Royals with Special Needs

[Kruununprinsessa]

I work in a preschool for children with mental and physical handicapabilities (yes, it is as cute as it sounds!), and with all the royal christenings going on this week, I got to thinking: What if a royal were to have a child with special needs? How would it affect their succession?

What if (for example) Princess Estelle had been born with Downs Syndrome? Or autism? As the first-born, would this affect her ability to one day become queen? What if Victoria and Daniel were to then have a "normal" second child; would this child take Estelle's place?

I'm only using Sweden as an example. What about other monarchies in the world? I know they all have their own rules, and I also know that the functions of special needs individuals has major variation on a case-by-case basis. I'm just generalizing here!

I'm aware of royals with obvious special needs in the past (Hello, Charles II of Spain), but my question is about modern-day royals.

Sorry I'm so long-winded! I'm just very curious. Thanks for your time!
-Kruununprinsessa :)

[Daria_S]

Hi. I'm a special education teacher as well (only my certification is in blindness and visual impairment), and I sometimes wondered the same thing. However, I'd like to think that in our day and age parents won't exclude a child from succession just because he/she has special needs. Nowadays monarchs are not involved with politics, but are ceremonial heads of state (at least in Europe), so I don't see why a person with Down Syndrome, Autism, cerebral palsy, visual impairment, etc. won't be able to perform the duties, with assistance when and if necessary.

[COUNTESS]

I would think it would involve the severity of the impairment. They still are the public images for the nation. Sort of a PR person for many thing. They attend openeing of things and make speeches. So, it would depend on how that could be handled.

[Kruununprinsessa]

I had always assumed as much... I think you are right, Daria, in this day and age it wouldn't matter as much as far as the whole "ceremonial figurehead" thing is concerned. Thanks for the input! :)

[Muhler]

In Denmark the heir has to sign a pledge to obey the Constitution and that means the heir has to understand what he/she is signing, what that entails and be able to comprehend the concept of the Constitution.
Because the Monarch here in DK is a part of the legislative process. I.e. signing laws for them to be valid, chairing regular state councils, appointing ministers and entire governments and so on.
In short the heir has to be "of sound mind".

So the Parliament would in all likelyhood bypass an heir, who is unable to or has very big problems fulfilling his/functions. Alternatively someone will act as regent and the heir would be de facto bypassed.

[Madame Royale]

Originally Posted by Daria_S

Hi. I'm a special education teacher as well (only my certification is in blindness and visual impairment), and I sometimes wondered the same thing. However, I'd like to think that in our day and age parents won't exclude a child from succession just because he/she has special needs. Nowadays monarchs are not involved with politics, but are ceremonial heads of state (at least in Europe), so I don't see why a person with Down Syndrome, Autism, cerebral palsy, visual impairment, etc. won't be able to perform the duties, with assistance when and if necessary.

On the subject of trisomy 21 (down syndrome) I think there must be certain considerations that would need to take place if an heir were to be born with the said chromosomal abnormality.

Fine and gross motor skill delay can interfere with cognitive development and congenital heart disease has risen significantly in relation to new borns (at around 50%).

Also fertility rates amongst people with down syndrom is significantly low with many males being unable to father children and women displaying low numbers for successful conception rates. As Europe's monarchies exist with a fundamental aim to be inherited, pressumably, by the child/children of the monarch this of course makes the likeliness of it very difficult and would place a great deal of stress upon that person and indeed the wider family.

The possiblility for an early onset of Alzheimers is also believed to be increased for people with trisomy 21. This occuring at an earlier stage of life than as is usually seen with most other people. Also there is an increased risk of developing epilepsy throughout childhood and adulthood.

Furthermore, the temperament of peoples with trisomy 21 often leads to behaviours of concern which often requires direct and consistent supervision. There are triggers which to us may not even appear as existant, but they are there and when evoked, it can cause a great deal of stress and anxiety for that person and those around them.

The fact of the matter is is that the broader picture needs to be taken into consideration.The person themselves need to become the priority above all else. Why place someone in such a demanding and relentless position of responnsbility when they could live a secure lifestyle, with the appropriate support networks and never have to want for anything. By no means does this suggest that they could not or should not hold a public profile alongside the rest of their family and undertake verious representative roles and patronages, but at least the burden of responsibility would not be so burdensome and kept at a minimal. Being the sibling of a King or Queen would come with more than enough responsibility.

It's about recognising the situation for what it is and in that, doing what can (and should) be done to assist and empower the indavidual to live as normal and comfortable life as is possible. The pressures of state and community expectations for a head of state would be a significant encumbrance.

