Our fundamental laws
Of course, all say what they like but they must also understand that what is true in a country not at issue in another. Perhaps one must also understand the ownership structure of the major Swedish tabloids, connections between certain tabloid newspapers and TV media, etc? Maybe you also need to have a little knowledge of the various democratic governance works differently before you write and ask things that could possibly be implemented in one contry, but not in another.
Sweden has four fundamental laws: “The Instrument of Government”, “Succession order”, “Freedom of the Press” and “Freedom for expression”. There are examples of Monarchies with only a constitution. (Denmark). Republic of Finland has only one constitution. So, there are countries that lack written constitution, but still works. Britain's constitution is generally considered as the best example in point. In theory, the British Parliament to adopt in principle the decision at any time, without being constrained by the Constitution. In practice, however, the public power of a series of historic decisions, such as the Magna Carta, the constitutional practice and the "Common Law", the main source of English law, the principles that "habeas corpus".
When some of us are talking about the "Swedish king to abdicate because of rumors" the person does not understand the four Swedish constitutions. The King may juniper dismissed if he commits a crime against national security - that´s all!. No one has even been able to prove that the king did do anything. Rumors are rumors, proof are proof and "the law must be blind"-even for our king. Otherwise we wouldn´t be a democratic country with rules for all, the king hinmself included.
Should such evidence come to light so are the rumors that ill-minded Republican newspapers have written about yet, no criminal acts as in Sweden. Recent events have not in any way influenced the King, Parliament or the Government's view of when a belief shift in favor of the Crown Princess to happen. There is not such a serious debate in Sweden. Kings are not earmarked by the media storms. That´s a kind of tradition and argued that it is not possible to so in Sweden. Anyone who says that the king had been heard, believe that an interview is the same as to "hear the king". The king is head of state and we have not the scheme that the Prime Minister (head of government), reviewing the Head of State.
Abdication, to renounce the throne, is a monarch chooses formally. If one looks at the issue historically has often been forced abdication of external circumstances. But no one in Sweden, with knowledge of government, makes the assessment that there is any pressure from any quarter that the King should resign.