Jump to content

Talk:House of Monpezat

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Official name

[edit]

Out of curiosity, has there been official word from the palace that the royal house will be Laborde de Monpezat when Frederik ascends the throne? The Dutch royal family is the House of Orange despite three generations of queens marrying into the family. I assumed the royal house stays the same. Likewise, the British Royal House is still Windsor, despite Philip's surname being Mountbatten/SHSG. Just wondering, since there is obviously no precedent for this, but there must be something from the royal house saying what the official house name is. Morhange (talk) 04:22, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, there is no announcement yet. As far as I know, the British Royal House will be Mountbatten-Windsor upon the ascension of the current Prince of Wales. I think some kind of law/announcement was passed some time ago. On a different topic, the surname of their descendants (which are not part of royal family will be changed into Mountbatten-Windsor), while the royal family will have "Windsor" unchanged. I am not so sure about the newborns. (correct me if I am wrong). Though it is logical to assume that the royal house will be Laborde de Monpezat upon the ascension of Frederik, I question it as there is no official statement (at least from what I know)w.tanoto-soegiri (talk) 16:29, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Found it [1] w.tanoto-soegiri (talk) 16:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In effect, they will take the coat-of-arms of the shield of Oldenburg (the Royal House of Denmark) and of Laborde de Monpezat

I partly doubt this information. Prince Joachim has used the combination of Oldenburg and Laborde de Monpezat in his inescutcheon for a long time but no sources mention that Crown Prince Fredrik has any plans to do so. Is it a bad translation of the french version of this page? --Thathánka Íyotake (talk) 01:51, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

House of Denmark

[edit]

The Royal House of Denmark is the House of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg. Crown Prince Frederik is a member of the House of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg. The House of Laborde de Monpezat does not exist in Denmark. The Princes, their wives and their children have recently been given the Danish additional titles of Count/Countess of Montpezat (not Laborde de Montpezat) in honour of Prince Henrik, but the name of the reigning House is not affected. See http://kongehuset.dk/publish.php?dogtag=k_dk_familien There are no plans to change the names and this would be foolish as opinion polls report that Prince Henrik is not very well liked. Harlay (talk) 20:50, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Move?

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was no consensus. @harej 13:33, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


House of Laborde de Monpezat → House of Monpezat — Relisted. @harej 16:50, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The current title is a mixture of French and English. In referencing the Danish Royal Family, all of the Queen's agnatic descendants hold the title Count(ess) of Monpezat, not Laborde de Monpezat. Initially, also, according to thePrince Consort's article, the family was "noble" with the name/title de Monpezat. — 142.68.80.29 (talk) 21:06, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose: This move request is based on several errors. It's not clear that the children of Margrethe II legally or personally bear the surname "de Laborde de Monpezat" (which is what their paternal ancestor's name was legally changed into 19 May 1861, was the surname under which Henri wed Margrethe, and which has never been changed by any legal process or public declaration). But they certainly do not bear the surname "de Monpezat" or "Monpezat" -- and no decree, document, or usage says otherwise. Nor was Henrik's family ever noble in France, a fact both Wiki's article acknowledges and Henrik acknowledged in his autobiography: his ancestor assumed the title of count in the late 19th century, which would have been considered consistent with French custom if the family had ever been noble -- but since they weren't, it was an affectation not a courtesy title. Finally the Danish queen conferred a hereditary title on her male-line descendants of count/countess af Monpezat. That's all. She did not substitute Monpezat as their surname (any more than Folke Bernadotte's surname was "Wisborg" because the Grand Duke of Luxembourg conferred the hereditary title of Count von Wisborg on Folke's father, Prince Oscar), and it is original research to convert a title into a surname when no reputable authority has done so. "House of Laborde de Monpezat" is just a fancy term for "family of Laborde de Monpezat". That family exists, whether Margrethe II's descendants use it as their surname or not, whereas no notable "family of Monpezat" exists anywhere, yet. Horledi (talk) 20:42, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    No one is arguing at all that Laborde/Monpezat is a surname at all. The family exists, that is all. 142.68.80.29 (talk) 14:38, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: see above discussion "House of Denmark". Demophon (talk) 07:46, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requested further discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Royalty and Nobility/Archive 7#Requested move: House of Laborde de Monpezat -kotra (talk) 01:02, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The Prince Consort's comments on the house name

