King Carl Gustaf Controversy: 2010-2011

[Al_bina]

Swedish King Carl XVI Gustaf Urged To Step Down Over Strip Club Scandal

 

[CSENYC]

The King will not abdicate on the basis of baseless allegations. What has happened is that the Swedish newspapers started with a medial style you previously could only be found in other countries. The King is not accused of anything criminal. No one has yet been able to prove any of it had been alleged and as long as both government and opposition expresses confidence in His Majesty, this is a "non issue".

It does not matter whether he has done anything criminal.

If a King could not win an election or does not have the support of the people, he should not be in office.

Queen Elizabeth II and plenty of other monarchs have very high approval ratings. I saw in this thread that the King has the support of only 44% of Swedes.

The King could not win an election with that, and that shows that he is not popular. In a monarchy, kings and queens absolutely have to follow the wishes of the people, even if they are not elected. Otherwise the monarchy is not democratic.

One of the main attractions for me of a monarchy is that the monarch unites people (rather than dividing them, as Presidents in the US do)-- and a monarch who cannot unite people should not be a monarch.

For the good of the monarchy, he should go. I don't want my homeland to be like Greece or Italy, who became republics just because of 1 bad monarch.

 

[Karisma]

Support for the monarchy in Sweden 2011

It does not matter whether he has done anything criminal.

If a King could not win an election or does not have the support of the people, he should not be in office.

Queen Elizabeth II and plenty of other monarchs have very high approval ratings. I saw in this thread that the King has the support of only 44% of Swedes.

The King could not win an election with that, and that shows that he is not popular. In a monarchy, kings and queens absolutely have to follow the wishes of the people, even if they are not elected. Otherwise the monarchy is not democratic.

One of the main attractions for me of a monarchy is that the monarch unites people (rather than dividing them, as Presidents in the US do)-- and a monarch who cannot unite people should not be a monarch.

For the good of the monarchy, he should go. I don't want my homeland to be like Greece or Italy, who became republics just because of 1 bad monarch.

In the latest survey carried out regarding support for the monarchy represented 72 percent said they wanted to keep the royal family, 20 percent wanted to abolish it and 8 percent did not know. Despite this, we have seen a media drive against the royal family as never before seen. The question is not interesting to discuss when no political party runs it. The King has the support of both government and opposition. Could it happen one day deciding investigate a different constitution, so consider political scientists that it takes 15 years, after the decision, before we can amend the Constitution.

The bit with better memory of history remember that Queen Elizabeth was below 50 percent in relation to Diana's tragic death.

Who are you that can judge someone without that party being unheard? Let us do away with double standards in other countries where it is enough with a canard that someone will get hurt. It is so incredibly narrow-minded and ignorant of how a democratic monarchy works. Surely Royal interested having other issues to worry about right now.

For "Al Bina": The gossip in the in the Republic of Kazakhstan, would have very little impact for the King in Sweden ...

 

[Moonmaiden23]

Karisma you upbraid others for having a "sharp tongue" but you do not apply the same standards to yourself in your replies...either that or something is being lost in translation.

"Who are you to judge" is not exactly the polite way to refute someone else's posts.

Stating an opinion that contrasts markedly with your own is NOT being judgemental.

 

[CSENYC]

In the latest survey carried out regarding support for the monarchy represented 72 percent said they wanted to keep the royal family, 20 percent wanted to abolish it and 8 percent did not know.

I agree with you. Support for the monarchy as a whole is not bad, but support for the King as an individual is much lower. He should go, before he damages the monarchy as an institution. There have been too many countries where citizens have basically said, "since we can't elect our King, since the current King is terrible, we need just to get rid of the monarchy and have an elected President."

I wouldn't want that to happen. Sorry, I don't follow your next-to-last paragraph ("who are you to judge..."). The King has been heard, in that interview and elsewhere.

(Please, let's not resort to name-calling. I've lived in monarchies, am devoted to history and was even named for a prior Swedish king.)

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

For "Al Bina": The gossip in the in the Republic of Kazakhstan, would have very little impact for the King in Sweden ...

what a narrow-minded comment...

by the way, the link Al_bina provided is from american origin ... or maybe that isnt of any impact as well?

How about sticking to a swedish posters/swedish sources forum only then.

