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
 
  #381  
Old 06-18-2015, 03:54 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 1,784
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hans-Rickard View Post
Exactly. This was not something that was done fast. The work had started well before Victoria was born. The King and Queen and the courtiers knew very well that Victoria was to become Crown Princess on 1 January 1980.
Yet THEY CHOOSED to welcome and baptise Carl Philip in the Crown Princely way. They could have avoided all fuss but they choosed to not do.
They chose to welcome and baptize him as Crown Prince because, when he was born and until he was 7 months old, he was legally the Crown Prince of Sweden. A bill doesn't come into force until it is finally passed according to the proper procedure laid out in the constitution. The fact that the succession bill had already cleared its first reading in the Swedish parliament didn't mean the bill was already in force as it could still be voted down at second reading. Especially considering that Carl Philip was born in May 1979 and the general election was held in September 1979. The new parliament could obviously overturn decisions from the previous one. That is BTW precisely why the Swedish Instrument of Government requires that a general election be held between two votes on a basic law like the Act of Succession.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #382  
Old 06-18-2015, 04:02 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Philadelphia, United States
Posts: 3,108
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hans-Rickard View Post
Exactly. This was not something that was done fast. The work had started well before Victoria was born. The King and Queen and the courtiers knew very well that Victoria was to become Crown Princess on 1 January 1980.
Yet THEY CHOOSED to welcome and baptise Carl Philip in the Crown Princely way. They could have avoided all fuss but they choosed to not do.

They probably hoped everything would work out the way they wished once they presented a fait accompli.

It's too bad they still sound so bitter about it, I'd have thought they would have adapted by now. But I guess not.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #383  
Old 06-18-2015, 04:35 PM
Cris M's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Niterói, Brazil
Posts: 847
Out of curiosity, what would have happened if the King had died on December 1979? Would Parliament depose King Carl XVII Philip and replace him with his sister?
__________________
“If a thousand thrones I had, I would give a thousand thrones to get the slaves free in Brazil."

Princess Isabel (1846-1921), Princess Imperial and Regent of the Empire of Brazil, after she signed the Golden Law, in 1888, abolishing slavery in Brazil.
Reply With Quote
  #384  
Old 06-18-2015, 04:52 PM
Furienna's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Örnsköldsvik, Sweden
Posts: 1,316
Since he only would had been a baby, I guess that they could have done that as well.
Reply With Quote
  #385  
Old 06-18-2015, 04:54 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Posts: 1,005
The Change of the Act of Succession - 1979 Constitution Change

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
They chose to welcome and baptize him as Crown Prince because, when he was born and until he was 7 months old, he was legally the Crown Prince of Sweden. A bill doesn't come into force until it is finally passed according to the proper procedure laid out in the constitution. The fact that the succession bill had already cleared its first reading in the Swedish parliament didn't mean the bill was already in force as it could still be voted down at second reading. Especially considering that Carl Philip was born in May 1979 and the general election was held in September 1979. The new parliament could obviously overturn decisions from the previous one. That is BTW precisely why the Swedish Instrument of Government requires that a general election be held between two votes on a basic law like the Act of Succession.

All political parties except one in the Swedish parliament agreed on this so there was/is no chance in the world that the new constitution would have been dismissed by the parliament before or after elections unless both the government and the opposition would have agreed to do so.

The royal family and the courtiers knew that so they putted themselves in their own situation !

Yet they welcomed Prince Carl Philip as Crown Prince with a 42 gun salute and christened him with the Crown Princely Crown placed beside the baptismal font despite knowing all this very well. Still they choosed to. I don't feel sad at all for them !
Reply With Quote
  #386  
Old 06-18-2015, 05:08 PM
Al_bina's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: City, Kazakhstan
Posts: 7,032
Was the male primogeniture in full force and effect at the time of Prince Carl Philip's birth? If yes, they had a full right to welcome him with a 42 gun salute and baptise him in accordance with his title. It is irrelevant who knew what.
Toying around with the succession line and going overboard with equality surely backfire.
__________________
"I never did mind about the little things"
Amanda, "Point of No Return"
Reply With Quote
  #387  
Old 06-18-2015, 06:32 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Posts: 1,005
The Change of the Act of Succession - 1979 Constitution Change

Quote:
Originally Posted by Al_bina View Post
Was the male primogeniture in full force and effect at the time of Prince Carl Philip's birth? If yes, they had a full right to welcome him with a 42 gun salute and baptise him in accordance with his title. It is irrelevant who knew what.
Toying around with the succession line and going overboard with equality surely backfire.

