Prince Joachim: ‘My children are upset,’ they feel like they’re being punished

This week, Denmark’s Queen Margrethe removed the royal titles and royal styling from four of her grandchildren. Crown Prince Frederick’s four children are now her only “royal” grandchildren, while the children of her second son, Prince Joachim, will no longer be HRHs or Princes/Princesses. Joachim’s four kids are now his/her excellency count/countess of Monpezat. Honestly, I like the idea of taking royal titles and leaving them with a lesser-yet-still-special title. It’s what the Earl of Wessex’s children have – his son is Viscount Severn and his daughter is Lady Louise. That seems like a decent compromise, overall. But the story in Denmark has become about HOW Queen Margrethe decided this and how she did it. The mothers of the four children seem very upset about the Queen’s decision, and Prince Joachim only had a few days’ notice. Originally, this change was supposed to happen when all of the kids were older. This is what Joachim told Danish media outlet Ekstra Bladet:

Prince Joachim of Denmark is breaking his silence on a family decision. The Danish prince, 53, reacted to his mother Queen Margrethe II’s decision to strip his four children of their prince and princess titles, which the Danish Royal House announced Wednesday.

“We are all very sad. It’s never fun to see your children being mistreated like that,” he told the national newspaper Ekstra Bladet on Thursday. “They find themselves in a situation they do not understand. I was given five days’ notice,” Joachim added.

The reporter responded that she thought he learned of the Queen’s plans in May, prompting the sixth in line to the throne to explain that wasn’t quite the case.

“In May, I was presented with a plan, which basically stated that when the children each turned 25, it would happen,” Joachim said. “Athena turns 11 in January,” he added of his youngest child.

“How has this affected your relationship with your mother?” the journalist asked. Holding for a moment, looking emotional, Joachim replied, “I don’t think I need to elaborate here,” and turned to walk away.

In a statement to B.T., another national outlet, the palace insisted that the announcement should not have come as a surprise.

“As the Queen stated yesterday, the decision has been a long time coming. We understand that there are many emotions at stake at the moment, but we hope that the Queen’s wish to future-proof the Royal Palace will be respected,” a spokesperson for the Danish Royal Palace told the outlet.

Doubling down on his argument in his own remarks to B.T., Joachim stated, “I was given five days’ notice of this. To tell my children that on New Year’s their identity will be taken from them. I am very, very sorry to see them uncomprehending about what is happening over their heads.”

The father of four — who is dad to sons Nikolai, 23, Felix, 20, and Henrik, 13, and daughter Athena, 10 — added that he’s mystified why everything was accelerated.

“I simply don’t know. I originally asked for time to think and give my feedback. That would also be taken into account,” the Danish royal told B.T., adding that his kids were having a hard time processing the change. “I can say that my children are upset. My kids don’t know which leg to stand on. What they should believe. Why should their identity be removed? Why must they be punished in that way?”

[From People]

I don’t know who to believe here – I kind of doubt that Margrethe would completely blind-side her son this way and make it look so punitive out of nowhere. I also think Joachim seems genuinely hurt and he feels like he and his children are being snubbed in public by his mother. I definitely feel like there’s more backstory here, and I also think that how it’s being done – “you are only a prince for three more months and that’s it!” – is very strange and wrong. To go back to the Wessexes, I don’t think it would have been *as* big a deal if Joachim was told from day one that his kids wouldn’t have royal titles, but they would be counts and countesses of Monpezat. Doing it now – when two oldest sons are adults – feels very shady and half-assed. I also agree that perhaps Frederick’s three younger children should maybe get their royal titles yanked too, out of fairness. I mean…??

Also: Queen Margrethe’s decision is anti-Asian!! Joachim’s first wife Alexandra, Countess of Frederiksborg, has Chinese, Iranian and Indian ancestry. Meaning, Prince Nikolai and Prince Flix are mixed-race Danish royals, only they’re being stripped of their titles. Danish racism!

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Backgrid.

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

150 Responses to “Prince Joachim: ‘My children are upset,’ they feel like they’re being punished”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Pinkosaurus says:

    This is so messy from the Danish royals! I wonder if they will continue fighting it out in the press?

    • Chloe says:

      To be honest, joachim and marie had been a bit displeased with the royal institution for a while. I remember that there were some rumblings last year too?

    • Moxylady says:

      No way this isn’t partly racially motivated.

      • Grace says:

        Margarethe welcomed Alexandra with open arms and was really happy to become a grandmother, so to me it sounds far-fetched to think this is racially motivated. I remember very well when Alexandra first entered the royal scene and don’t remember ever hearing her ethnicity would have been an issue.

      • C says:

        People said the same about Charles with Meghan…

        I don’t think it was the main motivation since it’s all his kids but I wouldn’t be surprised to find it was a factor.

      • MissM says:

        Alexandra is beloved by the Danish royals and continues to be invited to family events with open arms.
        Joachim also has two younger children with Marie who are also affected by this and they are 100% white.

      • ChillinginDC says:

        This seems to be “him” motivated based on reporters pointing out the mess he has been for a while now and how upset people were on him selling one of the homes.

      • molly says:

        Nah, there would have been hints of it long before now. Alexandra and the boys have been a welcome part of royal life since the beginning. (In contrast to the BRF who was racist with Meghan from the jump.)

      • PURGAMENTUM says:

        I’m also genuinely irritated at the fact that the mods of the comment section keep deleting comments about the pretty blatant racism in favor of the whiny whites who don’t experience racism but want to dictate what is and what isn’t racist

      • C says:

        Let’s remember we didn’t know about a lot of the racism from the senior royals towards Meghan till after they left and everything imploded. The press was outright and visibly racist from the beginning, but the world didn’t know what went on behind closed doors till later. People are still pointing to Charles walking her down the aisle as an example she was welcomed.
        So my point is, while this whole thing clearly is mostly about Joachim’s children in general, Alexandra is upset about it and race may be a factor. In any case it looks bad and Margrethe did it anyway.

      • Miss Jupitero says:


        Everyone has the right to weigh in and give their opinion. If you don’t like someone’s opinion, critique.

        Nobody on CB should be telling anyone else to shut up. Everyone deserves respect.

        You do not have any magical way of knowing if someone posting on CB is a POC or not a POC.

      • SugarHere says:

        I believe that the Danish Royal Family slimming is not race-related but politically grounded. We’ve got to keep in mind that there’s no real objective institutional necessity for a monarchy anywhere in Europe, and that a symbolical non-governing body like the monarchy is costly, outdated, very little in tune with the population’s concern with inflation or democratic expectations.

        Therefore, no wonder the current kings and queens of Europe undertake dramatic moves to further the impression that a fewer number of their own are privileged and that even the monarch’s direct descendents can be stripped of their titles and left to roleplay the man in the street. This is a maneuver to create new optics on and acceptance of the actual financial burden at the taxpayer’s expense.

        They slim down the monarchy desperately hoping to silence criticism around it outliving its relevance. Scandinavia has an equalitarian mindset. However, my bet is that the European Royals will be slapped by the opposite reality in a generation from now: narrowing down the monarchy ironically heralds its end. It will be about time.

      • Haylie says:

        Yup. I’m looking sideways at people claiming it can’t be racially mitivated and how Margarethe welcomed Alexandra with open arms. They said the same thing about how The Windsors welcomed z Meghan, and that was all lies.