 

[Rascal]

The Great 2011 Deposition

So as I understand it, according to some here and in the Swedish media, CG should abdicate because he may/may not have been in a strip club where two female performers may/may not have been interacting sexually and which may/may not have been owned by a mobster/mafioso...also because there are rumored photographs of his patronage and (this is the only proven incident) his friend attempted to contact this mobster to purchase said pics if they do exist. The other thing fueling the discussion seems to be the ill-advised interview (I agree it was foolish for CG to do so) and the king's awkward responses. So far, every time I have seen footage of CG speaking, even when scripted, it seems halted, awkward and includes uh's, um's, and oh's...a trait that I have seen many times with him and with other Swedish speakers. Both Elisabeth Tarras-Wahlberg and Goran Alm exhibit this type of speech pattern.

So I assume with these as a criteria, anyone calling for the abdication of CG would also support the following:

Removal of Fred and Mary from succession because Fred cheated on his girlfriend to be with Mary, Fred has flirted and possibly more with several women since his marriage (at least two instances have provided photographic proof - most recently the blonde he was with before the christening), Mary is friends with/had dinner with known criminals (photographic proof exists).

Removal of POW from succession because he cheated on his wife during his marriage, divorced, has an awkward manner of speaking, and there are his statements regarding his desire to be Camilla's tampon (actual audio tape proof exists).

Removal of William from succession because he technically stole a government helicopter to go visit his girlfriend at the time at her family's home (no proof needed - William admitted it).

Removal of Harry from succession because he used drugs and dressed like a Nazi (admission from Harry and photographic evidence).

Removal of Andrew from succession because he is best buds with a known and convicted pedophile (photo of Andrew with his friend's underage "masseuse" has been published).

Removal of Beatrice from succession for many reasons but most prominently that hat.

Removal of Eugenie from succession for the scandalous vacation romp with her friends which had lesbian overtones (photographic evidence exists).

Leaving Edward as the next King of England.

Of course all of these things are stretching the limits and absurd, but they have more "proof" that what has been shown thus far. I'm sure any of these examples may have been embarassing for the British public (the Danes seem oblivious to such things in regards to their RF) but none of these scenarios has even been suggested.

 

[Bine221]

Rascal, that was great!!!! Still lying down and laughing!

My only comment: you forgot many other Royal Families, so the list could be extended to about 100 additional removal "arguments"
Bye Bine

 

[Moonmaiden23]

Oh Rascal that was so much fun...and I love to have a good belly laugh first thing in the morning!

Please come up with more reasons and include the other Royal Families...just like Bine221...I can assure you the material is THERE!

 

[Zonk]

I think its a little early to call for the abdication of the King, unless concrete proof has come about (and released) that he has in fact committed a crime or down irreparable damage to the Swedish monarchy. Even that is a big IF. Its not uncommon for governments whether they are democratic or consitutional monarchies to have to deal with scandals. History has shown that they can (and have) bounced back. Its how you handle it.

That being said, this is a topic that can and will be discussed as long as its done in a civil, courteous and respectful manner. That includes listening (and not belitting) those who disagree with you.

 

[Moonmaiden23]

Zonk, I don't think HM should abdicate at all for the same reasons you gave.

I was just having a much needed laugh.

 

[Zonk]

My post wasn't directed towards you....others have mentioned abdication as well.

 

[XeniaCasaraghi]

I don't get the big deal about all this. He may or maynot have cheated on his wife. People don't even know what really happened or if anything happened at all. Good gracious is this the only affair this man had? I'm surprised he wasn't cheating earlier because his first name is King.

 

[Esmerelda]

I don't get the big deal about all this. He may or maynot have cheated on his wife. People don't even know what really happened or if anything happened at all. Good gracious is this the only affair this man had? I'm surprised he wasn't cheating earlier because his first name is King.

It's the alleged contact with the 'criminal underworld' which could leave him vulnerable to blackmail. I think calls for abdication be backed by solid evidence, though. However, in a country with a free press, this is naturally a topic for discussion. The Royal Court has the ability to respond and the recent interview was not a PR triumph. We will find out how much substance there is to the claims when that biography with the gangster is published.

 

[Karisma]

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.

