The Change of the Act of Succession - 1979 Constitution Change

[Cris M]

Yes, I'm being serious.

His age at the time is irrelevant. It was his right to be heir apparent, and that right was taken from him. It's water under the bridge now, but it's was unfair.

 

[HRHHermione]

But Crown Princess Victoria was not born heir apparent, Prince Carl Philip did. The very concept of Monarchy is not really fair, but it was unjust to strip Prince Carl Philip of his birthright.



Sweden could have done like Norway, introducing absolute primogeniture, but not taking away Crown Prince Haakon's birthright and favoring his older sister.

The proceedings were started before he was born! He was never going to be heir apparent. It was always going to be her, and that was always the right thing to do.

I think it is highly unlikely this has ever bothered him.

I'm also glad it's her, as she's proved time and again how wonderful she is in her role as future queen.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community mobile app

 

[Moonmaiden23]

I think it would have been far more unjust for his older sister to be denied her rightful place as oldest child because of ancient sexism.

Victoria is the heir and that is right and positive. Carl-Phillip seems to enjoy his life as it is.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community mobile app

Since the new law was not in effect at the time of Victoria's birth, she was not denied anything at all. It was C-P who was denied his rightful place because of militant feminism and political correctness in Sweden.

The "right and positive" thing would have been to make the law effective with the then legitimate Heir(Carl-Philip) and his offspring, imo.

 

[Cris M]

The proceedings were started before he was born! He was never going to be heir apparent. It was always going to be her, and that was always the right thing to do.

I'm quite aware of the entire situation, thank you very much. I just think they could have changed things a little bit when the Crown Prince was born, and done things like in Norway and Denmark did.

I think it is highly unlikely this has ever bothered him.

I'm also glad it's her, as she's proved time and again how wonderful she is in her role as future queen.

I agree with you that Prince Carl Philip was probably never bothered by the situation and Crown Princess Victoria will be wonderful Queen to Sweden. I just think the situation was far from ideal.

 

[HRHHermione]

Since the new law was not in effect at the time of Victoria's birth, she was not denied anything at all. It was C-P who was denied his rightful place because of militant feminism and political correctness in Sweden.

The "right and positive" thing would have been to make the law effective with the then legitimate Heir(Carl-Philip) and his offspring, imo.

*rolls eyes*

Militant feminism and Political correctness may be how you think of gender equality, but that's not how most people conceive of it.

I think there are probably like, four people in the entire world that think Carl Phillip was done a disservice, and they all post on this forum.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community mobile app

 

[Moonmaiden23]

*rolls eyes*

I am impressed that you have polled the whole of Europe on this subject and are aware of the feelings of everyone else.

There is no such thing as "gender equality". Men are men and women are women. That is a fact of nature. The two sexes do not equal one another.

There are however, HUMAN RIGHTS that every man, woman, and child has a right to regardless of gender.

 

[royal rob]

*rolls eyes*

Militant feminism and Political correctness may be how you think of gender equality, but that's not how most people conceive of it.

I think there are probably like, four people in the entire world that think Carl Phillip was done a disservice, and they all post on this forum.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community mobile app

Ha I agree and I don't know if he would want it any other way. It could have changed many areas of his life such as interests or who he marries.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

 

[Archduchess Zelia]

*rolls eyes*

I am impressed that you have polled the whole of Europe on this subject and are aware of the feelings of everyone else.

There is no such thing as "gender equality". Men are men and women are women. That is a fact of nature. The two sexes do not equal one another.

There are however, HUMAN RIGHTS that every man, woman, and child has a right to regardless of gender.

There's a smashing smiley:

There is, in fact, a such thing as gender equality. And you've pretty much explained what it is in your last paragraph: equality regardless of gender. That neither men nor women should be discriminated against based on their gender – the exact reason why CP was displaced in the line of succession in favour of his older sister.

 

[Moonmaiden23]

Why can't the DISPLACEMENT of Carl-Philip mean that HE was discriminated against?? Again, the law was not in place at the time of the birth of Princess Victoria.

So by making it retro-active, it actually did discriminate against Carl-Philip.

We can go around and around on this subject but it will not change my opinion one iota.

I think the kid was shafted, but good on him if he's happy with the way things turned out.

Non-discrimination based on gender does not mean the same thing to me personally as "gender equality". But that is a subjective feeling, totally off topic.

