Are Personal Unions Still Possible in Modern Day?

How about some monarch marrying leader of democratic state?

That wouldn't mean anything at all?

I mean, the legal king of Romania was prime minister of said country for a long while (IIRC). It had no lasting effect on his titles or anything.
 
That wouldn't mean anything at all?

I mean, the legal king of Romania was prime minister of said country for a long while (IIRC). It had no lasting effect on his titles or anything.

That was former Tsar Simeon II of the Bulgarians, for four years 2001-2005. Former King Michael of the Romanians has engaged in no such adventures.
 
Let's see... Canada and the UK have the same monarch, so I'm going to say, yes. Yes it is still possib... er... still happens.

As for the marriage of monarchs, I don't see why that's not possible, and their offspring will be in line of succession. Whether the nations involved will accept a this child as their monarch is another matter.
 

Valdemar II

Banned
You know it does not have to be voluntary... it could just be circumstance, plus remember that in a personnal union both nations are independent with their own intrests, laws, and borders. but just so happen to be ruled by the same Monarch.



I could see the Danes and Norwegians possibly do a personnal union by circumstance without much problems comming up since the Norwegians and Danes are like best friends and Norway would still be able to not be the EU.

Honestly I think a Swedish-Danish personal union would be more likely. The Norwegians while closely cultural related to Danes, have been a independent nation for far shorter time and a much more independence minded, while Danes and Swedes would be much more pragmatic on the issue, especially because it wouldn't have any practic effect.
 
Honestly I think a Swedish-Danish personal union would be more likely. The Norwegians while closely cultural related to Danes, have been a independent nation for far shorter time and a much more independence minded, while Danes and Swedes would be much more pragmatic on the issue, especially because it wouldn't have any practic effect.

As well as the fact that the monarch of Norway cant be the head of state of another country unless specifically granted that right bye 2/3 of parliament according to our constitution. (Grl § 11.2)
 
Madeleine would rather get a rich boy in New York than Harry. It will not work since they are second cousins and incest worked for the previous generations but not now.

Okay....

First, I didn't outline a LIKELY scenario, I outlined a POSSIBLE scenario in which a personal union could occur. So her wanting a rich boy in New York doesn't really have any bearing on the possible scenario, otherwise there would be no point in discussion or in Evilprodigy creating this thread. If persons only want to discuss what is likely instead of possible then perhaps they shouldn't bother with threads like this.

Secondly(no pun intended), they aren't second cousins. I'm not sure which tree you looked on, but the only known relationship I can find between them is that of fourth cousins once removed (twice if we want to get really technical). Genealogically that means they share a whopping 0.39% of their genes from their last common ancestors (Queen Victoria and Prince Albert).

Thirdly it wouldn't be incest (even if they were second cousins) unless you are 19th century Roman Catholic. Today second cousins can be married pretty much anywhere and even the Catholic Church will allow dispensations for first cousins to get married (note though that if it was really incest according to them they couldn't allow for "dispensations" since they don't allow similar dispensations for sibling to be married or for people to randomly club each other to death). Also I don't see how this contentions squares with the supposedly law in Sweden that allows even half-siblings to get married (but only with government approval)....unless the BBC was just being sensationalist like pretty much the rest of the British press.

The only other way it could be "incest" is if you consider incest to be marrying or having sex with any person with whom you have a common ancestor (any common ancestor). That view would lead to pretty much everyone dying a virgin since whether you believe in Creation or evolution you would have to be committing incest if you want children. If you believe in Creation word-for-word in the Bible then everybody is a descendant of Adam and Eve (even worse, with the Flood story it would mean everyone was actually a descendant of Noah and his wife as the most recent, last common ancestor), so everyone must be a cousin. If you subscribe to evolution then you should know that all individuals within a given sexually reproducing species must be related and have a common ancestor. There is even supposedly a Y-chromosomal Adam and a mitochondrial Eve so in theory any woman you meet will be related to you and your mother and any guy you meet will be related to you and your father.

You forgott 5. After Victoria died the support for the Swedish monarchy took a big nosedive and Madeleine dont have to become queen since the parliament voted for republic.

