Swedish Royal Names & Pronunciation

[JR76]

Gustaf Adolf is sometimes referred to as Gustavus Adolphus. However, Adolphus may not even be used for a prince's name.

Gustavus Adolphus is never used in Swedish.

 

[Prinsara]

"Today the law vaguely states that “first names shall not be approved if they can cause offense or can be supposed to cause discomfort for the one using it, or names which for some obvious reason are not suitable as a first name.”"

Pretty sure that covers it in all aspects. Also, you're not allowed to named a child Ikea, but that's trademark. https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/68768/22-outlawed-baby-names-around-world

 

[Silverpot]

"Today the law vaguely states that “first names shall not be approved if they can cause offense or can be supposed to cause discomfort for the one using it, or names which for some obvious reason are not suitable as a first name.”"

Pretty sure that covers it in all aspects. Also, you're not allowed to named a child Ikea, but that's trademark. https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/68768/22-outlawed-baby-names-around-world

There's a couple of thousand people named Adolf in Sweden today.

 

[Prinsara]

There's a couple of thousand people named Adolf in Sweden today.

Yikes.
...Are they all over 75, or it's not considered a name that would cause embarrassment to a child, then?

 

[Silverpot]

Sorry for missing this post. I am surprised that an Aftonbladet reporter had trouble finding quotes from the King as some of them are not that difficult to find, including on Aftonbladet's own website.

Please read this thread, where some quotes have already been posted, as a start. I will add to it in due time.

The King's Opinion on the Succession Laws

I didn't find any valid quotes among those answers. There's one poster asserting that the King said something in an interview with Swedish television, but I can't find that.

Besides, the press would have had a field day with this if he'd actually said anything like this. And why do I not remember it?

 

[Tatiana Maria]

I have pointed out the "valid" quotes and responded to your post in that thread. I suggest moving further replies there, as this is unrelated to Swedish royal names.

 

[Prinsara]

I'm still unclear as to how a child in Sweden named Adolf or even Gustaf Adolf would be viewed today. I think that given their international profile, there is a snowball's chance in Midsommar that we'll see the name in the SRF for the next few generations, if ever.

 

[JR76]

Yikes.
...Are they all over 75, or it's not considered a name that would cause embarrassment to a child, then?

You're not far off. The average age of the 161 men who has Adolf as their first name is 74.

 

[Prinsara]

You're not far off. The average age of the 161 men who has Adolf as their first name is 74.

161 is a bit less "yikes" than a couple of thousand, anyway. Are you saying you don't believe it would be approved if someone tried to give that name to their child these days? Repeating my conviction that the SRF will not be the ones to open up this name trend again. They're kind of bad enough with "Hubertus"...

 

[Meraude]

It would be fine if you can find those quotes that say they were against a change, because it's only in later years that this has become some sort of common "knowledge" floating around on royal blogs and forums.

If any of them ever said anything like that, they would have lost their jobs, I can garantie you that. And I for one would most definately have been very upset.

In fact, the biggest Swedish tabloid, the left wing Aftonbladet, recently tried to dig up any of these alleged quotes but came up emptyhanded. To their chagrin I might add. What a juicy tidbit it would have been for republicans.

You could try to find a copy of the Swedish news program Rapport from November 23, 2003, as the king said in an interview that a retroactive change in the order of succession was "lustig" (funny), and that he would have preferred to have his son as successor. The Swedish TV probably have copies saved of the interview.
https://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/a/p6Q9RW/kungen-grundlagen-ar-lustig

 

[JR76]

You could try to find a copy of the Swedish news program Rapport from November 23, 2003, as the king said in an interview that a retroactive change in the order of succession was "lustig" (funny), and that he would have preferred to have his son as successor. The Swedish TV probably have copies saved of the interview.
https://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/a/p6Q9RW/kungen-grundlagen-ar-lustig

The King did not say both those things in 2003.The article quotes him saying that he finds the retroactive change of the constitution funny in 2003 and then quotes him telling the paper Vestmanlands läns tidning in 1980 that he would prefer his son to be his successor.

 

[Meraude]

161 is a bit less "yikes" than a couple of thousand, anyway. Are you saying you don't believe it would be approved if someone tried to give that name to their child these days? Repeating my conviction that the SRF will not be the ones to open up this name trend again. They're kind of bad enough with "Hubertus"...

I don't think anyone would really disapprove of the use of Adolf as a given name for a child, but I think it's still too early for it to make a comeback (both because of its connections with a specific Adolf, but also because it "feels" outdated), even if some of "grandparent/great grandparent" names are being given today. Here's a list of both common Swedish given names, and of old Swedish names, some are on both lists, others are not. https://www.gravid.se/svenska-namn/ Give Adolf two or three generations before it will be seen again.