1. No it was not in full effect though the work with the new constitution was underway since many years and everybody knew it would happen. It was not that it may happen, it was going to happen.

2. Of course he was legally Crown Prince when he was born and they are free to welcome him as such if they want to. But in my personal opinion it is not okay to yell 35 years afterwards when they knew it was going to happen. They putted themselves in all fuss. The swedish King is well aware that the constitution is a political thing and that he has no political power at all since 1975.
Reply With Quote
  #388  
Old 06-18-2015, 07:10 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 6,638
I have no idea how the changes to the constitution as far as succession to the Crown was worded in Sweden but with a little light digging with a spoon back to when the UK instituted equal primogeniture to the British Crown while William and Kate were expecting their first child, I believe that although the changes needed to be ratified by the Commonwealth nations, it was worded with a specific date.

"As it was introduced at the time when the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge were expecting their first child, the Act stipulated that a daughter would succeed her father irrespective of whether later children were male. To allow for the delay in implementing the change to the law, the relevant provision was made retrospective to 28 October 2011(the date of the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting agreement) so that the child would benefit if it was female."

Is it possible that something similar to this was done in Sweden?
__________________
“When I was 5 years old, my mother always told me that happiness was the key to life. When I went to school, they asked me what I wanted to be when I grew up. I wrote down ‘happy’. They told me I didn’t understand the assignment, and I told them they didn’t understand life.”
― John Lennon
Reply With Quote
  #389  
Old 06-18-2015, 07:18 PM
Marty91charmed's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Near Verona and Venice, Italy
Posts: 5,680
All I can say about this is that it is time for both the King and Queen to get over this, since, at least it seems so to me, CP doesn't look bothered by it, merely a bit uncertain as what to do with his life... But this, I think, can be attributed to his own character who has yet to find a suited path...
Also, he can considered himself lucky enough, as if he were now the heir, he wouldn't be able to marry Sofia... or many years had still to come before he were allowed to...
__________________
"Yet, walking free upon her own estate
Still,in her solitude, she is the Queen".
Reply With Quote
  #390  
Old 06-18-2015, 07:33 PM
Lady Nimue's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Pacific Palisades, United States
Posts: 2,094
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marty91charmed View Post
Also, he can considered himself lucky enough, as if he were now the heir, he wouldn't be able to marry Sofia... or many years had still to come before he were allowed to...
I think if Carl Philip were the heir he would have long ago married Emma Pernauld. Given that, it's a question if he would ever have met Sofia. But if he did, then maybe there would have been an affair, but no more. JMO.
__________________
Russian National Anthem: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bGoNaLjQrV8
O Magnum Mysterium: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWU7dyey6yo
Reply With Quote
  #391  
Old 06-18-2015, 08:10 PM
Newbie
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Atlanta, United States
Posts: 8
I agree with Mirabel-I think they intended a fait accompli but it didn’t happen & I don’t think they can let go of that. I’d argue it’s not even about Carl Phillip anymore. It’s about them being irked that their wishes got usurped by a Parliamentary action. And if so it’s troubling that they wanted to subvert the legislative process. But in hindsight what they did in 79 is just them being willful and sexist. “Sweden with the times” clearly meant something different to the King than it did to the legislature. But again everyone has different perspectives.

I’d argue it’s their behavior and actions since that has been pretty awful. Thirty plus years later they still comment on the decision and it serves zero purpose other than making them look stubbornly fixated on something that was long ago decided.

And the worst part is every time they make a comment like this Victoria has to address it and say some variation on how she doesn’t take it personally.
Reply With Quote
  #392  
Old 06-18-2015, 08:15 PM
Furienna's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Örnsköldsvik, Sweden
Posts: 1,316
But why is it so hard for you to respect the king's and the queen's opinion, even if you don't agree with them?
Reply With Quote
  #393  
Old 06-18-2015, 10:03 PM
Tiggersk8's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Evansville, Canada
Posts: 2,078
Quote:
Originally Posted by Furienna View Post
But why is it so hard for you to respect the king's and the queen's opinion, even if you don't agree with them?

