Crown Prince Christian, News and Current Events Part 1: January 2024 -

[Duke of Marmalade]

Funny enough, Christian got caught driving without a seat belt while Fred got caught up in his

Kun i SE og HØR: Hvor er selen, Christian?

Den 18-årige tronfølger tilsidesatte tilsyneladende sikkerheden, da han i sin leasede ”Bimmer” forleden kørte over Amalienborg Slotsplads

www.seoghoer.dk

Its a classic own goal trying to stop pictures that are showing a misconduct, who would have thought it would backfire

 

[Izzie]

Lessons learned, and he will learn. the DRF as a whole is usually not pressuring the press (ex: the concert photos).
We should be careful though about reading things on social media and taking them as facts.

I agree about taking things on social media (especially the gutter tabloids and these so-called royal blogs that proclaim to have "sources") as fact. If reports of Christian's vehicle is to be taken as fact, then does that mean other "reports" on social media about other royals should also be taken as fact? - or is it selective depending on which narrative someone wants to support.

I don't honestly understand the pearl clutching here. Lesson learned. They did not seem to pressure the press to remove the concert photos. Plus, I've never gotten the impression that there is some sort of complicit relationship between the DRF and media like there seems to be with other RFs tbh. The royal media does not appear to operate as a PR extension of the DRF as they have no qualms about calling things out.

Anyway - this is not some PR disaster. Oh and considering what other RFs have at their personal disposal for transportation, Christian driving a fancy vehicle is hardly something to make an issue out of. Moving on.

 

[Mbruno]

Sometimes I truly despair!
Why does the DRF keep doing stupid things like this?!?

The law on privacy, just like every other law in DK, can be broken "if it serves a higher purpose". - Like you kicking down a door to an apartment in a burning building in order to alert and rescue people living there.
In this case BB thought it was a nice story with Christian behind the wheel of his first car.
However, the DRF believe it was a breach of his privacy, which considering the circumstances can be debated. Anyway, BB took down the pictures after a call from the DRF press office.
However, if you look careful at the photo, Christian does not appear to wear a seat belt.
Amalienborg Square is a public road, it's a round about to be exact. And there are lots of pedestrians around, so the traffic rules apply. Not wearing a seat belt on a public road while driving is a breach of the traffic rules. Period!
The penalty, I just looked it up, is a fine of 1.500 DKK around 200-215 $/€.
That means every single press outlet can freely post the photos, because "it serves a higher purpose" i.e. documenting that the Crown Prince is openly breaching the traffic rules, and doing so right after having acquired a drivers license.

Had the DRF done nothing, this story might have slipped under the radar with someone perhaps commenting that Christian doesn't seem like he is wearing a seat belt.
Now it becomes an issue.

Sorry, no sympathy from me for the DRF.
When you do something stupid, don't complain if you get whacked on the head.

Congratulations Christian. You are about to face your first minor media storm and it's your own fault. Learn from it.

Sorry, but I fail to see why "it serves a higher purpose" to expose a particular private individual for committing a violation of the traffic code. Identifying people in breach of the traffic rules and penalizing them accordingly (be it with a fine, or a suspension of driving privileges, or both) is a job for the traffic authorities, or the police, or whoever is charged with that role in a given country. It is not the job of the press and it does not justify monitoring individuals in their personal vehicles and publishing images of them driving those vehicles without their consent.

"Serving a higher purpose" would apply if the published images could assist an ongoing police investigation or helped to avert an imminent danger, but none of the above is the case here.

Just my personal opinion of course.

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

Sorry, but I fail to see why "it serves a higher purpose" to expose a particular private individual for committing a violation of the traffic code. Identifying people in breach of the traffic rules and penalizing them accordingly (be it with a fine, or a suspension of driving privileges, or both) is a job for the traffic authorities, or the police, or whoever is charged with that role in a given country. It is not the job of the press and it does not justify monitoring individuals in their personal vehicles and publishing images of them driving those vehicles without their consent.

