a choice.

  7. Amy Bee says:

    British Royal Family stans are loving this move and calling on Charles to do the same to the Sussex children. At the same time they want Charles to give Prince Edward the DoE title. Royalists are delusional.

  8. girl_ninja says:

    I think it’s shitty for these queens and kings to strip their grand children of their stylings or whatever they’re called. They got to enjoy the benefits of the status now they don’t want their grand children or nieces or nephews to either. It’s some weird bullshit.

    • Zapp Brannigan says:

      Exactly, the entire point of monarchy is people inherit just because of who they were born too Not based on merit or need. If monarchs start stripping people of titles, even though they are born into them, what is the point of any monarchy.

      • SURE says:

        Also, if these children don’t receive tax payer funding, what harm is there in being titled HRH Prince/Princess?

  9. Jess says:

    I’m super shocked by this. I know Denmark is a small country but they can keep their titles and not be working royals. It’s not some huge tragedy but seems a little harsh especially for young Princess Athena. I think she should have waited until she was 18 to make this announcement. I hope no one is blaming Princess Mary for this because it affects her future grandchildren through Prince Vincent.

    The Queen also has family members who have the Prince/Princess title and aren’t working royals but she won’t strip them of their titles. This seems very odd to me. I was just boasting on another forum about how the Danish have treated Joachim’s children and ex wife and now this is announced. Hopefully soon to be King Frederick will rethink this.

    • ArtHistorian says:

      Dane here. It is a bit shocking and definitely not something I had seen coming though there’s been a certain lack of guidelines on this issue. In the past, royals lost their royal titles when they married commoners, that’s probably Princess Elisabeth never married her partner. However, losing a royal title for marrying a commoner isn’t a good look in today’s world.

      However, I do think that this decision seem a bit harsh when the children are so old and it has certainly caused strife in the family. A better approach would simply be to make a rule saying that when the great-grandchildren of monarch (not in the direct line of succession) would never get a royal title.

      • Cee says:

        It’s especially jarring as they’re not even HRH, just HHs…

      • Grace says:

        As I mentioned before, I think this is a good decision. I believe it’d have been better to make it earlier, for example right after Frederik had children, but there may have been issues we’re not aware of , e.g. for the Queen’s older grandsons with the titles now that they’ve started their lives away from their childhood family, which made the Queen make up her mind now. Europe is full of minor royals and royals from long abolished monarchies that make most of their titles, and I find that ridiculous. I think Margrethe wanted to show she understands you can’t both eat the cake and have it.

  10. SarahCS says:

    Not even one pic of Carl Phillip? Times are hard, we need some nice things!

    This seems extremely sensible, if royal houses want to continue they need to evolve and a big part of what people take issue with is cost/value. Cut the roles back to the core and manage the finances accordingly, then help those now outside of the core have worthwhile and fulfilling lives.

    The BRF has a ton of dead wood but they are letting their hatred and racism drive their choices rather than stepping back and making logical choices that are applied consistently.

    • Sid says:

      I think the issue is how it is being applied in the Danish case. IIRC, they already made changes to who gets funding in the Danish house. The two older grandchildren who are losing their titles are adults and already don’t get funding. The two younger grandchildren are minors and don’t really get direct funding outside of what their parents get for being part of the Danish house. The titles are basically decorative, can’t be inherited by future children of these 4 grandchildren, so why remove them? Why not just make it the rule going forward?

  11. JCallas says:

    I wonder if KC was waiting for this to become public before stripping the Sussex children’s titles.
    Now he can claim that he’s just emulating other monarchies.

    • Beach Dreams says:

      I’m going to don a tinfoil tiara and say that the timing of this announcement seems a little too coincidental and convenient…especially if this was already known/decided in May like another commenter said. It’s a perfect example for Charles to reference when he decides to rescind the Sussex children’s titles, even with all of the differences pointed out by Kaiser.

  12. Fredegunda says:

    Joachim has supposedly known (in some way, shape and form) that this decision was coming since May. However, some journalists are saying that the announcement came in a “needlessly harsh” way.