        People really are completely in the dark about how white supremacy works. Or…

        They’re willingly complicit.

      • HeyJude says:

        Absolutely, they saw the “leading” European monarchy in England do it and thought “we can do it too”.

        If anyone thinks this isn’t out of racism and keeping color “officially” out of royal duty they’re dense.

      • SugarHere says:

        1- Queen Margrethe belongs to a generation and social class that make her very likely to be both a classist and a racist. If so, she has been extremely cunning and successful at concealing her racial prejudice.

        2- Because nothing in this regard has ever been leaked and multi-racial Countess Alexandra herself has never publicly complained of being discriminated against, which does not rule out racist incidents behind close doors.

        3- Assuming Queen Margrethe is a rabid racist passing for open-minded would account for why she stripped her Caucasian grandchildren of their prince and princess titles, just to get back at their multi-racial siblings. Really, people? OK.

        4- Sweden’s Princess Madeleine’s snow white kids were stripped of their Royal Highnesses titles 3 years ago but are still princes and princess, meaning there’s a general trend in Europe to placate anti-monarchy sentiment by demoting the second son’s heirs.

        So we’re left with 3 options here:
        A- Margrethe’s a self-avowed racist who shamelessly acts accordingly.
        B- She is subconsciously racist and her lack of self-awareness makes her claim to have the children’s best interest at heart.
        C- Her decision is politically motivated: she knows through polls that nobody in Denmark below 57, gives a fig about royalty.

        Unlike the blatant sh..t taking place in England, the Danish royals are not known to have set a precedent involving racial prejudice, at least not publicly. So we can only speculate, and at this game, my bet is half-way between B & C. The truth is, we don’t know for sure.

    • Becks1 says:

      I kind of love the messiness. It’s reminding those of us that are more UK-focused that all royal houses can be messy lol.

    • Josephine says:

      The whole “it will be good for them” is particularly nasty from a lady who sits as queen through no work or ambition or talent of her own. She was born lucky and does nothing but wants others to buck up.If I were the kids she would be nothing to me anymore.

      • MeganC says:

        She basically fired them by tweet.

      • nola rice says:

        I find it interesting she did this after all the recent events. Kinda like she wanted them there for all the photo ops and then show them the door. I wish all these people who no longer live royal lives would quit the parties, pictures, and events and let us see this new slimmed royal family as it is. I say quit inviting the peeps you don’t want to the events where you need a bunch of people to look important.

    • mauve says:

      Swear to god they are doing this so King Charles ‘can’t’ be accused of racism for doing the same in a few months.

  2. equality says:

    Looks like she could have left the titles but take them off the public money (if they receive any). They are just as related by blood as the higher up grandchildren. The whole concept of monarchy and first-born more special is toxic.

    • Becks1 says:

      Based on what others have said here, I don’t think they receive public money. joachim does, but I don’t think the children do (obviously the younger children receive money through their father but that’s a little different.)

    • usavgjoe says:

      Yeah Joachim, your cousin Sausage fingers KC3 convinced your mother to give him cover for his ill treatment of his grandkids (Archie and Lili), by stripping your kids of their royal titles. Well KC3 didn’t want his subjects of color in the UK and 80 percent of the Commonwealth to tar and feather his arse. Maybe she was offered 30 pieces of silver for the obliging?

      • MeganC says:

        It’s pretty fantastical to think this is in any way about Charles.

      • [insert witticism] says:

        Margarethe isn’t carrying water for Charles with this decision. She telegraphed her intentions for years now, like when she basically exiled Joachim and Marie to Paris. Diminishing their and their children’s roles has been in progress for awhile.

        Charles’s only part in it is as an object lesson on the dangers of leaving questions of Royal titles and roles unanswered for the next generation to sort out. The press around his ascension has been as much about the Sussexes as it has about him or William. It’s hurt both of their images.

        Margarethe was hamfisted going about it, but she’s definitely not trying to shore up Charles’s image. It’s honestly a ridiculous suggestion.

    • Sunday says:

      Yea, I agree that it’s weird that all the focus is on titles when all of this should just be based on who gets public funding and/or who officially represents the crown. It all could be handled with a simple operational note; stripping titles from adolescents and adults who have lived in those identities all their lives just seems needlessly cruel and ultimately pointless.

      • Sunday says:

        Thinking more about it, it seems clear that all this hand-wringing about titles is to intentionally frame the discussion around the ceremonial/perceived perks of being a royal, thus preventing conversations about the *actual* perks like funding, palaces, and stolen jewels.

        Just like Charles’ ‘slimmed down monarchy’ in which fewer “working” members receive the same amount of taxpayer money as the larger team was, focusing on who will or will not be called prince is just a distraction technique, using family members as cannon fodder in a particularly demeaning way in a misguided attempt to solidify the standing of the heir and their direct line.

        As with most things royals do, it only succeeds in making them look petty, cruel, and ultimately dishonest because if they were truly interested in modernizing they’d realize that getting paid millions in taxpayer funds to cut ribbons and shake hands ain’t it.

  3. MakeEverydayCount says:

    She’s a fool if she would risk her family in order to help Charles…a fool indeed

  4. Snuffles says:

    I know a lot of people disagree, but I wouldn’t be surprised if he did. Like you said, it was already in the works anyway. Charles wants to yank Archie and Lili’s titles and he’s looking for cover so the public won’t think it’s racist. I guess he didn’t factor in the fact that Nikolai and Felix are also mixed race. So now both the Danish monarchy and British monarchy look racist.

    • A says:

      Your theory is that Charles asked Margrethe to speed up the stripping of her grandkids’ titles now so he doesn’t look like a villain in a few months when he decides to do the same thing to Harry’s kids?

      It’s not that I don’t think he’d do that, it’s that I don’t see why she would agree. It’s clearly damaged her relationship with her son and it’s become more of a story than she must have wanted. To risk that just because her fourth(?) cousin wanted some better press in his own country in the future seems…shortsighted.

      • usavgjoe says:

        The UK royals are the most popular amongst all royals in the world (this is why KC3 and “trying to be slick Willy of Wales”, are so jealous of H&M this makes them the MOST popular of ALL of them; that carries POWER!)… that also carries cache and a perception of power, for the less popular royals to survive as Monarchy in their own countries. I hope their subjects push back on her move… but she sees herself helping KC3 to help all the monarchies of Europe (What a Punked way to do this).
        Prince Joachim, was right he did not know until it was announced a couple days ago, because Charles probably asked her at the QE2’s funeral to do him this favor. In fact she probably caught Covid from him or one of his coutiers people during the 10 day mourning and making this rancid deal.

      • ChillinginDC says:

        That is fantasy. There’s no way this was done because she wants to give Charles cover. And since Charles has zero intention of removing all of the titles for everyone it doesn’t even make sense. He only plans on not doing styling for Harry’s kids. Charles is fine with working Royals having it. Danish RF seems to be yanking from anyone not the heir and his offspring.

      • LULUbrown says:

        She also didn’t think he would go public to correct her lie.

      • February Pisces says:

        I think both Charles and and queen Margaretha have the same motives. If they both discussed this they may have agreed on the timing because by both doing it in a similar time frame it really helps justify their decision. At the end of the day if the media is using this to justify Charles taking Archie’s and Lili’s titles, then Charles has benefited from this. And that’s no accident or coincidence.

        But queen margaretha still wanted to do this, she may have seen Charles ascension as perfect timing.

