The couple live in New York, but says in an interview with the royal website that the wedding will take place in Sweden in the summer of 2013. For the forseeable future they expect to live in the USA.
The court has so far not said anything about what title if any Christopher O’Neill will have after the wedding, but I suppose one will make the same decision as when Princess Madeleine became engaged to Jonas Bergström in 2009, an engagement which was called off in the wake of a kiss and tell interview given by a Norwegian girl with whom Bergström had had a one night stand. Back then it was decided that Bergström would retain his surname, become Duke of Helsinga and Gastricia (which is Princess Madeleine’s dukedom), but not become a Prince of Sweden or a Royal Highness.
The court has, however, confirmed that Princess Madeleine will retain her current titles, i.e. not become “Princess Madeleine, Mrs O’Neill”, as was the case with her aunts.
According to the Swedish court, Christopher O’Neill has joint British and American citizenship (and will not apply for Swedish citizenship) and was born in London on 27 June 1974. He is the only mutual child of Eva Maria and Paul O’Neill (the latter died in 2004), but has five half-sisters. He was educated in Switzerland and the USA and has a bachelor degree in international relations from Boston University and a master degree in business administration from Columbia Business School in New York. He has built a career as a businessman and is currently partner and head of research at Noster Capital.
Christopher O’Neill is a Catholic, but this has no consequences for his future wife’s rights to the Swedish throne, although it means that she will lose her (very remote) place in the order of succession to the British throne (unless her fiancé converts before the wedding). The photo, taken in New York three days ago, is copyright of Patrick Demarchelier/Kungahuset.se.
I believe you have a typographical error in your article -the CV provided by the court gives Chris O'Neill's birthdate as June 27, 1974 (not 1973).
ReplyDeleteI must say that I don't understand why Chris O'Neill's title (or lack thereof) needs to be announced in conjunction with the date of the wedding (as stated by the court); similarly, I fail to understand why Daniel Westling's full title and style were announced in conjunction with the banns of marriage. It seems the more natural course to announce decisions regarding titles, if need be, on the day of the engagement or wedding. Did the former courtier who spoke to you on the subject of Prince Daniel's title shed any light on the matter?
I was interested to see that the court has announced that Chris O'Neill will not apply for Swedish citizenship, perhaps as a hint that he will remain untitled. Would you happen to know whether previous foreign consorts, e.g. Silvia Sommerlath, Lilian Craig, and the various foreign princesses who married Swedish princes, acquired Swedish citizenship, and if so, did they acquire it in the usual manner?
Yes, that was a typo, thanks for alerting me.
DeleteI have no idea why the court has made this choice of time for announcing his title, but I feel quite certain that he will get a title. After all, Jonas Bergström was to get one (his intended wife's dukedom), so it would seem odd to treat Christopher O'Neill differently. And then it would be even odder if Prince Carl Philip's wife would become a duchess (or even a princess), given that Prince Carl Philip and Princess Madeleine are in the exact same position (i.e. younger children with succession rights).
I believe Christopher O'Neill's remaining an American citizen will also not stop him from getting a title. If I recall, American officials are barred from accepting foreign titles, but not ordinary citizens (Rose Kennedy was a papal countess and I believe there are some British aristocratic titles held by US citizens, although I suppose these titles might not be "valid" in the USA).
Silvia Sommerlath and Lilian Craig both became Swedish citizens when marrying, but I do not know how they acquired their citizenship. But it would seem that it took effect from the day of the marriage, as King Carl Gustaf gave his bride the Order of Seraphim the day before the wedding, when she was still a German citizen (Swedish orders cannot be given to Swedish citizens and it was only in 1995 that an exception was made for members of the royal family).
By the way, when Prince Bertil, after having waited 33 years, finally received consent to marry Lilian Craig, he chose to tell her the news by a joke. "Darling, you will have to give up your British passport!" When she protested, he gently told her that she had to, as they were now allowed to marry and she would become a Princess of Sweden. :-)
Yes, I agree that the assertions of a legal impediment appear to be groundless. Certainly, there have been many American women who have married European noblemen and become titled in that manner.
