Posted by Jane
on 10/6/2009, 0:50:26, in reply to "Re: A question of titles"
138.87.169.206
I've been reading with interest all the threads below on the oddity of the princely titles for Belgian kings and queens. Correct me if I'm mistaken, but does it have to do with the technicality that the sovereign is -- strictly speaking -- not "The King/Queen of Belgium" but rather, "The King/Queen of the BELGIANS"?
Some time ago, on another royal message board, the question of this significance came up -- i.e. the subtle differences between the two types of royal sovereign titles. I, too, had wondered why (say) the reigning Danish monarch is known as the Queen of Denmark -- as opposed to Queen of the Danes. By contrast, a French royal sovereign (House of Orleans, prior to deposition) was called "King of the French" -- not "King of France".
However, I believe that a French imperial sovereign (House of Bonaparte) was indeed called "Emperor of France" -- not "Emperor of the French."
Apparently the title "King of the French (or Belgians, Hellenes, etc.)" is more democratic than "King of France (or Belgium, Greece, etc)."
So perhaps it's not a contradiction to call Albert II "King of the Belgians" AND (at the same time) "Prince of BELGIUM."
Message Thread:
« Back to thread