 

[nascarlucy]

I don't think any royal household is immune from scandal. Some are better at hiding their scandals (people around them are extremely loyal to them and protect them no matter what) than others.

 

[Karisma]

You´re right

I don't think any royal household is immune from scandal. Some are better at hiding their scandals (people around them are extremely loyal to them and protect them no matter what) than others.

You have no idea how correct you are in your writing...

 

[CSENYC]

It doesn't matter whether or not the King committed a crime or not. What matters is whether or not he has the support of the people, and if only 44% of people in Sweden want him to remain King, then he's lost the support of the people and should abdicate. It's undemocratic for a leader who does not have the support of the people to stay in office, whether or not he's elected.

 

[Zonk]

I disagree.

First of all polls are not always accurate and don't represent everyone but merely a sample of a population. Secondly, polls go up and down...so this could barely be a down point, and for all we know support for the King should rebound. Why give up now. As previously suggested, this is all supposition....unless I missed the specific pictures and/or charges...the King hasn't been proven guilty of anything other than bad judgement.

If that was the case, there would be no one leading any type of government.

 

[Karisma]

The support is 72%

It doesn't matter whether or not the King committed a crime or not. What matters is whether or not he has the support of the people, and if only 44% of people in Sweden want him to remain King, then he's lost the support of the people and should abdicate. It's undemocratic for a leader who does not have the support of the people to stay in office, whether or not he's elected.

Monarchy in Sweden has the support of 72% in the latest polls. HM the King's "Head of the monarchy" and he decides himself whether he should be "the boss"" or not. That´s the way it works according to the Swedish succession (one of our four basic laws). I think you can find similar comparisons in other democratic republics and monarchies. In an elected system is of course not everyone likes tthe leader of a political party best, but you can still feel that the party is governing the country the best way. And party leaders rarely appointed by the media but of those who are voting / people / pertikongress (different in different countries).

 

[roseroyal]

If the King decides to abdicate, would Victoria become Queen? Or would Sweden become a republic? All I can say about all this is Wow! If he was alive, my grandfather would have been very unhappy.
He was Swedish- American, and while very happy in the USA,very proud of country and king!

 

[Karisma]

If the King decides to abdicate, would Victoria become Queen? Or would Sweden become a republic? All I can say about all this is Wow! If he was alive, my grandfather would have been very unhappy.
He was Swedish- American, and while very happy in the USA,very proud of country and king!

There are currently nothing that would get the King to abdicate. Most royal families have to live with that sort out the gossip and rumors. But, if you speak in the hypotheses;

Succession, is the oldest existing constitution. It was passed by Parliament in 1810, and was issued as the current September 26 that year. The law governing the succession to the Swedish throne, that is, who gets to be king or queen reigning of the kingdom. With the adoption of succession, became the House of Bernadotte eligible to ascend the throne of Sweden. The Swedish throne is currently as follows:

1.Crownprincess Victoria
2.Prince Carl Philip
3.Princess Madeleine

 

[CSENYC]

Monarchy in Sweden has the support of 72% in the latest polls. HM the King's "Head of the monarchy" and he decides himself whether he should be "the boss"" or not.

Exactly- 72% of Swedes support having a monarchy. But only 44% of Swedes want the King to remain King and not abdicate (in the next 10 years).

Remember, Greeks voted by about 70% before World War II to restore their monarchy--just a few decades later, after King Constantine, they voted by about 70% to get rid of it. 72% is good, but it's not high enough, and if Sweden had a King or Queen who was more popular, perhaps maybe 80% or 85% of Swedes would support the monarchy.

Just because the King can decide that he should be king, doesn't necessarily mean that that's what he ought to do.

 

[roseroyal]

There are currently nothing that would get the King to abdicate. Most royal families have to live with that sort out the gossip and rumors. But, if you speak in the hypotheses;

Succession, is the oldest existing constitution. It was passed by Parliament in 1810, and was issued as the current September 26 that year. The law governing the succession to the Swedish throne, that is, who gets to be king or queen reigning of the kingdom. With the adoption of succession, became the House of Bernadotte eligible to ascend the throne of Sweden. The Swedish throne is currently as follows:

1.Crownprincess Victoria
2.Prince Carl Philip
3.Princess Madeleine

But in the hypotheses again, if the King abdicated is there enough public support for the monarchy in Sweden that people would want Victoria to rule? Or would Sweden most likely become a republic?

