Popularity of the Monarchy in Sweden

[hernameispekka]

Sometimes comments are so out in left field that I am wondering what kind of site I am on. I would guess most Swedes, including me, think that the comment about the Crown Princess is a bunch of bull.

Absolutley..

 

[LadyFinn]

This isn't about the popularity but more about the future of the monarchy:

Yasmine Larsson from the Social Democratic Party, Maria Weimer from the Swedish Liberal Party, Niclas Malmberg from the Green Party and Mia Sydow Mölleby from the Left party have done on 2nd October a joint motion to Riksdagen (Parliament) that the monarchy should be abolished. For the first time in modern history Republicans across party boundaries demand in a joint motion in parliament for the monarchy to be abolished.
Yasmine Larsson and Maria Weimer were at Nordegren & Epstein -program on Radio Sweden to discuss about this.
The reporter asked: When we will have a republic with a president?
Answers:
Yasmine Larsson: in 10 years
Maria Weimer: in 15 years
Nytt krav att avsätta kungahuset - Nordegren & Epstein i P1 _ Sveriges Radio

The motion
http://data.riksdagen.se/fil/B0B08268-34A7-4F78-B7AA-39B5E0A67BD2
Translation

 

[RoyaltyPortuguese]

Think the Swedish monarchy will end within 10 years?

 

[eya]

I think that monarchies are not abolished as easily. At least that showed the past.They abolished after wars or coups usual. Now why in Sweden throughout this talk do not know.

 

[LadyFinn]

Yasmine Larsson, who made this motion and signed it as first, is the Chairman of the Swedish Republican Association and of course because of that is extremely positive that their work to abolish the monarchy comes true as quickly as possible.

 

[hernameispekka]

Well, it seems like a bit of a non-question at the moment and this suprised me alot. But I guess, since there is a bit of unrest and such in the country right now fingers are being pointed left and right.... I doubt that the motion will go through and either way it takes 2 votes separated by a election to change the "constitution" (is that the right translation?), but you never know. This seems a bit out of the blue, I must say!

 

[Blog Real]

The monarchy is the best regime for Sweden. Monarchy forever.

 

[LadyFinn]

Well, it seems like a bit of a non-question at the moment and this suprised me alot. But I guess, since there is a bit of unrest and such in the country right now fingers are being pointed left and right.... I doubt that the motion will go through and either way it takes 2 votes separated by a election to change the "constitution" (is that the right translation?), but you never know. This seems a bit out of the blue, I must say!

I don't think that those who signed it believe that the motion goes through. But like they said, one more party (or a member of the party) has signed the motion and they hope that by talking with people, and talking at this radio program they will get more members of the parliament to sign the motion next time.

The Republican Association has for the first time over 11 000 members. Ten years ago the association had about 2500 members and five years ago about 5 000 members.
- The fact that more and more people actively take a stand for a democratic, egalitarian and modern polity is amazing. We have for many years seen a strong influx of members and this gives us greater resources to increase the pressure in the campaign for a republic. It's full speed ahead for the Republican movement, says the chairman of the society, Yasmine Larsson.
Medlemsrekord för republikaner - Republikanska föreningen

 

[Jacknch]

I don't think that those who signed it believe that the motion goes through. But like they said, one more party (or a member of the party) has signed the motion and they hope that by talking with people, and talking at this radio program they will get more members of the parliament to sign the motion next time.

Considering the gravity of what they are proposing, the motion seems very unconvincing in what it says (the translated version at least) - would such a motion be allowed to go through?

Sweden is renowned for having developed (rather than fought for) its modern and forward-thinking society and democracy. Having a monarchy has been no barrier to that at all.

 

[wyevale]

I suspect they will be far too busy integrating, and assimilating the large numbers of migrants that are arriving now, to have much time or taste to mess about with a tried and tested political settlement..

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

We need to make the distinction in personal popularity and the desire for the best form of state. Who does not like Crown Princess Victoria and her cute little Estelle? However that does not mean someone who likes Victoria as a person is also automatically in favour of a monarchic form of state...

I am a monarchist but I am also a conservative. The only "logic" reason for having a monarchy is sentiment, the living bond with the past, the embodiment of a royal dynasty, the "fairytale" if you want. But the more the Máximas, the Mette-Marits and the Letizias storm into the Royal Houses, the more "normal" these royals become, paradoxically the less my desire to support the monarchist cause. After all, if I want a "normal" gentleman and a "normal" family with a businesslike approach, maybe I can vote for the president of my own choice, please?