 

[Meraude]

The King did not say both those things in 2003.The article quotes him saying that he finds the retroactive change of the constitution funny in 2003 and then quotes him telling the paper Vestmanlands läns tidning in 1980 that he would prefer his son to be his successor.

You're right, but the question is, had his private opinion about the matter changed? I don't think there is any question that the king is dissatisfied with Victoria as his heir today, but there is always "what if ...."

 

[Denville]

The King did not say both those things in 2003.The article quotes him saying that he finds the retroactive change of the constitution funny in 2003 and then quotes him telling the paper Vestmanlands läns tidning in 1980 that he would prefer his son to be his successor.

AFAIK he did say that he didn't like the idea of the change being retroactive..and that he'd prefer his son to succeed him... but while that's understandable on a personal level, the fact was that the public wanted to change the law... and that meant that Carl Philip' as the second child would not succeed....

 

[Denville]

I don't think anyone would really disapprove of the use of Adolf as a given name for a child, but I think it's still too early for it to make a comeback (both because of its connections with a specific Adolf, but also because it "feels" outdated), even if some of "grandparent/great grandparent" names are being given today. Here's a list of both common Swedish given names, and of old Swedish names, some are on both lists, others are not. https://www.gravid.se/svenska-namn/ Give Adolf two or three generations before it will be seen again.

It is a rather old fashioned name even without the connextion with THAT Adolf. it was used by some English aristocrats and was often abbreviated to Dolly, which is not likely to experience a revival....

 

[JR76]

AFAIK he did say that he didn't like the idea of the change being retroactive..and that he'd prefer his son to succeed him... but while that's understandable on a personal level, the fact was that the public wanted to change the law... and that meant that Carl Philip' as the second child would not succeed....

The general public were never asked of their opinion on the matter. Although the spirit of the time seemed to favour Victoria as an heir the political establishment was split almost in half between those in favour and those against with those against wanting to abolish the monarchy. The public was asked in a poll by Sifo in 1979 where 40% voted for Victoria and 23% voted for Carl Philip. One could argue that had the people wanted to maintain the agnatic line of succession they wouldn't have voted for the liberal right coalition to remain in power in the election of 1979 but of course there were many other questions that were more important to the voters when they decided on whom to cast their ballot. My own interpretation is that the public would have supported whichever proposal had won in the same way that they quickly came to support the new Constitution of 1975 even if in another poll by Sifo in January 1974 a whopping 80% favoured the status quo, 12% wanted to increase the political power of the king, 7% favoured the new constitution with 2% being undecided. The most important thing to most Swedes at the time was probably that Silvia stood by her husband's side, wore nice hats and produced some picture perfect children of whom one would takeover one day.

Regarding the King's opinion on the matter I feel that it is important to point out that when in 1975 the proposition to introduce a gender neutral Order of Succession was sent out to different consultation bodies the reply from the Office of the Marshall of the Realm which was written by the Marshall of the Realm and the King was that, although they had several opinions on the matter, the Court would support whatever the outcome would be.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Earlier I replied to the posts about the King's opinion of the change of the Act of Succession in the Change of the Act of Succession thread. But, given that the discussion about the succession has now been moved back to this thread, I will repost the most relevant parts of my replies here.



The Office of the Marshal of the Realm, i.e. the Royal Court, formally recommended to Parliament in 1977 that it change the Act of Succession to the same system used in Denmark, the Netherlands, and Great Britain. At the time, these three countries allowed a woman to be queen if and only if she had no brothers.

I think it is safe to say that the recommendation of the Royal Court is the recommendation of the King.

Note that in its recommendation, the Office supports introducing equal primogeniture if introducing the Danish/Dutch/British system is unfeasible, but it strongly recommends implementing it for future descendants only and allowing the King's potential future oldest son if born before the change to become king, bypassing Victoria.

Refer to the Riksmarskalksämbetet's comments on page 29 and 15.

om kvinnlig tronföljd Proposition 1977/78:71 - Riksdagen




And regarding the King's interviews in 1980 and 2003:


For future reference, here are the quotes in Swedish from the 2003 Aftonbladet article:

Kungen: Grundlagen är lustig | Aftonbladet

Det har kungen ännu inte accepterat.

- Självklart, svarade han i går i en intervju med Rapport på frågan om han tycker att grundlagsändringen var fel.