Because it's one thing to have an opinion about something, but when airing that opinion shows you in a very negative light, this is the biggie though IMO, *and* continually hurts your Daughter in a very public and bitter manner w/the airing of that opinion? Speaking for myself, I have a very hard time respecting anyone for actions like that. Royal or not.


Sent from my iPad using The Royals Community mobile app
__________________
Recycle Life ~ Be An Organ Donor!!
Recieved my Kidney Transplant on December 10th, 1993 and will be forever grateful to the family of my donor for the greatest earliest Christmas Present I've ever been given
Reply With Quote
  #394  
Old 06-19-2015, 12:07 AM
Newbie
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Atlanta, United States
Posts: 8
Quote:
Originally Posted by Furienna View Post
But why is it so hard for you to respect the king's and the queen's opinion, even if you don't agree with them?
It’s not so much about respecting their opinion as being utterly baffled by their need to voice this opinion at this stage in the game. More than thirty years afterward one would assume they’d have accepted the change or at the very least have a good press ready response. Honestly this seems like an action they need to turn the page on and let go of to use the King's rhetoric.
Reply With Quote
  #395  
Old 06-19-2015, 12:10 AM
GracieGiraffe's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Giraffe Land, United States
Posts: 2,531
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiggersk8 View Post
Because it's one thing to have an opinion about something, but when airing that opinion shows you in a very negative light, this is the biggie though IMO, *and* continually hurts your Daughter in a very public and bitter manner w/the airing of that opinion? Speaking for myself, I have a very hard time respecting anyone for actions like that. Royal or not.


Sent from my iPad using The Royals Community mobile app
This!! This x100! I don't see why people fail to grasp that it must hurt Victoria deeply.
__________________
The future George VII's opinion on infant carriers,
"One is not amused."
Reply With Quote
  #396  
Old 06-19-2015, 12:31 AM
Lady Nimue's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Pacific Palisades, United States
Posts: 2,094
Quote:
Originally Posted by Furienna View Post
But why is it so hard for you to respect the king's and the queen's opinion, even if you don't agree with them?
I agree 100%.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GracieGiraffe View Post
This!! This x100! I don't see why people fail to grasp that it must hurt Victoria deeply.
Not necessarily. That's an assumption. Why would you think that? Her views on the matter might surprise you. It's an area that really only that family can understand, and it's obviously deeply personal for them. I say let it be. JMO.
__________________
Russian National Anthem: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bGoNaLjQrV8
O Magnum Mysterium: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWU7dyey6yo
Reply With Quote
  #397  
Old 06-19-2015, 12:32 AM
MARG's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posts: 6,049
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyFinn View Post
We have to remember, that the preliminary work for the change was carried out already in 1977-78. It started even before Victoria was born. And the king and queen knew about the process. Carl Philip was not unjustified stripped anything.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
I think Queen Silvia's position is also very clear. In the interview below to Brazilian TV, she basically says the same thing she said in that most recent 2015 Gernan interview, including the reference to the women's movement of the 1970s. Her attitude, like the King's, is one of resignation, i.e. they both accepted "the will of the people", even though it is clear that she feels that applying the law retroactively was wrong.

I believe it would be unfair though to say that CP Victoria doesn't have her parents' full support now. In fact, in the interview below, the Queen praises Victoria for her preparation and commitment to her role as heiress to the throne. Clearly, Victoria was raised as the heir whereas Carl Philip was not. Victoria's position in the royal house is pretty clear and unambiguous as she is the only child of Carl Gustaf with a household (i.e staff) of her own and takes a full range of state and diplomatic duties that are not shared with her siblings. The family came to terms with the reality imposed by the new law and, as the Queen said again below, Carl Philip also "accepted it" and "everything is fine" now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roslyn View Post
His parents should not have been "puzzled" by it, and CP wasn't stripped of anything. He was born into a Sweden in which the process of changing the male primogeniture system was already underway. It was only a matter of time before the parliamentary process was completed.