    An interesting tidbit on the Berlingske Tidende livefeed (!): because Fred and Mary are getting ever more involved/active, there has been a growing question over the roles for Joachim and Marie and whether they are needed to represent the family.

    • L84Tea says:

      Is there animosity between the two families?

      • Fredegunda says:

        The editor of Se og Hør (a magazine kind of like Hello!) described it as a power struggle. I don’t know enough to say if that was an overly dramatic characterisation. It was mentioned, however, that the queen described Joachim & Marie’s move to France as “not entirely of their own volition.”

        Personally I would like to know if the three parents decided that Alexandra would speak for them all because she is the one who will face the fewest consequences internally. Also because AFAIK she is still very popular.

    • ArtHistorian says:

      This issue seems to have become something of a problem in the family ever since Joachim sold his estate. The running of this estate was always supposed to be his main job – but he sold it and now he hasn’t a job and at a time when CP Frederik’s heir is almost an adult. Another thing that compounds the problem is the fact that the Danish government decided to give him public money when he married Alexandra – and the public has increasingly questioned why he’s given public money when he doesn’t really work that much for the DRF and a job has been found for him in France. But he seems determined to hang onto the public money even though the sale of his estate netted him a very handsome fortune.

      Denmark is a very small country, there isn’t a need for an extended royal family on the public purse and Prince Christian turns 18 soon.

    • Haylie says:

      Joachim has countered this narrative and said he only found out 5 days ago, not in May.

      Margarethe is as big a liar as King Charles of Tampon.

  13. tamsin says:

    By their racist behaviour, the British royal family has made removing titles a discriminatory action. If Harry’s children did not have any non-white blood, this would not be an issue at all. If he wanted to make the royal family smaller, he could issue his own letters patent declaring that only the children of the crown prince/princess would be HRH’s and princes and princesses. If Archie and Lili don’t get their HRH’s it will forever be seen as an act against two children who are not pure Caucasian. Besides, those two designations HRHprince/princess were meant to go together according to the original letters patent. If Meghan had been accepted, and there had been no racist briefings against her by the palaces and smear campaign by the press, then Charles wanting to limit HRH’s would be seen in a different light. But then we all know that the idea of limiting HRH’s wouldn’t have occurred to Charles, at least not in relation to his own son’s family.

  14. Concern Fae says:

    I think that having HRH/Prince/Princess be only for children of the monarch/heir is a good thing. The problem the Brits have is that they are making the shift when race is also an issue. It may very well be that Charles would have done this to Harry’s kids if he’d married some aristo blonde. (I tend to think so, based on how he’s talked about paring down the monarchy before.) However, they’ve pulled so much racist shit, they get zero benefit of the doubt now.

    Also, people are talking about Anne, Andrew, and Edward above. They are still children of a monarch, so their titles should remain.

    Charles doesn’t seem to realize that he needs to be cutting down on houses, not people.

    • Beach Dreams says:

      “It may very well be that Charles would have done this to Harry’s kids if he’d married some aristo blonde. (I tend to think so, based on how he’s talked about paring down the monarchy before.)”

      Highly unlikely IMO. Before Harry met Meghan, the big talking point of the slimmed down monarchy was that it would include *both* sons, not just William. Charles even reinforced that point by having only his sons + Kate on the balcony in 2012. It was only after Harry got serious with Meghan and married her that the concept of the slimmed down monarchy changed significantly. The Firm started to put out the narrative that there was no role for Harry in the monarchy and he’d have to figure out something for himself. I sincerely doubt that narrative or the debate about his children’s titles would even come around if he had married Cressida or any white woman in general.

      • Becks1 says:

        If it was always meant to apply to Harry’s children I think it would have been announced when they announced the change for William’s children. A bad look, sure, to elevate one set of children while demoting another set, but at that point the demoted set was still hypothetical as Harry wasn’t married.

        by waiting, they’ve put themselves in this situation where it looks racist and punitive.

    • Elizabeth says:

      And the time of the jubilee in 2012, Harry was considered part of the slimmed-down monarchy. I’m guessing that if he had married Chelsy or Cressida, Charles would never have thought of stripping the children of the title Prince and Princess. I

  15. Alexandria says:

    HM and children don’t need the titles. But please note fact remains they are still royals, they’re not working royals. Their original intention was to step down as working royals but still try to repair FAMILIAL ties which as we can see is beyond hope. And please note there was no such talk BEFORE Harry got married.

