Will Crown Princess Victoria and Daniel Westling Marry in 2009?

[White Princess]

I Think they will never get married

I agree. I think Victoria will have no issue, being succeded by her brother (unfortunately).

 

[RADKER18]

Didn't Victoria say she would choose the throne over Love , well I wish she would they have been together for a very long time if after this many years together and if marriage is not in the cards yet , She needs to move on . JMO

 

[queenofcelts]

I hope for: YES!!!!!!! this year or 2010 the latest...

 

[Her_Majesty]

I voted for"No, they will never get married"... but I wouln't mind to be proved wrong...
I just hope SOMETHING happens. Either a break-up or an engagement. I wonder what they are waiting for.

 

[crm2317]

I also voted for "No they will never marry" but I would happily be proven wrong!

 

[Winnie]

I also voted for "No they will never marry" but I would happily be proven wrong!

I agree -- just feel something strange about this relationship -- I am probably wrong, but there just doesn't seem to be that "spark" lovers emit, even when they don't want to............

 

[Penny Lane]

I voted for 2010 for an engagment and a wedding though I have nothing to base this on except a hunch.I have no reason to believe they are not devoted to each other it may just be marriage is not a high priority for them it's not for every couple.The fact that Victoria will be Queen may be what pushes then to marry but they will do it when they are ready and no sooner.

 

[reen]

I voted they will never get married, just because it seems that way. Hope I'm wrong. I would like CP Victoria to be very happily married. If she does marry, I think she will be the same age as her mother was when she married.

 

[Rossina]

I think ... yes ! .

 

[Maxie]

2009 is the year that Victoria is going to realize she can do much better, trust me. They will never get married, I gave up all hope by now.

 

[Akilah]

One day, I believe Victoria will get married, but I hope that when she does decide that the time is right that she has made the best decision for herself. I feel that some people put to much emphasis on Victoria marrying. Had she been a man I do not think the speculation and judgment would be so harsh. Most would think it is fine for a crown prince to marry in his late thirties or early forties, but with Victoria, people seem to judge her choice to wait as unfortunate. I know that the issue of "child bearing" years are an issue for alot of people, but she does have siblings who might produce children who can one day inherit the crown if she marries later in life and is beyond child bearing years. Hope is not lost for the Swedish Royal Family. In due course, life will unfold as it should and Victoria will met destiny--with or without a husband.

 

[Kotroman]

She could remain unmarried for the rest of her life and I wouldn't hold it against her. It's been proven that married queens regnant are no better monarchs than the unmarried ones. When it comes to Sweden only (let alone Elizabeth I of England): compare Margaret, a widow, and Christina with Ulrika Eleanor. The former undoubtly played their roles better than the latter, don't you think? Her marital status is not important for her role as monarch, seeing that she has two younger siblings who will presumably produce legitimate offspring. I do understand that you all want her to marry and have children like a fairy-tale princess, but perhaps she has other plans.

 

[Lena]

Queen Elizabeth I and Queen Christina, are thanks to their personality, surely quite (still!) popular figures, but they would fit - no way - into the Monarchies of today
If Victoria would say "Adios amigos. I am converting to catholicism and go to Rome", the Monarchy itself would be very much questioned.
Why keeping a Monarchy, if the Royals self don´t wanna have it.
Besides the next generation isn´t secured yet. I am doubtful CP will save it and so everything would be up to one person: Madeleine

 

[Kotroman]

Christina's choice to remain unmarried has nothing to do with her personal beliefs. Elizabeth I, unlike Christina, never even bothered to designate an heir and she was criticised for her "irresponsibility" during her early reign, yet her reign has always been considered a golden age of English history. Queen Margaret is another example too. Therefore I am sure you'll agree that Victoria could reign successfully as a single woman. Prince Albert, though ruler of a much smaller country, manages to do it

 

[Boris]

The equation of two female monarchs from the 16th and 17th century who really did rule with a future Queen of the 21st century in a constitutional monarchy doesn’t make much sense really.
The differences on every level from status over power to the role of women in general are too vital to even make productive comparisons, let alone to equate the ladies.
Of course it will be possible for Victoria to fulfill her role as Queen if she stays single.
I am not so sure though how Prince Albert manages to reign successfully as a single woman...