 

[Roslyn]

A discriminatory law was repealed, it was retro-active and CP was affected by it. I have no sympathy for him.

 

[Isabella]

I must say, it always surprises me to see that there are people who are genuinely upset about CP being "stripped" of his title. It was really only an issue of bureaucratic delay that put him in the position of being heir. The law was going ahead before he was born, regardless of what sex he was going to be.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

I think it would have been far more unjust for his older sister to be denied her rightful place as oldest child because of ancient sexism.

[...]

No one denies that, but the "unjust" thing here was that the Act was changed with retro-active workings. That means that Prince Carl Philip, the Crown Prince, whom held that position legally like any of his predecessors have held it, was removed. That angered his father, King Carl XVI Gustaf. We do not know what he personally thought about the equality in the Act of Succession (he has four elder sisters above him...), he would have signed it anyway but he found it a bitter pill to swallow that his son was demoted his royal, constitutional and legal birthright by retroactive force.

In most countries retro-active workings of the law are unconstitutional. "Yesterday you drove 100 km per hour. That was lawful. However we have changed the law. With retro-active working we have lowered the maximum speed to 80 km per hour. So.... we will fine you for neglecting the maximum speed." That is absurd but that is exactly what happened in Carl Philip's case.

In Norway they also changed the succession but NOT with retro-active workings. Haakon remained the Heir, above his two year elder sister Märtha Louise. In Norway the lawmaker thought that a position once held by the same law could not be overturned retro-actively, making that legally held position suddenly illegal. That is like changing the rules of a tennis game while the players are actually already in the third game of the second set...

 

[Moonmaiden23]

Thank you for making my point with more eloquence than I did.


[Yesterday you drove 100 km per hour. That was lawful. However we have changed the law. With retro-active working we have lowered the maximum speed to 80 km per hour. So.... we will fine you for neglecting the maximum speed." That is absurd but that is exactly what happened in Carl Philip's case.]


I have no objection to the changing of the law but why make it retroactive?

 

[Roslyn]

Outside of the areas of criminal law and tax law, both of which are protected by the constitution, the issue of retro-active operation of legislation has apparently not been of any particular concern to Swedish jurists. http://www.scandinavianlaw.se/pdf/39-3.pdf

I've been trying to find the precise date in 1979 when the amending legislation was put before the Riksdag. There's a surprising amount of scholarly material available in English, but so far I haven't found what I'm looking for. I haven't given up yet.

ETA, I just found the thread on TRF of the 1979 Constitutional Change. Post No. 73 in that thread tells us that the preliminary work was done in 1977/78. There had to be two votes of the Riksdag with an election in between in order to make the change to the Constitution. One was held in 1978 and the 2nd in 1979 after the election which had been held on 16 September. The change came into effect in January 1980.

CP was not suddenly and unfairly robbed of his birthright. The process for change had started before he was even conceived.

 

[JR76]

No one denies that, but the "unjust" thing here was that the Act was changed with retro-active workings. That means that Prince Carl Philip, the Crown Prince, whom held that position legally like any of his predecessors have held it, was removed. That angered his father, King Carl XVI Gustaf. We do not know what he personally thought about the equality in the Act of Succession (he has four elder sisters above him...), he would have signed it anyway but he found it a bitter pill to swallow that his son was demoted his royal, constitutional and legal birthright by retroactive force.

In Sweden the King doesn't sign new laws. He's totally disconnected from lawmaking process.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community mobile app

 

[Biri]

If he were a Heir, he would have probably never been allowed to marry Sofia.

 

[Stefan]

No one denies that, but the "unjust" thing here was that the Act was changed with retro-active workings. That means that Prince Carl Philip, the Crown Prince, whom held that position legally like any of his predecessors have held it, was removed. That angered his father, King Carl XVI Gustaf. We do not know what he personally thought about the equality in the Act of Succession (he has four elder sisters above him...), he would have signed it anyway but he found it a bitter pill to swallow that his son was demoted his royal, constitutional and legal birthright by retroactive force.

In most countries retro-active workings of the law are unconstitutional. "Yesterday you drove 100 km per hour. That was lawful. However we have changed the law. With retro-active working we have lowered the maximum speed to 80 km per hour. So.... we will fine you for neglecting the maximum speed." That is absurd but that is exactly what happened in Carl Philip's case.