    If Chucky wants to remove their HRH and Prince/ess based on them being not working royals, he has to be consistent and remove them for the rest. You call yourself the Firm, be professional then and have consistent standards. Make only Peggy’s children have those titles. Better yet, if they are serious about slimming down, only George and subsequent heirs have the titles. By picking and choosing, he does look like a discriminatory fool. That’s why they’re stuck and the Palace and rats claim Chuck is taking his time to decide. They’re stalling cos they are trying to think how they can not look like racist jerks. They’re hoping that online paid haters cum BM will pressure and bully HM into dropping their HRH totally and Prince/ess claims so that they don’t have to look like jerks. HM understandably won’t do anything because nothing is needed on their part for something that was a default i.e. the existing LP. So yeah, go to hell Chuck.

  16. aquarius64 says:

    Whatever the decision, at least Margethe and Carl Gustaf are owning them and dealing with fallout. Charles is dragging his feet on the Sussex kids because of the racism accusations that will come. Charles would have to remove the HRH from the Yorks sisters. A bigger mess is both Harry and Andrew are still counsellors of state and Beatrice, a non working royal, has been promoted to CofS. He has to get Parliament to remove them. The other monarchs are seeing an unforced mess the house of Windsor created.

  17. Well Wisher says:

    There scenarios between the European monarchs and King Charles111 are different.

    He refused to intervene on his son’s behalf with the horrible press, sided with the bully, rewarded him and his wife with titles and castles, stripped his son’s security while he paid for his former mistress’s, now QC .

    King Charles 111 actions remain deliberate in intent and punitive.
    They are also in poor form, due to the timing.
    It showed an eagerness to misuse his inherited power, even poor folks in his realms would at least wait until the funeral before they pounce.

    There is no truce, reconciliation nor unity but demands from undeserving individuals, of which the king is one of them.

  18. JMoney says:

    I’m definitely in the minority b/c why on earth are ppl on here clamoring for H&M’s kids to have titles when they are not working members of the RF? I understand Charles was having this convo when Meghan was pregnant with Archie but at the time she was still a working member of the RF as was Harry and the big reason why Meghan wanted Archie to have a title was for security purposes (which would be covered by the UK taxpayers). If Archie had been given a title then he would get security which makes sense. Now H&M aren’t working members of the RF and pay for their own security so why are so many ppl on here clamoring for Lili and Archie to get titles from a racist institution that works against them?

    I do think Chuck is using H&M as an example to the other RF members should they “leave” and he’s doing so with Billy’s backing. Make no mistake, Billy will treat Charlotte and Louis this way if they decide to leave and do an interview talking about their experience.

    • Becks1 says:

      Because having the titles is a matter of birthright under the current rules; it has nothing to do with being a working royal or not.

      also it IS important that charles was talking about this when Meghan was pregnant because it tells us that racism is at the root of this discussion. It’s not about working royals vs non working or whatever.

      So even if the kids don’t need the titles at this point, it still has to sting Meghan to know that her children are being denied something because of their race, because that’s what it is about. They want the nonwhite grandchildren to show up to events for charles III and be listed as Master Archie and Miss Lili while its HRH Prince George, HRH Princess Charlotte, HRH Prince Louis? Yeah Meghan’s not going to do that to her kids.

      (which is why I doubt those children will ever be at any kind of royal function or event, even if they’re invited.)

    • Sid says:

      The discussion I see is more about the blatant racism behind Chuck potentially stripping the Sussex children of their titles, rather than anyone clamoring for them to be titled (which they already are).

    • Beach Dreams says:

      Multiple people laid out their reasons quite clearly throughout the comments. What I want to know is why you keep insisting that everything happening to Harry and Meghan is because they did the Oprah interview. This talking point is uninformed at best and deliberately deceptive and misleading at worst.

      • JMoney says:

        Where on here did I say everything that happened to Harry and Meghan was b/c of the Oprah interview?

