The Change of the Act of Succession - 1979 Constitution Change

[Cris M]

Originally Posted by HRHHermione

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

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.

[Al_bina]

You are correct. Prince Carl Philip was stripped off the rightful title by overzealous politicians.

[Pranter]

It should of started with his heirs instead of stripping the title from him.


LaRae

[Princess of Durham]

I have to agree, the new rules should have started with the next generation. It was not fair to strip him of his right.

[Cris M]

Exactly.

Norway, Denmark and others have done the right thing. Sweden was wrong stripping Prince Carl Philip of his birthright. Belgium also stripped Prince Laurent of birthright, favouring Princess Astrid, but he was not the direct heir, so it didn't make a big difference.

[Ish]

Are you serious? CP was less than a year old when he was "stripped" of his position as heir apparent. Given as legislature tends to take more than 7 months to come into affect, I would guess that the legislation was probably in the process of being passed before CP was even born.

If CP had actually been of an age where he was old enough to understand what was being "taken" from him I might see the point, but given as he wasn't even old enough to understand the point of a toilet I think people might be exaggerating what he was deprived of.

[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]

Originally Posted by Cris M

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]

Originally Posted by HRHHermione

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]

Originally Posted by HRHHermione

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.

Originally Posted by HRHHermione

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]

Originally Posted by Moonmaiden23

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]

Originally Posted by HRHHermione

*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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by HRHHermione

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.