The Nature of Royalty

[Imdanny]

Doesn't in any way affect my enormous affection for you, because you're a honey. I'm not trying to change your opinions; they're as right or wrong as mine.
--- Laurie

You know I'm very fond of you too, Laurie! It doesn't bother me at all that we might agree or disagree on this topic or any other. My affection for you is undiminished. You're a sweetheart! Thank you.

 

[mayerling]

Amelia, you are one heck of a smart person; your comments above & in the Anthony thread are well reasoned & well expressed. Yes from here to all of what you wrote above.

On one hand I confess to a teeny bit of envy of royals -- oh, how I'd love love to wear those jewels & have immortal art all around me. On the other, I find myself pitying them sometimes. Endlessly touring factories & opening parks, duty-bound to pretend an interest in it all; never free to drop out for a day & read a book in the garden. Scandal if you're involved w/the wrong sort of person -- and who among us hasn't been in our youth? Scrutinized & sneered at by the media -- the battle with the wind of the skirt on poor Kate's dress, e.g., got inordinate ink. Is Princess XX pregnant or just getting fat? If not pregnant, why not -- him or her? To many prospective brides the privileges are nowadays not attractive enough to outweigh the restrictions.

Danny, I do see where you're coming from & differing opinions make us think & learn. Doesn't in any way affect my enormous affection for you, because you're a honey. I'm not trying to change your opinions; they're as right or wrong as mine. Royalty, though, are still citizens of their countries & I can't picture how it would work to take away their money when their matrimonial morals go down the pipes. How could you avoid doing it to everyone? If their ancestors acquired their fortunes in bloodthirsty ways or by theft, how are they responsible today? One of the monumental developments in modern thought is that the "sins of the father are no longer visited on the son." You'd also, to be fair, have to separate the wealth gained legitimately from that gotten crookedly; how do you do that? My head aches!

a queen or king without a country is silly after a generation or two, in my opinion. King of what, exactly? I'd honestly laugh at anyone who insisted on a being addressed as "Prince" or "King" if the title wasn't officially granted by a government. If a monarch loses his crown, then his great-grandchildren are not princes and princesses a hundred years later.

What I was trying to spit out, Guilty Pleasure, only you said it better. That is the root of my problem w/the Greek royalty -- can't call them Greeks because they really are not, as Bobby pointed out. They've done more good deeds than I give them credit for, thank you Bobby for the correction, but they still seem pretentious to me about their ex-titles. Maybe it's not them, but the press. One of them marries an enormous fortune. The media gushes that the fortune is so lucky to have married into royalty, when it's patently the other way around. Could be I'm jealous, have to admit that.

All that said, I still love to see them. Their connection to history, their glamor & sparkliness, are attractive. I know they're as human as I am & keep in mind that each is worthy only for what he's accomplished, himself. It requires a bit of Pretend on both sides, mine & theirs -- but I always loved to play dress-up & enjoy watching them do it.

--- Laurie

Does this mean that people aren't allowed to call themselves American because their parents or grandparents might have been born outside of the US?

 

[JewelFreak]

I beg your pardon? What on earth are you talking about & what does it have to do with the subject of this thread?

 

[Guilty Pleasure]

mayerling, it doesn't matter where a person's grandparents were born in regard to citizenship. I'm not familiar with the Greek royal history or their citizenship, but to answer your question directly: a person is only American (US citizen) if they are born in the country or have a parent who is a US citizen or have gone through the legal process for citizenship. Grandparents don't have anything to do with it.

I don't know if the Greek royals are actually Greek citizens or not, but I would say that if they are not even legal citizens of Greece, then no, they are not Greek royalty. Their ancestors were. I'm related to a French knight, some hugenots that left religious persecution in their home, a long line of Texas ranchers, probably a slaveowner or two, but I am none of these things.

I think if their heritage is Greek, then they are Greek in that regard, just like American families clain to be Irish or Italian.

 

[mayerling]

As far as I know, the ex-King of Greece and, at least two, of his children were born in Greece. So was his father, I'm not sure of his grandfather. They were stripped of Greek citizenship in the 90s. I'm not a royalist so don't feel I'm trying to make a point regarding whether he should be considered king or not. I was only pointing out that I don't understand on what basis people said that he is not Greek, and was especially surprised to hear this from Americans, given that the US is such a multicultural place.