      • Beach Dreams says:

        You literally said Harry is treated badly by the press because of the interview on the other story about the Sussexes being demoted on the royal webpage. You’re also implying at the end of your post here that the interview is why they’re being treated so poorly. This is quite disingenuous.

    • Alexandria says:

      The titles are not dependent on being a working royal or paying for own security. The default LP does not say working royal or security.

      People here are not clamoring, they are asking Chuck why the default is not applied to HM and the firm have not answered it because the answer is discrimination. People here are asking because Chuck is not being accountable. As it is already, HM are not clamoring either; they don’t use their HRH and they have not proclaimed that Archie and Lili are now Prince/ess. They don’t have to proclaim anything because the default is already in place. Chuck wants to change the default, why? If it’s to punish them just say so. But don’t need to lie and say it’s because they are not working royals. Eugenie, Beatrice, Andrew and the Michaels are RIGHT THERE. Apply it to all.

  19. Bonsai Mountain says:

    As Becks and Tamsin have said, it’s about reinforcing racism, creating two tiers of royals, one definitely lesser and inferior because they are mixed race thanks to their black biracial mother. Stop being literal – it’s not about the titles themselves, but how the decisions to slim down the monarchy and remove titles/styles of address/security whatever are being deployed in such a way as to other these children. If it wasn’t titles they’d find something else demeaning to do to Archie and Lili, because the Royals derive their legitimacy from their superior white bloodline. They are following a narrative here, which the Royal rota have oh so helpfully laid out since the first ‘Straight outta Compton!’ article.

    Also, this family cannot be compared to the Danish or Swedish royals, who aren’t dealing with mixed race family members. The British Royal family are the heirs to the largest Western empire and its stolen wealth, steeped in the slave trade, the Royal African company and the slave colonies, and refuse to address calls for reparations- just look at how atrociously TWO Royal tours were conducted in the Caribbean this past year alone. The Danish and Swedish institutions do not have a comparable Commonwealth of mostly people of color, and their ties to slavery are not as enduring. So the British royals simply do not have the credibility to claim they are not being racist here. Context, context, context.

    • Elizabeth says:

      Prince Joachim’s two oldest children are mixed race. His ex-wife, Alexandra, is of English, Indian, Iranian and Chinese ancestry.

      • Bonsai Mountain says:

        Ok, good to know, but again, no analogous historical oppressive relationship that compares to the British Empire and would contextualize the removal of titles/styling. Unless people are saying this too is racially motivated?

      • Elizabeth says:

        Since all four of Joachim’s children are no longer Prince/Princess, I would say that it is probably not racially motivated in this case.

      • Fredegunda says:

        Margrethe can be thankful that Marie is French (i.e. Euro-heritage), as now it’s not possible to argue that the mixed-race grands are being treated differently because of their ethnicity. Not that I have seen any intimations in the Danish press about the title revocations being driven by racism, though.

      • Grace says:

        Alexandra’s mother was Austrian and her father Chinese-English. Have never heard of any Iranian and Indian ancestry in connection with Alexandra before I read that in Wikipedia, which is surprising as I was a big fan of hers for years and clearly remember her engagement and wedding to Joachim. So I’m not entirely sure what stands there it’s true.

  20. Jean says:

    I think it’s a good thing, royal families should be smaller, the monarch and direct heirs, any other relative should get a job and not have any type of public funding or property. The BRF have always been over bloated and that’s partly the cause of their tiring problems! Glad that Harry and Megs are out and doing their own thing.

  21. ML says:

    As an inhabitant of the Netherlands, I have no issue with what “Daisy” has done in Denmark. Monarchies are expensive and taxpayers are keeping these people (who are very, very rich) in their expensive lifestyle. In return, these people who have their “job” due to birth and privilege are supposed to help their country as diplomats, status-infused mascots, and to attract lucrative businesses and tourists to the country. As a “small r” republican, sometimes a monarchy is helpful if I’m being fair. Most times it’s a hugely unfair money-suck on its population. In other words, if you must have a royal family, keep it as small and streamlined as possible.

