Popularity of the Monarchy in Sweden

[xenobia]

Perhaps that's the reason why the Riksdag wants out in granting final consent to royal marriages - if something horrible and damaging to Sweden comes out on the consort it approved it would hurt that representative's political career? Questions raised on the approval process and how thorough was the vetting?

What horrible thing are you talking about? I know that you don't like Sofia, but this is actually getting ridiculous.

Just the idea of av "vetting process" is totally absurd if you're a swede. No matter who would do the vetting.

 

[hernameispekka]

What horrible thing are you talking about? I know that you don't like Sofia, but this is actually getting ridiculous.

Just the idea of av "vetting process" is totally absurd if you're a swede. No matter who would do the vetting.

Haha, exactly! Vetting for a job, ok. But vetting for marriage is absurd. I think people can accept the vetting of the royal a smidge because of the role, but only for actually bad stuff like criminality and such. Not a stupid picture in your youth or you having too little fancy blood in your veins.

 

[hernameispekka]

The royals are humans like all of us and no pre-programmed robots. They can also fall in love with any person on planet earth. I don't see anything wrong with that as long as they aren't serial killers or something like that.

If you fall in love with someone but is being denied to marry that person because that person doesn't have a noble background or isn't a diplomat, a military or a doctor in something, then you are forced to not marry your loved one as i see it. Most people in Sweden have no problem with Princess Sofia today and defenitely not with Queen Silvia and Prince Daniel.
Sofia did her less good choices in her youth and she admits that. Posing for a nude photo and participating in a reality tv show is controversial things that most people later regrets. But hey, it is not a crime. I don't think that should stop you from marry the love of your life. I want to see the person who has never done a controversial thing in his/her life.

We saw with Charles and the "according to the protocol suitable" Diana how things can go when you are marrying someone you were persuaded to marry and not 100 % in love with. Let that be the last example of that !

Exactly what I mean!

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

I don't think there is a problem unless the one that matters isn't obviously qualified to do the job. In this case, this is Victoria, I don't think that a majority of the Swedes has this feeling.
While Prince Daniel hasn't put a foot wrong and adds to the satisfying picture of the future King family, he is not really important. He has always been a decent human being, leaving the limelight to Victoria, so that's good enough.

Sofia is even less important and to be honest in a time where the difference between royals and celebrities can be hard to tell, it's not bad to have a family member that, while of no institutional importance, draws the pink press.

I'd like to add that if CP had been the heir, there would have been much more opposition for him to marry Sofia. She's not in the same league as Daniel. But we've been there before.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

For so far all the talk about love marriages and free partner choices et al. Nice. But I would ask everyone to look up to the header: the royal forums.

Note that any successor to the throne was free to marry anyone. Yes, before King Carl XVI Gustaf this had consequences when it was not approved by the King. For several royals this was no hindrance to marry the partner of their choice anyway. Being royal comes with vast privileges. And, oh yes... it came with obligations. For an example the desire that an alliance should not only procreate the royal dynasty but also benefit the status, the dignity and the prestige of said dynasty.

I liked that clarity. Marry the milkmaid if you want. But you will loose the royal status. Now any milkmaid can become Queen of Sweden, by way of speaking. This has taken a very deep essence of a royal family away.

The first Bernadotte King was not at all that highborn. He knew that. The strict marriage policy introduced was exactly to push the Bernadottes up in prestige. That his descendants married Princess Louise of the Netherlands, Princess Sophia of Nassau, Princess Therese of Saxen, King Frederik VIII of Denmark, Princess Victoria of Baden, Princess Ingeborg of Denmark, etc. was not for nothing. In no time the Bernadottes became an utmost respected royal dynasty.

Note that Prince Oscar, Prince Sigvard, Prince Carl Johan and Prince Lennart all could marry the partner of their choice. Yes, it had consequences, but that is a fair part of the deal to be born with three golden spoons in the mouth and living up in guilded cages.

