The Royal Forums Coat of Arms

Go Back   The Royal Forums > Reigning Houses > Royal House of Sweden

Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #201  
Old 09-05-2007, 07:07 AM
Furienna's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Örnsköldsvik, Sweden
Posts: 1,200
That's true. Victoria has had some training, though Carl Philip has had more.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #202  
Old 08-10-2009, 08:00 PM
KitKat2006's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Oldenburg, Germany
Posts: 503
While I completely understand Furiennas opinion on "sticking with traditions", I also like the idea of equality between sexes. There was a time when I was younger, when I thought that CP was not treated fair after the change of the Act of Succession, but these times are long gone. I think CPV does a great job and will be a phantastic queen someday.

But there is still one thing that really bothers me: the unfair treatment of the husbands of the current queens (like Beatrix (Netherlands), Elisabeth (Great Britian), Margarete (Denmark)) and the husbands of the future queens (Victoria (Sweden), Ingrid-Alexandra (Norway), Elisabeth (Belgium), Catharina-Amalia (Netherlands) and as of now Leonor (Spain)). Where is the equality here? Why aren't they / won't they be kings? Why only Prince Consort? I mean, Mette-Marit (Norway), Mary (Denmark), Maxima (Netherlands), Matilde (Belgium), Letizia (Spain) will become queen someday. It would only be fair, if the current / future Prince Consorts will be granted the same rights than their female collegues if the female royals are granted the same rights than their royal male collegues. That's what bothers me the most. Equality yes, but regardless of sex of either part of the future reigning couple (royal heir or husband/wife). It would be really sad if there would be a time without real kings in the future, if there will be only female heirs. And it looks this way right now. Only Denmark and Great Britian will have male heirs (well and the little countries like Luxemburg, Lichtenstein, Monaco).

And please excuse my english. I'm not very good with it. Hopefully you understand what I was trying to say. And yeah, hopefully it's okay to wake up a discussion, that's long gone into some kind of hibernation. After all, the last post was in 2007.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #203  
Old 08-10-2009, 08:33 PM
Gutsy's Avatar
Commoner
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NYC, United States
Posts: 39
Both Spain and Britain had a tradition of the "Crown Matrimonial": a man married to a Queen Regnant (i.e., Sovereign/Head of State) bore the title "King" but without any of the consitutional duties of a Sovereign. The spouse of Isabel II of Spain in the 19th century bore the title "King." One unique situation was the accession of William and Mary to the throne of Great Britain in 1689. Mary was the next Protestant heir after the deposition of James II; her spouse William of Orange (already in the line of succession) insisted he reign with her as joint and effective Sovereign. This was never repeated as the husbands of all subsequent female British Queens Regnant were styled "HRH" and Prince.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #204  
Old 08-11-2009, 06:01 AM
Furienna's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Örnsköldsvik, Sweden
Posts: 1,200
Quote:
Originally Posted by KitKat2006 View Post
While I completely understand Furiennas opinion on "sticking with traditions", I also like the idea of equality between sexes. There was a time when I was younger, when I thought that CP was not treated fair after the change of the Act of Succession, but these times are long gone. I think CPV does a great job and will be a phantastic queen someday.
I'm sure too, that Victoria will be a fantastic queen one day. But still, I think how they changed the act of succession was wrong. Carl Philip was born as an heir appearent, a crown prince, while Victoria was "only" born as an heir presumptive. But then, the parlament changed it all, so Victoria became crown princess. Even though they were so tiny back then, that they didn't know what was going on, I don't think it was fair. They should have done like they did in Norway. They too changed the succession laws, so the eldest child, no matter the sex, would be their heir appearant. But they had it come in effect only in the next generation. So that's how Haakon still is crown prince, even though he has an older sister.

Quote:
But there is still one thing that really bothers me: the unfair treatment of the husbands of the current queens (like Beatrix (Netherlands), Elisabeth (Great Britian), Margarete (Denmark)) and the husbands of the future queens (Victoria (Sweden), Ingrid-Alexandra (Norway), Elisabeth (Belgium), Catharina-Amalia (Netherlands) and as of now Leonor (Spain)). Where is the equality here? Why aren't they / won't they be kings? Why only Prince Consort? I mean, Mette-Marit (Norway), Mary (Denmark), Maxima (Netherlands), Matilde (Belgium), Letizia (Spain) will become queen someday. It would only be fair, if the current / future Prince Consorts will be granted the same rights than their female collegues if the female royals are granted the same rights than their royal male collegues. That's what bothers me the most. Equality yes, but regardless of sex of either part of the future reigning couple (royal heir or husband/wife). It would be really sad if there would be a time without real kings in the future, if there will be only female heirs. And it looks this way right now. Only Denmark and Great Britian will have male heirs (well and the little countries like Luxemburg, Lichtenstein, Monaco).
I totally agree about this. If a king's wife is called "queen", why can't a queen's husband be called "king"? I guess it has to do with fact, that kings were considered superior to queens, so to protect the status of regent queens, their husbands "only" became princes.