    • Sid says:

      Margrethe’s action seems odd. The two older grandchildren (Joachim and Alexandra’s boys) are adults and don’t get any sort of public funding from what I recall. They just had the titles. The two younger children (Joachim and Marie’s kids) are still minors so they are supported by their parents. As I see it these four grandchildren aren’t costing anything so what is accomplished by taking their titles? Why not just make it the rule going forward that only the kids of the direct heir get titles?

      • Grace says:

        I think the royal houses have changed a lot since Margrethe was young, and she understands it. And her elder son married later than the younger one, I remember there was a lot of talk how Joachim and Alexandra should be made heirs as their marriage seemed so perfect and they had two sons before Frederik got married. Many people believed Frederik would never marry. What happened was that Joachim and Alexandra announced their divorce shortly after Frederik and Mary’s wedding, there were all kind of dirty rumors, unflattering photos published and news about Alexandra’s money problems for years. Frederik soon had children of his own and it was obvious Joachim’s children were no longer needed to secure the succession. They should have to carve out their own future, and I believe it could be more difficult with a royal title. It will very likely be difficult enough when people know they’re children to a prince. Joachim’s older sons have expressed no interest in royal life and seem to want to be private, so it’s unlikely the titles have been important for them.

      • Fredegunda says:

        @Grace – A Danish royal correspondent said that Prince Nikolai has used his title to open doors for his modeling career, so it has been important in that sense. The extent to which he did so was not elaborated on, but I did wonder if this is Margrethe’s way of nipping the controversy of titles & commercial endeavours in the bud.

        Currently there is a huge problem in Norway because the public perceives Märtha Louise as using her princess title to sell snake oil. The Danes will not be unaware of this issue and although I think Margrethe’s actions seem very harsh, it is easier to resolve now than 10 or 20 years in the future.

    • Grace says:

      @Fredegunda Now that you mention it, I remember reading somewhere that the title no doubt helped Nikolai to get started as a model. I don’t follow the world of fashion, so I didn’t pay much attention to it, but if that’s correct, it’s just another proof it’s difficult to build your career with your real skills and merits when you’re burdened with a title.

  22. ML says:

    In the Netherlands, the succession is clearly delineated as opposed to (possibly) Denmark, and definitely the UK. I understand the entire argument to give the only children of color in the BRF HRH titles. On the other hand, I just watched the RF in the UK continually mistreat H&M. Look at Meghan’s biography on the site and compare that to the rest of the family members. They historically should have gotten the titles and much better treatment, but they have not. They should not actively say they will give up Harry’s, Archie’s and Lilibet’s birthrights, but they should stay away from the RF. Real jobs, mental health, people who live and respect them…those have nothing to do with Charles and the BRF titles.

    • JustBitchy says:

      Netherlands has lots of HRHs. They all seem to contribute and House of Orange has probably tve most money. Other than say Luxembourg or Lechtinstein.

  23. equality says:

    If KC wants to establish his credibility in following the other European monarchs’ examples then he needs to go all in. He would have to fire the Queen’s cousins and his siblings as “working” royals. Take the HRH (or just forbid use, especially on some people’s book covers) from all but direct line. Then decrease the SG. If he really wants to be a great king, let people start owning their own houses and property in the duchies and use crown properties for better than providing one person with four houses (or castles).

  24. Patty says:

    The treatment Harry received during his grandmothers funeral via his father King Charlie showed the world just how petty he is . No man or woman should be stripped of his military accomplishments. No one should be able to do such a despicable act .KC is capable of anything . The RF is probably the most narcissistic org in the world .

  25. Edna X Mode says:

    3rd time i tried to post so i hope this shows up lol. in 1999 when the writing was on the wall after princess DIana died, The Queens son Prince Edward was getting engaged and married to Sofa, the Queen and PHilip and the Grey men changed the ‘rules’ going forward for Edward and all future born children of the Male Spares of royal family (NOT retroactive tho).

    Prince Harry is a spare like prince edward and his children and Edwards children *should be treated the same: BUT Harry’s children are being treated differently to Edwards!

    Prince Harry as a Royal Duke married to Duchess Meghan and their kids Are since the day they were born:
    (lord) Archie, Earl of Dumbarton (a courtesy title and 2nd title given to Harry ) –and LADY Lilibet (Lili) Windsor Mountbatton. Just Like Prince Edward’s boy and girl titled James, Viscount Severn and LADY Louise Mountbatton Windsor.