- Jag tycker det är enkelt. En grundlag som arbetar retrospektivt, det är lustigt.

Tidigare kritik

Och redan 1980 ska kungen ha uttalat sig kritiskt mot lagändringen.

- Själv vill jag ha min son Carl Philip som efterträdare, sa han då enligt Vestmanlands läns tidning.​

And here are the quotes translated into English:

I couldn't quite comprehend the recent threads, but here is another article on it:

http://pub.tv2.no/nettavisen/english/article158322.ece

NEWS IN ENGLISH
SWEDEN:
Victoria's father does not want her as queen
Tilrettelagt av Carin Pettersson 25.11.03 10:59

It is 23 years since the constitution was changed, but Carl XVI Gustav of Sweden is still not comfortable with the law change that makes his oldest daughter the next regent of Sweden.

“It’s strange,” said Carl Gustav in an interview on Swedish television Sunday.

Prince Carl Philip was born as the Swedish Crown Prince in 1979, but the Swedish government changed the constitution in 1980, making the oldest child inherit the throne. Suddenly Victoria became the Crown princess, and Carl Philip was degraded to prince.

The King of Sweden apparently still has a hard time with accepting the change.

“I think it’s simple, a constitution that works in retroactive force is strange.”

The King of Sweden has always been against the law change. In 1980 Carl Gustav said the following, according to the paper Vestmanland:

“I would prefer that my son Carl Philip is my successor, and I’m sure that the majority of the Swedish people would prefer to have a king on the throne.”

The Swedish court was Monday very specific when it stressed that the Kings comments do not mean that he is displeased with Crown Princess Victoria or the job she does.

The statements from the King were not at all appreciated by Swedish politicians. Gudrun Schyman, the Liberal Parties former leader, said the King’s statements is another argument to why Sweden should abolish the monarchy, and she said that she thinks it is horrible if the King questions a democratic decision.

Interesting article.. Surely he would have had a say at the time??

Swedish king says his son, not daughter, should take over throne
Mon Nov 24

STOCKHOLM (AFP) - Twenty-three years have passed since Sweden adopted a new Succession Act, but King Carl Gustaf XVI is still upset that his eldest child, Princess Victoria, and not his only son will become Sweden's next monarch.

The Swedish Constitution was changed in 1980, giving the eldest child of the royal couple the right to the throne, regardless of gender.

The new law stripped seven-month-old Carl Philip of the title of Crown Prince and made his elder sister Victoria, now 26, heir to the throne.

Victoria is hugely popular in Sweden and is widely viewed as a capable and worthy successor to her father, but the king nonetheless said at the weekend that he was displeased by the change in the law.

Asked by Swedish television whether he still believed the change was wrong, he said:

"Of course. It's simple. A constitutional law that works retroactively, that's odd," he said.

A spokesman for the royal family, Elisabeth Tarras-Wahlberg, stressed that the king was however very pleased with the way Victoria was carrying out her duties as crown princess.

The King referred to the constitutional amendment as retroactive (assuming the translation is accurate). In fact, it was not. To be technical, a "retroactive" law is a law that applies to a period of time prior to the entry into force of the law.

An example of a true retroactive law is the section of the British Succession to the Crown Act that recognized certain marriages which were not recognized as valid until the law entered into force. The British law stated that "A void marriage under that Act is to be treated as never having been void if [...]". Should an affected person have contracted an invalid marriage in 2010, not only would their marriage be valid after the law entered into force in 2015, but their marriage would be treated as if it had been valid in the period from 2010 to 2015.

The amendment of the Act of Succession in 1980 would have been an actual retroactive law if, for instance, it stated that Victoria would be treated as if she had been Crown Princess from birth.

But that is not what is stated in the law. It entered into force on January 1, 1980, and Victoria became Crown Princess with effect from January 1, 1980. To this day, Carl Philip is treated as having been the Crown Prince from May 13 through December 31, 1979.

AFAIK he did say that he didn't like the idea of the change being retroactive..and that he'd prefer his son to succeed him... but while that's understandable on a personal level, the fact was that the public wanted to change the law... and that meant that Carl Philip' as the second child would not succeed....

JR76's point was that he did not say he preferred his son to succeed him in 2003. He expressed his preference for his son in the 1970s and 1980s, including the interview from 1980 quoted above, but in the 2003 interview he apparently restrained himself to criticizing the supposed "retroactivity" of the change.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Is it true that Prince Carl Philip was named at least in part for Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh? (I am aware that King Carl IX had a son called Duke Carl Philip whose duchy also encompassed territory in Värmland.)