[edit]

Every comment by the Prince Consort quoted in this article speaks of the name "Montpezat" rather than "Laborde de Montpezat". Accordingly, the title Count of Montpezat (without Laborde) was given to the Danish princes. Seven Letters 21:31, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Monpezat heir

[edit]

In the event of the king "belong[ing] patrilineally to the Laborde de Monpezat lineage" it is not "unclear if this would cause a change in the ruling Dynasty in Denmark". Of course it would, by the mere fact that the king "belongs patrilineality|patrilineally]] to the Laborde de Monpezat lineage".

A person who descends patrilineally from the Laborde family is simply not a member of the House of Glücksburg or the House of Oldenburg, membership of which are determined strictly by Salic law. Of course the new king could choose to use "Glücksburg" as a personal name of sorts, or refer to his family by that name. In that case, it would however be an entirely different house/family than the House of Glücksburg (i.e. the original one), and it would still be a branch of the Laborde family from the genealogical perspective.

"Any such change would probably require a vote in the Danish Parliament."

Says who? Garn Svend (talk) 01:14, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Even though we use the term kongehuset "the royal house" the whole business with a "House" following Salic law is not much used in Denmark nowadays, the royal family uses the term "den glücksborgske slægt" (the Glücksborgian family or kin) or historically "den glücksborgske linje" (lineage) when referring to their descent from the Oldenborg dynasty (the previous royal family, the House of Oldenburg in English), so you are using an alien concept in a context where it's not relevant. The Crown Prince and his children still belong to "the Glücksborgian family/kin" (slægten Glücksborg) regardless of their patrilineal lineage.--Batmacumba (talk) 22:03, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Do we have a source that explicitly describes Frederik and his descendants as members of the Glücksborg family? The problem here is that the House of Glücksburg is not headed by the Danish monarch but by a German guy who does find Salic law relevant. Frederik may call himself a Glücksborg but if the head of the house does not recognize him as such, then we have two Glücksborg houses. Surtsicna (talk) 22:19, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We have the official website of the Danish royal family, if that counts? He is on "the family tree of the Glückborgs": http://kongehuset.dk/stamtraeet The Danish historian Jes Fabricius Møller has written "Dynastiet Glücksborg" ("The Glücksborg Dynasty", a history of both Denmark under their reign and the family) which IIRC mentions it.
I do think that we may in some way have two "Glücksborg Houses" (or rather families) as there is a clear tendency in Denmark to start the family with Christian 9. and we use Glücksborg rather than the long form with Slesvig-Holsten-Sønderborg-G. which was used in the 1853 Act of Succession and that's more than just a shortening imo. But at least the Greek royal family use (or at least used) the long S-H-S-G form (in the German variant) despite descending from Christian 9. (but that branch was established early on, they descend from his son Prince Vilhelm who was born nearly 18 years before his father ascended to the Danish throne). The idea that the Danish royal family is still considered part of the ducal family was unknown to me before I started on Wiki. The tradition in DK is to start with King Christian 9. as the founder of the dynasty and count his descent since the ducal family is on a lower level. That makes the Greek and Norwegian royal families cadet branches of the Danish royal family rather than the ducal family. There was a strong anti-German sentiment after the defeat in 1864 and that meant both Lyksborg and Glücksborg were used about the royal family rather than the S-H-S-G which disappeared as "too German" and too connected to the open wound that the loss of Schleswig/Slesvig was. I think that if the Windsors are considered a different dynasty than Saxe-Coburg-Gotha then "the House of Glücksborg" is also different from the House of S-H-S-G. But that will be impossible to source adequately, so it's just background info on the Danish tradition. You could say that Wiki makes the family very German whereas the Danish tradition is to redefine our royal family as Danish and de-Germanize it (as the Windsors have been de-Germanized).--Batmacumba (talk) 00:59, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The family tree on the official website you refer to also includes Carl XVI Gustaf of Sweden and his children and grandchildren, so I do not think it can count as evidence that the Danish monarchy considers Frederik a member of the Glücksborg family. I think the family name of Margrethe II's descendants is deliberately vague and we should not waste time debating it. Wikipedia should report what sources say; if sources do not say anything, neither should Wikipedia. Surtsicna (talk) 16:12, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That is quite sensible, and I fully agree.--Batmacumba (talk) 16:31, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Royal House of Denmark dosen't on their official homepage use the terms "the House of Glücksburg" or "the Glücksborg family" in stead they use expressions as "Glücksborgernes stamtræ" ("The Glücksborgian Family Tree"), "Den glücksborgske linje" ("The Glücksborgian lineage"), "den glücksborgske kongeslægt" ("The Glücksborgian Dynasty" or "The Glücksborgian Royal House") and "Prins Christian blev som Christian 9. stamfader til den nuværende glücksborgske linie på den danske trone" ("Prince Christian became as Christian 9. ancestor of the current Glücksborgian line on the Danish throne") or as they write "I 2013 kunne den glücksborgske kongeslægt fejre 150 år på den danske trone" ("In 2013, the Glücksborg royal family was able to celebrate 150 years on the Danish throne").