DeleteHowever, I suppose it is conceivable that King Carl Gustaf may be hesitant to allow a non-Swede to bear a Swedish title. Given that Silvia Sommerlath and Lilian Craig received Swedish citizenship, I presume that there is no precedent of a spouse of a prince or princess with succession rights (whose marriage is dynastic), who did not become a Swedish citizen.
By the way, when Prince Bertil, after having waited 33 years, finally received consent to marry Lilian Craig, he chose to tell her the news by a joke. "Darling, you will have to give up your British passport!" When she protested, he gently told her that she had to, as they were now allowed to marry and she would become a Princess of Sweden. :-)
What a sweet and charming story :D
As far as titles for consorts of Swedish hereditary princes and princesses are concerned I think nothing is mentioned in the Swedish constitution.I think it was at one time taken for granted that wives from approved marriages were becoming princesses, duchesses, Royal Hignesses etc. through the marriage and without the king having to "grant" them any title. I think this is what happened when Prince Bertil married Mrs. Lilian Davies.
ReplyDeleteNobody gave at that time any thought to what call an untitled husband of an hereditary princess.
The Swedish constitution, however, still seems to take it for granted that all persons in line for the throne are either princes or princesses. The children of Princess Madeleine will therefore automatically become heirs and princes and princesses of Sweden as long as they are brought up in the lutheran faith, as this faith is defined in the constitution ,and inside the territory of Sweden. It is not up to the king to change this fact. He can only decide on what the husband of Princess Madeleine is to be called as well as the future wife of her brother. Also he does not have no grants these children any duchys.
Unfortunately it now seems to be a pretty ridiculous rule established that the spouses of duchesses of Swedish dukedomes shall be called dukes of the same duchy. I would have preferred them to remain untitled as are husbands of British female royals (Prince Philip was born a prince and the title of duke of Edinburough is not a royal title) and in the same way as the Swedish House of Nobles treat men marrying Swedish titled women.
On the other hand I must admit I very much liked to see the British Royal Court in of their guest lists refer to Crown Princess of Sweden and her husband as: The Crown Princess of Sweden and the Duke of Västergötland!
To use christian names, if not neccessary to define the persons concerned, is too familiar and a bit vulgar.
Martin Rahm
As far as titles for consorts of Swedish hereditary princes and princesses are concerned I think nothing is mentioned in the Swedish constitution.I think it was at one time taken for granted that wives from approved marriages were becoming princesses, duchesses, Royal Hignesses etc. through the marriage and without the king having to "grant" them any title. I think this is what happened when Prince Bertil married Mrs. Lilian Davies.
ReplyDeleteNobody gave at that time any thought to what call an untitled husband of an hereditary princess.
The Swedish constitution, however, still seems to take it for granted that all persons in line for the throne are either princes or princesses. The children of Princess Madeleine will therefore automatically become heirs and princes and princesses of Sweden as long as they are brought up in the lutheran faith, as this faith is defined in the constitution ,and inside the territory of Sweden. It is not up to the king to change this fact. He can only decide on what the husband of Princess Madeleine is to be called as well as the future wife of her brother. Also he does not have no grants these children any duchys.
Unfortunately it now seems to be a pretty ridiculous rule established that the spouses of duchesses of Swedish dukedomes shall be called dukes of the same duchy. I would have preferred them to remain untitled as are husbands of British female royals (Prince Philip was born a prince and the title of duke of Edinburough is not a royal title) and in the same way as the Swedish House of Nobles treat men marrying Swedish titled women.
On the other hand I must admit I very much liked to see the British Royal Court in of their guest lists refer to Crown Princess of Sweden and her husband as: The Crown Princess of Sweden and the Duke of Västergötland!
To use christian names, if not neccessary to define the persons concerned, is too familiar and a bit vulgar.
Martin Rahm
I too believe that it was "automatic" that a prince's wife in an approved marriage became HRH, Princess of Sweden (and of Norway until 1905) and Duchess of his dukedom. At least I have never seen any references to these titles having been granted to Ingeborg, Sibylla, Teresia and others.