 

[maria-olivia]

They married scandinavian or german Princesses.
The Wedding of Astrid of Sweden with the future King of Belgium was a Changement and kissing her fiancé at her arrival in Antwerpen was something unexpected!

Due to Valentin's Royal Blog King Baudouin said that the relationship between the 2 Royal houses was broken for years abd due to Queen Fabiola they started again.
No show up for King Leopold III at all the Scandinavian Royal Events between 1935 and 1940.

 

[xenobia]

I don't think there is a problem unless the one that matters isn't obviously qualified to do the job. In this case, this is Victoria, I don't think that a majority of the Swedes has this feeling.
While Prince Daniel hasn't put a foot wrong and adds to the satisfying picture of the future King family, he is not really important. He has always been a decent human being, leaving the limelight to Victoria, so that's good enough.

Sofia is even less important and to be honest in a time where the difference between royals and celebrities can be hard to tell, it's not bad to have a family member that, while of no institutional importance, draws the pink press.

I'd like to add that if CP had been the heir, there would have been much more opposition for him to marry Sofia. She's not in the same league as Daniel. But we've been there before.

I really don't understand the reasoning behind this post.

The topic is the future of the swedish monarchy. This is, in some extent, connected to the topic who the members of the royal family marries. Silvia is the perfect example here. I honestly doubt that the monarchy would have thrived the way it did if she hadn't been a major part of the family.

But there are no specific qualifications that can determine if a new royal (one that marries into a royal family) will succeed with his or her new job. There are lots of factors, but they are all very dependent on a specific moment in time and/or a nations traditions, values and perceptions of the new royal.

The king is king. But the queen is, IMO, the one who saved the monarchy, even though she was born as a commoner. I have no doubt that Daniel will continue to be a rock in Victorias life, just as he will be a rock in the royal family when she one day becomes queen. Having said that, I don't think that the majority of the population saw that coming when the news of Victorias new boyfriend (him) broke almost 15 years ago. But he proved himself, and people respect that here. You do get a chance. Use it well, and the swedish people in general won't care if you have a masters degree or just barely finished high school, what job you had before, where you were born... and so on. Silvia and Daniel proves this. There is no reason why Sofia should be any different to them in the long run. She hasn't put her foot wrong since the engagement, as far as I can tell.

People here like the idea that the royal princes and princesses can marry who they want to. If they are gym owners, yoga instructors, foreign bankers or a divorced ex model (like Lillian) - that's not an issue. What matters is what you do with your life once you enter the royal family. So phrases like "she's not in the same league as x" is really a very strange way of thinking for me as a swede.

I totally get that this isn't the way things work in other royal families, or in other countries. People are different. Not better or worse, just different. And this is how it works here.

 

[Mbruno]

What horrible thing are you talking about? I know that you don't like Sofia, but this is actually getting ridiculous.

Just the idea of av "vetting process" is totally absurd if you're a swede. No matter who would do the vetting.

Whether it is absurd or not, it is nonetheless the law of the land in Sweden. In other words, when the law says that princes and princesses of the Royal House cannot retain their succession rights if they marry without the consent of the government granted upon request by the King, it is clear to me at least that the intention of the legislature was that royal brides or grooms should be vetted.

Daniel and Sofia were therefore vetted and found suitable for public service and raising future potential heirs to the throne, Given that both Daniel and Sofia have so far performed adequately in their public role, i believe the government's judgment when they consented to their marriages was correct in hindsight.

Broadly speaking, I don't think there should be a rule that royals must not marry foreigners, or aristocrats, or other royals. In fact, if such rule existed, it would be as bad as the old rule that royals could only marry other foreign royals. It is important though that royal consorts, whether they are commoner, noble or royal, domestic or foreign, be suitable people for the role they will perform, and that is why I think the government vetting is necessary and should continue to be part of the law.

 

[xenobia]

Whether it is absurd or not, it is nonetheless the law of the land in Sweden. In other words, when the law says that princes and princesses of the Royal House cannot retain their succession rights if they marry without the consent of the government granted upon request by the King, it is clear to me at least that the intention of the legislature was that royal brides or grooms should be vetted.