Quote:
And please excuse my english. I'm not very good with it. Hopefully you understand what I was trying to say. And yeah, hopefully it's okay to wake up a discussion, that's long gone into some kind of hibernation. After all, the last post was in 2007.
I think your English is fine. And you can feel free to resurrect threads. By the way, I can't believe, that no one has written in this thread since I did in, what, September 2007?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #205  
Old 03-30-2011, 10:11 AM
Non-royal's Avatar
Newbie
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Topeka, United States
Posts: 5
Since many constitutions have changed allowing Princesses to succeed ahead of their younger brothers, IMHO it is time to create a new title for the consorts of reigning Queens and crown princesses. The spouse of a crown prince becomes a crown princess. Why not make the consort (husband) of a crown princess a crown prince consort and when she becomes queen, make the husband His Majesty Prince ..... I believe there should be some method to elevate the spouse of a Queen to a rank higher than a garden variety prince.

I realize this has been debated in these threads before, but wanted to add my opinion.
Thank you.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #206  
Old 03-30-2011, 05:19 PM
Esmerelda's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,215
I think the best way round the inequality of titles would be to 'downgrade' female consorts to 'Princess consort' and keep the title King/Queen to the monarch. I might be wrong but I heard that this was being discussed in Holland? Or was it just the fact that Maxima didn't take the title 'Princess of Orange?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #207  
Old 03-30-2011, 08:54 PM
nascarlucy's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Central Florida Area, United States
Posts: 1,336
My opinion of this has never wavered even though people have disagreed with me on this issue. The firstborn of the Monarch would be the heir to the throne unless there was severe mental health issues or a medical issue (being in a coma with little chance of coming out of it for example) which made them mentally or physically unable to carry out their duties. This would have to be verified by several experts who would go before the parliment and present their findings. The parliament would then aprove or disapprove their findings.

If the Monarch didn't have any children, then the next heir to the throne's first born child would be the heir to the throne and so on.

I know people have tried to explain this to me, but I still don't understand why this process took a couple of years (I guess I don't understand all the legalities or other issues behind this). Since the parliment wanted this to go through, it seems like an up or down vote would be the easiest way to resolve this. Again that just my opinion.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #208  
Old 03-31-2011, 12:15 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: San Francisco, United States
Posts: 2,039
Quote:
Originally Posted by nascarlucy View Post
My opinion of this has never wavered even though people have disagreed with me on this issue. The firstborn of the Monarch would be the heir to the throne unless there was severe mental health issues or a medical issue (being in a coma with little chance of coming out of it for example) which made them mentally or physically unable to carry out their duties. This would have to be verified by several experts who would go before the parliment and present their findings. The parliament would then aprove or disapprove their findings.

If the Monarch didn't have any children, then the next heir to the throne's first born child would be the heir to the throne and so on.

I know people have tried to explain this to me, but I still don't understand why this process took a couple of years (I guess I don't understand all the legalities or other issues behind this). Since the parliment wanted this to go through, it seems like an up or down vote would be the easiest way to resolve this. Again that just my opinion.
It is similar to ratifying amendments to the US constitution. It takes much more than a up or down vote.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #209  
Old 03-31-2011, 02:53 AM
Esmerelda's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,215
Quote:
Originally Posted by nascarlucy
My opinion of this has never wavered even though people have disagreed with me on this issue. The firstborn of the Monarch would be the heir to the throne unless there was severe mental health issues or a medical issue (being in a coma with little chance of coming out of it for example) which made them mentally or physically unable to carry out their duties. This would have to be verified by several experts who would go before the parliment and present their findings. The parliament would then aprove or disapprove their findings.

If the Monarch didn't have any children, then the next heir to the throne's first born child would be the heir to the throne and so on.

I know people have tried to explain this to me, but I still don't understand why this process took a couple of years (I guess I don't understand all the legalities or other issues behind this). Since the parliment wanted this to go through, it seems like an up or down vote would be the easiest way to resolve this. Again that just my opinion.
I think the first born child should be heir to the throne unless they have committed some scandalous crime. If they're mentally ill the next in line would be regent and will become King/Queen in the fullness of time.

Do you mean that if a Monarch doesn't have any children, the throne should bypass the sibling and pass on to the next generation?