  5. M says:

    I read this as all his children lost their titles, not just the oldest. Messy nonetheless!!

  6. Chloe says:

    “ but we hope that the Queen’s wish to future-proof the Royal Palace will be respected,” a spokesperson for the Danish Royal Palace told the outlet.”

    Future proof? What does that even mean?

    • Meija says:

      It doesn’t make sense I read his children get zero money from the crown so what is the purpose

    • Snuffles says:

      Excellent question. Maybe all of the European royals fear that they might be obsolete soon if there are growing cries to abolish them especially in the face of cost of living crises and food insecurity especially after COVID laid bare the rampant inequalities of their class structures.

      They want to APPEAR to be cutting the fat by demoting family members, but the reality is, nothing will change. The royal families will still cost the same to maintain and will probably cost more.

      • Swaz says:

        This is exactly it, they are trying to save the Monarchy by pretending they’re cutting expenses 🤢but the voices to abolishing these houses are getting louder 🤢

      • EllenOlenska says:

        Cutting expenses is fine, but once you decide only the firstborns blood is royal you’re going to run into problems…

    • Athena says:

      They need to explain the decision better. Not only Joachim but Nikolai also has made statements to the press about being hurt by the decision and being told last minute. The announcement makes even less sense when you consider that the children would have lost their title anyway when they get married. The children receive no money from the Danish people. It should have been that going forward only the children of the direct heir receives titles.

      According to CNN the four children have not spoken to their grandmother since the announcement. You would think she would have reached out to them in person to explain. The idea that they are now free to live a “normal” life is false. Taking away the title doesn’t remove the link to the royal family. If one of them mess up in life it will be reported as the grandchild of queen Margrethe or nephew of Prince Frederik. There’s something else going on that they are saying.

  7. Jais says:

    Can they not have foresight and decide the stylings before a child is born? So everyone knows and is on the same page. The taking titles away after birth just seems messy and punitive. Again, abolish all the monarchies and all the titles. If not, be clear before kids are born as to what the titles will be. Also, if titles are to be taken, then take from every grandchild that is not the heir. So the heirs younger kids too. Otherwise, it doesn’t seem fair. Which is of course hilarious bc obv monarchies are not built on fairness or equality.

    • Grace says:

      Joachim had children before his elder brother married. So, for years there was a remote chance that his children would become heirs. What I think is this could have been addressed after Frederik had secured the succession.

      • Jais says:

        Okay but honestly if Frederick never had an heir then later Joachim’s oldest could be given a title.

    • Draadje says:

      That’s why I appreciate the Dutch, they stipulated the stylings of the younger brothers of King W-A since the first one got married. When the children were born there was no drama regarding their titles.

  8. Cessily says:

    It is time to abolish all of these very racist Monarchies. If they would do this to family it just shows that they care nothing for any subject that’s bloodline isn’t 100% white. It is disgusting.

    • usavgjoe says:

      Thank you CESSILY, you are 100% correct… and they will be abolished after many of the baby boomers who support these Colonizers die off in droves, within the next 5 to 10 years. The Younger generations don’t feel the same nostalgia for these subjugated institutions.

      • Couch potato says:

        Actually, a survey done in Norway last winter, showed that 79 % of the young ones prefered a monarchy. Their reasons was that they’d seen the shitshow going on in the US with Trump, the bluntant effort to hinder people in blue areas from voting, the storming on jan 6th etc. Putin was at the time threatning to invade Ukrain, and had expanded the years one could be president in Russia, and basically turned it in to a dictatorship. They prefered to have someone the politicians had to answer for at the top.

      • Philly says:

        While I’m not a fan of the concept of a royal family, countries that are constitutional monarchies rank among the most democratic and egalitarian. Most of the top 10 democratic countries are constitutional monarchies so I don’t see that system of government being replaced in a hurry.

      • equality says:

        Don’t know about all the monarchies but I see the BRF as being quite a bit like Trump. Easy to get along with when things go their way, campaigning to keep their big easy lifestyle and exempting themselves from certain rules and laws, trying to influence voting on referendums, building themselves up with lies in the media, taking and using money in sneaky ways, and a mindset that whatever they do is the “bigglyest” and best and other people don’t measure up.

  9. Lemons says:

    These decisions shouldn’t be made after the birth of a child. They should be made at the very least, once the monarch’s children are no longer minors so that they can make any decisions regarding the future of their line with this in mind. Anything else feels poorly planned out and punitive.

    But I’m enjoying seeing the European royals roll around in the dirt. They must like it because they can’t help themselves from making these terrible decisions.

  10. Nanny to the Rescue says:

    Does the loss of their titles change anything for them, materially? Do they lose funding, security, anything like that? Or is it just a matter of principle that they want to keep them?

    • Grace says:

      No. They’re not losing anything.

      • Jais says:

        So then what’s the point? To give the appearance that the taxpayer is supporting less royals when in reality it doesn’t change the cost of the monarchy for the taxpayer? It’s just if it’s not costing the taxpayers anything for these kids to have titles then what’s the point of taking the titles away. Make the rules clear for the next generation or abolish the monarchy but this just seems silly.

    • Lizzie says:

      The 2 older sons model, I would think being Prince’s is part of why they are sought after. So it’s possible they will loose out financially from this change.
      The whole thing is so arbitrary and what does it really accomplish? There has to be a lot more behind the scenes than we know.

      • Couch potato says:

        Yeah, from what prince Joachim and princess Marie have stated before, they’re being sidelined, and are unhappy about it. I understand why, but this was very messy of queen Margrethe.

        The society has changed a lot over the years, and I think the royal houses (in Scandinavia at least) are aware they can’t keep every “bloodborn” on the payroll. Thanks to princess Martha’s angel school and other projects they’re also acutely aware of how the titles can be misused for monetary gains. The Scandinavian people would NOT quietly accept a royal being handed shoppingbags full of cash or any of the other financial mischiefs the british RF are doing.

    • Shai says:

      They receive no funding at all, it was established a while ago they wouldn’t be on the public payroll so this change seems useless. What does it actually accomplish?

  11. YeahRight says:

    From the little I do know about this royal house this one has the arrogance and entitlement of prince Andrew with that being said his mother just like King Tampon should’ve made that rule BEFORE the spare’s kids were born. Taking title away after the fact is dumb. Let them keep their titles just don’t give them any public money. Let them be like the York sisters otherwise throw the whole institution away if sudden royal blood doesn’t mean anything in that same system.

  12. Amy Too says:

    I’m very interested to hear what Charles is thinking about all this. I wonder if when it was first announced he was like “oh boy, precedent for what I want to do! Yay!” And now that he’s seeing the backlash and infighting in Denmark, he’s like “oh goddamnit.”

    • Anne says:

      +1 I hope Charles and his dim-witted staff are paying very close attention to what’s going down. This backlash will be child’s play compared to the world’s reaction if/when he tries to take away Archie and Lili’s titles. Hope they’re prepared!

  13. rawiya says:

    ” I kind of doubt that Margrethe would completely blind-side her son this way and make it look so punitive out of nowhere” No, she’s the type that would do this. In this particular case, I’m more inclined to believe Joachim.

    Also, how does this work in the future then when she dies and Fred becomes King? When do three of *his* children lose their HRH status? Because going by the precedence she’s set, Isabella and the twins are going to have to be demoted, leaving only Christian as HRH (and his children.) Are Fred’s kids going to get to keep HRH until Christian has an heir? Maybe it would have been better than they kept the “25 years old” rule, and once a child turns 25, unless they’re the heir or heir-heir, they are demoted to Count/Countess.