Daniel and Sofia were therefore vetted and found suitable for public service and raising future potential heirs to the throne, Given that both Daniel and Sofia have so far performed adequately in their public role, i believe the government's judgment when they consented to their marriages was correct in hindsight.

Broadly speaking, I don't think there should be a rule that royals must not marry foreigners, or aristocrats, or other royals. In fact, if such rule existed, it would be as bad as the old rule that royals could only marry other foreign royals. It is important though that royal consorts, whether they are commoner, noble or royal, domestic or foreign, be suitable people for the role they will perform, and that is why I think the government vetting is necessary and should continue to be part of the law.

My comment was a respons to: "Perhaps that's the reason why the Riksdag wants out in granting final consent to royal marriages - if something horrible and damaging to Sweden comes out on the consort it approved it would hurt that representative's political career? Questions raised on the approval process and how thorough was the vetting?"

Yes. The kings children need the formal approval of the parliament to be allowed to marry into the family. That's correct. To the best of my knowledge, this is also just an old symbolic tradition - just like the inspection of newborn royal babies. No one seriously thinks that a royal child these days would be switched at birth (or something like that). It's just a tradition. The same goes for the formal approval of a royal marriage. I have no doubt that all the partners of the royal children are thoroughly screened from a security point as soon as they start dating - it would be irresponsible to let a security risk have access to the royal family. But there is no "vetting process", if you mean that the prime minister and his cabinet sit down to have discussions about if Daniel, Sofia and Chris are suitable to marry their (now) spouses.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

The argument that marrying commoners would benefit the royal family because it would 'bring the monarchy closer to the people' seems countered by the lower and lower approval ratings in various European monarchies which wanted 'to modernize'. But there are also arguments which say that people are not waiting at all on "common royals", being like you and me. After all, when that point has been reached: why keeping a monarchy at all?

Would the monarchy really be less popular in Sweden when the King would not have married Silvia Sommerlath but a contemporary royal like Princess Margriet of the Netherlands, Princess Alexandra of Hannover, Donata Duchess of Mecklenburg, etc?

So a Queen Margriet (Margareta) of Sweden next to King Carl XVI Gustaf on a State Visit in Germany, would be less popular than a Silvia, because she was born in a royal family? Pffft... I think it would not have made any difference but at least the royal family would have kept their core existence and the necessary distance indeed.

It is as with supporting a football team. There is no real rationale to do so but it is a feeling. When supporters realize that their heroes in that team, often a foreign legion of millionaires, have nothing to do at all with their club, it is just their "job", the magic disappears.

There is no rationale to be a royalist. It is their magic and splendour. Their so completely different class and world. But when this all disappears, also the magic is gone. Once I was such a royalist but when there would be a referendum today, I would not give my guarantee that I would vote for a continuation. I am sorry.

 

[hernameispekka]

The argument that marrying commoners would benefit the royal family because it would 'bring the monarchy closer to the people' seems countered by the lower and lower approval ratings in various European monarchies which wanted 'to modernize'. But there are also arguments which say that people are not waiting at all on "common royals", being like you and me. After all, when that point has been reached: why keeping a monarchy at all?

Would the monarchy really be less popular in Sweden when the King would not have married Silvia Sommerlath but a contemporary royal like Princess Margriet of the Netherlands, Princess Alexandra of Hannover, Donata Duchess of Mecklenburg, etc?

So a Queen Margriet (Margareta) of Sweden next to King Carl XVI Gustaf on a State Visit in Germany, would be less popular than a Silvia, because she was born in a royal family? Pffft... I think it would not have made any difference but at least the royal family would have kept their core existence and the necessary distance indeed.

It is as with supporting a football team. There is no real rationale to do so but it is a feeling. When supporters realize that their heroes in that team, often a foreign legion of millionaires, have nothing to do at all with their club, it is just their "job", the magic disappears.