I am sure I will see the collapse of the monarchies in my lifetime. And once Sweden collapses, Norway and the Netherlands and other monarchies will follow. Compare it to same-gender marriage: when it was allowed in the Netherlands, suddenly other states followed too. When the monarchy collapses in Sweden, people in Norway, or Spain or the Netherlands see that the President and the First Lady of Sweden do it as good as King Carl XVI Gustaf and Queen Silvia and suddenly all the other thrones will come in danger.

 

[Mbruno]

This isn't about the popularity but more about the future of the monarchy:

Yasmine Larsson from the Social Democratic Party, Maria Weimer from the Swedish Liberal Party, Niclas Malmberg from the Green Party and Mia Sydow Mölleby from the Left party have done on 2nd October a joint motion to Riksdagen (Parliament) that the monarchy should be abolished. For the first time in modern history Republicans across party boundaries demand in a joint motion in parliament for the monarchy to be abolished.
Yasmine Larsson and Maria Weimer were at Nordegren & Epstein -program on Radio Sweden to discuss about this.
The reporter asked: When we will have a republic with a president?
Answers:
Yasmine Larsson: in 10 years
Maria Weimer: in 15 years
Nytt krav att avsätta kungahuset - Nordegren & Epstein i P1 _ Sveriges Radio

The motion
http://data.riksdagen.se/fil/B0B08268-34A7-4F78-B7AA-39B5E0A67BD2
Translation

Sweden is currently somewhat unique among all European monarchies in the sense that the King effectively has no executive or legislative powers: he doesn't appoint the PM and the cabinet, sign bills into law, call elections, dissolve parliament, or command the armed forces. In fact, his involvement in State affairs is restricted to the right to be kept informed about government policy (whch is exercised both in informal meetings with the PM and in formal Councils of State); the right to preside the Advisory Council on Foreign Affairs whenever that body is convened; opening the annual session of the Riksdag; presiding over a special Council of State when a new government is sworn in; and formally signing the credentials of Swedish ambassadors and receiving the credentials of foreign diplomats.

However, the King remains the constitutional Head of State. As such, he has constitutional immunity against prosecution and can only be replaced by an elected president by a bill passed twice by the Riksdag with a general election (and, most likely, a simultaneous popular referendum) in between. As it was said here, I don't think republicans in Sweden have the numbers right now to overcome that constitutional bar.

Furthermore, assuming that the motion goes through, what kind of republican model is being proposed exactly ? If Sweden had an elected president, would he/she be a purely ceremonial head of state as the King has been since 1975 ? Or would he/she be an all-powerful , elected politician similar to the president of Finland for example? If the answer is the latter, is that something the Swedish people or even the Swedish parliamentary parties would like to have ?

Just as food for thought, here is a link to an English version of the Finnish constitution. Please note the broad powers conferred upon the president.

ICL - Finland - Constitution

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

The position of the King in Sweden is not that very different from that of his "colleagues". Yes, formally they seem to have more power but when ends meet, they all are as "powerless" as Carl XVI Gustaf. It is Cameron who decides, not Elizabeth II. It is Rajoy who decides, not Felipe VI. Etc.

That King Harald could easily skip a whole page from his Address from the Throne is telling enough: so it is all theatre and means nothing, just pretend the King is telling something and just pretend we are listening?

That then an underwear model as Sofia Hellqvist or even the son of a commoner (Marius Borg) simply becomes part of the royal family is also telling that all hindrances and barrières have disappeared. That might sound pretty nice and egalitarian but at the same time those barrières were part of the "myth", that the royal family was a world apart and that only a select group "equal born" had access to it (on the risk to be morganized).

People see this and realize they are watching an ape theatre: throw a nickel and we perform a dance for you. All distance has gone. And that distance was exactly what a monarchy needs.

 

[Muhler]

I think we should be careful about underestimating the nationalism in Europe and also in Sweden.

The royals are national symbols and nationalism will be on the rise in the years to come.

As for Sweden: The politicians and the opinion elite, including the media, may very well prefer to ditch the monarchy - but that segments is moving ever further away from the ordinary Svenssons.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

I think we should be careful about underestimating the nationalism in Europe and also in Sweden.

The royals are national symbols and nationalism will be on the rise in the years to come.

As for Sweden: The politicians and the opinion elite, including the media, may very well prefer to ditch the monarchy - but that segments is moving ever further away from the ordinary Svenssons.