 

[Guilty Pleasure]

ah, well I would consider someone of Greek ancestry, who is born in Greece, to definitely be "Greek", regardless of legal citizenship In my opinion, people can claim a label by heritage or by citizenship or by both.

 

[JewelFreak]

Citizenship isn't the issue in that sentence. Some kings through history have been foreign to the countries they ruled, through conquest or occasionally by invitation. If said king's descendants continue marrying spouses from other countries, it's said the dynasty is not Egyptian, Greek, etc. Meaning not citizenship but genes. The current British royal family is an example. George I, Duke & Elector of Hanover & a few other German places, inherited the throne of Great Britain through his mother, who was a Protestant granddaughter of James I. From his accession in 1714 until George VI married Elizabeth (future QM) in the 1930s, every monarch in the Hanover dynasty married wives (husband in Victoria's case) from various German states (except Q. Alexandra, P. of Denmark, whose lineage was still largely German). People -- especially anti-monarchists -- still call them a German dynasty, though the QM, Princess Diana, and now the DoC have added a big dose of good old British blood.

The Greek royal family was a branch of the Danish House of Glücksburg. They weren't around long, reigned a total of 75 years, interrupted for 11 years by the Second Hellenic Republic. A coup deposed them finally in 1967 & in 1973 the monarchy was officially abolished. Wives of the Greek kings were neither born in Greece nor of Greek parents; they came from foreign countries. Therefore, whatever their citizenship, the children of these unions down the line, were not ethnic Greeks. That's what I meant when I said they were not Greek, and it's a very common way to express that.

For your enjoyment , here is their lineage (Giorgios I named there was Prince William of the Danish Glucksburg dynasty, who adopted the name George on enthronement):

 

[mayerling]

Thanks for the clarification, Jewelfreak. But does the fact that the mothers were not born on Greek soil mean that the descendants are not Greek? Do both parents need to have the same citizenship for a child to be Greek? Also, does a family need to be in a country for longer than 75 years before they can considered to be in a way "part" of that country?

Anyway, I'll shut up now so as not to give the impression that I'm some kind of royalist

 

[JewelFreak]

No, Mayerling, it has nothing to do w/citizenship or how immersed the offspring are in the country's culture. It's a not-unusual way of expressing that the ruling house has not married into the local population. Sometimes that creates resentment among the populace, sometimes it doesn't.

Am I too touchy in getting the feeing we're talking about prejudice here? When you say the ruling house is not Greek, not English, not whatever, you simply mean they have married brides from foreign countries; therefore their children (& future rulers) are not genetically part of the local people. It's a very small thing that got picked out of a paragraph about something else. Nothing un-PC intended in any way.

 

[prince.of.preslav]

From his accession in 1714 until George VI married Elizabeth (future QM) in the 1930s, every monarch in the Hanover dynasty married wives (husband in Victoria's case) from various German states (except Q. Alexandra, P. of Denmark, whose lineage was still largely German)

If we're talking about monarchs' marrages - Yes, even though Lady Elizabeth did not marry the heir. And I think that we should not forget the late Princess Alice, Duchess of Gloucester, who was born to a Scotish Duke, and did a wonderful job for Britain. Also, The Countess of Wessex and the former Duchess of York - Sarah. The Duchess of Cornwall, too.

The Greek royal family was a branch of the Danish House of Glücksburg. They weren't around long, reigned a total of 75 years, interrupted for 11 years by the Second Hellenic Republic.

As far as I know, from 1863 to 1973 makes a total of 110 years. Without 11 years for the SHR - 99 years.

Wives of the Greek kings were neither born in Greece nor of Greek parents; they came from foreign countries. Therefore, whatever their citizenship, the children of these unions down the line, were not ethnic Greeks. That's what I meant when I said they were not Greek, and it's a very common way to express that.

There is one exception - Aspasia Manos - the wife of King Alexander I. Though she wasn't known as Queen, she was his legal spouse. Alexander I and Princess Aspasia (as she was created later by her father-in-law) are the grand parents of Crown Prince Alexander of Serbia. Another Greek bride is Marina Karella - the wife of Prince Michael of G&D.
I think that you become a Greek citizen (at least that's how it's in Bulgaria, and I think in USA) if you're born in the country or to parents with Greek citizenship. This was most certainly the case with Princess Alexia, Crown Prince Pavlos and Prince Nikolaos. I'm not sure if at the time when their siblings - Philipos and Theodora - were born The King & The Queen had Greek citizenship.
BTW, nobody disputes the fact that the are not ethnic Greeks.