    Meghan was wrong to say they s/b Prince /princess cuz of the 1999s new rules.. BUT the real prob lem is vile royal family and their lickspittles are calling Lord archie as “master” which is NOT appropriate for an aristocrat like Lord Archie , Earl of Dumbarton nor LADY Lili they call her Miss.

    Neither family children born after 1999 can “use” the HRH or the Prince /Princess title (even tho The Queen’s men didn’t “take them away ” by papers). But the real life shit is that the Aristrocrats of the court are refusing to address Prince/DUKE Harry’s children by their Lord/Lady titles. the shits. and it does NOT matter if they are a working” royal cuz the Lord Lady titles are merely their birth_right

    • Gewels says:

      I can’t make out what you’re trying to say. What 1999 rules??
      There only law applying to Archie and Lili is the 1917 Letter of Patent saying who can be HRH.
      Edward made a very poor decision when he got married that he may be regretting now but that does not affect Harry’s children in any way.
      The LP the Queen issued concerned only William’s children. Harry’s children weren’t included.
      IMO the Queen protected Charlotte and Loius, but as usual didn’t lift a finger to protect any children Harry might have. By omission, she left them to her son. I think she knew what he was going to do.
      Charles should just do nothing, best course for him. These titles will die with the children anyway. Let natural laws do your work for you. Royalty stops with Archie and Lili, they can’t pass it on to their children.
      Makes no sense to me to do an LP specifically targeting people whose royalty dies with them.

      • Edna X Mode says:

        Yes the queen is responsible (and now charles). and that dying out of Prince title at grandson is the point i have been making too; Harry and Arhcies birth right re DUkedom lasts forever! as long as Harry’s future generations have a legitimate male heir ,generation after generation, Harry’s Dukedom/family line will legally still exist and they can go by Duke of Sussex, and last forever
        … while great/grandsons can’t inherit a Prince title only sons and grandsons IF they king/queen allow it. Which they Queen BP/ changed Precedent in 1999 starting with Prince Edwards kids .

        The grey men and Liz and charles are just as intent in not acknowledgin Harry’s Dukedom by not acknowedging his childrens dukedom titles = but they do acknowledge P Eds kids as Lord/earl severn and Lady louise.

    • Haylie says:

      Maybe the post failed the other 2 times as a hint that none of what you said was even a little bit accurate.

      • Edna X Mode says:

        I am accurate; BP announced on Prince Edwards wedding day back in 1999; and said it was BP and the queen making it so: .

        and Buzzfeed current article backs this up see farther down re Ed and sofas kids:

        “On Edward’s wedding day, the Queen announced that his children would not be HRHs/princes/princesses, and would instead be styled as children of an earl. And so they were — Lady Louise Windsor and James, Viscount Severn, are the titles used by Edward’s children. According to George V’s rules, Louise and James qualified for HRH/prince/princess titles, but the Queen decided against it before they were even born.”

        the new “precedent” was put in place in 1999 for future male spares children.

        but they are taking away Haryy’s and Archies birthright of being a family of DUkes forever! (prince would only be archie and he can’t bequeath that to his oldest boy) but Dukedoms last as long as each generation/s have a legitamate boy.! forever.

  26. blunt talker says:

    King Charles needs to go ahead and do it and do it FAIRLY across the board-singling out the Sussex family will damn sure make him look vindictive and racist no matter how they try to explain it-i think we all know its coming-when i don’t know

  27. Jesus says:

    This is odd lmao. Are the greeks still styled “Prince/ss of Greece and Denmark”? As someone pointed out, a few cousins of Margrethe remain Princes and Princess. It seems weird to remove from her own grandchildren, especially since AFAIK any future children of them wouldnt be princes. Its giving family beef!

  28. SMS says:

    I’m all for it. I think in the long run these titles are a burden and frankly none of them earned them. I can understand the upset but I think tolerance for Princes and Princesses, who don’t serve the people and but benefit by taking jobs they barely qualify for, is waning.