I'm not entirely sure why the law took so long to pass through. I read some interviews with an historian, i think it was Hermann Linquist who said it was because of the political situation. In the 70s the monarchy wasn't in a good position and I guess the best scenario for the republicans was for the King to have no sons and thus no heir. The conservatives therefore proposed equal primogeniture when Victoria was born to secure the monarchy. When Carl Philip was born, the other parties didn't really have much choice but to do the 'progressive' thing.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #210  
Old 03-31-2011, 03:55 PM
nascarlucy's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Central Florida Area, United States
Posts: 1,336
If the monarch didn't have children, then the next child his or her younger brother or sister would be heir to the throne. That's what I meant to say.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #211  
Old 03-31-2011, 05:45 PM
Esmerelda's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,215
Quote:
Originally Posted by nascarlucy
If the monarch didn't have children, then the next child his or her younger brother or sister would be heir to the throne. That's what I meant to say.
Oh I see. I thought passing the throne directly to the niece/nephew would be an interesting concept especially if the monarch dies of old age. However, there would be all sorts of complications if he/she does not and with the parents being outranked by their child.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #212  
Old 03-31-2011, 07:36 PM
MRSJ's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: ******, United States
Posts: 1,844
Quote:
Originally Posted by Esmerelda

Oh I see. I thought passing the throne directly to the niece/nephew would be an interesting concept especially if the monarch dies of old age. .
In England the throne was passed from King William V (?) to his niece Victoria but only because her father was deceased .... so conceivably it could happen in Sweden, like if Victoria and Daniel had no children and CP did but passes before Victoria his child would inherit
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #213  
Old 04-02-2011, 11:12 AM
nascarlucy's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Central Florida Area, United States
Posts: 1,336
I meant the monarch siblings (brother or sister) if he/she had any would be next in line. The brother or sister would be heir to the throne. However, problems would exist for succession if the monarch lived to be very old and outlived all their siblings. I would guess any children of the heir to the throne would be next, even if their parent died before the monarch did.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #214  
Old 04-02-2011, 12:16 PM
MRSJ's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: ******, United States
Posts: 1,844
Quote:
Originally Posted by nascarlucy
I meant the monarch siblings (brother or sister) if he/she had any would be next in line. The brother or sister would be heir to the throne. However, problems would exist for succession if the monarch lived to be very old and outlived all their siblings. I would guess any children of the heir to the throne would be next, even if their parent died before the monarch did.
Isn't that what I said? If Victoria is Queen and outlives Carl Phillipe and her and Daniel gave no children but Carl does would not his child become Victoria's heir?right now Carl is Victoria's heir and once she's Queen he will continue to be her heir until she has children, and if she doesn't and outlives him wouldn't the heir be his children? It's like Monaco, until PA and Charlene have kids Caroline is the heiress and her oldest son next...... Am I not correct in this? Or is Sweden different?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #215  
Old 04-02-2011, 03:38 PM
Boris's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Los Angeles, United States
Posts: 2,202
Quote:
Originally Posted by MRSJ View Post
Am I not correct in this? Or is Sweden different?
Of course you're correct.
If Victoria remains childless and outlives her siblings, the eldest of nephews/nieces inherits the throne.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #216  
Old 04-03-2011, 12:20 AM
Eve2Eden's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 113
Quote:
Originally Posted by Esmerelda View Post
I think the best way round the inequality of titles would be to 'downgrade' female consorts to 'Princess consort' and keep the title King/Queen to the monarch.
I agree. This is the easiest and most sensible (and equitable) way of handling the issue, IMO. It does seem a bit strange nowadays for a female spouse to automatically receive an upgrade to Crown Princess/Queen, while a male spouse must remain "just" a Prince.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Furienna View Post
But still, I think how they changed the act of succession was wrong. Carl Philip was born as an heir appearent, a crown prince, while Victoria was "only" born as an heir presumptive. But then, the parlament changed it all, so Victoria became crown princess. Even though they were so tiny back then, that they didn't know what was going on, I don't think it was fair.
IIRC, Victoria had no succession rights at all when she was born- women were not eligible for the throne at that time.

Does anyone have more information about the exact timing of the different steps taken to change the succession? I get the impression that the change was already being considered when Victoria was born, and that the new law had in fact been passed by the time Carl Philip was born, but did not officially take effect until he was 7 months old. In that case, it makes sense that they did not make the law retroactive, as in Norway (in addition to the often-made point about the respective ages of the Prince and Princess in Sweden vs. Norway).

I've always wondered why, if he knew the change was coming, the King got as worked up as he did about Carl Philip being displaced...
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #217  
Old 04-03-2011, 04:41 AM
Stefan's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Esslingen, Germany
Posts: 2,337
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eve2Eden View Post
I agree. This is the easiest and most sensible (and equitable) way of handling the issue, IMO. It does seem a bit strange nowadays for a female spouse to automatically receive an upgrade to Crown Princess/Queen, while a male spouse must remain "just" a Prince.