    • Jess says:

      Not really. Isabella, Vincent, and Josephine will be children of a monarch. Joachim’s kids are grandchildren of a monarch. Big difference.

    • Couch potato says:

      If they want to follow the Norwegian model in the future, only the heirs oldest child gets HRH prince(ess) titles when they’re born, the other children of the heir are prince(ess)es. Martha Louise lost her HRH title either when she became 18 or married if I remember correctly, and non of her children has titles at all. They’re still very much loved grandchildren of the monarch though. Sweden has cut down on the HRH also, but that was done while all the grandchildren were very young.

      • Pilar says:

        That’s slightly incorrect I believe. Martha lost her title because of her commercial enterprises. Not because of age or marriage. She was in her 30s when she lost the right to be called HRH. She kept her princess title but doesn’t seem to be very popular. A survey showed that only 13% of the Norwegian population wants her to represent the royal household. She’s also lost patronage’s because of her new age anti science stand. I think she is doing a grand job taking down the monarchy 😂

      • Couch potato says:

        I stand corrected! She gave it up, because she wanted to work commercially. She’s not very popular at the moment, no, but I doubt that will take down the monarchy. Most norwegians have already known for years that she’s “special”.

    • Mary says:

      @Rawiya, I also believe Joachim as far as his being blindsided by the titles being yanked away from his children. His spokesperson clarified that the plan raised in May of which Joachim was informed, was still tentative and not put forth as a sure thing. So when he referred to the plan that each child lost his or her princely title at 25, his spokesperson is saying that even that plan had only been discussed as a possibility and not as a sure thing to his knowledge.

      Also, of note, in response to Joachim’s statements that his children were blindsided by the decision, the Palace stated that the decision was a long time coming. It did not state that Joachim and his children had been informed and kept apprised of the plan to take all of their titles away soon. So, the rebuttal was non-responsive, in that it did not even address Joachim’s gripes about, in part, lack of notice.

      Finally, it was even being reported that Joachim did not get the news from his own mother but rather palace staff. If the plan is executed in a pissy fashion I am going to easily believe that the plan is a pissy one. In other words, this was not about the good of the monarchy this was about hurting Joachim and his children for some reason.

    • notasugarhere says:

      If it doesn’t make any difference, no funding is involved, and isn’t related to which ones will be working royals? The titles and HRHs would also have been stripped from Fred&Mary’s three younger children at the same time. The DRF announced several years ago that only the eldest would be a working royal, the other three have to go out and earn livings. But she only took titles from the younger son’s kids, which is what raises so many questions and doesn’t make sense. There’s no need for Fred’s three younger kids to have titles, whether or not they’re children of a future monarch, when they’ll be removed when they’re older anyway.

  14. Brassy Rebel says:

    I also thought that it was fundamentally racist, as it would be if Charles stripped Harry’s kids of their titles. Maybe the two younger kids are just collateral damage and are being used as cover.

    I am opposed to monarchy and hereditary titles on principal. But for a grandmother to publicly humiliate her grandchildren in this way is pretty bad.

    • Athena says:

      What probably happened is that the queen sat in a room with a bunch of middle age white Danish men and made this decision. Not one of them thought about the race of two of those children’s mother. Not one of them thought about social media or how this will play out.

      She should have had the courtesy to look the children in the eye and tell them herself before making an announcement.

      I understand that the Danish people love her, but her own husband refused to be buried next to her so maybe in her personal life she’s not that great.

      • Amie says:

        From what I’ve read, Prince Henrik, Margrethe’s husband, chafed at not getting a king title and remaining a prince and always being second fiddle to Margrethe. I think Prince Philip also struggled with this but he was more private about it and Queen Elizabeth let him do his own thing as long as he was discreet about it. It’s ridiculously sexist but it seems back in the day if a woman inherited the throne due to lack of male heirs, she could become Queen but her husband could not be called King because a King title traditionally supersedes the Queen title (why we have Queen Consort Camilla but Prince Philip remained Prince Philip his whole life though he was elevated to Duke of Edinburgh, but still not a king title).

        So Henrik was called Prince Henrik his whole life and he hated it. There was definitely some fragile ego masculinity stuff involved but not sure how overall Margrethe and Henrik’s marriage is viewed. I’m wondering if some female heirs will have their consorts called King? Like Crown Princess Victoria of Sweden or Princess Leonor of Spain?

  15. Jess says:

    I don’t think this is racially motivated just more heir/spare nonsense. All grandchildren of a Monarch can have the princely title and live private lives (except the direct heir). No need to take them away retroactively. Danes on their instagram account were mostly displeased.

    Mary also said they will look at her own children which is odd because they will be children of a monarch not just grandchildren. Royalists don’t seem to be happy at all except Sussex haters. I assume Isabella and Josephine will want to live abroad and Vincent seems like he will privately support his parents and brother and maybe that’s why she said that.

  16. Pumpkin (Was Sofia) says:

    I honestly think Joachim’s kids could have kept the titles but they could have announced that their spouses and any children they have won’t have HRH Prince/Princess titles. Or even gone one step further and said they can still have them legally but they won’t be used for any activities even official palace communications.

    No matter what the reason or what family, retroactively taking titles away like this looks like a punishment/bad thing. It has negative connotations to it even if the reasons for it aren’t negative.

  17. HeyKay says:

    How strange these royals are, all of them.
    I mean to say, they have no actual work or power to run the country, they are figureheads.
    Who are good for tourism. And pomp, parades, etc.

    What a terrible way to treat your family.
    The first born is The One. The rest of you are extras at the table.
    WTH? All day long, what?

  18. Spaghetten says:

    There’s also a bit of backstory here of Joachim and Marie being sidetracked and sent to live in France, officially because Joachim wanted to pursue a special military degree for a year, but then that turned into a full time job at the Danish embassy in Paris. Marie has said publicly that it was not their choice to move to France. The last 5-6 years it has become more and more obvious that the Crown wanted to focus on Frederik’s family as the direct line, and Joachim has fought that and has tried to stay relevant. There are rumors that Mary and Marie don’t get along, and that Mary has been a big part of sidelining Joachim and Marie.

    This is a rare misstep on the Queen’s part tbh. It’s become crystal clear that she did not speak with Joachim about this, and she didn’t even tell him personally that this was happening. Like QEII before her, she chose the Crown over the family, and it shows. Joachim is HURT! And I honestly don’t blame him – it comes across as super petty, punitive and honestly super unnecessary. The kids don’t receive any money and would have lost their titles eventually anyway. They should have just let it play out.

    Finally, I’m certain this is not racially motivated at all. Alexandra, Joachim’s first wife, was extremely popular in Denmark when they got married, and the Queen is still quite fond of her.

    • sparrow says:

      Thank you for the back story. Much appreciated and made for better understanding for me.

    • Anita says:

      Thank you for the backstory. Yes, Joachim could barely speak. It cut deep, this move.

    • Mary says:

      @sphagettwn, I agree with everything you said except about it not being racially motivated. While the queen didn’t seem to have a problem with Alexandra and her children what about Mary? I had heard for a long time that Mary was at odds with anyone in that family that seemed to take away attention from her and her family.