As others have carefully and accurately stated already, but ignored by some, the changes to the law were already underway long before CP was conceived, and, apparently, before Victoria was born. It's not as though it was something that was suddenly foisted on an unsuspecting CG and Silvia.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
They chose to welcome and baptize him as Crown Prince because, when he was born and until he was 7 months old, he was legally the Crown Prince of Sweden. A bill doesn't come into force until it is finally passed according to the proper procedure laid out in the constitution. The fact that the succession bill had already cleared its first reading in the Swedish parliament didn't mean the bill was already in force as it could still be voted down at second reading. Especially considering that Carl Philip was born in May] 1979 and the general election was held in September 1979. The new parliament could obviously overturn decisions from the previous one. That is BTW precisely why the Swedish Instrument of Government requires that a general election be held between two votes on a basic law like the Act of Succession.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirabel View Post
They probably hoped everything would work out the way they wished once they presented a fait accompli.

It's too bad they still sound so bitter about it, I'd have thought they would have adapted by now. But I guess not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hans-Rickard View Post
All political parties except one in the Swedish parliament agreed on this so there was/is no chance in the world that the new constitution would have been dismissed by the parliament before or after elections unless both the government and the opposition would have agreed to do so.

The royal family and the courtiers knew that so they putted themselves in their own situation !

Yet they welcomed Prince Carl Philip as Crown Prince with a 42 gun salute and christened him with the Crown Princely Crown placed beside the baptismal font despite knowing all this very well. Still they choosed to. I don't feel sad at all for them !
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kavan View Post
I agree with Mirabel-I think they intended a fait accompli but it didn’t happen & I don’t think they can let go of that. I’d argue it’s not even about Carl Phillip anymore. It’s about them being irked that their wishes got usurped by a Parliamentary action. And if so it’s troubling that they wanted to subvert the legislative process. But in hindsight what they did in 79 is just them being willful and sexist. “Sweden with the times” clearly meant something different to the King than it did to the legislature. But again everyone has different perspectives.

I’d argue it’s their behavior and actions since that has been pretty awful. Thirty plus years later they still comment on the decision and it serves zero purpose other than making them look stubbornly fixated on something that was long ago decided.

And the worst part is every time they make a comment like this Victoria has to address it and say some variation on how she doesn’t take it personally.
Exactly. The king and queen chose to ignore what was happening and they, more than anyone, were totally aware of the consequences of their actions. Which is interesting when she mentions that Carl Philip has "accepted it" since he was only about seven months old when it was enacted. To say he has accepted it, is to say he was taught by his parents that he has been deprived of his birthright, which in turn gives the lie to the notion that Victoria had or has the full support of her parents. As does the strains of bitterness from both the King and Queen.

Kungen: Grundlagen är lustig | Nyheter | Aftonbladet

https://www.youtube.com/watch?featur...oYjEYe-I#t=881

However, the fact that 35 years after the fact the Queen is lamenting the change in succession publically, shows us that everything is demonstrably not fine now. And as for Victoria being given the rights to the Heir, well that's a crock! The king and queen didn't do it out of the kindness of their own hearts. The law of succession dictated that.

Yes I too believe that the king and queen really did believe that presenting the government and the country with a fait accompli would sway things their way, yet I am persuaded that when the government first decided on this course of change in the succession, all possible consequences were covered because while this was about the succession, it was also just like any other law and required the same preliminary research as any other.

In that light I believe the royal couple were more aware of it's implications, perhaps even more so than the government itself, and that the legalities had been addressed or would be automatically covered by the legislation itself.

So, I don't think Victoria had an easy time of it. She got what the law dictated but if her parents are so public about this now, 35 years later, one has to wonder what they have been like in private.

But sadly, not only have the actions of the King and Queen been indiscreet, they are hurtful and have left Crown Princess Victoria vulnerable to questions about the SRF and her place in it.
__________________
MARG
"Words ought to be a little wild, for they are assaults of thoughts on the unthinking." - JM Keynes
Reply With Quote
  #398  
Old 06-19-2015, 12:39 AM
GracieGiraffe's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Giraffe Land, United States
Posts: 2,531
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lady Nimue View Post



Not necessarily. That's an assumption. Why would you think that? Her views on the matter might surprise you.
Yes, I'd be fairly surprised if she were not bothered in the least by her parents complaining that she was made heir, thereby depriving her brother of HIS birthright.