"Serving a higher purpose" would apply if the published images could assist an ongoing police investigation or helped to avert an imminent danger, but none of the above is the case here.

Just my personal opinion of course.

Christian is not a private individual? Am I correct that he can't be fined like an ordinary Dane for traffic violation because of diplomatic immunity? We've had lots of examples in other RFs, the Dutch come to my mind.

 

[Muhler]

The DRF indeed has immunity. It's up to the monarch to either rescind the immunity in specific cases or impose sanctions himself (In regards to his family King Frederik can actually be jury and judge, though I know of no cases where it has happened.) or ultimately the Parliament can step in.
The argument of "serving a higher purpose" would be used in a court of law, because Christian is not anyone - to put it mildly!
As such he is a living role model, especially for young people his age. The law is extra harsh on young people who break the traffic rules, because experience show that people who have just acquired a drivers license have a tendency to drive more recklessly and combined with a lack of experience that can, and do, go wrong.
And as another member pointed out: How difficult is it to remember using your seat belt? I don't think I know of any just reasonably modern car that doesn't have a seat belt alarm. So in this case Christian either chose to ignore the alarm for the whole drive or he loosened the seat belt too soon. Regardless, it's a violation of the traffic rules.
Apart from that, seat belts is a good idea.

 

[tommy100]

I have to say no matter how traditional royal families might be, in this day and age having members of the royal family with immunity from the law is pretty outdated. Yes, the sovereign, like many other Heads of State, might need to be, but I don't see why other members of the family should be. TBH I think it works against the RF to be immune from the same laws as the rest of us.
In the UK Princess Anne was the first royal to be convicted of a crime, she has been caught speeding three times and she pleaded guilty to one charge of having a dog dangerously out of control and was fined £500. No one thinks any less of her as a royal because of it not did it damage the monarchy for its hardest working member to be seen being held to the same account as anyone else. I don't see any good reason for Christian, or his siblings, uncle, auntie etc to be held to the same laws as anyone else in Denmark.

 

[Muhler]

That's a debate I think I know too little about to go further into.
I will instead point out that MPs in DK also all have immunity.

 

[tommy100]

Wow, okay then. I'll just take that in for a bit

 

[Muhler]

It's according to §57 in the Constitution.
It protects all the members of the Parliament (also the parliaments on the Faeroe Islands and Greenland) from being arrested and/or prosecution.
The purpose is two-fold:
A) To protect the MPs from being arrested or prosecuted for saying something. Which is pretty important in their role as politicians! - And it's next to impossible to persuade the MPs from rescinding the immunity of a member based on what he/she has said.
B) To protect the MPs from being arrested or prosecuted unless they are "caught in the act." - The purpose is to prevent the police or prosecutors from harassing say opposition MPs.
- The exception being "caught in the act". For example if an MP is caught DUI obviously dead drunk. Then he/she can be detained by the police on the spot. Or if an MP runs amok with a shotgun, then the police can stop him/her right away.

§57 is basically an "anti-oppression and anti-totalitarian" paragraph. It is there in the case a majority government pass laws that circumnavigate the Constitution enough to enable the police and prosecutors to arrest MPs for things that are all of sudden illegal, like walking to the right on roads on Mondays or driving while being a socialist, just to mention a couple of outrageous suggestions.
Or to prevent the police from being used to harasses a member of the opposition by arresting, or calling in for questioning or doing a search of his home every two hours or so.
- Those who wrote the Danish Constitution pretty much thought of everything! I'm often amazed at how thorough they were.

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

Christian should be a role model for young people and act according to the law applying to them, immunity or not.

 

[Archduchess Zelia]

Oh boy... you'd think an institution like the DRF would avoid a pitfall as obvious as the Streisand Effect But then you remember how shoddy the DRF's communications department is and it makes sense again.