In Norway they also changed the succession but NOT with retro-active workings. Haakon remained the Heir, above his two year elder sister Märtha Louise. In Norway the lawmaker thought that a position once held by the same law could not be overturned retro-actively, making that legally held position suddenly illegal. That is like changing the rules of a tennis game while the players are actually already in the third game of the second set...

The Problems was that in Sweden the law was already voted by the Riksdag at the time of Carl Philip's birth. But it had to be voted a second time and between the votes elections had to held (The where held in late 1979). So you can also blame the timing of Carl Philip's birth. If he had been born a half year later things would have been different. And that also the King must have known.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

It is just deemed not appropriate in many circkles. To give another example of changes in a royal position. In 2002 the Netherlands changed the Royal House Act. Goal: to make the Royal House smaller and concentrate on the King, the Heir and their eventual children.

The titles Prince of the Netherlands and Prince of Orange-Nassau would only be born by these core royals, so that these titles would always indicate "a close bond with the bearer of the Crown". The Dutch Government found it "not desirable" that there were people somewhat furtherer related to the bearer of the Crown with these titles.

This means that the sons of Princess Margriet would be stripped of their title Prins van Oranje-Nassau. That was the aim of this whole Act. But the Dutch lawmaker thought it was "not opportune" or "not gentlemanlike" or "not appropriate" (all these arguments were used in the debate on the Bill) to take away the styles and titles which were held by Princess Margriet's sons. So they refused to give the modernized Act a retro-active working. Exacltly alike the change in Norway, which had no retroactive working to Prince Haakon.

 

[Stefan]

It is just deemed not appropriate in many circkles. To give another example of changes in a royal position. In 2002 the Netherlands changed the Royal House Act. Goal: to make the Royal House smaller and concentrate on the King, the Heir and their eventual children.

The titles Prince of the Netherlands and Prince of Orange-Nassau would only be born by these core royals, so that these titles would always indicate "a close bond with the bearer of the Crown". The Dutch Government found it "not desirable" that there were people somewhat furtherer related to the bearer of the Crown with these titles.

This means that the sons of Princess Margriet would be stripped of their title Prins van Oranje-Nassau. That was the aim of this whole Act. But the Dutch lawmaker thought it was "not opportune" or "not gentlemanlike" or "not appropriate" (all these arguments were used in the debate on the Bill) to take away the styles and titles which were held by Princess Margriet's sons. So they refused to give the modernized Act a retro-active working. Exacltly alike the change in Norway, which had no retroactive working to Prince Haakon.

In the Uk this was done in 1917 when King George V. published the Letters Patenct about the Titles. Then Prince Alistair of Connaught lost his Tlte as Prince and became stylöed as Earl of Macduff.
And one can not compare the change in the netherlands with the one in Sweden as it was a long time after the sons of Princess margreit had been born. In Sweden Carl Philip was born in the middle of the change of the law. For sure the King and Queen must have known that if a son would be born that he would only be the Heir for a short time.
And in Norway the change was not retroactive because of the special wish of King Harald and Queen Sonja.

 

[MARG]

The Swedish Constitution
Four fundamental laws make up the Constitution: the Instrument of Government, the Act of Succession, the Freedom of the Press Act and the Fundamental Law on Freedom of Expression.

Fundamental rights
To amend a fundamental law, the Riksdag must pass the amendment on two separate occasions, separated by a parliamentary election. The fundamental laws take precedence over all other statutes and no law may contravene the Constitution.

https://sweden.se/society/the-swedish-system-of-government/

No, the King was not in favour, but Sweden is a Constitutional Monarchy. I find it weird that people lauding human rights aren't angry that a 2-year-old Victory got the right royal boot or Displaced under the 1810 law. Luckily for her the law was in train and the amendment passed in 1979 and took effect in 1980, a matter of months after CP birth. Judging by the extraordinary lengths the Swedish Government go through to amend a fundamental right, I am not surprised they made it retrospective and restored the right of succession for Victoria.

Since everything happened before he was born or could even crawl, I fail to see how the Act of Succession amendment can have affected him and his lifestyle over the last 36 years. Unless, that is, he has been raised to resent the change in law, which would perhaps account for his lifestyle.

However, there seems such connections between the siblings I rather think that is not the case and tend to think his dyslexia and it's attendant learning difficulties and which was a secret until relatively recently, would have been a hard thing to handle.