Bobby

 

[AmeliaG]

Amelia, you are one heck of a smart person; your comments above & in the Anthony thread are well reasoned & well expressed. Yes from here to all of what you wrote above.

On one hand I confess to a teeny bit of envy of royals -- oh, how I'd love love to wear those jewels & have immortal art all around me. On the other, I find myself pitying them sometimes. Endlessly touring factories & opening parks, duty-bound to pretend an interest in it all; never free to drop out for a day & read a book in the garden. Scandal if you're involved w/the wrong sort of person -- and who among us hasn't been in our youth? Scrutinized & sneered at by the media -- the battle with the wind of the skirt on poor Kate's dress, e.g., got inordinate ink. Is Princess XX pregnant or just getting fat? If not pregnant, why not -- him or her? To many prospective brides the privileges are nowadays not attractive enough to outweigh the restrictions.--- Laurie

Thanks Laurie. I enjoy your posts too. You're very well informed. You're right, I don't envy the royal lifestyle at all - just the jewels.

I think the problem with Constantine's Greek citizenship is that he was a ruling monarch who was overthrown in a violent coup. He wasn't just a figurehead monarch like Elizabeth II, with his Prime Minister he actually ruled the country. I don't know if you'd call it the it a war but it was pretty drastic. Usually kings that get thrown out by coups or wars are not allowed to return - especially if they actually took part in running the government that was overthrown.

Incidentally, the Witelsbach diamond that made the news lately came to Graff by way of the fallout after WWI. It had been owned by the Bavarian Royal Family, the Wittelsbachs. They lost the diamond after Germany lost WWI (confiscated?) and it eventually ended up at Graff.

 

[JewelFreak]

Bobby, I was talking about the line of monarchs, not collateral relatives. And once again, it is simply a figure of speech that DOES NOT have anything to do with legal citizenship. Another phrase you sometimes see in history books is, "For 500 years XXX country was ruled by a foreign house." It DOES NOT mean they weren't citizens of the subject country. It ONLY means the kings or queens consistently returned to their country of origin for marriage partners. Period!

Also, the Greek coup that deposed Constantine occurred in 1967 & the RF fled to Rome that year. Nikolaos was born in Rome in May 1967. The monarcy was officially abolished in '73 but the family had been stripped of their wealth & citizenship in '67. I know they are now allowed back in -- has their citizenship been restored?

--- Laurie

 

[AmeliaG]

Well you guys got me curious. I hadn't known much about the Greek monarchy but what I just read led me to believe it was an accident waiting to happen - over and over and over again. If you look at the history of the Oldenburgs in Greece, its understandable how wary the Greek government is about them being considered Greek.

Thanks Laurie for posting that geneology chart. It was very helpful.

Here's what I just found (forgive me if I inadvertently repeated somebody else's post here-it was unintentional):

George I, first Oldenburg king, second son of Danish king, Christian IX, assasinated in 1913. (George actually took over from a failed Bavarian monarchy in Greece)

Constantine I, second king, eldest son of George I, forced to leave Greece over disagreements during WW1, reinstated in 1920, abdicated in 1922 when Greece lost the Greco-Turkish war, died in exile.

Alexander I, third king, second son of Constantine i, puppet king placed on the throne by the Prime Minister, a vowed Republican during one of his father's exiles. Died of a monkey bite.

George II, fourth king, eldest son of Constantine I, forced into exile 15 months after he ascended the throne, was deposed when a republic was proclaimed in 1924.

Paul I, fifth king, third son of Constantine I, reinstated as king after 23 years when the republic fell in the aftermath of WWII. Died in 1964 of natural causes amid growing Republican sentiment.

Finally we get to the sixth king, Paul's son, Constantine II. As Laurie and others have pointed out, he was forced into exile after a coup in 1967, and formally deposed in 1973.

Something's telling me that throughout the Oldenburg's history in Greece, somebody or somebodies consistently did not want them in Greece but they kept coming back. With that history, I don't wonder that despite what citizenship laws say, any current Greek government is going to have a bit of anxiety about them settling in Greece or taking Greek citizenship.

