King Carl Gustaf Controversy; 2010-2011

[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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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!

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]

Originally Posted by Karisma

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]

Originally Posted by Karisma

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]

Originally Posted by CSENYC

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.

Originally Posted by CSENYC

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.

Originally Posted by CSENYC

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]

Originally Posted by roseroyal

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]

Originally Posted by Renata4711

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.