      As I mentioned on another related thread Mary always struck me as the Kate in the Danish family. Basic woman attracts a prince, loses a ton of weight, has all kinds of work done on her face and possibly her body, spends a sh*t ton of money on designer clothes and seems to resent attention focused on other members of the family. The only difference I see between Kate and Mary is that Mary actually works hard for the monarchy. Mary is also said to have, and exert, the power in the relationship with her husband. I could see the Queen yanking the kids’ titles to placate Mary. Were any of Mary’s motivations racial? We don’t know. But it sure looks bad.

    • notasugarhere says:

      That’s a lot of how it feels to me. They didn’t want to leave Denmark, Margrethe arranged a ‘job’ for Joachim to get them out, and things are getting messy. I could see Mary not liking Marie, and Marie not wanting to be ordered out of the country because Mary doesn’t want her there. Neither of them had a big career before marriage, no matter what Mary’s fans like to say. But Marie was raised in those circles, feels comfortable in them, and speaks five languages. She and Joachim were set up by mutual friends after Alex had moved on photographer Martin J (second husband) during their secret separation-headed-to-divorce. Mary always seems to be trying too hard to be accepted (like Kate), the whole Starmakers debacle and her public lies, and only speaks two languages. For someone who feels insecure in their role or position, Marie fitting in more easily could grate.

      Agreed, Mary. CP Mary is the Kate of the Danish royal family. I think she loves the role, the status, the designer clothes, the budget, the attention. Puts up with the repeat cheating in exchange for the title. To me, Margrethe is naturally interesting but Mary isn’t, so she tries to make up for it with clothes and jewels. As for working hard? Her calendar shows roughly 90-100 days of work a year. They’re not workhorses.

  19. AA says:

    I agree they should let them keep the titles but change it for future generations…but this whole thing is kind of hilarious to me. OH NO, I’M NO LONGER A PRINCE! haha. But I get it, if you’d been one your whole life, it may be part of your identity.

  20. matthew says:

    sorry but I just can’t seem to get upset about titles being stripped

    • NemesisPuff says:

      Yes, what do we think “abolishing the monarchy” means? “The people have spoken! You and your bloodline are not better than anyone else, you were not picked by a god!…But, yes, please feel free to keep calling yourself and your family names that only royals are entitled to, we must give you that. It’s all you’ve known, after all! That’s only fair. Anyways, after you, your highness.”

      Like wtf. I think here’s a lot of conflation of feelings that I don’t believe royal families feel the same way as us plebes. Not saying they’re not human, but let’s not be so naive to act outraged like this is the equivalent to our grandmas giving better gifts to our cousins, or our brother’s kids. No. Monarchies raise their families to uphold the idea of the monarchy. Part of that is the, yes, sh!t!y idea that depending on your birth order, your role in the monarchy is more or less important. They raise their kids to know their place in the monarchy. I’m sure it would suck to be a princess one day and not the next. But a princess who knows she’s like, 20th in the line of succession isn’t going to be at a loss for what her role in the monarchy is now, with the title stripped at any random point.

      I don’t have any context for the Danish RF, so you can breeze past this if you want. But I don’t think the lede “queen slims down monarchy by removing titles from those members not in direct line of succession” needs more context for me to agree with the general idea. I say, yeah, remove titles from everyone—child or grandchild—of the monarch, but the direct line (ideally, them too). And if something happens to change that line of succession and someone gets “promoted”, then they can get the title of prince or princess or thoust grand arbiter of all things good and cheesy or whatever useless name they want.

      There’s a lot more to feel outraged about in this day and age about monarchies and colonialism and inherited wealth and power—I don’t need to spend any of that energy feeling bad for grandkids who are…not losing the leg-up they already have in this world in any way. Who are not losing grandma-love. Maybe this queen is a huge B and has said shady things about Meghan—that doesn’t seem relevant here. She could be a huge B and still be doing something that other RFs have done in the past. Maybe with less tact, but, again, so what. Holding monarchies to account won’t always have a tactful route either.

      And as I said yesterday, I can’t extend this same benefit of the doubt to Charles and the BRF because they are actively fuelling the racist hate mongering against a WOC and have done so from the beginning. That’s my interest in royal families. They are born into these anachronistic structures that every part of me needs to fight against (white supremacy, classism, colonialism etc.) and I get the same righteous schadenfreude as I do when watching Karen meltdowns caught on tape.

      I like Meghan and Harry, but I trust their opinion even more *because* they left the monarchy. I agree, their kids shouldn’t be denied their birthright titles when there’s no precedent of doing that to other grandchildren. But rather than Archie and Lili getting titles, I think everyone from Louis to Eugenie should lose their titles (and security should be provided by risk not rank). I think Anne should be higher in the line of succession than Andrew (and since they’re both so far down the line of succession, they should also lose their titles). Put those Letters Patent forward, Charles. Then I’ll believe you want a “slimmed down” monarchy and not just a “slim white” monarchy.

      • C says:

        This kind of argument makes little sense to me? You either want a monarchy gone or don’t, you don’t agree with “slimming it down”. It’s fine if you don’t want to have sympathy but be consistent at least.

      • notasugarhere says:

        If they wanted a slimmed down monarchy, that means everyone below George has titles and HRH stripped. Only heir would be working royal, none of the spares. Kate fans cannot stand the idea that Charlotte should be treated like Archie and Lilibet, but that’s what a real stripped down BRF would mean.

      • equality says:

        That would get very interesting if KC tried to strip Anne of the Princess Royal title.

  21. OriginalLeigh says:

    All of these royal houses are contradicting themselves. They want people to buy into the notion that they have this special blood that makes them entitled to fancy titles and better treatment, but they also want to us to accept that they can randomly pick and choose which blood family members have those entitlements? All of these farcical monarchies need to be abolished…

    • Mary says:

      You are absolutely right in that this calls into question the whole basis for one’s place in, and existence of, a monarchy. It is as though they really did not think this through.

  22. ChillinginDC says:

    Look no one should even have a monarchy. But it seems based on Joachim and his now wife, they were getting involved in messiness because they thought they were equal to the heir to the throne. Why they got booted to France. And his kids have been using their Royal connections for things. It’s not great how this was done, but I can see why they did it. The Queen not calling Joachim about it though sucks. Unless she and her courtiers did tell him and he just ignored it and acted like it wasn’t happening. There seems to be some disconnect between what she is saying and what he is claiming he was told.

    • Mary says:

      Joachim’s “kids have been using their Royal connections for things.”. Like this has never happened before. 😂. Perhaps the Queen could have, like, actually talked to her grandkids about this? From her grandkid’s shocked reaction about his title being taken away (Nikolai?), it would appear that no one explained to him how some of his ventures might not be appreciated by the Firm. The two oldest boys are models for goodness sakes. It’s not like they sexually assaulted an underage girl.

  23. Well Wisher says:

    There is more to this story than is reported.

    • Feeshalori says:

      @WW, there always is, isn’t it?

    • molly says:

      Agreed. I’m surprised Joachim is being this bold and public about his anger. It made sense when Alexandra was doing it, but he’s airing a lot of dirty laundry in the most public way possible.

  24. Kit says:

    I don’t know l heard a few things about Daisy over de years, l don’t think Frederick had much of a relationship with his mother, he wanted to marry another lady before Mary and was told NO !! Also didn’t she lose the plot at a photo shoot years ago at a young photographer, was very mean to him, does any Danish person know more about this ??.