Do you think the republican French are less nationalist than the royalist Swedes?

 

[Muhler]

Do you think the republican French are less nationalist than the royalist Swedes?

France don't have a monarchy in place. - As a politically neutral symbol for the nationalists. They use other symbols instead.
However, had the French monarchy still been around, I wonder if Front National wouldn't be rallying around it?

 

[LadyFinn]

I put this article here, I posted it earlier to another thread

An article at Dagens Industri, at the Ledare (leader) column
Leader: A Queen to all the People of Sweden
Anyone who follows the royal family can't be without noticing the King and the Crown Princess' commitment to integration and migration issues. At the opening of parliament the King spoke unusually long time about the escape from conflict, the importance of doing what we can to help and to prepare new generations at major changes.
Yesterday the King and the Crown Princess visited a school in Sweden's largest refugee receipt center in Vänersborg and repeated there the same message.
Previously, the Crown Princess and her husband have visited several times the House of Emigrants in Växjö.
The Royal Family's growing interest in migration is positive news. Sweden is a large country of immigration but suffers grave lack of common institutions that can collect all of the country. Traditionally strong immigrant countries like the United States, United Kingdom and Canada are careful about their patriotism and filling citizenship with feelings that touch people. Affiliation with the Swedish nation has been so obvious and so implied that nobody has needed to institutionalize it.
It is a weakness that is now obvious. For example, we do not even have a word for the Swedish citizen which works completely painlessly. The word "svenskar" ("Swedes") is perceived by too many as the name for the old ethnicity and find it difficult to collect all. The Crown Princess avoids the word and uses instead "Sveriges folk" ("The People of Sweden").
In this gap between the old and the new also principled republicans must admit that the monarchy may be the only institution that can now bring together the people of Sweden, and that can symbolize "vi" ("we"). No party has right now that role, not the army, not the football, not the SVT, not Astrid Lindgren, and certainly not the Tax Agency.
For the Crown Princess the role is perfect. The King has profiled himself as an environmentalist. She is a second-generation immigrant and can play a major, important and long-term role as a symbol of an inclusive patriotism. It seems difficult to know what it means to be a Swede, but it is easy to keep on the queen.
Ledare_*Drottning för hela Sveriges folk - di.se[/URL

In 2014, 1.6 million of Sweden's population were born abroad = over 16%.
And after that article in DI was written about two weeks ago, the queen met refugee children who had arrived unaccompanied to Sweden in Landskrona, Carl Philip and Sofia attended at a concert which collected money for refugees, and Carl Philip and Sofia visited a reception center in Borlänge.
Victoria and Daniel with their Crown Princess Couple's Foundation, Stiftelsen Läxhjälpen (Homework Foundation) and Samsung are now together in a pilot project to welcome the newly arrived refugee children to Sweden. The aim is to quickly introduce the newly arrived children in a regular school class. Victoria's and Daniel's Foundation supports also a association for unaccompanied children and "Swedish with a Baby" association where from all over the world to Sweden come parents can meet, study swedish and socialize by talking swedish.

So the royal family is well aware of how the population of Sweden is changing, and in tight contact with Sweden's new and future citizens. Perhaps in a much more tight contact than many of the politicians.

 

[Mbruno]

We need to make the distinction in personal popularity and the desire for the best form of state. Who does not like Crown Princess Victoria and her cute little Estelle? However that does not mean someone who likes Victoria as a person is also automatically in favour of a monarchic form of state...

I am a monarchist but I am also a conservative. The only "logic" reason for having a monarchy is sentiment, the living bond with the past, the embodiment of a royal dynasty, the "fairytale" if you want. But the more the Máximas, the Mette-Marits and the Letizias storm into the Royal Houses, the more "normal" these royals become, paradoxically the less my desire to support the monarchist cause. After all, if I want a "normal" gentleman and a "normal" family with a businesslike approach, maybe I can vote for the president of my own choice, please?

I am sure I will see the collapse of the monarchies in my lifetime. And once Sweden collapses, Norway and the Netherlands and other monarchies will follow. Compare it to same-gender marriage: when it was allowed in the Netherlands, suddenly other states followed too. When the monarchy collapses in Sweden, people in Norway, or Spain or the Netherlands see that the President and the First Lady of Sweden do it as good as King Carl XVI Gustaf and Queen Silvia and suddenly all the other thrones will come in danger.

