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
 
  #241  
Old 06-26-2011, 04:37 AM
mattep74's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vasteras, Sweden
Posts: 456
To be fair to our goverment it wasnt that they suddenly woke up with Carl-Philip beeing born and changed the constitution. After Victoria was born the Moderate party was affraid that she would be the only child and since the constitution didnt allow women to be heirs it had to be changed. The first vote to change the constitution happened in May 1978, but to change the constitution you need to have a election in between. The next election was in September 1979, after Carl-Philip had been born.
__________________

__________________
-------------------------------------------------
"My feelings are all over the place." Prince Daniel express his feelings after announcing the birth of his daughter Estelle Silvia Ewa Mary
Reply With Quote
  #242  
Old 06-26-2011, 04:42 AM
LadyFinn's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Southwest, Finland
Posts: 16,321
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyFinn View Post
Proposition 1977/78:71 om kvinnlig tronföljd - Riksdagen
Swedish goverment proposed the female line of succession on December 1977 to the swedish parliament/Riksdagen.
As I wrote before, the swedish government proposed the female line of succession already on 8th December 1977. And just like Mattep74 writes, there had to be an election before the proposion could be accepted.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #243  
Old 09-04-2012, 06:34 AM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 11
Laughable that the rules of succession were changed – some of the main arguments posted here approbating the change seem beyond parody: an invocation of ‘fairness’, ‘equality’ & ‘egalitarianism’ – how can these be applied objectively to the most unfair, unegalitarian & hierarchical institution on the planet? They have no substance whatsoever.

The sovereign isn’t a public servant – he isn’t there to satisfy the fancies and whims of the popular zeitgeist; if that’s what you want, then cease the charade and abolish the monarchy and instigate a full blown republic. If the monarchy isn’t rooted in the past then it loses any legitimacy it has. Quite frankly it’s disgusting that a bunch of control freaks in the Swedish parliament (well, they are leftists I suppose, that’s what leftists love: control) forced these measures on the reluctant King. These are fundamental changes that affect his family – and for what? Just so a bunch of miscreants in the Swedish parliament can feel edified at having made an intrinsically unfair institution slightly more, errrm, ‘fair’?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #244  
Old 09-04-2012, 07:07 AM
Meraude's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: City on islands, Sweden
Posts: 1,099
Quote:
Originally Posted by Palmerston View Post
The sovereign isn’t a public servant – he isn’t there to satisfy the fancies and whims of the popular zeitgeist; if that’s what you want, then cease the charade and abolish the monarchy and instigate a full blown republic. If the monarchy isn’t rooted in the past then it loses any legitimacy it has. Quite frankly it’s disgusting that a bunch of control freaks in the Swedish parliament (well, they are leftists I suppose, that’s what leftists love: control) forced these measures on the reluctant King. These are fundamental changes that affect his family – and for what? Just so a bunch of miscreants in the Swedish parliament can feel edified at having made an intrinsically unfair institution slightly more, errrm, ‘fair’?
No, it wasn't the leftists in the parliament who wanted a change in the order of succession, it was the conservative and center-right parties that lead the government at the time of both votes in the parliament. Many in the left-wing block was against the change, as they hoped that there wouldn't be any male heir born and that the monarchy would be abolished due to lack of a male heir. Social democrats: Gender equality a pretext to save the monarcy: S: "Jämställdhet svepskäl för att rädda monarkin" - Ekot

Voting 1977: 159 for a change, 18 against, 130 abstain
Voting 1979: 165 for a change, 21 against, 147 abstain
(Members of the social democratic party abstained from voting as they considered it a non-important matter.)
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #245  
Old 09-04-2012, 07:28 AM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by Meraude View Post
No, it wasn't the leftists in the parliament who wanted a change in the order of succession, it was the conservative and center-right parties that lead the government at the time of both votes in the parliament. Many in the left-wing block was against the change, as they hoped that there wouldn't be any male heir born and that the monarchy would be abolished due to lack of a male heir. Social democrats: Gender equality a pretext to save the monarcy: S: "Jämställdhet svepskäl för att rädda monarkin" - Ekot
Doesn't sound like there are any conservatives in Sweden to be blunt. Whilst 'conservatives' in Sweden were besmirching their monarchy, conservatives in the UK were safeguarding the hereditary peers in House of Lords. What a difference in calibre.