 

[Kotroman]

The equation of two female monarchs from the 16th and 17th century who really did rule with a future Queen of the 21st century in a constitutional monarchy doesn’t make much sense really.
The differences on every level from status over power to the role of women in general are too vital to even make productive comparisons, let alone to equate the ladies.

Marriage was much more important during Christina's lifetime than it is now and I didn't equate her with Christina or Ulrika Eleonora. You are right, however, my comparison didn't make much sense. It's just that people pay too much attention to her marital status. It's not like she'll become an old maid if she doesn't get married tomorrow (not litteraly tomorrow, you know what I mean).

Of course it will be possible for Victoria to fulfill her role as Queen if she stays single.

That was my original point (which stretched far away ).

I am not so sure though how Prince Albert manages to reign successfully as a single woman...

I should've changed that to single person

 

[Boris]

I think the one aspect under which worrying about CP Victoria's single status makes sense is the question of the Bernadotte succession.
The Swedish royal family is indeed the only one around who will have NO heirs whatsover if none of the three Bernadotte children produces a child.
Even if you go back generations, there is no one with succession rights - Number 4 to the throne simply doesn't exist.
But I VERY much doubt that this is the reason why discussions about her marrying or not go on and on. It certainly has more to do with absolutely enjoyable speculation about her private life, and also with less enjoyable, still conservative expectations of a woman in general.
I wouldn't have any problem with her staying single and childless, and e.g. Princess Madeleine becoming mother to the next monarch - in fact, it would be a rather interesting concept.

 

[Kotroman]

Certainly, the Bernadotte succession is very fragile, but both Carl Philip and Madeleine could produce offspring.

But I VERY much doubt that this is the reason why discussions about her marrying or not go on and on. It certainly has more to do with absolutely enjoyable speculation about her private life, and also with less enjoyable, still conservative expectations of a woman in general.
I wouldn't have any problem with her staying single and childless, and e.g. Princess Madeleine becoming mother to the next monarch - in fact, it would be a rather interesting concept.

I agree, it's more enjoyable speculation than worrying about Bernadotte succession. The conservative expectations of a woman in general is what made me compare her with successful unmarried queens regnant. It is rather "boring" when the crown always passes to the monarch's child. Victoria being succeeded by a younger sister or a nephew/niece is a more interesting situation.

 

[Boris]

Out of the seven Bernadotte Kings, only three inherited their throne directly from their father.
That's quite an interesting statistic already.

 

[Anna Z.]

There is no need to worry about succession right now. Victoria has plenty of time to produce an heir. Here is a little overview of royal ladies who married at 30 or later. The first number is the age at the time of the wedding, the other number is the age at the time of the birth of the first child.

Masako Owada: 29 (almost 30), 37 (almost 38)
Autumn Kelly: 30
Máxima Zorreguieta: 30 (almost 31), 32
Märtha Louise: 30 (almost 31), 31 (almost 32)
Sonja Haraldsen: 31, 34
Alexandra Manley: 31, 35
Infanta Elena: 31 (almost 32), 34 (almost 35)
Letizia Ortiz: 31 (almost 32), 33
Infanta Cristina: 32, 34
Mary Donaldson: 32, 33
Marie Cavallier: 32, 33
Silvia Sommerlath: 32 (almost 33), 33 (almost 34)
Sophie Rhys-Jones: 34, 38
Mabel Wisse Smit: 34 (almost 35), 35 (almost 36)
Laurentien Brinkhorst: 34 (almost 35), 36
Princess Sayako: 36

 

[HRHofNothing]

I get the feeling that the Palace and the Government are against this match because they probably think that Daniel is not a good candidate for Consort (and if he were serious about being Victoria's husband he would have made some extremely public efforts in this regard). Victoria probably loves him and (like Haakon) is stubbornly holding out until the parents give in and accept Daniel as he is.