The Swedish royal family is actually pretty good IMHO at keeping up with the "fairytale" side of the monarchy. Although they now marry commoners like Daniel and Sofia (which is OK in an egalitarian society like Sweden), they seem to enjoy the gala events, the big gun tiaras, carriage rides, white tie weddings, and even the public christening of royal princes way down the line of succession. In a way, they keep traditions that are being phased out even in the modern-day "mother of all monarchies" like the UK.

Furthermore, as I argued in previous posts, I believe there is an actual case for the monarchy as a system of government to be kept in countries like Sweden, or Denmark, or Australia. And that case has nothing to do with popularity, but rather with the fact that potential republican alternatives don't have any clear advantage compared to the present system and may actually end up being worse.

As I said, in the post-1975 Swedish constitution, there is a clear and unambiguous statement of where the executive power lies. It lies with a PM who is appointed upon proposal of the president of the Riksdag (after consulting with the parliamentary parties) and can be removed, or forced into calling a fresh election, by a parliamentary vote of no confidence. The Head of State, on the other hand, is confined to ceremonial and representation duties. The moment Sweden gets an elected president as in Finland, Portugal, or France, that balance of power is upset in a way that the Swedish society and Swedish political parties themselves are not used to.

Of course, it is hard in the 21st century to argue that a hereditary Head of State and a family who has the monopoly of that office reserved for its firstborn child are not anachronistic concepts. Paradoxically, however, the fact that the King owes his position to an accident of birth and has no popular legitimacy is precisely what forces him to withdraw completely from government decisions in a way an elected president probably wouldn't do. A constitutional monarchy, therefore, is a better match in my view for a parliamentary system of government.

 

[Madame Verseau]

Now it's going to an investigation in the Riksdag to end the monarchy in Sweden. I knew that anti-monarchy sentiment rose recently, but to take it to a vote in parliament? Two to three weeks ago the SRF was present for the opening of Parliament. Now four days before Nicolas' christening this bomb is dropped. Question...don't members of the government attend royal christenings? Are there going to be no-shows as an act of "civil disobedience" - to make a point that royalty does not matter in modern Sweden? I wonder if some people have seen this coming - SVT would not broadcast Nicolas' christening (until public backlash made the station owner change his/her mind). Did the SRF see this coming...and now it's going to do more public appearances to appeal more to the people and show its "value" in everyday life? I can see Carl Gustaf putting up a fight if there is one. The Riksdag disinherited his son in 1979 (I think it still stings to this day); he's not going to sit by and see his daughter and granddaughter lose the Silver Throne. I think Nicolas' christening is the first volley the SRF will fire for its survival.

 

[Mbruno]

Now it's going to an investigation in the Riksdag to end the monarchy in Sweden. I knew that anti-monarchy sentiment rose recently, but to take it to a vote in parliament? Two to three weeks ago the SRF was present for the opening of Parliament. Now four days before Nicolas' christening this bomb is dropped. Question...don't members of the government attend royal christenings? Are there going to be no-shows as an act of "civil disobedience" - to make a point that royalty does not matter in modern Sweden? I wonder if some people have seen this coming - SVT would not broadcast Nicolas' christening (until public backlash made the station owner change his/her mind). Did the SRF see this coming...and now it's going to do more public appearances to appeal more to the people and show its "value" in everyday life? I can see Carl Gustaf putting up a fight if there is one. The Riksdag disinherited his son in 1979 (I think it still stings to this day); he's not going to sit by and see his daughter and granddaughter lose the Silver Throne. I think Nicolas' christening is the first volley the SRF will fire for its survival.

I don't think there is any imminent threat to the monarchy in Sweden. You are probably overreacting.

 

[Blog Real]

I think the monarchy is well in Sweden. I do not think is in danger. The monarchy is the best system and must be preserved.

 

[hernameispekka]

Also, don't quote me on this, I heard that the royal family has gotten 7,8 million sek (about £600k or 900k$) increase in money in the new budget. So it doesn't sound like a group of people planning to abolish the monarchy

 

[MARG]

Estelle seems to be growing as popular as her mother, so unless that for some reason changes when she becomes an adult, i assume the monarchy is reasonably safe in Sweden for at least two generations.

Having said that, Victoria's seemingly excessive emotional dependence on Daniel is something that bothers me a little bit.

Hmmm. Daniel and Victoria do seem a very close couple but I honestly do not pick up a vibe of excessive emotional dependence from either of them.

