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
 
  #261  
Old 06-28-2014, 08:06 PM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is offline
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 2,374
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moonmaiden23 View Post
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?

First of all, this is off topic.

Second of all, it makes no sense to introduce a law that will ensure primogeniture for everyone born after the law, but not for the 7 month old child and his elder sister.

Thirdly, while CG wasn't in favour of the law as it took away his son's position - not because it granted the position to his daughter, just because it took it away from his son - nothing he has done since has shown that he's opposed to Victoria being the heir. Victoria has received the training and education that CG believes necessary for the heir, which CP would have received had he been the heir.

Fourthly, CP has not been indulged because he was wrongly deprived of being the heir. He's been indulged because that's what his parents have done with both their younger children. CP is no more indulged than Madeline is. Victoria is the only one not indulged because she's the heir.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #262  
Old 06-28-2014, 08:17 PM
Moonmaiden23's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Los Angeles, United States
Posts: 4,905
Ish,

Whether it's off topic or not I STRONGLY disagree with your 2nd statement. It made no sense to retroactively strip Carl-Philip. What would have been the harm of making the law effective going forward after it was introduced??

Your third paragraph is puzzling. I've never insinuated that the king begrudged Victoria's position as Heiress. I've no idea why you felt the need to make the point.

The fact that all three of the Royal children are spoiled is not in dispute. My opinion is that CP is the most spoiled of all of them.
__________________

__________________
"Be who God intended you to be, and you will set the world on fire" St. Catherine of Siena
Reply With Quote
  #263  
Old 06-28-2014, 08:32 PM
MarNoe's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Ohio, United States
Posts: 614
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moonmaiden23 View Post
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?
I was under the impression that the law was already in the process before Carl-Philip was born, just didn't get completed til after the birth. Or is that wrong?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #264  
Old 06-28-2014, 08:56 PM
Moonmaiden23's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Los Angeles, United States
Posts: 4,905
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarNoe View Post
I was under the impression that the law was already in the process before Carl-Philip was born, just didn't get completed til after the birth. Or is that wrong?
The discussions began directly after the birth of Victoria. The law was not passed in the Rikstag until Carl-Philip was already seven months old. He already had the position of Crown Prince automatically at his birth.

Luxembourg and Belgium both passed similar legislation regarding Succession laws but did not pass the law retroactively.Only in Sweden was the extraordinary gesture of stripping the existing Heir of his title and giving it to his sister done.
__________________
"Be who God intended you to be, and you will set the world on fire" St. Catherine of Siena
Reply With Quote
  #265  
Old 06-28-2014, 09:12 PM
MARG's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posts: 4,333
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moonmaiden23 View Post
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?
It was neither ridiculous nor unjust. Legislation takes time and the coalescing of like minded people. There is discussion, they "take the temperature of the Nation" so to speak, then the legislation wends it way through to becoming an Act of Parliament. I have no reason to think that the lawmakers of Sweden woke up one day when Carl Philip was 7 months old and decided "today we change the history of the country". The King and the country knew it was coming and what it meant.

Seriously, I think the legislation was well in the works before his conception let alone his birth. Making it applicable from that moment was right and fair. If he had 10 or 14 I think they would have said "next generation", but he wasn't and they didn't. Either way, that is no excuse to overindulge a child to the degree that CP has been. That his younger sister Madeleine was also overindulged gives the lie to that reasoning. That his father was against the change is history. But it happened 30 years ago and if CG and CP are still angst driven I would very surprised and not a little shocked.
__________________
MARG
"Words ought to be a little wild, for they are assaults of thoughts on the unthinking." - JM Keynes
Reply With Quote
  #266  
Old 06-28-2014, 09:13 PM
MarNoe's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Ohio, United States
Posts: 614
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moonmaiden23 View Post
The discussions began directly after the birth of Victoria. The law was not passed in the Rikstag until Carl-Philip was already seven months old. He already had the position of Crown Prince automatically at his birth.

Luxembourg and Belgium both passed similar legislation regarding Succession laws but did not pass the law retroactively.Only in Sweden was the extraordinary gesture of stripping the existing Heir of his title and giving it to his sister done.
Ouch! There was obviously some serious foot dragging by the law makers!
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #267  
Old 06-28-2014, 09:19 PM
Moonmaiden23's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Los Angeles, United States
Posts: 4,905
Another poster in this thread made the comment that the law was made retroactive to appease aggressive feminist politicians in the Swedish Parliament.