 

[firelight]

Out of the seven Bernadotte Kings, only three inherited their throne directly from their father.
That's quite an interesting statistic already.

I didn't know that! Wow!

As others have pointed out, it's somewhat outdated to assume Victoria MUST marry and produce babies to fulfil her duties as queen. I fully support the right for a woman to remain single and childless if she so desires.

The thing is, I've read elsewhere before that Victoria is very fond of children - that gave me the impression that she would love to be a mother - perhaps I'm wrong and it's not a priority for her. But if she does indeed want children, and is holding back from that because she's waiting for Daniel, I think that's a shame. Sorry, I don't think he's worth it! JMO of course.

Regarding the Bernadotte succession, it would certainly be interesting to have the throne pass down to Carl Philip or Madeleine's child. However, neither of them have yet shown any inclination to have kids. I'm still holding out hope for Madeleine. Carl Philip, not so much.

I'm surprised to read there's no one next in line after Madeleine. Doesn't the King have sisters? Can't their children be considered eligible? If not, what will happen to the throne if neither Victoria nor Carl Philip nor Madeleine produces a child? Eek...I can't imagine what a headache this must be for the King.

 

[Kotroman]

No, Madeleine is the last one. None of the King's sisters is in the line of succession.

If all three of the King's children die childless (which is unlikely), Sweden would either elect a new monarch (possibly one of the King's nephews or nieces) or turn into a republic (God forbid!).

 

[Boris]

There's indeed NO Number 4 in line to the Swedish throne.
King Carl Gustaf's sisters, including Princess Birgitta, never had succession rights - they didn't lose them through unequal marriage, as no female Bernadotte offspring ever had succession rights before 1979, and the change of succession law prepared in 1978 (passed in 1979) is not retro-active.
Going back a few generations, all of King Carl Gustaf's uncles and great-uncles either didn't have children (a rather exceptional number in each generation), or they lost their succession rights through un-equal, unapproved marriage.
Therefore, even among the distant relatives of the present King, there's no-one who would qualify as Number Four.
If anyone (for example the children of the King's eldest sister Princess Margaretha) should have to be considered eligible because none of the King's children produce any offspring, then this would require extensive legal changes and would be in favor of people who never were prepared for any kind of royal life in the first place.
If the King and Queen should have sleepless nights over Victoria and Daniel, it probably wouldn't be anything new to them. Imagine the pressure on the Royal Couple following their marriage in 1976 - the only heir the King had back then was his own uncle Prince Bertil (in a long un-legalized relationship with Lilian Craig who was past child bearing age), so the need to have a child as soon as possible must have weighed very heavily on the newly married King and Queen Silvia.

 

[sgl]

I think that the time is right. They are both in their thirties; he is established in his career. After seven years of dating, they should know whether or not they would make a great partnership. Victoria seems like such a lovely woman. It would be great to see her as a mother and wife.

 

[Franz]

I think that the time is right. They are both in their thirties; he is established in his career. After seven years of dating, they should know whether or not they would make a great partnership. Victoria seems like such a lovely woman. It would be great to see her as a mother and wife.

This is one of the best photos I've seen.


Victoria blev gudmor - till ett värmekraftverk - GT.se

 

[hamlet]

Just be happy and hope a thoughtful set of rings will be made for her by the one that will be by her side for life.

Peace

 

[Maura724]

If these two ever get married, I will eat a live goldfish.

Uh-oh...

 

[norwegianne]

Uh-oh...

Well, the gold-fish eating can wait a bit. The engagement is a long one

 

[iakynthi]

Since they have already stated that the wedding will take place in 2010,we have no reason to doubt.