DeleteI agree that the constitution "still seems to take it for granted that all persons in line for the throne are either princes or princesses", but I am not sure I agree with your interpretation that the consequence of this is that Princess Madeleine's children "automatically become heirs and princes and princesses of Sweden as long as they are brought up in the lutheran faith" and that "[i]t is not up to the king to change this fact".
Duke of Edinburgh IS, by the way, a royal title, i.e. a royal dukedom, as opposed to an "ordinary" dukedom such as those of Norfolk or Fife. The difference between Prince Philip and Prince Daniel is that the former holds the ducal title in his own right, whereas Prince Daniel is simply "duke consort" through having married a duchess in her own right.
To add to Trond's response, Prince Philip renounced his Greek and Danish titles prior to his marriage. His present status as a prince of the United Kingdom with the style of His Royal Highness was bestowed on him by the British crown.
DeleteThere have been other instances of titles being bestowed upon the husbands of British princesses, most recently Antony Armstrong-Jones (created Earl of Snowdon) and the Earl of Fife (created Duke of Fife).
In monarchies whose succession is gender-neutral, I see no reason to apply different titles to male and female spouses if their roles are to be identical, and I see no reason why their roles should differ in a country such as Sweden where feminism is well accepted in principle.
The British royal court was regrettably careless in drawing up their guest list; never has Prince Daniel been styled as "the Duke of Västergötland" by the Swedish court.
To Trond: I am not sure that it is correct to say that "Duke of Edinburgh" is a royal title. As far as I am aware, the term "royal dukedom" simply indicates that the duke in question is also British prince, and there is no substantive difference between a ducal title borne by a prince and one borne by a "mere" duke.
To the best of my knowledge a royal dukedom outranks an "ordinary" dukedom. And if one is created a peer (rather than inheriting the title) one gets a seat in the House of Lords, which those who are given a royal dukedom (like Prince William) apparently no longer do. Thus I think it is reasonable to consider a royal dukedom as a royal title rather than a title of nobility.
DeleteYou raise interesting points, but I am not sure it is so straightforward. A royal duke of course outranks an nonroyal duke, but after his dukedom ceases to be royal, it does not, I believe, bestow any superior rank upon its holder, although I am not completely sure.
DeleteThe only prince who has been given a peerage since the reform of the House of Lords is the Duke of Cambridge, and as far as I am aware, the legal question of whether he is entitled to be seated in the House of Lords has not been raised in Parliament, nor in the press.
When a royal dukedom ceases to be royal (as will be the case with Kent and Gloucester with the passings of the current dukes) it does indeed cease to outrank other dukedoms (and ranks as an ordinary dukedom by the date of its creation), but then it also ceases to be a royal dukedom - and thus also a royal title, as I see it.
DeleteI believe princes who are created peers ceased taking their seats in the House of Lords with the 1999 reform.
Thank you Trond. Can you explain the reason for which you think the children of Princess Madeleine could be treated differently from the children of Crown Princess Victoria.As far as I understand Princesse Estelle was born a princesse not appointed a princesse.As princesse she was then granted the title of Duchess of Ostrogotia. Why would not then the children of Princess Madeleine and her brother also "automatically" become princes/princesses with or without supplementary ducal titles.
ReplyDeleteThe Swedish constitution does not give any preferential treatment to the children of the prince or princesse first in line to the throne.The notion of crown prince is not even mentioned. I suspect it could be considered unconstitutional if the King would decree that the children of the siblings of Crown Princesse Victoria were not be titled.
Thank you for correcting me about the British royal dukes. Yes only Royals have traditionally been given the title of certain dukedoms. But in earlier days, as for the sons of George III, by being dukes they also became peers and gaining seats in the House of Lords.The main advantage of being a duke was that they were in a way "deroyalized" and receiving a personal political platform. That is why I wrote thar it was not a royal title not although only given to royals.
I do by the way not completely understand how King George VI could give Princess Elizabeth's husband the title of Duke of Edinborough. Was it because he was born a prince of two other states and one princely house? I think not.
But he did not become a prince of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland until much later.