My opinion-which is meaningless since I am not a Swede-is that it was pointless. What would have been harmful about applying the new law to the existing Heir and his children going forward?
__________________
"Be who God intended you to be, and you will set the world on fire" St. Catherine of Siena
Reply With Quote
  #268  
Old 06-28-2014, 09:53 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 359
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moonmaiden23 View Post
The discussions began directly after the birth of Victoria. The law was not passed in the Rikstag until Carl-Philip was already seven months old. He already had the position of Crown Prince automatically at his birth.

Luxembourg and Belgium both passed similar legislation regarding Succession laws but did not pass the law retroactively.Only in Sweden was the extraordinary gesture of stripping the existing Heir of his title and giving it to his sister done.
The changes to the law of succession in Denmark were also retroactive, effectively depriving Hereditary Prince Knud, a 53-year-old man (not a seven-month boy !) of his position as heir to the throne. In Belgium, on the other hand, the change in the law retroactively put Princess Astrid and her children ahead of Prince Laurent.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #269  
Old 06-29-2014, 02:38 AM
Stefan's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Esslingen, Germany
Posts: 2,449
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarNoe View Post
I was under the impression that the law was already in the process before Carl-Philip was born, just didn't get completed til after the birth. Or is that wrong?
Yes it was already in the Process but had to be voted again by a new elected Riksdag. Abnd elections to the Riksdag took place in autumn 1979. So it could also have not been done before the birth of Carl Philip.
__________________
Stefan

Royal Travel and Events

Reply With Quote
  #270  
Old 06-29-2014, 07:06 AM
Icea's Avatar
Commoner
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Ludvika, Sweden
Posts: 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarNoe View Post
Ouch! There was obviously some serious foot dragging by the law makers!
Not really, they actually passed the new succession law as quickly as they could!

The Swedish succession law (which dictates who inherits the throne) is apart of the Swedish constitution. In order to change anything in the constitution there has to be a vote in two separate parliaments before that law can take effect.

The discussion about letting women inherit the throne started in 1975 and intensified when Victoria was born. The parliament proposed changing the law and in 1978 they had the first vote in which the majority wanted women to be able to inherit the throne. The next election in Sweden wasn't held until September 1979 and so they had to wait until that time in order to hold the second vote on the matter. Carl Philip was born in May 1979 and since the law hadn't been changed at that point, he became crown prince. After the election in September parliament once again voted on the issue and a majority wanted the first born to be heir. That law came in effect January 1st 1980.

I'm not sure whether parliament intended for the law to work retroactively when they held the first vote (it's possible they had already proposed that Victoria would become crown princess no matter if she had any siblings) or if this question came up as they were about to vote for the second time in 1979. However since they had started to change the law when Victoria was born and hadn't had siblings yet, I think it's possible that parliament wanted to change the law with the intent of making Victoria crown princess and that's why it came in effect retroactively.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #271  
Old 06-29-2014, 09:25 AM
MarNoe's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Ohio, United States
Posts: 614
Quote:
Originally Posted by Icea View Post
Not really, they actually passed the new succession law as quickly as they could!

The Swedish succession law (which dictates who inherits the throne) is apart of the Swedish constitution. In order to change anything in the constitution there has to be a vote in two separate parliaments before that law can take effect.
Thank you. That explains quite well why it took so long.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #272  
Old 06-29-2014, 09:41 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: England, United Kingdom
Posts: 621
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moonmaiden23 View Post
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?
I imagine in the eyes of the Swedish parliament it would have been just as unfair for Victoria to stop being heir to the throne and replaced with her brother just because she was born a girl and he a boy.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #273  
Old 06-29-2014, 10:18 AM
Avicenna's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: North of Lake Constance, Germany
Posts: 528
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
The changes to the law of succession in Denmark were also retroactive, effectively depriving Hereditary Prince Knud, a 53-year-old man (not a seven-month boy !) of his position as heir to the throne. In Belgium, on the other hand, the change in the law retroactively put Princess Astrid and her children ahead of Prince Laurent.
Denmark:

There were two changes in Denmark. You are mentioning the 1953 Change (following the 1953 Referendum) which was about the succession rights of females. Prior to it women were not allowed at all thus making the kings brother (Knud) the heir to the throne. This change gave women only in the case of no male heir the possibility to succeed.

The second change took place in 2009 after the 2009 Referendum. This time it granted equal rights to both male and female descendant. So no matter what the gender is, the first born will take over.