But still, that dosen't for certain reveal what Crown Prince Frederik intents to call himself and his family once he has become king. The museum for the familiy is described as "museum for den Glücksborgske kongeslægt kaldet Amalienborgmuseet" ("museum of the Glücksborg royal family called the Amalienborg Museum").
In 2012 a new painting by Niels Strøbæk was presented. It wasn't called anything with Glücksborg but merely "Tre Slægtled" (Three Generations), but the director of "Det Nationalhistoriske Museum på Frederiksborg Slot" ("The Museum of National History in Frederiksborg Castle") Mette Skougaard has written about the picture in an article where she writes: "Her præsenteredes et nyt portræt af dronningen og de kommende generationer af den glücksborgske kongefamilie" ("Here, a new portrait of the queen and the future generations of the Glücksborgian royal family was presented").
And if we look at a particular posting on the homepage for the Royal Family with the headline "Kronprins- og Tronfølgerbryllupper i Den Glücksborgske Slægt" then we can find an expression like this: "I 1863 kom den glücksborgske slægt til tronen, og det er fortsat efterkommere fra denne slægt, der udgør kongefamilien i dag" ("In 1863, the Glücksburg family ascended (to) the throne?, and it is the descendants of this lineage/kinship (genus) that make up the royal family today") but for our 'purpose', the curious thing about this particular posting is, that it dosen't mention the most resent of the Danish 'Crown prince's weddings' namely the wedding of Crown Prince Frederik and Crown Princess Mary, I can't say why this wedding isn't mentioned, but since it isn't mentioned, we can't use this posting as an absolute proof for whether the expression "Glücksborg" is intended to be used for Crown Prince Frederik when he becomes the king of Denmark. In previous times it was not uncommon, that members of the family called themselves "Beck", when they whished to travel a little more anonymously, but when Frederik went to USA to study he callede himself by the name "Frederik Henriksen", so again we can't for sure tell how the Crown Prince view his own position in relation to these family-designations. The major Danish encyclopedia "Den Store Danske" dosen't seem to have any hesitation by calling the entire familyline from Christian IX and right up to the grandchildren of our present queen by the name "Den glücksborgske linje".
Has this in full answered the question about how we look upon "The House af Glücksborg" in Denmark? Well not realy, but hopefully it has shown, that we and our royal family don't tend to use this expression in any Salic perception, but rather, that we tend to use the expression Glücksborg in a broader understanding, where we see it as a description of all the 'major' descendants of Christian IX, that in various way are seen as members of the present Royal House of Denmark.
Well, actually, we do have one reliable source on this matter - I think? Until 2014 we had an official yearbook in Denmark with information about the Royal family and all major branches of the State administration called Kongelig Dansk Hof- og Statskalender and in this publication, as I recall it (I don't have a copy besides me here and now), the House of Glücksborg/Glücksburg was defined as the members of the Danish Royal family as well as the members of the the ducal house of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg. Oleryhlolsson (talk) 02:37, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should be consistent when Danish sources use the borg-form rather than just "translate" it into the burg-form or use both even if English uses the burg-form, Glücksborg must be considered a different name by now (it has been used since at least the 1853 Act of Succession which called the family Slesvig-Holsteen-Sønderborg-Glücksborg). If "Court and State" ("Hof og Stat" in Danish), the previous Royal Danish Court and State Calendar, goes by the traditional "Salic" definition of the House then that's the official one, but I think we can agree that the House definition is entirely absent in the current "branding" and public communication of the royal family and has been for a long time. The narrative about the family starts with Christian 9. Furthermore the name of the royal family is absent from the 1953 Act of Succession, which only refers to descendants of King Christian X and Queen Alexandrine, so the dynastic name doesn't have any legal status and could thus be changed by the monarch at will, which makes it hard to evaluate what might happen. Crown Prince Frederik would be free to decide what the family should be named once he becomes king and - importantly - he is under no obligation to pick one and could leave it open. It doesn't really have any practical consequences, the family would still be viewed as the same regardless of what the formal name was.--Batmacumba (talk) 14:14, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Slesvig, Holsten, Delmenhorst, Oldeborg and some other areas were until 1972 mentioned in the full title for the Danish king, but Glücksborg has never been a part of the official title of the Danish kings. By the way - already in 1851 we see the expression "Prindsen af Glücksborg" used in a Danish newspaper. Oleryhlolsson (talk) 15:52, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on House of Monpezat. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:32, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Titles by community convention, not by patent