Yep, because in any discussion of the possibilities of a personal union between extant monarchies we must include the possibility that the monarchies are voted out therefore precluding any and all discussion on the possibility of personal union in the first place.

Really I don't see why I should have included this "5" when even polls which show the Swedish monarchy "losing support" still show between 60-70% of respondents in favour of keeping it.

In Sweden the current stand on monarchy more or less stands and falls with crown princess Victoria and Daniel. The kings popularity is shrinking faster and faster, Madde and Carl-Philip are currently acting as spoiled brats that avoid anything that translate into working as royals.

Naturally, because those who don't consider themselves to be seriously in line for the throne are going to live up the good life. Note the difference in public opinion between Prince William (third in line and very likely to become King soon either directly after his grandmother if his father dies before or shortly after his dad who will likely have a short reign) and Prince Henry (fourth in line and likely to be pushed back further after William and Kate get married and have kids). It would seem remarkably coincidental that Charles and William (the closest in line to the throne) tend to act with restraint and some amount of decorum like Crown Princess Victoria whilst Henry and basically all other royals in the UK feel uninhibited and sometimes act as brats just like Carl-Phillip and Madeleine.

Of course in the previous generation for the UK it was oddly the other way around with the future George VI being restrained and the future Edward VIII leading the playboy lifestyle.

However even brats grow up and playboys grow old so I doubt Henry will be going to frat parties at the age of 60.
 
Last edited:
According to the Riksdag site, those provisions are still in force (articles 4 and 8). This incidentally would pose difficulties for a person occupying both Swedish and British thrones, as the British monarch is required to be a member of the Church of England.

Well, yes, but the monarch is only required to be Protestant at the time of Accession and enter into the Church of England after it. The Swedish law seems to require the monarch to be brought up in the Church of Sweden. Provided that the Swedish law doesn't actually require the sitting monarch to remain in the Church of Sweden it would then be possible for a future monarch to be raised in the Church of Sweden and then after becoming King of Britain and Northern Ireland, enter into full communion with the Church of England.

No such marriage as described is going to happen anyway. If it did and the issue ended up in direct line to both thrones a highly inconvenient personal union would still be avoided, presumably by the two eldest getting a throne apiece.

Yeah, in the unlikely event that such a marriage did occur, that outcome would be the most likely. So one child gets becomes King/Queen of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (probably by being brought up in the Church of England and thus being ineligible to become King of Sweden) and another child (brought up in the Church of Sweden) becomes King/Queen of Sweden.

The requirement actually is for the British monarch to "join in communion with the Church of England as by law established", and I suppose a Lutheran could do that, but the idea still seems iffy. Another set of difficulties would be posed in the exceptionally improbable event of the Japanese and British thrones merging as suggested in the OP. The Japanese Emperor is required, not by law but by custom that is far more immutable, to perform pagan rituals which are in fact his raison d'être, as only the Emperor can do them and so keep peace between Japan and its gods. A Christian might I submit not be felt suitable for the tasks, nor might he consent to perform them.

Which is why I restricted myself to the northern European protestant monarchies.

The middle eastern monarchies might actually be the easiest to write a scenario for. A lot of their succession rules seem to leave freedom with the ruling family, the only exception being that for Saudi Arabia all females in the ruling family and their descendants are excluded. So if there was intermarriage among the ruling families of Kuwait, Oman, Qatar and Bahrain and possibly also Dubai and Abu Dhabi then if a female descendant of those intermarried families were to marry a male heir of the Saudi throne then potentially one could have a monarch who was ruler of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Dubai, Abu Dhabi, Oman, Qatar and Bahrain.
 
Actually in Dutch law it is not possible for a monarch to rule another country than the Netherlands (or Luxemburg). So no peronal unions with the Netherlands are possible. Although I must admit that if the situation occurs (which is extremly unlikely), the law will probably be changed.

Besides that, in Belgian law it is stated that an Orange-Nassau can't become ruler of Belgium.

Well that throws out the Netherlands (except for a personal union with Luxembourg).