The situation you mention is therefor a bit different. After all it's normal that siblings loose their place in the line once children are born to a couple.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #274  
Old 06-29-2014, 01:46 PM
Lady Nimue's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Pacific Palisades, United States
Posts: 630
Quote:
Originally Posted by Icea View Post
Not really, they actually passed the new succession law as quickly as they could!

The Swedish succession law (which dictates who inherits the throne) is apart of the Swedish constitution. In order to change anything in the constitution there has to be a vote in two separate parliaments before that law can take effect.

The discussion about letting women inherit the throne started in 1975 and intensified when Victoria was born. The parliament proposed changing the law and in 1978 they had the first vote in which the majority wanted women to be able to inherit the throne. The next election in Sweden wasn't held until September 1979 and so they had to wait until that time in order to hold the second vote on the matter. Carl Philip was born in May 1979 and since the law hadn't been changed at that point, he became crown prince. After the election in September parliament once again voted on the issue and a majority wanted the first born to be heir. That law came in effect January 1st 1980.

I'm not sure whether parliament intended for the law to work retroactively when they held the first vote (it's possible they had already proposed that Victoria would become crown princess no matter if she had any siblings) or if this question came up as they were about to vote for the second time in 1979. However since they had started to change the law when Victoria was born and hadn't had siblings yet, I think it's possible that parliament wanted to change the law with the intent of making Victoria crown princess and that's why it came in effect retroactively.
Thank you for this clarification. Makes perfect sense that they went with Victoria since the intent was there when they started, it was just the timing of the change.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tommy100 View Post
I imagine in the eyes of the Swedish parliament it would have been just as unfair for Victoria to stop being heir to the throne and replaced with her brother just because she was born a girl and he a boy.
Quite so.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #275  
Old 06-29-2014, 11:50 PM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Richmond, United States
Posts: 46
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-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?
I completely agree. The Rikstag should not have gone against the King's wishes and taken the Crown Prince title away from C-P and given it to Victoria. I think C-P would be an entirely different person today had that not happened and his choice of spouse completely different. And, as much as I love Victoria, I think she would have been happier. The strain on her in the job she has with her dyslexia, prosopagnosia, and past anorexia issues must be immense. Perhaps her father actually knew what was best for her personally and what was best for his family and the Rikstag disregarded his opinion. He has reason to be upset. I am not criticizing Victoria at all. She is wonderful. I think it is an amazing tribute to her as an individual that she has excelled in the face of these difficulties, but it must be a great stress. The Rikstag should have left things as Providence arranged them and changed the law moving forward.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #276  
Old 06-30-2014, 12:04 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Somewhere, United States
Posts: 987
No one on this earth can change the past, and yet some feel he has a right to be angry and this happened how many years ago, over 30, I really don't know how old Prince Carl is yet to still hold a grudge for that long says something about King Carl. The past is just that, *The Past* and none of us in this world can change that nor predict the future. It's really moot to say how PC would or won't be now. If he wanted to be more then he is besides a playboy prince then he should do more to help the people of Sweden yet he is know for car racing, stealing other people's designs in pottery and vacations, that is all his own doing, not anybody else. He should take a look at some other princes and try to follow their example even though he isn't a crown prince, even another prince in England does way more then he does and this one even served in the military and he isn't a crown prince. It's called *work* and that is something he is shy about.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #277  
Old 06-30-2014, 12:52 AM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Richmond, United States
Posts: 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by SElizabeth View Post
No one on this earth can change the past, and yet some feel he has a right to be angry and this happened how many years ago, over 30, I really don't know how old Prince Carl is yet to still hold a grudge for that long says something about King Carl. The past is just that, *The Past* and none of us in this world can change that nor predict the future. It's really moot to say how PC would or won't be now. If he wanted to be more then he is besides a playboy prince then he should do more to help the people of Sweden yet he is know for car racing, stealing other people's designs in pottery and vacations, that is all his own doing, not anybody else. He should take a look at some other princes and try to follow their example even though he isn't a crown prince, even another prince in England does way more then he does and this one even served in the military and he isn't a crown prince. It's called *work* and that is something he is shy about.
You are right in that we can't change the past. I too would prefer to see a more serious and focused C-P. It is never impressive to watch anyone, much less a member of the Head of State's family, act like a pampered, self centered, unserious, aimless, party prince/princess. Character reveals itself in actions.

I hope C-P and Sofia are starting a new chapter and that they are serious about making their marriage a long, successful, and committed one. It's not a game.
__________________

__________________
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 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 constantijn 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 fabiola queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima 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 06:10 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]