 

[Karisma]

Exactly- 72% of Swedes support having a monarchy. But only 44% of Swedes want the King to remain King and not abdicate (in the next 10 years).

There is an amusing tale that says: "There are three kinds of lying': lies, damned lies and statistics ". Currently there are no other than to assume that support for the monarchy in Sweden is 72%. It's about how the investigation is completed, when it is done and the kinds of questions they used. There is still no officially pronounced distrust of His Majesty the King from any of the the political parties in parliament.

Remember, Greeks voted by about 70% before World War II to restore their monarchy--just a few decades later, after King Constantine, they voted by about 70% to get rid of it. 72% is good, but it's not high enough, and if Sweden had a King or Queen who was more popular, perhaps maybe 80% or 85% of Swedes would support the monarchy.

One can not simply compare the Greek Constitution with the Swedish, and no other countries with each other - straight down. Should public opinion change in Sweden, it takes at least 15 years before we investigated a new form of government and it can be started. There is currently no single policy which come close to the confidence of the members of the royal family is expected to have. In 15 years time then a lot things happen.

Just because the King can decide that he should be king, doesn't necessarily mean that that's what he ought to do.

The latest survey, which was done by SIFO, but commissioned by tabloid Aftonbladet. Aftonbladet is owned by a Norwegian big publisher. They are well-known agitators for the republic. Query base was 1000 and I have not seen the questions. Before you ask, you should perhaps introduce alternatives. If people really belives in all the gossip as it can of course be that someone be annoyed and respond to the wish that the king must abdicate. But if the questioner would have presented an alternative so I belive that it has become much more complicated. A curiosity is that none of the leading politicians in Sweden had higher rates than the royal family​

The King will not abdicate from the rumors now abound. Speculation about whether it has not been presented and verified is meaningless.​

 

[Esmerelda]

But in the hypotheses again, if the King abdicated is there enough public support for the monarchy in Sweden that people would want Victoria to rule? Or would Sweden most likely become a republic?

Well, hypothetically, if the King were to abdicate, the throne passes immediately to Victoria after he signs the document. But that would of course open up a debate about the monarchy as a whole, which I think is a situation to avoid.

 

[Renata4711]

On the contrary - avoidance of sticky subjects does not help, but hinder.
The antics of some royals contribute substantially towards the slow decline of royal houses.

 

[CSENYC]

The antics of some royals contribute substantially towards the slow decline of royal houses.

Agreed.

It seems as if the idiotic decisions and acts of bad monarchs are a key reason why many countries in the world are republics. The Hohenzollerns in Germany, Habsburgs, Savoys, Glucksburgs in Greece, etc. are all gone because their last leader who was King made bad decisions. Even the US would still be a monarchy if George III hadn't acted so badly.

Karisma, we're unnecessarily talking past one another. Remember, I'm Swedish (ethnically) as well and am a strong supporter of the monarchy. I just see the current King's antics as damaging the institution--an institution that many people in many countries live without.

 

[mattep74]

The difference between Sweden and Greece/Italy that voted against their monarchy? Greece had a military revolution and a junta inposed on the country. The king tried a countercoup that failed and they had a rigged election to abolish the monarchy.

Greek republic referendum, 1973 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In Italy the royal house was to connected with the fascists. Also, one need to check the wikisite about the election. There was a line between royalty and repulicans that almost ran the same line as the Gustavline during ww2(that included Monte Cassino).

Italian constitutional referendum, 1946 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sweden dont have anything of this.

What about other countries in Europe that abolish their monarchies:
France, Russia, and Portugals revolutions.
Germany and Austria: Loosing the ww1.
Jugoslavia: Hitler invading and Titos communist partisans taking back the country.
Rest of Eastern Europe: Red Army happened

Scandinavia, Benelux, Spain and the UK are the remaining monarchies and i dont see anyone of them turning republic before 2020 atleast.

 

[Karisma]

On the contrary - avoidance of sticky subjects does not help, but hinder.
The antics of some royals contribute substantially towards the slow decline of royal houses.

Wild chase from the Republican journalists who do not respect the democratic examination of the claim and thus incites debate is even worse for the substance of the question.