There is no rationale to be a royalist. It is their magic and splendour. Their so completely different class and world. But when this all disappears, also the magic is gone. Once I was such a royalist but when there would be a referendum today, I would not give my guarantee that I would vote for a continuation. I am sorry.

We are not saying a noble person would not be just as liked. Just that they would not be better. Just just as good.

 

[Lee-Z]

Imo, in North-West europe at least, the hierarchical structures in society of a century ago have changed, especially after the 2nd WW and the 60's and 70's.
People who were traditionally regarded as infallible and "should not be argued with", like a mayor, clergyman, doctor etc, are not regarded as such anymore. In the NL it's completely normal to question and argue with people in these positions and i can imagine it to be a bit alike in a couple of countries.

People in these jobs have had to adjust to this and adjust to modern times. If they choose to be elitist and stick to the opinion that they are above others, they are nowadays not accepted anymore...
Imo this also goes for the royal family, they also have to adjust to modern times. Royal culture of the 19th century will never return...

Imo this can happen with or without "non royals" marrying into a royal family, but in several cases it seems to be easier to adjust if there are actually commoners among the royal ranks.

eta: funnily enough i don't think i ever heard the "commoner" argument in the nl against the monarchy. Arguments to abolish usually are more like:
- they cost/spend a lot of money (very popular argument for the dutch)
- inheriting a job by birth is not modern
- they are not dutch at all (W-A has little dutch blood, Amalia even less)
i wonder if it's similar in Sweden...

 

[Mbruno]

The argument that marrying commoners would benefit the royal family because it would 'bring the monarchy closer to the people' seems countered by the lower and lower approval ratings in various European monarchies which wanted 'to modernize'. But there are also arguments which say that people are not waiting at all on "common royals", being like you and me. After all, when that point has been reached: why keeping a monarchy at all?

Would the monarchy really be less popular in Sweden when the King would not have married Silvia Sommerlath but a contemporary royal like Princess Margriet of the Netherlands, Princess Alexandra of Hannover, Donata Duchess of Mecklenburg, etc?

So a Queen Margriet (Margareta) of Sweden next to King Carl XVI Gustaf on a State Visit in Germany, would be less popular than a Silvia, because she was born in a royal family? Pffft... I think it would not have made any difference but at least the royal family would have kept their core existence and the necessary distance indeed.

It is as with supporting a football team. There is no real rationale to do so but it is a feeling. When supporters realize that their heroes in that team, often a foreign legion of millionaires, have nothing to do at all with their club, it is just their "job", the magic disappears.

There is no rationale to be a royalist. It is their magic and splendour. Their so completely different class and world. But when this all disappears, also the magic is gone. Once I was such a royalist but when there would be a referendum today, I would not give my guarantee that I would vote for a continuation. I am sorry.

I agree that a foreign royal bride would not be necessarily less popular than the current crop of "commoner" royal consorts. In fact, as I wrote in another forum (and was contradicted by a British poster who disagreed with me), I personally believe, that if Princess Madeleine for example had married Prince William, she would have been at least as popular in the UK as Duchess of Cambridge as Kate Middleton is now and, maybe, could have been even more popular as Madeleine would be better prepared for the job than Kate was when she joined the royal family. But that is just speculation on my part based on a hypothetical alternate reality.

In the end, I also agree with Lee-Z that the strongest argument against the monarchy still is that the office of Head of State should not be a family monopoly inherited by birth. The strongest argument, on the other hand, in favor of keeping the monarchy, in addition to historic continuity, is that a hereditary monarch can keep a level of political neutrality that no elected president could possibly have. In that sense, a hereditary monarch is much better suited for the ceremonial representation of the State and even for speaking up on humanitarian causes without the risk of confusing them with divisive partisan politics.

 

[hernameispekka]

Imo, in North-West europe at least, the hierarchical structures in society of a century ago have changed, especially after the 2nd WW and the 60's and 70's.
People who were traditionally regarded as infallible and "should not be argued with", like a mayor, clergyman, doctor etc, are not regarded as such anymore. In the NL it's completely normal to question and argue with people in these positions and i can imagine it to be a bit alike in a couple of countries.