Martin Rahm
Neither the Constitution nor the Act of Succession contains any regulations about royal titles; thus it seems reasonable to assume that it is up to the King to make decision about titles for members of his family. As it is not stated that those in line of succession are or should be princes or princesses, I believe that the King has the option of deciding that the children of Princess Madeleine (and perhaps also those of Prince Carl Philip) should not have royal titles. As the Act of Succession accords succession rights to all descendants of Carl XVI Gustaf I also think it will be necessary for the King to limit royal titles, or Sweden might within two generations have dozens of princes and princesses.
DeleteIt would have been odd if the children of the heir to the throne did not have royal titles or indeed if the spouse of the heir to the throne did not have a royal title. But the fact that the ex-fiancé of Princess Madeleine was to be treated differently than Prince Daniel (i.e. becoming a duke, but not a prince) I think it is reasonable to expect that Princess Madeleine's children might also be treated differently from Crown Princess Victoria's.
What I would personally find problematic would be if the spouse and children of Prince Carl Philip were treated differently than the spouse and children of Princess Madeleine, given that Prince Carl Philip and Princess Madeleine are in the same position.
But of course these are things none of us can know the definite answer to, but questions we can expect to be answered in a not so distant future.
British royal dukes continued to sit in the House of Lords until quite recently (I believe both Prince Charles and Prince Andrew took their seats, but not Prince Edward).
There was nothing preventing King George VI from giving the title Duke of Edinburgh to his son-in-law-to-be. Prince Philip had at that time renounced his Greek titles and become a British citizen (on 28 February 1947), but George VI could have given a ducal title to just about anyone if he had wanted to. (Winston Churchill was the last to be offered a dukedom, which he declined).
Philip Mountbatten was given the style HRH along with the titles Duke of Edinburgh, Earl of Merioneth and Baron Greenwich, but it was indeed only in 1957 that he was formally granted the title Prince of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Why that was the case is not quite clear; indeed it might perhaps have been an oversight that the title of prince was not conferred on him at the time of the wedding.
I do believe there is a distinction betweeen the future children of Prince Carl Philip and Princess Madeleine. The future wife of Prince Carl Philip will automatically become HRH + Christian name, as well as Duchess of Värmland. Their children would likely be styled as HRH's, as their father is a Royal Prince.
ReplyDeleteChristopher O'Neil would be the Duke Consort of the Duchess of Hälsingland and Gästrikland, however, I would doubt their future children would be styled as HRH's and Prince(ss) of Sweden, as normally Royal titles, styles, and status are passed through the paternal side.
This, however, is not the case with Princess Estelle, as she is the daughter of the future Queen and herself will become the Heiress Apparent. I believe the true reason Prince Daniel was created HRH and Prince of Sweden was due to the fact he was to marry the Heiress Apparent, not because he was to marry a Swedish Princess (such as Madeleine). But, I assume we will all have to wait and see :)
- American HRH
No, that was the case prior to 1980, but after the introduction of gender neutral succession through the new Act of Succession there is no longer any (logical) reason for treating the spouse and children of a prince differently from the spouse and children of a princess, as prince and princess are in the exact same position, whereas there is indeed a reason for treating the spouse to the heir to the throne differently from the spouses of junior princ(ess)es. The spouse of Prince Carl Philip will not automatically become HRH Princess and Duchess; that is for the King to decide. But indeed we will have to wait and see what happens.
DeleteI do believe there is a distinction betweeen the future children of Prince Carl Philip and Princess Madeleine. The future wife of Prince Carl Philip will automatically become HRH + Christian name, as well as Duchess of Värmland. Their children would likely be styled as HRH's, as their father is a Royal Prince.
ReplyDeleteChristopher O'Neil would be the Duke Consort of the Duchess of Hälsingland and Gästrikland, however, I would doubt their future children would be styled as HRH's and Prince(ss) of Sweden, as normally Royal titles, styles, and status are passed through the paternal side.
This, however, is not the case with Princess Estelle, as she is the daughter of the future Queen and herself will become the Heiress Apparent. I believe the true reason Prince Daniel was created HRH and Prince of Sweden was due to the fact he was to marry the Heiress Apparent, not because he was to marry a Swedish Princess (such as Madeleine). But, I assume we will all have to wait and see :)
- American HRH