I completely agree with Marg - if this is what they are saying in public, one can only imagine what they have said in private.
__________________
The future George VII's opinion on infant carriers,
"One is not amused."
Reply With Quote
  #399  
Old 06-19-2015, 12:50 AM
Lady Nimue's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Pacific Palisades, United States
Posts: 2,094
Quote:
Originally Posted by GracieGiraffe View Post
Yes, I'd be fairly surprised if she were not bothered in the least by her parents complaining that she was made heir, thereby depriving her brother of HIS birthright.
Maybe that would be so for you in such a situation. Just saying. It may not be for her. Your assumption is that this is talked about in personal terms. It may not be. Royalty is a kind of 'family business'. Who is the heir is not minor. Being the heir has deeply impacted Victoria's life. One just never knows.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GracieGiraffe View Post
I completely agree with Marg - if this is what they are saying in public, one can only imagine what they have said in private.
You can imagine anything, that is certain. It's possible she may agree with her parents. We don't know. Why assume the worst, that gets the hackles up against people you do not know? That I find puzzling. Just saying.
__________________
Russian National Anthem: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bGoNaLjQrV8
O Magnum Mysterium: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWU7dyey6yo
Reply With Quote
  #400  
Old 06-19-2015, 09:02 AM
Marty91charmed's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Near Verona and Venice, Italy
Posts: 5,680
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lady Nimue View Post
I think if Carl Philip were the heir he would have long ago married Emma Pernauld. Given that, it's a question if he would ever have met Sofia. But if he did, then maybe there would have been an affair, but no more. JMO.
But I amnot even 100% sure about it... it seems CG makes differences between daughters and son, and to put it blandly, his son (even more if he had been the heir) would have indulged every whim...
__________________

__________________
"Yet, walking free upon her own estate
Still,in her solitude, she is the Queen".
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
constitution, constitutional change, crown princess victoria, prince carl philip, succession, sweden


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
What Would You Change? Lena Royal Chit Chat 21 01-11-2015 08:09 PM
When did your opinion of Diana change and why? ysbel Diana, Princess of Wales (1961-1997) 1113 06-06-2011 12:20 AM
Change of name of our community to TRF... Andy R Forum Announcements and Admin 2 08-29-2004 05:29 PM




Popular Tags
ascot 2016 best gown best gown september 2016 best hat best outfit catherine middleton style coup d'etat crown prince haakon crown princess mary crown princess mary fashion crown princess mette-marit current events duchess of cambridge e-mail fashion poll fox news grand duke jean greece kate middleton king abdullah ii king felipe king felipe vi king willem-alexander marriage member introduction monarchy new zealand nobel 2016 nobel gala norway november 2016 october 2016 opening of parliament picture of the week prince bernhard prince charles prince constantijn princess eugenie eveningwear princess madeleine princess marie princess mary princess mary daytime fashion princess mary fashion princess mary hats queen letizia queen letizia casual outfits queen letizia daytime fashion queen letizia fashion queen letizia style queen mathilde queen mathildes outfits queen maxima queen maxima casual wear queen maxima daytime fashion queen maxima fashion queen maxima hats queen maxima style queen rania revolution royal fashion september 2016 state visit state visit to denmark succession sweden the duchess of cambridge the duchess of cambridge casual wear the duchess of cambridge daytime fashion the duchess of cambridge fashion the duchess of cambridge hats


Our Communities

Our communities encompass many different hobbies and interests, but each one is built on friendly, intelligent membership.

» More about our Communities

Automotive Communities

Our Automotive communities encompass many different makes and models. From U.S. domestics to European Saloons.

» More about our Automotive Communities

Marine Communities

Our Marine websites focus on Cruising and Sailing Vessels, including forums and the largest cruising Wiki project on the web today.

» More about our Marine Communities


Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:37 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2016
Jelsoft Enterprises