IIRC, Victoria had no succession rights at all when she was born- women were not eligible for the throne at that time.

Does anyone have more information about the exact timing of the different steps taken to change the succession? I get the impression that the change was already being considered when Victoria was born, and that the new law had in fact been passed by the time Carl Philip was born, but did not officially take effect until he was 7 months old. In that case, it makes sense that they did not make the law retroactive, as in Norway (in addition to the often-made point about the respective ages of the Prince and Princess in Sweden vs. Norway).

I've always wondered why, if he knew the change was coming, the King got as worked up as he did about Carl Philip being displaced...
I fell the other way. I think male consorts should become King-Consort like earlier in Spain and Portugal.
As for the change of the succesion law. In 1979 the where general elections in Seden in the autumn. And this new elected Parliament had to pass the change of the succession law before it could come in force. Therefore it was only a few months after Carl Philip was born.
__________________
Stefan

Royal Travel and Events

Reply With Quote
  #218  
Old 04-03-2011, 04:52 AM
LadyFinn's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Southwest, Finland
Posts: 15,182
Proposition 1977/78:71 om kvinnlig tronföljd - Riksdagen
Swedish goverment proposed the female line of succession on December 1977 to the swedish parliament/Riksdagen.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #219  
Old 04-04-2011, 07:46 PM
Furienna's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Örnsköldsvik, Sweden
Posts: 1,200
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eve2Eden View Post
IIRC, Victoria had no succession rights at all when she was born- women were not eligible for the throne at that time.
You seem to be right! So that was why people were so excited, when our current king was born. None of his four sisters had any right to inherit the thrown, since they were girls. And I assumed, that our succession back then went like the British one goes today, that females are allowed to inherit the thrown, but only if they don't have a brother. But still, if every male member of the royal house had died, surely one of our king's sisters could have become queen? After all, we've had two regent queens in Swedish history, Christina and Ulrica Eleonora.

Quote:
I've always wondered why, if he knew the change was coming, the King got as worked up as he did about Carl Philip being displaced...
Probably because it was more radical than I thought it was. I mean, it went from there being no women in the succession at all to a boy (albeit just a few months old) losing his crown prince title to his sister. It feels like our succession order jumped over a step, where the British succession order now is. Oh well, at least the change to the sucession allowed princes and princesses to marry "commoners" and still keep their royal status, as long as the king gives them permission to do so (hence why Victoria could marry Daniel).
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #220  
Old 04-05-2011, 02:34 AM
Esmerelda's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,215
Quote:
Originally Posted by Furienna
You seem to be right! So that was why people were so excited, when our current king was born. None of his four sisters had any right to inherit the thrown, since they were girls. And I assumed, that our succession back then went like the British one goes today, that females are allowed to inherit the thrown, but only if they don't have a brother. But still, if every male member of the royal house had died, surely one of our king's sisters could have become queen? After all, we've had two regent queens in Swedish history, Christina and Ulrica Eleonora.

Probably because it was more radical than I thought it was. I mean, it went from there being no women in the succession at all to a boy (albeit just a few months old) losing his crown prince title to his sister. It feels like our succession order jumped over a step, where the British succession order now is. Oh well, at least the change to the sucession allowed princes and princesses to marry "commoners" and still keep their royal status, as long as the king gives them permission to do so (hence why Victoria could marry Daniel).
Didn't the original law specifically forbid marriage with Swedish commoners? Although in those days, the King would probably not have given his consent to a marriage with a foreign commoner so I guess it amounts to 'no commoners' after all.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
When did your opinion of Diana change and why? ysbel Diana, Princess of Wales (1961-1997) 1113 06-05-2011 11:20 PM
What would you change? Lena Royal Chit Chat 20 06-23-2010 06:31 PM
Change of name of our community to TRF... Andy R Forum Announcements and Admin 2 08-29-2004 04:29 PM




Additional Links
Popular Tags
abdication birth charlene chris o'neill crown prince haakon crown princess letizia crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit crown princess victoria current events fashion genealogy grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri habsburg hohenzollern infanta leonor infanta sofia jewellery jordan king abdullah ii king carl xvi gustav king constantine ii king felipe king felipe vi king harald king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander luxembourg olympics ottoman palace pom pregnancy president hollande president komorowski prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince constantijn prince felipe prince felix prince floris prince pieter-christiaan princess alexia (2005 -) princess anita princess ariane princess beatrix princess catharina-amalia princess charlene princess laurentien princess letizia princess mabel princess madeleine princess margriet princess mary queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen paola queen rania queen silvia queen sofia royal russia sofia hellqvist spain state visit wedding



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:07 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2014
Jelsoft Enterprises

Royal News Delivered to your Email!

You can get the latest Royal News right in your inbox.

unsusbcribe at anytime with one click

Close [X]