I don't buy this hollow argument that 'equality' legitimises the most unfair and unequal institution on the planet. The monarchy is either legitimate by precedent and tradition or it isn't at all; if you tweak and nudge it to fit the zeitgeist you're doing nothing but delegitimatising it. It becomes a plaything for ideologues and the fancies of those in control.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #246  
Old 09-04-2012, 12:45 PM
Furienna's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Örnsköldsvik, Sweden
Posts: 1,224
I don't think it really was Conservatives either, who wanted the change, but it rather was Liberals.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #247  
Old 09-04-2012, 01:45 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: alpine village, Germany
Posts: 1,804
Quote:
Originally Posted by Palmerston View Post
The monarchy is either legitimate by precedent and tradition or it isn't at all; if you tweak and nudge it to fit the zeitgeist you're doing nothing but delegitimatising it. It becomes a plaything for ideologues and the fancies of those in control.
Monarchy is legitimised by the fact that the voters want to keep it. The fact that Sweden needed an election in between passing new legislation about the succession to the throne and putting the new law in use shows that the voters (the "people") of Sweden could have voted against that change but didn't. They can abolish the monarchy anytime once they vote an anti-monarchical party to power and do so again after this party used their majority in parliament to pass legislation for a change of the system. So it is perfectly legit as it shows the wish of the people of Sweden to have Victoria (aka first-born child) to be next souverain.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #248  
Old 09-04-2012, 07:25 PM
MARG's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posts: 4,336
Quote:
Originally Posted by mattep74 View Post
. . . . . After Victoria was born the Moderate party was affraid that she would be the only child and since the constitution didn't allow women to be heirs it had to be changed . . . . .
So,are you saying that unlike the UK where Victoria and Elizabeth, both being the only child, took their place in the succession, Victoria and Madeline were not even "in line" and without CP the throne would have devolved to the nearest male relative?
__________________
MARG
"Words ought to be a little wild, for they are assaults of thoughts on the unthinking." - JM Keynes
Reply With Quote
  #249  
Old 09-04-2012, 09:41 PM
Meraude's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: City on islands, Sweden
Posts: 1,099
Quote:
Originally Posted by MARG View Post
So,are you saying that unlike the UK where Victoria and Elizabeth, both being the only child, took their place in the succession, Victoria and Madeline were not even "in line" and without CP the throne would have devolved to the nearest male relative?
Yes, Sweden had adopted agnatic primogeniture (Salic law) in 1810 when the first Bernadotte, Karl Johan, became crown prince of Sweden. If the order of succession hadn't been changed in 1980 and the king and queen hadn't had any sons, the only one who was in line to the throne after king Carl Gustaf would have been his uncle prince Bertil, born in 1912. The fact that Bertil had been the only male in his generation in the order of succession after the death of prince Gustav Adolf, the father of king Carl Gustav, in 1947, was why prince Bertil couldn't marry Lilian Craig until 1977, after having been together with her for 33 years. You can find a list of the Swedish order of succession from 1809 and forward here: Svenska tronföljden - Wikipedia
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #250  
Old 09-04-2012, 09:53 PM
Meraude's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: City on islands, Sweden
Posts: 1,099
Quote:
Originally Posted by Furienna View Post
I don't think it really was Conservatives either, who wanted the change, but it rather was Liberals.
Conservative with a C = moderaterna, conservative with a c = borgerliga partier, and the Liberal party (Folkpartiet) is a part of the borgerliga partier.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #251  
Old 09-04-2012, 10:43 PM
Furienna's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Örnsköldsvik, Sweden
Posts: 1,224
Moderaterna haven't been conservative for many years.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #252  
Old 09-05-2012, 01:52 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: San Francisco, United States
Posts: 2,044
Quote:
Originally Posted by Meraude View Post
Conservative with a C = moderaterna, conservative with a c = borgerliga partier, and the Liberal party (Folkpartiet) is a part of the borgerliga partier.
At one point moderaterna was called Högerpartiet. At the same time we also had Bondepartiet. I kind of like those old names.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #253  
Old 09-05-2012, 02:46 AM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: alpine village, Germany
Posts: 1,804
Quote:
Originally Posted by MARG View Post
So,are you saying that unlike the UK where Victoria and Elizabeth, both being the only child, took their place in the succession, Victoria and Madeline were not even "in line" and without CP the throne would have devolved to the nearest male relative?
Problem was - there was no nearer male relative anymore with Sucession rights and a son of his own.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #254  
Old 09-05-2012, 03:45 AM
Meraude's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: City on islands, Sweden
Posts: 1,099
Quote:
Originally Posted by Furienna View Post
Moderaterna haven't been conservative for many years.
This is not a political forum, and regardless what anyone thinks of the political views of the Swedish Moderata Samlingspartiet today, they do belong in the conservative spectrum of the political field (and they are a part of the center-right group in European parliament). To classify the Moderaterna as Conservatives makes it easier for those members who don't understand and/or are not interested in Swedish politics, and for whom Conservative/Liberal/Socialist parties are a understandable division when it comes to political parties and opinions.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #255  
Old 06-27-2014, 12:03 PM
Al_bina's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: City, Kazakhstan
Posts: 5,880
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyFinn View Post
I can't believe my eyes, the king and queen come to the group photo with them. Why? They made the awkward video with Victoria and Daniel, and nothing with Madeleine and Chris.
And now the king and queen are talking and babbling with the press and praising Sofia? Why they are treating Carl Philip and Sofia so differently than Victoria and Daniel? Because the king wanted Carl Philip to be the heir...
my boding
There was no reason to strip the "Crown Prince" title of Prince Carl Philip. So King Carl Gustav has a right to be upset about it.
__________________
"I never did mind about the little things"
Amanda, "Point of No Return"
Reply With Quote
  #256  
Old 06-27-2014, 02:09 PM
LFNikita's Avatar
Commoner
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Posts: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by Al_bina View Post
my boding
There was no reason to strip the "Crown Prince" title of Prince Carl Philip. So King Carl Gustav has a right to be upset about it.
I'm not getting into the discussion on why the decision was made (there is probably a thread about it somewhere on here) but I will say this; it was a decision made by the Riksdag and it's one of the best decisions they ever made in my opinion. The king's very negative reaction to the decision was undignified and low of him. I don't know a single Swede who wants Carl-Philip to rule instead of Victoria. None.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #257  
Old 06-27-2014, 02:25 PM
Moonmaiden23's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Los Angeles, United States
Posts: 4,911
Quote:
Originally Posted by Al_bina View Post
my boding
There was no reason to strip the "Crown Prince" title of Prince Carl Philip. So King Carl Gustav has a right to be upset about it.
I understand and agree if the Rikstag had decided to change the Succession to allow females to succeed going forward, but to strip Carl-Philip of his rights retro-actively was unfair. I do not blame the king for being angry about it.