For countries like Britain that had a history of feudalism when kings were needed, a constitutional monarchy seems a little outdated but not totally out of place if the Brits want to keep it. Given Greece's history as the cradle of democracy, I think even a constitutional monarchy was always going to be a bad idea.

 

[mayerling]

Laurie, are you sure they were stripped of citizenship in 1967? I was under the impression that this occurred in the 90s, which would mean that Nikolaos was born a Greek citizen as his parents were still citizens at the time of his birth.

Their citizenship has not been restored. They are allowed back in because they travel using diplomatic passports issued by other countries.

 

[vsc]

Interesting to learn about the Greek royal family!

As far as the place of monarchy, in the US there are quite a few people who become celebrities and get a lot of attention for nothing more than their participation in reality TV or for their wealth (Paris, Kim and others). I think that royals who don't have much or any power in their country anymore, at least have some history behind their fame and can be quite interesting (not to mention the jewels!).

I also think that deposed monarchy, after a few decades or a century will fade out of the spotlight. Most of them lost their power only recently, or are still officially royalty even if they don't have much power. I think the Greeks might be the only ones who have been out for a while but still participate a lot.

Oh, and I guess if they are official royalty of the country and do represent the country at events, it's only fair they get some subsidy from the taxpayers, but it shouldn't be more than what your average diplomat or politician gets... I'm wondering what would happen if they lost their personal fortune but still had to appear to events all decked out, maintain their properties, and so on!

 

[AmeliaG]

Wikipedia says Constantine was stripped of Greek citizenship in 1994. The Alexander Palace discussion boards have a lot of knowledgeable members on royalty.

I found this thread http://forum.alexanderpalace.org/index.php?action=printpage;topic=1991.0 that could shed some light-in particular this post:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Title: Re: The Current Crown Prince & Princess of Greece
Post by: dmitri on January 15, 2008, 06:20:28 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Being born in Greece is no guarantee of Greek citizenship under the republican regime. Remember they are paranoid and stripped Constantine of his Greek citizenship even though he was born there as was his father and grandfather. Also Crown Prince Paul has been stripped of his citizenship. They all have Danish passports. Thereofore the Greek regime would deem the new baby to be Danish as he would be born to a Danish father. I'm not sure whether Crown Princess Pavlos is still an American citizen. As to the citizenships of the other children many of them were born in the United States. One wonders what their citizenships are? Thankfully Aunt Queen Margarethe II is Queen of Denmark and benevolently offered her younger sister's children Danish citizenship. Thank goodness they are Princes and Princesses of Greece and DENMARK. That is a saving grace.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You have to take what's written in Wikipedia and Internet forums with a grain of salt but I've found the Alexander Palace boards to be overall reliable.

 

[JewelFreak]

You're right, it was '94. Whatever web site I saw that on had it wrong.

Amelia, I love the Alexander Palace website! All of it is fascinating & the memoirs, etc., rivetting!

 

[Black Jade]