    By all accounts Daisy had a brilliant relationship with Alexandera and gifted her a family tiara and was allowed to keep it in their divorce and is still invited to family and state events.

    I suppose Joachim didn’t help himself by selling de Royal.Estate his mother gave him, l believe this didnt go down well in Denmark , while soon after through his family connections got a job in Paris while still on de Royal.payroll.?? I heard today both model grandsons where becoming a embarrassment to Daisy through their work, but who knows maybe there is something else going on.????

    • notasugarhere says:

      This isn’t based on Joachim’s behavior or that of his kids, more that Margrethe is trying to clean up messes she made by making more messes. Margrethe liked that Alexandra was popular and increased the popularity of the monarchy, doesn’t mean she liked her personally. She also pulled a fast one on the taxpayers and got Alexandra’s alimony paid by the people.

      It wasn’t a royal estate. Someone left the estate to the private family, Margrethe decided Joachim had to be a farmer when he grew up. Joachim was a terrible farmer, hated it. As it was his private property, he sold the majority interest and bought a house in Copenhagen. His two elder sons are students and part-time models to pay for that. I doubt Margrethe disapproves of that, because she embraces the publicly tacky Greek arm of the family.

  25. catcan says:

    Society functioned as a class system once upon a time. That simply isn’t the case anymore, so these titles are outdated and irrelevant.
    Anyone clinging to a title simply reveals themselves as “classist”.

  26. Molly says:

    Sorry, but I’m having a hard time mustering any outrage for someone being called Countess instead of Princess. Maybe it’s just me?

    • NemesisPuff says:

      Nope! Got room on the bench for me?

    • RoyalBlue says:

      Exactly. This is their entitlement showing. Think about it. Someone expressing outrage at being demoted from a manmade position in society. These titles like knight, king, lord, prince, count etc. were all designed to create classes in society with the single purpose to divide and conquer people. They are just upset they are losing their privilege. Get over it.

      But I will add it was done in a most cruel manner. The Queen should have told the family to their face.

    • FhMom says:

      I said the same thing above.

    • Lisa says:

      ITA, a lot of the poor seem to be worried for these young adult/kids but I suspect they will be exactly the same as they have always been

  27. Amie says:

    I’m wondering if this is due to family tensions too, like with the Windsors. Do Prince Joachim and Prince Frederik get along? Do their wives Princess Mary and Princess Marie get along? It also really doesn’t help that Prince Felix and Prince Nikolai are mixed race because it looks like they’re being punished for it (yes I know the other siblings are white but still a bad look). It sounds like Joachim and Marie have struggled to carve a role for themselves in the Danish royal institution and maybe Margrethe thought “I will set my grandchildren free so they don’t have to suffer the same fate as Joachim and be lost and adrift as adults.” But… she waited a little too long to do that. This should have been decided before Alexandra and Joachim had Nikolai and Felix, not 23 years after the fact (Nikolai is 23 now).

  28. AnneL says:

    I don’t approve of monarchies in general, but I think it was wrong of her to take the titles away at this point in their lives. If there was always an understanding that the titles would go away when they hit 25, OK, at least they would have been prepared. I suppose ideally they never would have had them at all. But they did, and the way this happened probably stung a bit.

    I mean, this is their grandmother. If “Prince” or “Princess” has always preceded your name, it probably feels like part of your name and identity. Then someone you love and who supposedly loves you yanks it away prematurely? I can see why their father is miffed. It just feels like a punishment or demotion, even if that’s not the spirit in which it was intended. I think it must hurt.

    All the more reason to do away with these preposterous institutions, IMO.

  29. Miss Jupitero says:

    I think all of this will bring us all closer to abolishing monarchy, period. I personally am fine with that. I’d like to see this happen in my lifetime. Their reaction just underscores for me how destructive monarchy and aristocracy are in general. If being called “countess” instead of “princess” counts as such a horrifying injustice, then I really hope that all of their titles swiftly go down the Hershey Highway. Bring it on.

  30. Z says:

    I don’t really follow Denmarks royal family but what is so difficult about letting the children keep their titles and then when they are old enough to work, and they choose to work normal jobs just have them not use the styling….But to take their titles away, especially when they’ve had them since birth seems cruel to me.

    • RoyalBlue says:

      I believe they are getting a lot of pressure about having a royal family, regarding the costs and also the protocols. People have to curtsey to not only the monarch, but their siblings, cousins grandchildren and anyone with a royal title. It’s a bit ridiculous in modern society to do such a thing and the sooner hereditary monarchy is scrapped, the better.

      • Saucy&Sassy says:

        RoyalBlue, frankly, they need to toss out any requirement for a courtsey. The bowed head could just be for the monarch & spouse, but no one else in the family. That will take care of that concern.

      • Krity says:

        That is a common misconception. While there are family “expectations,” no one else is “required” to curtsy or bow to any royalty. The BRF website addresses this directly, and it is the common practice in the other European royal families. So, fear not, a handshake is perfectly appropriate!

  31. Edna X Mode says:

    I now truly think that Crown Princess Mary was Uninvited to the Queens funeral so that Charles the turd could have a quiet meeting with the Danish Queen and or Crown Prince. At one point i saw her walking on tv with another country’s royal and Crown Prince was no where in sight. and a week later this news?

    what really bothers me is that a Dukedom is forever down the family line thru time – the House” can last a thousand years via Eldest Son and his children grandhildren lordsladys and Earls/Barons.

    Harry is the *only person in these different royal houses who has *already had his Dukedom /his “house” and thus his children and future great/grand childrens “birthrights already taken away. the Only spare in all the houses!

    When Prince Edward of UK got married in 1999, the queen Elizabeth announced and you can still find BBC etc articles, that his children would Not be using an HRH or be called prince Princess but still would have their House” name eg Earl of Essex etc , from the day of their birth call them James Viscount Servern and Lady Louise and James’ line would inherit those rights and titles and “soft power” for ever as long as son being born

    But for Harry and Prince Harry only: CHarles -and the queen when alive – refused to call Harry’s chilren what they are by law from birth Lord/earl and Lady lily. they keep lying and say Harry asked to give up his “house”dukedom and call his little boy “Master”. those english men are vile.

  32. JMoney says:

    Here’s my theory, I don’t think all the European royals inform the other European monarchies, I think each does what they want. However given that Kate’s first solo “international” trip was in Denmark where she met with Crown Princess Mary and Queen Margarethe (or however you spell her name), I think perhaps those royals might be closer to the British ones that one might think.

    My theory is that Charles will strip not just Archie and Lili but he’s going to do the same with Beatrice, Eugenie and the Wessexes children and have them all be Counts and Countesses but no HRH in one fell swoop to avoid being labelled racist. The new rule will be only children from the heir to the throne will get HRH and Prince and Princesses and those who are Prince and Princesses that are not heirs to the throne (i.e. the spares) their kids will get count and countess to limit who gets to be a prince or princess. I could be totally wrong but this is what I”m thinking b/c it does streamline who gets to be an HRH and prince and princess and who does not.

    While this is racially motivated, I don’t think Twitter will be up and arms over this b/c many poc are not royalists. You can’t say you’re anti monarchy but then defending someone over not getting a title (esp when that someone is already privileged) which is unearned privilege given by a White Supremacist monarchy that enforces classism and capitalism due to racism. This Queen Margarethe story was trending (not even in the top) in royal twitter news only and was featured in People but outside of that it was mostly crickets. Sussex Squad will come out for Archie and Lili but b/c Charles will do this to not just Archie and Lili (again this is my theory and I could be wrong) I don’t think it will get the outrage that many people on here are expecting it will get.

