Posted by M.Sjostrom on 11/6/2009, 10:55:23, in reply to "Re: weddings of Albert's sons"
82.181.239.182
The use of arvfurste, arveprins,
for heir presumptive of a sonless monarch,
or for heir of the heir apparent (= second in the line)
is a centuries-long Scandinavian *custom*
Quite a lot of titles actually have only the basis of custom, not originally an explicit law. however, laws often came even to protect the established customary titles.
I do not find it anything like a legal mistake that Harald was described as arveprins. Rather, it's an expression of old custom.
Perhaps it's worth to mention that the very title 'prince' for dynasts of royal houses, is a relatively new phenomenon, only some centuries. In the beginning of such descriptions, it was not yet regukated by any law, it was just coming to be customary.
:
: Here is a funny mistake from Norsk Lovtidend
: 1937:
:
:
: http://www.geocities.com/dagtho/res19370222.html
:
: The title "arveprins" (for the son
: of the crown prince) was not constitutional,
: cf. the pre-1990 wording of the Constitution
: Article 34. Still it was used in the said
: royal decree. Should never be regarded as a
: proof that Harald once was officially titled
: "arveprins". He was only
: "prins" from 1937 to 1957.
:
: DTH
:
Message Thread:
« Back to thread