Haven't been on for a while. Very interesting posts.
I knew little about the Greeks. Interesting information.
JewelFreak is of course right about the custom of calling a royal house 'foreign' for a long time. This is not only a European habit. The last ruling house of China was there for 300 years, had a lot of major accomplishments, and still when they were kicked out in 1911, it was said that the 'Manchus' were being kicked out.
The Queen herself is more than 1/2 English, through her mother (and her father did have SOME English blood). since she married a Dane (Prince Philip himself says he is Danish by birth,so I'll go with that), Charles is only 1/2 English and little more, but William is at least 3/4 English. Whatever 'English' is. It's a mix of a bunch of different things if you get technical of course. But how far back does one go? and at what point does this become ridiculous? "I'm a Jute-Celt-Dane-Saxon-Roman" doesn't make a lot of sense after a while and hopefully we will eventually get that to that point in the US where everyone is now hypenated to death and busy demanding present privileges for past wrongs--but that's kind of off-subject.
Deb had an interesting post in which she asked me why I don't think royalty is by definition saying it's better than other people, depending on blue blood and so forth. I hope I am not misquoted you, Deb--your post was early on so I read it some time ago. I guess I don't think of royalty as being 'better' and while some royals may still think so, I don't know that that is very common any more. anyway, they know they have to let go of it--notice them now marrying 'commoners' in droves, all royalty, not just British, because there are so few of them at this point that if they didn't they'd have to go back to that cousin marriage thing that didn't work out so well for the Habsburgs and some others. (Cousins, even first cousins can get away with marrying each other in ONE generation most of the time, but keep it up for long enough, and also keep others out of the gene pool and you get some very interesting diseases, even if its not your first cousin. Ask the Amish here in the US or the Boers in South Africa). I think that what it is nowadays is 'higher status', which is not the same thing, in my mind, as 'better.' Of course you can think of it as offensive that they are born into being 'higher status' but a lot of people are in the US also, in spite of all the nicknaming and back-slapping, and other people gain higher status for ridiculous reasons. think of all the actors who are so admired by many fans and it goes beyond that--I am always amazed by their testifying for Congress on subjects that they know absolutely nothing about or making causes popular (that they also usually don't know about) and being listened to. the world is unfair in one way or the other and if you put a bunch of babies on a desert island to grow up together and came back in twenty years, someone would have higher status and it would just be less confusing if they were wearing something (more leaves ontheir heads or more shells or something--anything will do, including, as we know, tiny stones that are cut to be shiny) that would let you know that they were higher status so that you would know where you really were. to me, the point at which it becomes a problem is when it's not a question of walking in a door sooner but when they are not equal under the law. when they automatically take jobs in front of more qualified people (which clearly doesnt' happen in England) or get away with crimes or tyranny. 'The English seem to me to be doing just fine with their system; a majority of them still clearly like it (though some vocal ones do not); when they don't they can get rid of their royals as so many others have done, and in the meantime, when they get tired of certain aspects (too big a civil list; the Queen not paying any taxes as she didn't pre 1992) they apparently have figured out how to fix it to their satisfaction. And the rest of us have the benefit of looking at glamor, living history and pageantry and seeing some of the past preserved, if we want to , and if we don't, we can just ignore it.
to me, the Queen is on one hand a woman (and one who seems worthy of respect for her personal qualities and accomplishments), and on the other hand a living symbol. It is as living symbol that I would stand up for her when "God save the Queen'[ is played. I don't see how this is different from saluting a piece of cloth sewn with red and white strips and appliqued with stars when the Star-spangled Banner is played. Of course I am at least the equal of a piece of cloth as a human being! and no one stands up for me and salutes me! but our flag is a symbol of certain things that deserve respect more than I do.
That's my opinon.
This is under normal circumstances, which is all there normally are. Of course you can reduce my argument to absurdity and say things like IF you and the flag were in a burning building and only one of you could be saved, or something like that--but that's not a normal circumstance. And I cant' think of normal circumstance where someone would be forced to do something that somehow denigrated me as a human being for the Queen, either. I guess I'm just trying to say that of course as human beings we are equal, she is not 'better' but that's not what I think is meant by the whole thing at all.
Society needs some kind of order to function and often that order is hierarchy and hierarchy is not necessarily bad--I think its good for people if there are others that they respect, for some reason or other and if everyone isn't always in rebellion against EVERYTHING, as we seem to have remained since the sixties--not that I think that we didn't need some of the changes made then but we do need some order and stability also. It's a balance. Symbols can help.

 

[prince.of.preslav]

Something's telling me that throughout the Oldenburg's history in Greece, somebody or somebodies consistently did not want them in Greece but they kept coming back. With that history, I don't wonder that despite what citizenship laws say, any current Greek government is going to have a bit of anxiety about them settling in Greece or taking Greek citizenship.

One very importand thing George I told his sons was - "Never forget that you're foreigners in this country and never let the Greeks remeber it". I'm not sure if this was the exact wording, but you get the menaing.
The sons didn't forget it,but the Greek people remebered it, and still rmember it.

BTW, I often think that Greece is always in some sort of problems, no matter if there's a King or a President. That's a pity as Greece is a nice country.

Bobby

 

[prince.of.preslav]

Also, the Greek coup that deposed Constantine occurred in 1967 & the RF fled to Rome that year. Nikolaos was born in Rome in May 1967. The monarcy was officially abolished in '73 but the family had been stripped of their wealth & citizenship in '67. I know they are now allowed back in -- has their citizenship been restored?

--- Laurie

Laurie, they were not stripped of anything in 1967, but rather they abandoned everything they could not take with them in Rome, hoping to return sooner than later.
Also, the fact that they left for Rome in 1967 doesn't mean that HM didn't remain Greece's Head of State untill 1973. For example, King Olav V of Norway was in exile with his government in London during the German occupation during WWII, yet he continued being Norway's Head of State.