 

[JR76]

Alexander III of Russia made an amendment to the succession laws in 1886 regulating the titles of the Imperial family which stripped one member of his title of Grand Duke and demoted him to a prince and in 1917 Prince Alistair of Connaught lost both his royal status and title when George V restructured BRF so these things are neither new or a Swedish phenomenon.
That granted I do see the difference in demoting the first-in-line and a minor prince far down the line of succession.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community mobile app

 

[Hans-Rickard]

Pre-Wedding Information for Carl Philip and Sofia

Mod. note: Mbruno's quoted post has been posted at the pre-wedding thread of prince Carl Philip.

Madeleine will move further down the line if CP has any children, but I guess the point is not so much that CP is # 3 and Madeleine is # 4, but rather that CP was born the Crown Prince of Sweden (before that title was taken away from him) and is still the most senior agnate in the Bernadotte dynasty after his father. In fact, he will be technically the head of the family when his father passes away, even if Victoria becomes the monarch instead.

Incidentally, taking about the difference between being # 3 and #4, Prince Andrew's and Prince Edward's weddings come to my mind.

And with the same logic Count Ingolf is the head of the danish royal family and The Duke of Gloucester is the head of the British royal family.

Carl-Philip is higher in rank than Madeleine and is rightfully threated as such. The former constitution has nothing to do with the current. Therefore Victoria will be both monarch and the head of the house of Bernadotte as we don't use agnatic succession in our constitution since 1979.

 

[Muhler]

Madeleine will move further down the line if CP has any children, but I guess the point is not so much that CP is # 3 and Madeleine is # 4, but rather that CP was born the Crown Prince of Sweden (before that title was taken away from him) and is still the most senior agnate in the Bernadotte dynasty after his father. In fact, he will be technically the head of the family when his father passes away, even if Victoria becomes the monarch instead.

Incidentally, taking about the difference between being # 3 and #4, Prince Andrew's and Prince Edward's weddings come to my mind.

How is that possible? Victoria is the Crown Princess, per definition she is second and will become the next head of the family, both according to the Swedish Constitution and Law of Succession.
Unless a tragedy should take place, CP cannot become head of the family.

 

[Hans-Rickard]

Pre-Wedding Information for Carl Philip and Sofia

How is that possible? Victoria is the Crown Princess, per definition she is second and will become the next head of the family, both according to the Swedish Constitution and Law of Succession.
Unless a tragedy should take place, CP cannot become head of the family.

He spoke about the male line of the family of wich Carl-Philip is the senior member after his father.

Victoria will become both the monarch and the head of the house of Bernadotte as we don't use agnatic nor agnatic-cognatic succession in our constitution since 1979.

 

[Mbruno]

And with the same logic Count Ingolf is the head of the danish royal family and The Duke of Gloucester is the head of the British royal family.

From the point of view of Salic law, they are the heads of the Windsor family and the Glücksburg family (?) . Strictly speaking, Queen Elizabeth II's children belong to the Mountbatten family whereas Queen Margrethe's children belong to the Monpezat family. I suppose nowadays they try to circumvent that problem by claiming royals don't have a "last name" and, therefore, their family affiliation is no longer defined by their father's last name.

 

[Osipi]

How is that possible? Victoria is the Crown Princess, per definition she is second and will become the next head of the family, both according to the Swedish Constitution and Law of Succession.
Unless a tragedy should take place, CP cannot become head of the family.

Isn't there a difference between the royal family and the familial house? Wouldn't it be that Victoria will be the Queen of Sweden but it would depend too on what the familial rules of the House of Bernadotte are? If the family still goes by male primogeniture such as the peers of the UK do, its possible that CP would be head of household over his sister.

Case in point. Diana was The Princess of Wales. Royal and older than her only brother, but when her father, Earl Spencer died, his son Charles became the next Earl Spencer and therefore head of the Spencer family.

One thing about a royal wedding is that it brings up some interesting things to talk about and I'm looking forward to following this one. Not much longer to go now.

 

[Muhler]

From the point of view of Salic law, they are the heads of the Windsor family and the Glücksburg family (?) . Strictly speaking, Queen Elizabeth II's children belong to the Mountbatten family whereas Queen Margrethe's children belong to the Monpezat family. I suppose nowadays they try to circumvent that problem by claiming royals don't have a "last name" and, therefore, their family affiliation is no longer defined by their father's last name.