 

[polyesco]

Wow some replies have me thinking Christian is the worse. It will be a mistake he learns from that's it.
The Danish press is sometimes too dramatic with him. I remember when they had multiple articles of Christian wearing the scarf of a team and actively showing support. Then a time later Ingrid Alexandra in Norway was wearing her hockey team shirt and no articles came out in the Norwegian press.
Let him finish high school in peace.

 

[Prinsara]

It's according to §57 in the Constitution.
It protects all the members of the Parliament (also the parliaments on the Faeroe Islands and Greenland) from being arrested and/or prosecution.
The purpose is two-fold:
A) To protect the MPs from being arrested or prosecuted for saying something. Which is pretty important in their role as politicians! - And it's next to impossible to persuade the MPs from rescinding the immunity of a member based on what he/she has said.
B) To protect the MPs from being arrested or prosecuted unless they are "caught in the act." - The purpose is to prevent the police or prosecutors from harassing say opposition MPs.
- The exception being "caught in the act". For example if an MP is caught DUI obviously dead drunk. Then he/she can be detained by the police on the spot. Or if an MP runs amok with a shotgun, then the police can stop him/her right away.

§57 is basically an "anti-oppression and anti-totalitarian" paragraph. It is there in the case a majority government pass laws that circumnavigate the Constitution enough to enable the police and prosecutors to arrest MPs for things that are all of sudden illegal, like walking to the right on roads on Mondays or driving while being a socialist, just to mention a couple of outrageous suggestions.
Or to prevent the police from being used to harasses a member of the opposition by arresting, or calling in for questioning or doing a search of his home every two hours or so.
- Those who wrote the Danish Constitution pretty much thought of everything! I'm often amazed at how thorough they were.

But this means the government can literally get away with murder.

 

[Sister Morphine]

But this means the government can literally get away with murder.

I'm pretty sure if the police had an open-and-shut case that an MP actually murdered someone, they'd be thrown in prison like anyone else would. Perhaps it would be protective custody, much as they do with pedophiles and ex-cops over here, but they wouldn't get a pat on the butt and sent on their way.

Also, I think a lot of people are making much ado about nothing. Christian did something wrong, and hopefully, the public exposure and any admonishments from his parents will correct his behavior and he won't do it again.

 

[Muhler]

But this means the government can literally get away with murder.

I suppose you are thinking about the government ordering someone to be murdered or committing murders themselves?
Well, it's still illegal to kill someone, it will of course be up to the courts to decide whether you are to be punished for killing someone or not, like in self defense.
It is also covered by §71 in the Constitution, which says that the personal freedom of Danish citizens is inviolable. You cannot be imprisoned in any form due to among other things your political convictions. - I'd say killing political opponents is a violation of §71.
- On top of that no one are obliged to obey an illegal order, in fact you risk punishment at some point if you do. So being ordered to kill someone by the government, can and should be refused.

As for MPs killing someone. If the police investigation points to an MP the Parliament can lift the immunity and considering the severity of the crime, no doubt will.

Beyond that point it begins to become really serious and complicated!
Because according to §13 of the Constitution King Frederik is free from responsibility for the conduct of his government. The government ministers are responsible for misconduct or breaches of the law. Even if King Frederik has signed such a law, which he BTW is obliged to.
But... In theory King Frederik can veto a law by refusing to sign, say a law that forbids socialists from crossing roads and streets outside traffic lights and pedestrian crossings. It shouldn't happen because all bills are vetted by legal experts before even being put up for a vote in the Parliament to see if it conflicts with another law or is in violation of the Constitution.
So, again in theory King Frederik is one of the last guarantees against a totalitarian government in DK.
Because all power enacted or enforced by the authorities in DK is in his name.
According to §16 of the Constitution King Frederik can also by himself prosecute a government minster for misconduct.
In §14 it is King Frederik who appoints or dismiss a governments - they are his servants. Again in theory, King Frederik can dismiss a totalitarian government. - And should a government begin to breach the Constitution it is of course an open question whether King Frederik is obligated to step in. But that is way beyond my knowledge and something I can only speculate about.
And to make sure a rogue government doesn't arrest or dismiss King Frederik, we go back to §13. The person of the King is sacrosanct. And by extension his immediate family .