People in these jobs have had to adjust to this and adjust to modern times. If they choose to be elitist and stick to the opinion that they are above others, they are nowadays not accepted anymore...
Imo this also goes for the royal family, they also have to adjust to modern times. Royal culture of the 19th century will never return...

Imo this can happen with or without "non royals" marrying into a royal family, but in several cases it seems to be easier to adjust if there are actually commoners among the royal ranks.

eta: funnily enough i don't think i ever heard the "commoner" argument in the nl against the monarchy. Arguments to abolish usually are more like:
- they cost/spend a lot of money (very popular argument for the dutch)
- inheriting a job by birth is not modern
- they are not dutch at all (W-A has little dutch blood, Amalia even less)
i wonder if it's similar in Sweden...

THose are the exact reasons I've heard for a republic as well. I have not hear one person thinking "why should we pay them they are just like us", except for a "they are nothing special, why are they royalty and not me" kind of argument that they would use if CG was inbred with 100% Gustav Vasa blood.

 

[LadyFinn]

At Aftonbladet TV's royal program "Kungligt med Jenny Alexandersson", they tell about a new research. Aftonbladet gave Inizio a job to make a poll about questions regarding the royal family.

1. Who do you like most at the royal family?
Results:
Crown princess Victoria 42 %
King Carl Gustaf 12 %
Prince Daniel 7 %
Prince Carl Philip 6 %
Princess Sofia 4 %
Princess Madeleine 4 %
Queen Silvia 2 %
Christopher O'Neill 1 %
None of them 18 %
Hesitant, don't know 4 %

2. Should the king abdicate?
Results
40 % answered that the king should stay as the king
34 % thinks that the king should abdicate
26 % don't know

3. Should Carl Philip and Madeleine still get apanage?
Results
34 % thinks that Carl Philip should get apanage
24 % thinks that Madeleine should get apanage
48 % thinks that neither of them should get apanage
17 % don't know
(there is something odd at the percentages)

1010 persons, 18 years old or older were interviewed between 5th November-5th December.
Hon är populärast i kungafamiljen _ Svensk Damtidning

 

[Marty91charmed]

The poll has surprising results about the popularity of the king who ranked as second and about the view on his abdication...

 

[Lee-Z]

I'm a bit surprised by the low position of Q.Silvia in the first question, bit it seems like respondents could only name their one favorite person, so Q.Silvia might be second-fave to a lot of people but that wouldn't show from this poll

 

[melina premiere]

I am surprised with the low position of the queen Sylvia but the respondents had to choose between all the princesses and Sylvia lost a lot of votes

I am not surprised that the king is second because the people selected him because he is the legality, he is doing a good job, he is not very smiling but no matter

I am not surprised for Madeleine and Sofia, they are not the most important persons in the family, the most important persons are the royal couple and Victoria, Daniel, and their children these last family is the future of the Sweden.

 

[Countessmeout]

The poll is not about importance but about popularity. The queen is pretty darn important yet she ranks only above Chris.

Apanages wise, correct me if I am wrong, but aren't there only two, the king and Victoria. I thought the money Madeleine and her brother get come from the Kings money. It seems a similar issue to the UK, less people in the royal family won't reduce the cost, just increases how much the royals still getting money, get. Basically same size pie, just larger portions as has to be split less ways.

 

[An Ard Ri]

bit surprised by Queen Silvia's low score for H.M.The Queen!

 

[LadyFinn]

The poll is not about importance but about popularity. The queen is pretty darn important yet she ranks only above Chris.

Apanages wise, correct me if I am wrong, but aren't there only two, the king and Victoria. I thought the money Madeleine and her brother get come from the Kings money. It seems a similar issue to the UK, less people in the royal family won't reduce the cost, just increases how much the royals still getting money, get. Basically same size pie, just larger portions as has to be split less ways.