[edit]

It's quickly apparent from reading the article that he author(s) may lack familiarity with the French nobility and its conventions. Historically most French titles were not like those of England or Denmark where these matters were/are closely regulated and inseparable from legal and jurisdictional control. France has/had a tradition of titres de courtoisie whereby even legally titled families would use amended or re-created titles which was permissible within the norms of the society. People whose title was not appropriate to their situation in life would find their self-ennoblement ignored by society and certain to be scrutinised in communities where their family was unfamiliar. Most French titles were/are of the variety where letters patent cannot be produced - their rank and title has its foundation in customary community acceptance instead. In a French context this is not fraudulent or even inauthentic. The Danish Prince Consort's family title appears to be of this type which is the majority type. The article risks being misleading if it doesn't highlight this fact. It casts a shadow over the prince consort's family and background which depicts the situation in a false light. Even in tightly regulated Britain there are examples of made up or and self-assumed - yet entirely acceptable titles. Even the Queen accepts these and her recognition (being the Fons Honorum) has the effect of making these titles real (if not formally legal). Viscount Stewart and Lord Courtenay are two such examples 210.246.56.145 (talk) 22:52, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Uh ...

[edit]

... "parent house" Danish? Will revert again unless someone explains this oddity. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:38, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in House of Monpezat

[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of House of Monpezat's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "kongehuset":

  • From Henrik, Prince Consort of Denmark: Danish Royal Family (28 October 2011). "HRH Prince Henrik". kongehuset.dk (in Danish). Danish Royal Family. Retrieved 13 February 2018.
  • From Frederik, Crown Prince of Denmark: "HRH the Crown Prince". kongehuset.dk (in Danish). The Royal Family. 18 October 2012. Retrieved 26 June 2017.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. Feel free to remove this comment after fixing the refs. AnomieBOT⚡ 15:59, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:House_of_Monpezat&oldid=1251691552"