Not to mention that King Frederik has the right to put up bills for the Parliament to debate and vote on.
And he can act by decree if the Parliament is "out of order" so to speak. The decrees needs to be ratified by the Parliament later though.

To sum up, the Danish monarchs have a surprising amount of theoretical power - just in case...

 

[Prinsara]

As for MPs killing someone. If the police investigation points to an MP the Parliament can lift the immunity and considering the severity of the crime, no doubt will.

No, I meant that.

Murder aside I’m still surprised immunity isn’t abused for all sorts of things.

 

[Muhler]

No, I meant that.

Murder aside I’m still surprised immunity isn’t abused for all sorts of things.

I see.
It isn't because the MPs are pretty strict about the conduct of other MPs and in particular ministers and lifting of immunity and putting MPs before a Rigsret = a Court of the Realm which is presided by Supreme Court judges and it happens not infrequently that MPs are sentenced either by a normal court or at a Rigsret, some have even ended up in prison. In fact one of the party leaders who is almost guaranteed to get her party into the Parliament in after the next general election and even become one of the major parties was sentenced to a few months just a few years ago for misconduct as a minister. (The reason for her comeback is a general feeling among many that while you can debate what she did was wrong, she was certainly in line with the opinion of the public and even more in line with the unspoken line of the government. It was about separating minors who had been married to much older spouses abroad, almost all of them older men, from their husbands.)
Of course a government who has a majority or does not have a majority against it can reject a plea for a trial. But that I think is very rare and usually a minister who misconduct simply step down and that's it. (The party leader I mentioned above refused to apologize and step down, because she acted according to her conviction. Had she stepped down she would have avoided a trial and a sentence. But the one who has the last laugh... Her party is now way bigger, if there was an election tomorrow, than the large government party she was a member of when she was a minister.)

 

[Toledo]

After this the king needs to have a serious conversation with his son's handlers and bodyguards that he's both an 18th year old and a target to the same press that needs to sell gossip on anyone royal. His cousin, Leonor of Spain, had the same situation happen to her but a few weeks ago. And all she did was go out for a meal with her girl group from the army.

Tabloids have been waiting for both of them to come out on their own for 18 long years and if precautions are not in place around them every cover will be an exaggerated version of anything they do.

 

[polyesco]

Crown Prince Christian is regent May 6 and May 7 while the King and Queen complete a State Visit to Sweden.

H.K.H. Kronprinsen er regent

H.K.H. Kronprinsen er regent i perioden den 6.-7. maj. H.K.H. Kronprinsen er regent

www.kongehuset.dk

 

[Muhler]

Which is as it should be.
If the CP is in the country and available, he automatically becomes Regent when the Monarch is abroad or indisposed.

 

[polyesco]

HRH The Crown Prince is regent in the period 14-15 May. While the King and Queen are in Norway for a State Visit

H.K.H. Kronprinsen er regent

H.K.H. Kronprinsen er regent i perioden den 14.-15. maj. H.K.H. Kronprinsen er regent

www.kongehuset.dk

 

[Izzie]

HRH The Crown Prince is regent in the period 14-15 May. While the King and Queen are in Norway for a State Visit

H.K.H. Kronprinsen er regent

H.K.H. Kronprinsen er regent i perioden den 14.-15. maj. H.K.H. Kronprinsen er regent

www.kongehuset.dk

This is I believe the 3rd time that Christian has been regent since the change of throne. Always lovely to see an heir (even one just 18 years old with only months in the position) to step up for their father/mother (monarch) as is their duty to do so. Great experience that Christian is getting with just serving as regent. Does not matter if he does not sign a law, but just the experience of the gravitas of his responsibility now as heir.