From the website of the royal court
The budget allocation (= apanage) for the Court Administration is approximately SEK 65 million (2015).
This has to cover the cost of The King's official duties, including travel and expenditure by the Office of the Marshal of the Realm and its staff departments, Personnel, Finance, Information and Press, the Office of the Marshal of the Court and H.M The Queen's Household (departments that administrate The King and Queen's activities and households), The Crown Princess's Household as well as the Royal Mews (motorised and horse-drawn transport and the care of historic carriages and harness).
Royal Finances - Sveriges Kungahus

Carl Philip and Madeleine are part of the King's Household.

From the article about apanage at Svenska Dagbladet
How the apanage is shared within the royal family?
It is not regulated in detail. The Head of State is the one who decides how the money is distributed.
Who gets apanage today?
All who are part of the succession get a part of the apanage. Besides the king and queen, the crown princess with family, Prince Carl Philip with family and Princess Madeleine with family, according to the Treasurer and chief financial officer of the court, Jan Lindman.
Vad är apanage_ _ SvD

I have always understood that the apanage is given to the court = to the king. He shares it, and it has been told that Carl Philip and Madeleine get apanage only to cover the costs of their royal duties. But since so far the court hasn't been forced to tell exactly how the apanage is shared between the family members, one can't know for sure.

 

[HereditaryPrincess]

I'm another who is very surprised at Silvia's ranking in the newest polls, I had always presumed that she had often been one of the most popular members of the SRF, though the younger generation (aside from Chris) seem to be above her in the terms of their popularity. I'm not surprised by Victoria but I am surprised that Carl Gustaf had such a high rank (that wasn't meant in a snarky way, I genuinely was unaware of his popularity in Sweden this year).

 

[Tatiana Maria]

At Aftonbladet TV's royal program "Kungligt med Jenny Alexandersson", they tell about a new research. Aftonbladet gave Inizio a job to make a poll about questions regarding the royal family.

1. Who do you like most at the royal family?
Results:
Crown princess Victoria 42 %
King Carl Gustaf 12 %
Prince Daniel 7 %
Prince Carl Philip 6 %
Princess Sofia 4 %
Princess Madeleine 4 %
Queen Silvia 2 %
Christopher O'Neill 1 %
None of them 18 %
Hesitant, don't know 4 %

2. Should the king abdicate?
Results
40 % answered that the king should stay as the king
34 % thinks that the king should abdicate
26 % don't know

3. Should Carl Philip and Madeleine still get apanage?
Results
34 % thinks that Carl Philip should get apanage
24 % thinks that Madeleine should get apanage
48 % thinks that neither of them should get apanage
17 % don't know
(there is something odd at the percentages)

1010 persons, 18 years old or older were interviewed between 5th November-5th December.
Hon är populärast i kungafamiljen _ Svensk Damtidning

I would surmise that the 24% who think Madeleine should get an apanage think Carl Philip should get one as well:

24% think both Carl Philip and Madeleine should get an apanage
10% think Carl Philip should get an apanage, but Madeleine should not
48% think neither Carl Philip nor Madeleine should get an apanage
17% don't know

 

[Madame Verseau]

I'm not surprised about Victoria's ranking because of her popularity and I'm not surprised about Madeleine and Sofia. The press has gone on about the Madde-Sofia fued and other negative stories about each of them that it impacted both of them. Their individual past reputations could have played q role. If M & S's image rehab strategies worked they would have been ranked highrler.

As for the appange, CP voted more to keep his, I think, is due to Victoria eventually becoming queen. CP is the back up until Estelle and Oscar turn 18 and take on royal duties. I am in the neither Madde or CP getting appange.

 

[nisreen]

Sofia ranking above Madeline that is surprising

 

[nisreen]

and why Chris is in the poll in the first place?

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

and why Chris is in the poll in the first place?