Never even considered Belgium because...well...they're Catholics. Any of their royals would be out of the running for the British throne much less that of Sweden or presumably Norway or Denmark.

Not sure if Belgium's monarch is required to be Catholic, but given how fragile Belgium seems to be as a unified state I doubt it would last long if the monarch didn't share anything in common (even religious denomination) with the Belgians.
 
As well as the fact that the monarch of Norway cant be the head of state of another country unless specifically granted that right bye 2/3 of parliament according to our constitution. (Grl § 11.2)

Well it's still possible. Unlike the Netherlands (with the exception of Luxembourg) unless the Dutch law is similar.
 
That wouldn't mean anything at all?

I mean, the legal king of Romania was prime minister of said country for a long while (IIRC). It had no lasting effect on his titles or anything.

Then when that democratic leader dies their child will not gain the presidency of the democracy and the throne of the monarchy... there would be no connection...

But for the time they live, democratic leader can be prince/princess consort of some monarchy, and monarch would be first spouse in democratic state.

Like when, say US president marries british queen. :eek:
 
But for the time they live, democratic leader can be prince/princess consort of some monarchy, and monarch would be first spouse in democratic state.

Like when, say US president marries british queen. :eek:

Slick Willy was many things to the Queen, but a lover was not one of them. Her and Philip are very happy together, thank you very much, and I don't like what you're implying.
 
Provided that the Swedish law doesn't actually require the sitting monarch to remain in the Church of Sweden it would then be possible for a future monarch to be raised in the Church of Sweden and then after becoming King of Britain and Northern Ireland, enter into full communion with the Church of England.

As I read the law it does require the Swedish monarch to be at all times a member of the Church of Sweden:

Art. 4. In accordance with the express provision of Article 2 of the Instrument of Government of 1809 that The King shall always profess the pure evangelical faith, as adopted and explained in the unaltered Confession of Augsburg and in the Resolution of the Uppsala Meeting of the year 1593, princes and princesses of the Royal House shall be brought up in that same faith and within the Realm. Any member of the Royal Family not professing this faith shall be excluded from all rights of succession.

I don't know whether it is actually possible to fulfil the requirements of that article and at the same time those of the Acts of Settlement and Union as regards the British monarch, and as the question is certain to remain entirely academic I haven't bothered to try to find out.

Which is why I restricted myself to the northern European protestant monarchies.

The middle eastern monarchies might actually be the easiest to write a scenario for. A lot of their succession rules seem to leave freedom with the ruling family, the only exception being that for Saudi Arabia all females in the ruling family and their descendants are excluded. So if there was intermarriage among the ruling families of Kuwait, Oman, Qatar and Bahrain and possibly also Dubai and Abu Dhabi then if a female descendant of those intermarried families were to marry a male heir of the Saudi throne then potentially one could have a monarch who was ruler of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Dubai, Abu Dhabi, Oman, Qatar and Bahrain.

I however was responding to the OP, which mentioned Japan. For your second paragraph, i don't think it works that way in Islamic monarchies. I can't think of a single case of an Islamic kingdom being inherited by or through a female. Succession invariably seems to be in male line, or by coup or other form of overthrow when dynasties change. Incidentally it can't work that way in Japan either, succession is male-only under present law and while previously it could go to a female it couldn't go through her, as the Emperor or regnant Empress must be a male-line descendant of Jimmu.
 

Cook

Banned
The map seems seriously flawed.

Cambodia, Nigeria, Uganda, Cameroon, Ghana, Ivory Coast are all Republics, not Monarchies.
 
Honestly I think a Swedish-Danish personal union would be more likely. The Norwegians while closely cultural related to Danes, have been a independent nation for far shorter time and a much more independence minded, while Danes and Swedes would be much more pragmatic on the issue, especially because it wouldn't have any practic effect.

You know it wouldn't work!

(clue: finances (apanage)) :D
 
The map seems seriously flawed.

Cambodia, Nigeria, Uganda, Cameroon, Ghana, Ivory Coast are all Republics, not Monarchies.

It also has the Vatican as a monarchy and if the Vatican isn't a theocracy than I don't know what is.
 
Top