    • tamsin says:


      Interesting, but I think all of this is highly unlikely. Charles is not going to strip everyone of their titles and make everyone earls and countesses. Besides, I don’t think women can inherit titles as it’s all through the male line. Stripping his siblings of titles would be a step too far. Each royal family seems to have their own system. The Danish kids already have the count titles. I believe this whole slimming down thing started with the Dutch Royal family, by distinguishing between those who are part of the Royal Household and those that are part of the royal family. I assume only royal household members are get government money. The whole issue is about titles, period and not a matter of giving everyone new and lower titles. Denmark has been more extreme than other royals. I believe in Sweden, all the children are still prince and princesses, just not HRH’s. The Queen of Denmark is removing everything once the children reach the age of 25, which is a new wrinkle. How does it help to suddenly lose your title after a certain period? Is she telling them they have 25 years to use their titles as clout? In Denmark’s case, Joachim’s two boys are both training for a life of work and do not seem to have been raised with the idea that they will do royal “work” seeing as Fred and Mary seemed to have ensured a large working family by having four children.

      • JMoney says:

        @tasmin. I dont’ think he will strip his siblings but his nieces and nephews since Charles’ siblings were children of the monarch, they won’t get their titles removed however since they are spares and not the heir, their children (i.e. Charles’ nieces and nephews) those who have prince and princesses titles will have it removed

  33. Mel says:

    This sounds more like a Her and Him problem than a they problem.

  34. L4Frimaire says:

    What a mess. Talk about real life game of thrones. It seems like maybe royal families should have a one-child policy, instead of having a bunch of spares to treat like crap once they’ve outgrown their usefulness. Just bank some embryos instead. Instead of this resolving whatever problem they supposedly had ( was this actually an issue over there?), it’s just opened up a can of bitterness. Margarethe’s husband didn’t like her much at the end either. Anyway, smile and wave folks, because there will be little sympathy for them in the grand scheme of things. Is it ok to say former prince Alexander or former princess Athena now?

  35. Flower says:

    Doesn’t Queen Margrethe have form for something similar with even her late husband ?

    This all feels very petty and like the remnants of a feud that Queen Margrethe had with her late husband Prince Consort Henrik. Even the tile Count of Montpezat feels messy when you consider the origins.

    • aftershocks says:

      ^^ As @Tamsin mentioned above, Prince Joachim’s kids already have the Count/ Countess of Monpezat titles. I’m not sure if they always had those as secondary titles from birth, or whether they were recently bestowed as a strategic part of this ‘stripping’ plan. In any case, since they already have the secondary titles, those are what they will be left with, not newly assuming in lieu of.

  36. Mrs.Krabapple says:

    This is why inherited titles are so stupid. Just get rid of ALL of them. If a country insists they “need” a monarch — and I can’t imagine why any country would need a hereditary monarch — then make that the ONLY title that is recognized. None of the kids gets titles. When someone else ascends the throne (whether it’s the first born, the smartest, the one people elected, etc.), THEN that person can get a title as the monarch. Until then, why give anyone a title at all? It’s just stupid.

  37. ThandieLand says:

    ” the Queen’s wish to *future-proof the Royal Palace*”. what does that really mean? I found this curious phrasing.

    • Jennifer says:

      Possibly racist….? I hate to say it, but ruling certain people out of the royal family kinda sounds bad…

  38. Mary says:

    So, did the Queen yank just Joachim’s kids’ titles or did she make a general change in the system going forward starting with her grandchildren’s generation that only children of heirs will be titled? The reports I’ve read only seem to focus on the divestment of the current non-heir grandkids’ titles.

  39. JRenee says:

    To take the titles back to me seems petty and dismissive, especially for adults. To put something in place going forward seems like the way to go if her intentions are pure 🤔

  40. Miss Jupitero says:

    My magic 8 ball says that this is just the beginning. The very concept of royalty is on its way out. More and more countries are going reject royal heads of state.

    QM sound like a cold fish, but she’s not wrong. These kids will be better off without titles. They will be able to quietly live their lives with their obscene levels of wealth and privilege. I’m not losing any sleep over their fates. They can and they should form better identities.

    The real issue I think is with all this unearned and often hidden wealth. The stolen jewels and treasures. When the royal families of Europe start returning what is not theirs, real change will be upon us. Until then, were just going to see princes and princesses turning into garden variety outrageously rich people. That’s not enough for me.

    • theotherviv says:

      This. I think there is also a slight chance that QM is just finally fed up with Joachim possibly misbehaving. I also wouldn’t put it past her to think that his kids are turning into brats. I can not forget how weirdly relieved/surprised QM looked when Joachim remarried Marie. He may be a piece of work and this just accelerated the winds of change.

  41. Julybean says:

    I can’t feel bad for any royal. Waaaaaa booohoooo I lost a “title”

    None of them should have any title or privilege this day in age. Such a crock of crap.

    • Haylie says:

      If it was about what’s best for the children, then strip all of them and do away with the whole monarchy. She didn’t do that. So all her talk is BS.

  42. Annalise says:

    If his childrens’ identity is entirely based on being princes and princesses, then that is a whole other problem unto itself. And frankly, a much BIGGER problem. If I was their parent, THAT would definitely be my priority, giving my children a sense of identity based on things they have done, things they have earned etc etc…. Not something that came to them with no effort on their part. Frankly, I think that’s how Prince Andrews and Prince Williams come to be.
    That being said, it sounds like more care could have been taken to prepare the children for this change.

  43. Jean says:

    I find myself agreeing with her decision, if a monarchy should exist it should be limited to the monarch and direct heir, nobody else should receive public funding or own palaces they didn’t buy or even titles. Bad timing maybe but it’s the right thing. As for racism, most people from that era and class of society are usually slightly racially biased, nothing new.

    • notasugarhere says:

      They aren’t receiving public funding or housing, the HRH and title doesn’t give them those things. If it is about who will be a working royal and who won’t? Seven of her grandkids would have had their titles and HRH’s stripped all at once. Joachim’s children wouldn’t have received titles at birth, and only the first Fred&Mary child would have gotten a title at birth. But that’s not what happened. Only the eldest Fred&Mary child will be a working royal, that has already been announced. So the seven other grandkids should all have had the HRH and titles stripped at the same time. She’s done this deliberately to Joachim’s family and we don’t know why.

  44. Rita says:

    Queen Margrethe has often encouraged the Danish people to be open to immigrants in her yearly new year speeches. There has never, ever been any indication that she did not like Alexandra or that A or her children were bullied. On the contrary, A and the boys are some of the more popular royals – more popular than Joachim, her ex and the boys’ father.

    What DID happen in Denmark is that Margrethe married a French count (Henri) back in the day, and he was always the butt of the joke with the Danes, partially because it took him very long to learn Danish (which is unfair since its superhatd to learn). Alexandra was respected from day one, and everyone was wowed with the fact that she did her wedding speech i Danish.

    What ALSO happened is that Margrethe and Joachim fell out when Joachim divorced Alexandra. It was not A’s choice. Sympathy was on her side in the media, the population and apparently the queen and crown prince Frederik also sided with her. She kept her princess and hrh until she remarried, she was set up in a big mansion of her own choice, she remained a working royal until Nicolai turned 18 and then she chose to quit. She is still doing a lot of work with different organisations. She was always liked and admired for her level of education, skills and work ethics in Denmark.