Because Mr O'Neill is part of the royal family, as he is married to HRH Princess Madeleine of Sweden, the Duchess of Hälsingland and Gästrikland and is also the father of HRH Princess Leonore of Sweden, the Duchess of Gotland as well the father of HRH Prince Nicholas of Sweden, the Duke of Ångermanland ?

 

[LadyFinn]

Aftonbladet publishes debate articles, in which it is the writer who represents the views written in the text, not Aftonbladet.
Aza Cheragwandi, Chairman of the Alliance of Young Republicans wrote yesterday:

Down with the monarchy - Victoria for president
Let the crown princess deserve our votes - like all other candidates for the job as head of state

Essentially a monarchy in all its forms is against democratic development and maintains the country in a democratic gray area. We want to abolish hereditary monarchy in Sweden, and in the process we often encounter people who criticize that they really like Crown Princess Victoria and are happy to see her become the Head of State.
To them we say: Absolutely, but Victoria for President!
According Novus survey from April 2016 around 40 % of Swedes would like Crown Princess Victoria to take over as head of state in advance, ie the king to abdicate and let her take over. She and Prince Daniel have enjoyed a great popularity in recent years when the Swedish people, after several scandals of the king, have wanted to see a change in the royal family.
We also see that support for the monarchy has fallen steadily since 1995, which may be one explanation why the Swedish people have decided to look elsewhere for leadership.
Sweden's head of state is our country's highest political office, and such a representative responsibility demands that we all have the opportunity to jointly choose who will be the head of state. We must also have the opportunity to replace the person if we are dissatisfied.
We fully understand that many Swedes see the Crown Princess as a good role model and as a strong leader, a society is strong when its citizens express themselves politically.
However, it is a strange argument that we all should be deprived of the right to vote and choose leaders only because a person is well-liked. In a modern democracy, there should be more candidates, and these people must fight for our votes. This must apply to all our positions, including the head of state. However, different rules seem to apply, according to some.
If I would go out and say that we should cancel the general elections in 2018 because I really like the government with Stefan Löfven as Prime Minister, people would queue to call me as a dictatorship advocate, but for some reason we do not see the election of our head of state the same way.
A republic may appear in several different ways. For those who like the crown princess and want to see her become the head of state, the way is to go to declare presidential election in which, among others, Crown Princess Victoria can stand as a candidate and earn our votes - like all other candidates.
For us, Young Republicans, the choice is easy, there can be no compromise. There is no half-democracy, either we have democracy or we have not.
As long as a hereditary monarchy stays in Sweden and as long as everyone else in Sweden doesn’t have the opportunity to be elected to our country's highest office, we are not a democracy.
Want to see Crown Princess Victoria to become the head of state in Sweden? Great!
Vote then for Victoria for President.
Aza Cheragwandi, Chairman of the Alliance, Young Republicans
Ner med monarkin – Victoria for president _ Aftonbladet

 

[Moonmaiden23]

I am surprised at the very low numbers for the entire SRF(save CP Victoria).

I thought the Swedes at least liked Daniel?

And considering the rather aggressive whitewash/makeover project the Court and Press have adopted vis-a-vis Sofia since she came into Carl-Philip's life I am baffled why her numbers are not higher than 4%.

These are very troubling figures for the Bernadottes if they are accurate.

 

[LadyFinn]

I am surprised at the very low numbers for the entire SRF(save CP Victoria).

I thought the Swedes at least liked Daniel?

And considering the rather aggressive whitewash/makeover project the Court and Press have adopted vis-a-vis Sofia since she came into Carl-Philip's life I am baffled why her numbers are not higher than 4%.

These are very troubling figures for the Bernadottes if they are accurate.

Low numbers? 22 % didn't like any of them or didn't say their opinion. It leaves 78 %, Victoria got 42 %. So the rest of the royal family can't have high numbers. The question was "Who do you like most at the royal family?" People could choose only one person. Most of them chose Victoria. We don't know how many would have picked Daniel as their second choice, or someone else. This poll doesn't show people's opinion of the members of the royal family, it tells whom they like most, and that is Victoria.