I feel Victoria was overly dependent on Daniel at least at some point in her life (when she was younger and still struggling with anxiety issues). I can't tell if that's still the case today, but, if it were, it could potentially be negative for her future role as HoS. I hope it's not the case though. What do the Swedes think?

Sometimes comments are so out in left field that I am wondering what kind of site I am on. I would guess most Swedes, including me, think that the comment about the Crown Princess is a bunch of bull.

Yes. Correct.

Absolutley..

Wow, not very subtle and not a little sexist!

Victoria and Daniel are the most popular members of the SRF, so let's undermine this by hinting, obliquely, that Victoria is a little needy, emotionally dependent, you know, all those little drawbacks that mentally frail women generally suffer from.

Then comes the kicker . . . she's overly dependent on Daniel . . . and Daniel is not born royal and so, since poor, pathetic, needy Victoria cannot cope with anything, she will have to be guided by her commoner husband. Oh dear, that's not good, the House of Bernadotte run by a common country hick!

That is all pure republican cant. Trying to undermine Victoria, calling her mental health into question and not so subtly querying if Daniel (aka Svengali) inserted himself into Crown Princess Victoria's life when she was not in control of all her faculties, and continues to exploit her so "we" must wonder what part commoner Daniel will play as her consort (aka puppeteer).

This is straight out of the Republican Handbook of those who are not Swedish, do not live in a monarchy and see no reason that anyone else should either. It's psychology 101, divide and conquer. First you call into question the mental state of the Heir. Then you call into question the motives of her husband and the part he will play as her Consort in the future . . . unless something is done!

Republic anyone?

That our resident citizens of Sweden do not recognise these glaring problems is hardly surprising, however, that is beside the point because it is not about them, it is about abolishing the monarchy of Sweden and obviously they need help because they have missed to obvious.

Victoria and Daniel are a wonderful, loving couple who invited us to share in the most beautiful of weddings where their heartfelt love was evident to all with eyes to see. As were their tears of joy. They continue with frequent little PDA's which is evidence that all is not what it seems. Rather, it is evidence of the Heir's clingy, dependent mental state.

Frederik and Mary are a wonderful, loving couple who invited us to share in the most beautiful of weddings where their heartfelt love was evident to all with eyes to see. As were their tears of joy. They continue with frequent little PDA's which is evidence of their wonderful relationship. (See the 2015 Opening of Parliament for latest photos).

A bunch of bull? You bet your booties baby! This is totally and completely, self-serving, bollocks!

 

[Madame Verseau]

@Marg - who started the co-dependency meme on Victoria? Are there members of the Riksdag that resent the power and sway the SRF has in Sweden and that's why this is coming? If the politicians had a problem with Daniel, why did they give final consent to the marriage as required by law? I smell political shenanigans with this move to end the monarchy now.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

Well the underlying stream is of course that when fellow Swedes as Mr Westling (a gym owner), Ms Hellqvist (a model) or Mr Bergström (as was intended before the engagement was broken up) can simply become "royal", wear the Kungliga Serafimerorden and suddenly become a Duke or a Duchess, sometimes even of a "Duchy" which never had a Duke before, then even the dumbest goof in the street will scratch the head and wonder what this is all about.


That does not mean that monarchies with a royalborn spouse would not have been in danger: of course they are. But at least the intrinsic notion of what a "royal family" or an aristocracy actually means and is, remains in place. The only argument monarchists have. When the monarchy is open for all and everyone, even when you have shown your tattoed back and your undies in magazines, then it is the very best advertorial for having a republic. Let me vote by myself if I want a President with a First Lady whom posed with a tatooed back in her knickers...


The only argument: "We are a special family, an unique family, we embody Sweden's history, we are linked to all illustrious families in Europe" of course disappears when a waitress from Christiansand puts on a diadem or a sportsschool dude suddenly sees his daughter being the future Queen of Sweden... That is obvious.


Once somewhere in Europe a monarchy collapses. Spain? Belgium? The Netherlands? Soon all other monarchies will follow. See the fall of the one communist regime after the other. See the fall of the one Arab regime after the other. See the one after the other state allowing same gender marriage. Etc. It only needs one domino stone to let the whole structure collapse.