 

[prince.of.preslav]

The Queen herself is more than 1/2 English, through her mother (and her father did have SOME English blood). since she married a Dane (Prince Philip himself says he is Danish by birth,so I'll go with that), Charles is only 1/2 English and little more, but William is at least 3/4 English. Whatever 'English' is. It's a mix of a bunch of different things if you get technical of course. But how far back does one go? and at what point does this become ridiculous? "I'm a Jute-Celt-Dane-Saxon-Roman" doesn't make a lot of sense after a while and hopefully we will eventually get that to that point in the US where everyone is now hypenated to death and busy demanding present privileges for past wrongs--but that's kind of off-subject.

Black Jade, you must mean that the Queen is at least 1/2 British, or at least Scottish As to Prince Philip - he said that her considers himself Scandinavian, particularly Danish, rather than Greek. To me it's understandable, given that left Greece as a small child and that his country of birth doesn't want to aknolidge the part of it's history when Philip's family was on the throne. Likewise, The Queen of Spain said she feels 100% Spanish, instead of Greek.

On another note, I think that many people here seem to forget that Presidents are also state-funded (in some cases they get more than monarchs) and that troops should salute them every time they see them

Bobby

 

[prince.of.preslav]

Wikipedia says Constantine was stripped of Greek citizenship in 1994. The Alexander Palace discussion boards have a lot of knowledgeable members on royalty.

I found this thread http://forum.alexanderpalace.org/index.php?action=printpage;topic=1991.0 that could shed some light-in particular this post:


You have to take what's written in Wikipedia and Internet forums with a grain of salt but I've found the Alexander Palace boards to be overall reliable.

AmaliaG, I also think Alexander Palace, along a few royalty boards, is one of the most accurate forums about royalty.
Thanks for the intersting quote, btw. I should also add that Denmark issues diplomatic pasports to all legal descendants of Christian IX and Queen Louise. That's why the Greek royal couple, their children and grand children have visited Greece many times in the past 10+ years. Princess Irene has a Spanish pasport, I belive under the name Irene de Grecia y Hanover. That's how she's also visited Greece multiple times since 1981.

Bobby

 

[JewelFreak]

they were not stripped of anything in 1967, but rather they abandoned everything they could not take with them in Rome, hoping to return sooner than later.

Not formally, Bobby, but they fled with nothing, fearing they'd be stripped of their lives & weren't allowed to retrieve any of their belongings till the 1990s.

Also, the fact that they left for Rome in 1967 doesn't mean that HM didn't remain Greece's Head of State untill 1973. For example, King Olav V of Norway was in exile with his government in London during the German occupation during WWII, yet he continued being Norway's Head of State.

The Greek situation was a little different. Norway was invaded & occupied by a foreign power during a war. The King was not kicked out by his own people -- & in fact rather than statute, King Olav was not head of state: he could do no governing in that time.

Constantine was overthrown by a Greek military coup & though he tried a contra-coup, did not have enough of an army to succeed. The statutes may not have been changed to abolish the monarchy yet, but from '67 on, like Olav during WWII, Constantine was not in reality head of state. The junta held a plebescite in '73 that resulted in the formal end of the monarchy, though it was a bit suspect, having been done under a dictatorship. In '74 after the military gov't fell, another plebescite confirmed the first one. Where Olav's people welcomed him back, there is little reported interest in Greece in a restored monarchy. Noboday can blame the Greek RF for trying & hoping, since royal exile & return was a repeating riff in modern Greek history.

--- Laurie

 

[prince.of.preslav]

Not formally, Bobby, but they fled with nothing, fearing they'd be stripped of their lives & weren't allowed to retrieve any of their belongings till the 1990s.

Not quite, Laurie! There must've been quite a lot of personal belongings left (china, silver, furniture, paintings) but at least they had the jewels with them, and also clothes, probably even some china and silver. At least there are photos of The Queen wearing the two parures post-1967.

The Greek situation was a little different. Norway was invaded & occupied by a foreign power during a war. The King was not kicked out by his own people -- & in fact rather than statute, King Olav was not head of state: he could do no governing in that time.

OK, their situation was a bit diferent, yet Greece was a monarchy untill 1973 with Constantine II recognised as head of state.

Bobby