[fandesacs2003]

Very interesting thread!! Bravo

Is think reply is very different according to the country, and the type and level if problem. For a mental problem, IMO it would be easier to give a clear solution, because mental incapacity implies directly the degree of understanding the function.
But what about a physical problem?? In the past such persons were eliminated from their rights, but now? I read that King Juan Carlos uncle, was deaph, and he lost his rights. Would it happen now?
I think one of Queen's Beatrix sisters is blind? What if she was the older? Being blind does not reduce your incapacity to live in the modern word, so why not being a modern Queen??

[PetraHel]

I think that being physically handicapped wouldn´t necesserily have to mean that one has to renounce his/her title to the throne. It would depend on the condition of the person. However, one thing is that modern countries can integrate such people well, the second is if the person would be eager to fulfil such a demanding role beside his/her health issues.
I have a colleague with multiple sclerosis, she is in a wheelchair. It costs her a lot of strenght to fulfill her job, even though she has just a part time. She is more tired, takes a lot of medication... It is not easy at all.
Mental handicap rules out the posibility to be a successor of the throne. Not only is the person unable tu fulfil the duties, moreover could be influenced by bad people, who would use her/him just like a puppet for their own intentions.
We can see it in the Orleans family, where the oldest Francois, being mentally handicapped, has been replaced as a succesor by his younger brother Jean, Duke of Vendome.
I understand that people are happy about the progress handicapped people can do being treated properly, but we have to stay realistic.

[Iluvbertie]

This is interesting but I do think that the respective parliaments wouldn't actually legislate to strip this child of their rights but that the next in line would become regent - the same as if the monarch were to be incapcitated at a later date.

e.g. in Denmark if Margrethe had a bad stroke and couldn't give speeches or sign stuff Fred would simply have to step up and do it as Regent - same with Charles in Britain etc as happened when George III was declared insane.

[fandesacs2003]

KIng Alexander from Greece died very young from septicaemia, because he was beaten by his monkey. At one stage of his illness, doctors proposed to ampute his leg, in order to save his life, but apparently his entourage refused because it was "unacceptable" to be a King with one leg! We know the end of the story.
This is to show how was at this time the mentality!!!! Even a physical handicap was not accepted. Hopefully now minds have changed!!
Personally I believe that in the modern monarchies, like Denmark or Sweden, a relative physical handicap would be accepted.
Germany has a Minister in wheelchair, it does not provoke any problem!!

[PetraHel]

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie

This is interesting but I do think that the respective parliaments wouldn't actually legislate to strip this child of their rights but that the next in line would become regent - the same as if the monarch were to be incapcitated at a later date.

e.g. in Denmark if Margrethe had a bad stroke and couldn't give speeches or sign stuff Fred would simply have to step up and do it as Regent - same with Charles in Britain etc as happened when George III was declared insane.

I see the difference here, because your examples are existing monarchs who are/were healthy and capable of doing their job. Regency is just a replacement in the time of their indiciposition. It should be temporary. But in the case of mentally handicapped successor who will never be able to fulfil the job the regent would be permanent. I don´t see the sense of this permanent regency.

[fandesacs2003]

Originally Posted by PetraHel

I see the difference here, because your examples are existing monarchs who are/were healthy and capable of doing their job. Regency is just a replacement in the time of their indiciposition. It should be temporary. But in the case of mentally handicapped successor who will never be able to fulfil the job the regent would be permanent. I don´t see the sense of this permanent regency.

Good point!. I think in this case, the person automatically looses his rights, before acceeding to the throne. They know before that he/is unable and the replace. Consequently, he/she never becomes the heir!

[Meraude]

Originally Posted by fandesacs2003

Good point!. I think in this case, the person automatically looses his rights, before acceeding to the throne. They know before that he/is unable and the replace. Consequently, he/she never becomes the heir!

Well, a royal heir is a royal heir from birth, whether s/he is first or fifth in line. There have been at least one, if not two Swedish princes that can be said to have had "special needs", prince Erik, son of Gustav V, had epilepsy and a mild retardation, Prince Erik, Duke of Västmanland - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia and prince August, son of Oscar I, Prince August, Duke of Dalarna - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia , had what can be described as "limited intelligence" and neither of them was removed from the line of succession. As both of them were the youngest sons, the likelihood of either of them inheriting the throne was slim.

[nascarlucy]

If a monarch or heir to the throne was born with physical challenges and had a sharp mind and had average or above average intelligence, then I don't see why their succession to the throne would be in question. Having a physical disability doesn't mean that you are incapable of being a King or Queen.

People who have physical disabilities can have children, depending on the severity of it. If they can't have children the normal way, medical science can help that process.

If the royal had serious mental challenges and couldn't understand simple commands or tasks, then the next person in line would be the heir. I heard a few royals who are Kings or Queens made it known to others that as long as they aren't mentally ill or incapciatated, they should be allowed to reign for life. This seems to be very clearly defined.

What isn't clearly defined is when someone is in a coma for a long period of time or suffering severe brain injury. Years ago these types of injuries usually resulted in death. Medical advances have changed that.