 

[hernameispekka]

Well the underlying stream is of course that when fellow Swedes as Mr Westling (a gym owner), Ms Hellqvist (a model) or Mr Bergström (as was intended before the engagement was broken up) can simply become "royal", wear the Kungliga Serafimerorden and suddenly become a Duke or a Duchess, sometimes even of a "Duchy" which never had a Duke before, then even the dumbest goof in the street will scratch the head and wonder what this is all about.


That does not mean that monarchies with a royalborn spouse would not have been in danger: of course they are. But at least the intrinsic notion of what a "royal family" or an aristocracy actually means and is, remains in place. The only argument monarchists have. When the monarchy is open for all and everyone, even when you have shown your tattoed back and your undies in magazines, then it is the very best advertorial for having a republic. Let me vote by myself if I want a President with a First Lady whom posed with a tatooed back in her knickers...


The only argument: "We are a special family, an unique family, we embody Sweden's history, we are linked to all illustrious families in Europe" of course disappears when a waitress from Christiansand puts on a diadem or a sportsschool dude suddenly sees his daughter being the future Queen of Sweden... That is obvious.


Once somewhere in Europe a monarchy collapses. Spain? Belgium? The Netherlands? Soon all other monarchies will follow. See the fall of the one communist regime after the other. See the fall of the one Arab regime after the other. See the one after the other state allowing same gender marriage. Etc. It only needs one domino stone to let the whole structure collapse.

Whoa, you do not know Swedes at all I can see. I can almost promise that the marriages of Daniel etc have done way more good in the eyes of the people than it has done bad.

 

[Marty91charmed]

I think that the petition brought in Parliament means nothing alarming, at least the near future. I guess that wanting a republic has very little to do with the members of the current royal family. Said this, I've always been under the impression that the swedish people feel "relatable" to the members of the royal family: their approachable behavior, especially from Victoria, has always been appreciated. As far as I know Swedes have this kind of "friendly" relationship with the royal family. I think that they don't care much about stiffness, protocol or pump as in the british monarchy for example. It is not wrong, it is just how their relationship works. And it has always worked fine so far.

Here it is my personal take:I 'm eager to see Victoria on the throne. I think she will be a great queen, maybe the better one. She can only do good for her country. And IMO if the monarchy haven't been in danger with the unpopular Carl Gustav, I very much doubt it will with the reign of Victoria of Sweden. But again, I can't know what the future holds.

 

[hernameispekka]

I think that the petition brought in Parliament means nothing alarming, at least the near future. I guess that wanting a republic has very little to do with the members of the current royal family. Said this, I've always been under the impression that the swedish people feel "relatable" to the members of the royal family: their approachable behavior, especially from Victoria, has always been appreciated. As far as I know Swedes have this kind of "friendly" relationship with the royal family. I think that they don't care much about stiffness, protocol or pump as in the british monarchy for example. It is not wrong, it is just how their relationship works. And it has always worked fine so far.

Here it is my personal take:I 'm eager to see Victoria on the throne. I think she will be a great queen, maybe the better one. She can only do good for her country. And IMO if the monarchy haven't been in danger with the unpopular Carl Gustav, I very much doubt it will with the reign of Victoria of Sweden. But again, I can't know what the future holds.

I agree fully with this. Victoria herself is very popular (and so is Daniel) among alot of people, even in republican circles. A little bit like Queen Elizabeth actually. Even republicans have respect for them, their work ethic and (in Victorias case) her genuine portrayal of kindness. So IF there is some republican stirrings I doubt it has anything to do with the members themself (except the king, maybe!) and more to do with the political and constitutional side of it.

 

[Marty91charmed]

I agree fully with this. Victoria herself is very popular (and so is Daniel) among alot of people, even in republican circles. A little bit like Queen Elizabeth actually. Even republicans have respect for them, their work ethic and (in Victorias case) her genuine portrayal of kindness. So IF there is some republican stirrings I doubt it has anything to do with the members themself (except the king, maybe!) and more to do with the political and constitutional side of it.

You have expressed my opinion much better than I I've always heard good comments about Victoria: some Swedes even told me they can't wait for queen Victoria, and how much better it would be for the royal family! I think there has been several polls about that, always indicating a preference for Victoria over the King.

 

[Mbruno]

You have expressed my opinion much better than I I've always heard good comments about Victoria: some Swedes even told me they can't wait for queen Victoria, and how much better it would be for the royal family! I think there has been several polls about that, always indicating a preference for Victoria over the King.

Should the King abdicate then ? Would that be good for the monarchy ? I don't think CG has any intention to abdicate and he's still relatively young at 69.