The Duke of Edinburgh
-
sej11 — 9 years ago(January 01, 2017 09:02 PM)
Thank you for making that point, vifler. I am Danish and I have to admit that remark ruffled my feathers a bit
If anything, the English royals of the house of Saxe-Coburg are the upstarts The Queen of Denmarks ancestors ruled the country since at least about 940 and some of them ruled England.
I am slightly curious as to whether this remark accurately reflects a condecenscion felt by the English royals or it is an oversight by the scriptwriters? -
firstwinsgop-1 — 9 years ago(February 06, 2017 07:57 PM)
The main line of the House of Oldenburg went extinct in 1863. In the succession crisis that followed the crown of Denmark then passed to the House of Glcksburg because their claimant, though not first in line to the throne, was the most politically palatable. Christian IX was the first King from the House of Glcksburg. His second son, George I, was given the Crown of Greece when the previous monarch was deposed. Phillip was a grandson of George I.
So her comment was in no way out of line. Phillip is a member of the cadet branch of a family that had itself lucked in to the Danish Crown less than 100 years ago. -
sej11 — 9 years ago(February 08, 2017 04:22 PM)
All correct, of course, but the house of Glucksburg and hence the current Danish royals are no less descended from the old royal line which has ruled Denmark since 940.
The main line of the English royal line has also gone extinct several times, as you are no doubt aware, so one might equally remark that Elizabeth was a member of a cadet branch - the Hanoverians - which did admittedly luck in about 150 years earlier than the Glucksburgs.
I can see how the comment makes sense in that Phillip was primarily prince of Greece and only distantly of Denmark.
I still consider it a remark which mostly reflects a psychological need to feel superior, whether on the part of a scriptwriter or of actual British royals. -
Theshornwonder — 9 years ago(January 31, 2017 07:20 PM)
I think it has to do with the fact that he lived in Greece and was more affiliated with that Crown than his Danish title. People viewed him as a member of the Greek royal family and his Danish titles were more of an afterthought.
-
sej11 — 9 years ago(February 08, 2017 04:27 PM)
l agree with you, but I still think it is peculiar to mention the Danish royal line in such a condecending tone. If they had only mentioned the Greek crown, which of course was of very recent creation, I would have understood.
-
Theshornwonder — 9 years ago(February 08, 2017 11:37 PM)
I said I didn't think they were referring to the Danish Royal line. I also think all royal lines should be spoken of in a condescending tone. Queen Margrethe, like her forebears is a human. She wasn't chosen by God, but by men, just like Elizabeth. Monarchy should be mocked by every soul on Earth.
-
sej11 — 9 years ago(February 08, 2017 11:46 PM)
Well, they did speak disparagingly of both Denmark and Greece, didnt they?
As for monarchy, I have no issue with your standpoint, even though I personally think that monarchy is an absurdity which has its charms, but I am not enthusiastic enough to fight for it in discussion.
My issue was with the fact that the remark in the series only disparaged other monarchies as inferior to the British, whereas the British monarchy is clearly glorified.
But I agree with your original comment, that was all I wanted to say. -
Theshornwonder — 9 years ago(February 08, 2017 11:38 PM)
I said I didn't think they were referring to the Danish Royal line. I also think all royal lines should be spoken of in a condescending tone. Queen Margrethe, like her forebears is a human. She wasn't chosen by God, but by men, just like Elizabeth. Monarchy should be mocked by every soul on Earth.
-
chodorov — 9 years ago(February 11, 2017 04:33 PM)
What about Victoria? She is the great-great-grandmother of both Elizabeth and Phillip. They all act as if that doesn't count at all. Why should he be any less royal than her, considering that? And her mother wasn't even royal!
-
SrEditor — 9 years ago(February 12, 2017 08:08 AM)
That accounts only for the physical bloodlines but not for the titles and royal authority (probably not the right terminology) of her children and grandchildren.
I'll leave to one of the history buffs to explain the "royalness" of the intervening positions.