Because of medical advances people can survived for years in a coma like state. If a monarch or heir to the throne due to accident or illness went into a coma and after a year or two they still were in a coma, then what would happen. Or if 5 years later, they came out of the coma and recovered enough that their mind was functioning at a normal level.

This would be a real interesting one. A monarch gets the flu and ends up in a coma unexpectedly. The monarch has several children. The monarch is in a coma for about a year. It's decided short thereafter, then that the eldest child takes the throne. Shortly after taking the throne, the monarch comes out of the coma and within a year is almost back to normal as far as intelligence and thinking goes.

[Grandduchess24]

King Juan Carlos I's uncle was deaf/ mute and physically handicapped.

[Meraude]

Originally Posted by nascarlucy

This would be a real interesting one. A monarch gets the flu and ends up in a coma unexpectedly. The monarch has several children. The monarch is in a coma for about a year. It's decided short thereafter, then that the eldest child takes the throne. Shortly after taking the throne, the monarch comes out of the coma and within a year is almost back to normal as far as intelligence and thinking goes.

I seriously doubt that a monarch would be deposed if s/he ended up in a coma. The monarch would continue being the monarch while his/her eldest child or, if the child is a minor, a member of the royal family would be appointed regent and take over the duties of the monarch. Karl XIV Johan of Sweden was functioning as a regent from 1811 until the death of Carl XIII in 1818.

The most wellknown royal regent was the future king George IV of the United Kingdom during his father's illness (George III), from 1811 until 1820. He was known as HRH The Prince Regent during this time and the period is known as the Regency Era: British Regency - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Anyone who have read a number of romantic historical novels are familiar with the Regency Era, as it's one of the most favoured settings for such novels.

[Muhler]

I think that an heir with a fairly uncomplicated physical disabliity. I.e. semi paralyzed, blind, deaf and so on, would have no problem becoming a monarch.
I actually believe he/she would be seen as a role model.

An heir with a severe mental handicap, would almost certainly be bypassed in Denmark. There is no point in having a regent for decade after decade.

A monarch would almost certainly be represented by a regent, until the monarch dies.
There is a big difference in being a monarch and an heir, let alone an heir who is a minor.

[kathia_sophia]

nowadays an heir with physical disabilities would not loose his/her rights to succeed the throne, because he/she can perform royal duties (with great care for his/her health) and bear children, even if is born with reprodutive problems he/she can become monarch and be succeed by nephew/niece or brother/sister. the same goes for the monarch.

now mental disabilities is another talk. it is very dificult subject depending on the level of mental capablity. but if it is severe, in case an heir is born with this health issues, he/she would be replaced by a younger brother/sister they might have later. in case of a monarch to suffer mental issues later while ruling, and depending on each country and its constitution, the ruling monarch will still be king/queen until his/her death while the Regent will perform the monarch's duty.

all this in Europe, because in other monarchies such as middle east they would probably take other meanusers.

[Iluvbertie]

To remove an heir for any reason will require legislation which means actually passing a law to say xxxx can't be king/queen because they have yyyy disability and then have the present monarch sign that legislation. That means debates in parliament and the spectre of discrimination.

Much easier to have them become monarch with the next in line as the regent for the length of their reign just as if they had become incapacitated after becoming monarch.

The other issue is - what if the have xxxx disability at age 18 and the legislation is passed to remove them from the line of succession but then at age 35 a cure for that disability is found - do they then repeal the previous legislation - what if they have already missed out on being monarch?

Too many cans of worms opened to remove them when it would be simply easier to have a regent act for them.

[Muhler]

In that case, too bad.

I disagree with you. Bypassing an heir isn't that big a deal, and the parliaments will do it, if need be. - Probably with an overwhelming consent by the people.
It happened in Denmark in 1953. A change in the Constitution and Law of Succession meant that the heir was replaced. In this case Princess Margrethe was appointed the successor.
It happened later on in Sweden. As we all know, Victoria was not supposed to have become Crown Princess.

- In these two cases neither of the original heirs had handicaps.
The Parliaments, I believe, would have little qualms of doing what would be seen as the necessary and most practical thing to do. Not least by the people.

What if-cures/scenarios are of little interest to the general public.

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie

To remove an heir for any reason will require legislation which means actually passing a law to say xxxx can't be king/queen because they have yyyy disability and then have the present monarch sign that legislation. That means debates in parliament and the spectre of discrimination.

Much easier to have them become monarch with the next in line as the regent for the length of their reign just as if they had become incapacitated after becoming monarch.

The other issue is - what if the have xxxx disability at age 18 and the legislation is passed to remove them from the line of succession but then at age 35 a cure for that disability is found - do they then repeal the previous legislation - what if they have already missed out on being monarch?

Too many cans of worms opened to remove them when it would be simply easier to have a regent act for them.