    Alexandra has lived in Denmark since 1995. It’s a small country and sure there is racism here like there is anywhere. But the queen is cutting off Joachim and his side of the family to slim down the monarchy, not because the two oldest kids maternal grandmother was Asian.

    • aftershocks says:

      ^^ Thanks for this explanation. It’s helpful to get the backstory from royal observers in-the-know. Apparently, without a doubt, this Danish royal family drama has echoes of problems accommodating the spare, and jealousies getting aroused. In this instance, it appears to be the younger brother feeling left out, a bit jealous perhaps, and at loose ends with feeling wanted and useful.

      In the UK, Will was over-protected at the expense of a younger brother who possesses far greater leadership skills, character, and work ethic. Will, the first-born heir has demonstrated obvious jealousy toward his brother Harry for years. Plus, Will has an aversion to working, and he clearly lacks the capacity for productive leadership.

    • notasugarhere says:

      The divorce not Alexandra’s choice? Please. She was having an extra marital affair with Martin J for years, the photographer she ended up marrying (and divorcing). She and Joachim weren’t allowed to divorce earlier because Fred was dragging his feet about Mary, but Alexandra moved on to Martin long before the separation was announced publicly. Alexandra’s popularity enabled Margrethe to pull one over on the taxpayers, to have them pay her alimony in the form of ‘royal apanage’. She didn’t graciously ‘quit’ when her eldest turned 18. Taxpayers and govt officials were publicly calling for her to give up those payments long before Alexandra agreed to give them up. And called her out for using those payments to purchase two luxury homes in Turkey.

      Margrethe’s comments in 2015/6 tell a different story. ‘Denmark is not a multicultural country’, comments about some immigrant groups willing to adapt and become ‘Danish’ and others not, etc.

      If she was removing titles and HRH from any child who won’t be a working royal, to slim down the monarchy? She would also have removed them from Fred&Mary’s three youngest at the same time. They’ve already announced only Christian will be a working royal, so slimming down the monarchy and titles also applies to those three younger F/M kids too.

      • Rita says:

        @notasugarhere You are referring to rumours, and leaving out other rumours (that Joachim had extramarital affairs with his male footman etc etc before Alexandra’s affair with Martin). I don’t know about all that, and I don’t see where it fits in with the racism claims. My point is that the queen and Frederik sided with Alexandra after the divorce, and the rift has been with Joachim. Sure, it’s punitive and a bit stupid to cut him off by cutting off his four children (two with Alex and two with Marie). But just because it’s not a great or well carried out decision doesn’t automatically make it a racist decision.

        This is blowing up in the Danish media btw. Alexandra was the first to comment Wednesday – ahe commented on behalf of herself, Joachim and Nicolai/Felix. Thursday Joachim gave the whiny comments from Paris. Today he and Marie gave an interview to a Danish tabloid, stating they still haven’t talked to the queen about her decision. It has been known that Joachim has a strained relationship with Margrethe and Frederik and that it started at the time of the divorce from Alexandra.

      • notasugarhere says:

        It was Henrik with the footman/men, not Joachim. The royal family wanted Joachim to put up with a cheating wife and unhappy marriage. Just as Margrethe accepted Henrik’s wandering and Mary puts up with Fred’s constant cheating. Oh just accept it, Joachim, the first divorce in 100+ years would look bad for our royal PR. They wanted the popular princess to stick around, didn’t want to side with the member of the family (Joachim) who didn’t want to stay in an unhappy marriage for royal PR. Maybe Joachim is the one member of the family who doesn’t like cheaters or cheating.

        Alexandra and Joachim’s marriage broke very early on, their second son was a band aid baby, but they weren’t allowed to divorce until Fred finally agreed to get married. Alexandra moved on long before the marriage legally ended, long before the separation was announced.

        If this *was* about slimming down, all seven of her non-heir grandkids would have had titles and HRH removed. Only removing it from Joachim’s kids doesn’t track with that and leads to questions – including racism.

    • Mary says:

      @Rita, you state that there is no racism because “the queen is cutting off Joachim and his side of the family to slim down the monarchy.”. Yet, the announcement divesting Royal titles made by the palace only appears to apply to Joachim’s’ descendants (found out the answer to my question above!). If the queen wanted to truly slim down the monarchy she would have established a policy going forward that only children of the heir and his/her heir would be titled. As it stands, however, only Joachim’s children are affected. All of Frederick’s male-line grandchildren will have princely titles. How is that slimming down the monarchy and not a selective, punitive action? And just how does that make it look like it is not racism?

      • notasugarhere says:

        This is also from a country that is essentially deporting migrants and refugees so they cannot get Danish citizenship. For several years, agencies have been targeting migrants and refugees who have 5-6 years residency in Denmark. They want them gone before the magic 7 years of residency and the ability to apply for citizenship.

  45. msd says:

    Oh cry me a river.

    He and his kids serve no purpose. I mean, even less purpose than the ones with an actual chance of replacing Margrethe.

    It’s tone deaf, especially right now. They’re still very rich and very privileged, on the public purse. I seriously doubt this came completely out of the blue either.

    If your kids are ‘upset’, as a parent it’s your job to explain things and make them feel better. Instead the adults appear to be stoking the drama by using the kids to complain, via the media, about lost status and reduced privilege.

    • Annalise says:

      @MSD- I could not agree more!!! And it’s not like the kids are completely UN-titled!! They’re still Count whatever whatever, and like you said, still rich and still on the publics teat! This Joaquin guy sounded like THE biggest baby, all “waaah my rich, privelaged kids have to settle for lesser titles!!!”
      I hate to say it but it sounds like he might be raising a bunk of jerks à la Prince Andrew.

  46. msd says:

    Oh goodness, I just saw the cringey 2021 Raffles hotel campaign featuring “Prince Nikolai.”

    Using the royal title to make $ no doubt helped QM make her decision.

    And yes, I’m aware other ‘royals’ do dodgy stuff like this — and it hurts the monarchy.

    • BeanieBean says:

      Just watched it. Oh my! I don’t know quite what to make of that.

    • L4Frimaire says:

      I hardly think that merits stripping his title. It’s just some cheesy ad. A bit much but not exactly doing arms deals with despots.

      • msd says:

        It wasn’t why but it may have sped up the move. Monetising the title won’t make her sympathetic to changing her position either.

    • notasugarhere says:

      You must not have watched the behavior of the Greek arm of the family, ones she openly embraces AND gave ‘real’ Danish titles to. Nikolai’s job isn’t the reason behind this weird move of hers.

  47. Fatherhat says:

    How can it possibly be r*cism when Queen Margrethe’s decision also affects Prince Joachim’s two youngest children who he has with Princess Marie? Last time I checked, Marie is white just like her husband. White as the mountains of Caucasus. Unless something has changed: Two white parents equals two white children, non?

    All four of his children are being treated equitably: They will now be referred to as His and Her Excellency, Count or Countess of Monzepat. Racism is a real thing; arguments like these make a mockery of it. Being called “His Excellency” is discriminatory now? Unless it’s also reverse racism!!!

    Nikolai may not be able to use “Prince Nikolai” during ads for hotels but he can use “His Excellency”. I can’t believe they’re crying because of this. It’s embarrassing.