I wonder if C-P had been groomed as Heir all along would his attitude be different...his approach to his duties, responsibilities and his choice of a future wife?
__________________
"Be who God intended you to be, and you will set the world on fire" St. Catherine of Siena
Reply With Quote
  #258  
Old 06-27-2014, 02:30 PM
Al_bina's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: City, Kazakhstan
Posts: 5,880
Quote:
Originally Posted by LFNikita View Post
I'm not getting into the discussion on why the decision was made (there is probably a thread about it somewhere on here) but I will say this; it was a decision made by the Riksdag and it's one of the best decisions they ever made in my opinion. The king's very negative reaction to the decision was undignified and low of him. I don't know a single Swede who wants Carl-Philip to rule instead of Victoria. None. ...[snipped]
Well ... if Swedes do disapprove of Prince Carl Philip's choice, they can inform their representatives in Riskdag. The Riksdag can take appropriate measures. Prince Carl Phillip is a member of the extended royal family and has a right to lead a life he wants. It is Crown Princess Victoria's responsibility to give a nice impression.
From what I read, manly women in the Riksdag wanted to have the equal primogeniture right away.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Moonmaiden23 View Post
I understand and agree if the Rikstag had decided to change the Succession to allow females to succeed going forward, but to strip Carl-Philip of his rights retro-activelywas unfair. I do not blame the king for being angry about it.

I wonder if C-P had been groomed as Heir all along would his attitude be different...his approach to his duties, responsibilities and his choice of a future wife?
That is precisely what I found to be very very unfair.
__________________
"I never did mind about the little things"
Amanda, "Point of No Return"
Reply With Quote
  #259  
Old 06-28-2014, 05:56 PM
Princess Xenia's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: ..., United States
Posts: 283
The fact that the king never got over Carl Philip loosing his crown princely title sounds ridiculous too me. I mean Carl Philip was just seven months old and it wasn't like he lost so much and whenever he thinks about his past, he gets upset. I don't exactly know how much work Carl Philip does for Sweden but I am sure that Victoria is a way much better for the role of a crown princess and a future queen and so she can keep the monarchy popular in Sweden .
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #260  
Old 06-28-2014, 07:04 PM
Moonmaiden23's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Los Angeles, United States
Posts: 4,911
Quote:
Originally Posted by Princess Xenia View Post
The fact that the king never got over Carl Philip loosing his crown princely title sounds ridiculous too me. I mean Carl Philip was just seven months old and it wasn't like he lost so much and whenever he thinks about his past, he gets upset. I don't exactly know how much work Carl Philip does for Sweden but I am sure that Victoria is a way much better for the role of a crown princess and a future queen and so she can keep the monarchy popular in Sweden .
Even though the boy was only seven months, what was done to him was ridiculous and unjust. Why make the new Succession rules retroactive in the first place?

The result is that the queen and especially the king have probably gone overboard to indulge Carl-Philip's every whim out of a sense of guilt. Did he even complete his education? What does he do other than race cars?
__________________

__________________
"Be who God intended you to be, and you will set the world on fire" St. Catherine of Siena
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




Popular Tags
belgium brussels carl philip charlene chris o'neill crown prince frederik crown prince haakon crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit crown princess victoria current events engagement fashion genealogy germany grand duke henri hohenzollern infanta sofia jordan king carl xvi gustav king felipe king felipe vi king harald king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander letizia luxembourg nobility official visit olympics ottoman pieter van vollenhoven poland president hollande president komorowski prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince daniel prince floris prince pieter-christiaan princess aimee princess alexia (2005 -) princess anita princess beatrix princess charlene princess laurentien princess madeleine princess margriet princess marilene princess mary princess mary fashion queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen paola queen rania queen silvia queen sofia royal royal fashion russia sofia hellqvist spain state visit sweden the hague wedding winter olympics 2014



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:20 AM.

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]