Each order has it's own rules. The point i was trying to make is that when an order has rules it's not up to those rules when someone looses the order due to a conviction rather than the personal sentiments of the head of the order. In this case Queen Margrethe.
But Christian Kjær wasn't sentenced to a single day in prison.
Often orders have stipulations that clarify when an order will be revoked in the case of criminal behaviour.
I know that Dutch Orange-Nassau orders are revoked when the recipient is sentenced to at least one year in jail. That used to be three years but was altered a few years ago.
I can see many reasons for stripping a person of his titles/appointments due to criminal behaviour etc. But for a (relatively speaking) minor traffic offense? Certainly there must be more behind this. Other than I have to question the Queen's judgment on this.
DTH
It'a a bit of a tabloid title, I know, but the Queen has revoked the appointments of Christian Kjær as Kammerherre and Hofjægermester (Chamberlain and Master of the Royal Hunt) and he also have to hand back his Order of the Dannebrog of the First Order. The reason is that he got a susbended sentence.
https://www.dr.dk/nyheder/indland/dronningen-har-sendt-christian-kjaer-i-skammekrogen-med-brixtofte-og-ninn-hansen
He was a pretty close friend of Prince Henrik.
835