Well, the Danish royals have no surname and as such don't belong to a dynasty. They are above that.
They are also counts of Montpezat, because the head of the DRF, QMII, has decided so.
As the Monarch (as well as head of the family) she is the one who has the final say on titles.
In other words the DRF members wouldn't carry the name Montpezat if she didn't allow it.

But what puzzles me is this: Can CP go before Victoria as head of a dynasty, just because he is male? In still be accordance with the Swedish legislation? Wouldn't that be against the Swedish Constitution?
- In other words wouldn't that be gender discrimination?
In case the Bernadottes were commoners wouldn't Victoria have a very good case?
A lot of questions, I know, but I don't understand that one.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

Isn't there a difference between the royal family and the familial house? Wouldn't it be that Victoria will be the Queen of Sweden but it would depend too on what the familial rules of the House of Bernadotte are? If the family still goes by male primogeniture such as the peers of the UK do, its possible that CP would be head of household over his sister.

[...]

Most likely it will develop in the same way as in Spain: Don Luis Alfonso de Borbón y Martínez Bordiú is the most senior male of the royal dynasty of Borbón but his relative Don Felipe de Borbón y Grecia is the chef of the Royal House of Spain. He has two daughters with Ms Ortiz. When his daughters marry a non-Bourbon, the genealogical male line of the Bourbons will end to rule in Spain.

Prince Carl Philip and his male successors will the most senior male of the royal dynasty of Bernadotte, but his sister and hen ther daughter with Mr Westling will become the Chef of the Royal House of Sweden. When Estelle marries a non-Bernadotte, the genealogical male line of the Bernadottes will end to rule in Sweden.

In both cases the most senior male line descendant is not equal to the bearer of the Crown. In the Netherlands the House of Mecklenburg-Schwerin reigned between 1948 and 1980 (Queen Juliana), then the House of Lippe-Biesterfeld reigned between 1980 and 2013 (Queen Beatrix) and now the House of Amsberg reigns since 2013 (King Willem-Alexander). In all cases the name of the House was set into "Orange-Nassau", which was also more or less in line with the old Nassau rules: by lack of male descendants, the most senior female was deemed to be a male. Queen Wilhelmina, Queen Juliana and Queen Beatrix, all of them were the most senior as there were no brothers, all rights were transferred as if they were a male indeed.

 

[Mbruno]

But what puzzles me is this: Can CP go before Victoria as head of a dynasty, just because he is male? In still be accordance with the Swedish legislation? Wouldn't that be against the Swedish Constitution?
- In other words wouldn't that be gender discrimination?
In case the Bernadottes were commoners wouldn't Victoria have a very good case?
A lot of questions, I know, but I don't understand that one.

My interpretation is that the law does not regulate who the head of the family (or the head of the dynasty) is, as that is a private matter and not a public one. The Act of Succession only specifies who will become the next monarch (and, simultaneously, under the Instrument of Government, the next Head of State ) when the throne is vacant. Currently, that person is Victoria.

Under agnatic succession, there was no conflict since the most senior living agnate in the dynasty was always also the king. Under male-preference primogeniture, a female dynast could succeed (if she didn't have any other living brothers like Princess Elizabeth of York or Princess Victoria of Kent), but, under the old (pre-20th century) conventions, the ruling dynasty would change once the reigning queen was deceased. Absolute (i.e gender-neutral) primogeniture has raised new issues, which IMHO are better solved by following e.g. the Belgian model where, instead of having a royal dynasty named after a specific family, the royal house is referred to simply as "House of Belgium".

 

[Muhler]

My interpretation is that the law does not regulate who the head of the family (or the head of the dynasty) is, as that is a private matter and not a public one. The Act of Succession only specifies who will become the next monarch (and, simultaneously, under the Instrument of Government, the next Head of State ) when the throne is vacant. Currently, that person is Victoria.

Under agnatic succession, there was no conflict since the most senior living agnate in the dynasty was always also the king. Under male-preference primogeniture, a female dynast could succeed (if she didn't have any other lliving brothers like Princess Elizabeth of York or Princess Victoria of Kent), but, under the old (pre-20th century) conventions, the dynasty would become extinct once the reigning queen was deceased. Absolute (i.e gender-neutral) primogeniture has raised new issues, which IMHO are better solved by following e.g. the Belgian model where, instead of having a royal dynasty named after a specific family, the royal house is referred to simply as "House of Belgium".

I see. Thanks.

I must confess that my knowledge of how things work within the SRF is too limited for me to argue further against you.