The Change of the Act of Succession - 1979 Constitution Change

[LadyFinn]

Margareta Thorgren, the director of the information department, says to Svensk Damtidning that the entire royal family is behind the order of succession. The King describes his feeling from when the decision was made and that it was taken retroactively. Once the decision and the constitutional amendment were made, it was clear that he accepted and stood behind it. Thorgren describes the relationship between Victoria and the King as "very good" after the interview.
- This is not a big deal in the family. It's an issue in the media that has become very, very magnified. The King and the Crown Princess have been working side by side for many years now and the King thinks that the Crown Princess as his successor will be an excellent head of state for Sweden.
Hovet bekräftar_ Så har kungens utspel påverkat relationen med Victoria _*Svensk Dam

 

[Mbruno]

I understand the King has voiced his opinion on this in the past but I am still dumbfounded HM would continue to voice the same exact opinion. The King is allowed to believe what he wants to believe, but as a politically neutral head of state, it is very unwise to question a democratic decision by the government of Sweden on who gets to be its head of state. Not to mention the awkwardness these comments make for the family. A better response would be that in Sweden we live in a democracy and the people get to decide how the crown is inherited.

Actually I saw an interview once with Queen Silvia where she said just that. If I recall it correctly, it was in interview in Portuguese to a Brazilian anchor from Globo TV. The Queen basically said (not so bluntly as the King though) that she did not agree either that Carl Philip should have lost the Crown Prince position, but she accepted that it was the will of Parliament at the time and said, in her own words, that they had come to terms with the decision and that all was fine/OK now, implying that it is not a subject which has caused any rift in the family.

 

[Somebody]

Margareta Thorgren, the director of the information department, says to Svensk Damtidning that the entire royal family is behind the order of succession. The King describes his feeling from when the decision was made and that it was taken retroactively. Once the decision and the constitutional amendment were made, it was clear that he accepted and stood behind it. Thorgren describes the relationship between Victoria and the King as "very good" after the interview.
- This is not a big deal in the family. It's an issue in the media that has become very, very magnified. The King and the Crown Princess have been working side by side for many years now and the King thinks that the Crown Princess as his successor will be an excellent head of state for Sweden.
Hovet bekräftar_ Så har kungens utspel påverkat relationen med Victoria _*Svensk Dam

It is a bit concerning when the main press officer has to 'correct' the impression repeatedly made by the king because he is apparently unable to answer these questions in a way that is needed for the monarchy.

 

[Mbruno]

It is a bit concerning when the main press officer has to 'correct' the impression repeatedly made by the king because he is apparently unable to answer these questions in a way that is needed for the monarchy.

What the press officer said should be, quite frankly, obvious. First of all, the King cannot do anything about the Law of Succession. other than making his opinion known to the PM, which he did at the time. Ultimately the Law of Succession is a matter for the Swedish Parliament to decide following the proper constitutional procedure, which is what was done in 1978-79. As a constitutional monarch, the King has no alternative, but to accept it once a decision is made by Parliament.

Second, there is no doubt that the King accepts and endorses Victoria's constitutional position. As the press officer said, the King and the CP have been working together now for more than two decades in an official capacity. Victoria takes part in meetings of the Council of State, makes official visits overseas representing Sweden, gets briefings from the Swedish government, has her own household, and she and her family are accorded a status and precedence in the Court that her siblings and their respective families do not have (that is now reflected even in the titles of Carl Philip's and Madeleine's children).

 

[Prinsara]

What the press officer said should be, quite frankly, obvious. First of all, the King cannot do anything about the Law of Succession. other than making his opinion known to the PM, which he did at the time. Ultimately the Law of Succession is a matter for the Swedish Parliament to decide following the proper constitutional procedure, which is what was done in 1978-79. As a constitutional monarch, the King has no alternative, but to accept it once a decision is made by Parliament.

Second, there is no doubt that the King accepts and endorses Victoria's constitutional position. As the press officer said, the King and the CP have been working together now for more than two decades in an official capacity. Victoria takes part in meetings of the Council of State, makes official visits overseas representing Sweden, gets briefings from the Swedish government, has her own household, and she and her family are accorded a status and precedence in the Court that her siblings and their respective families do not have (that is now reflected even in the titles of Carl Philip's and Madeleine's children).

If the King wants to destroy his reputation by complaining about it all, he's perfectly entitled to do so.

 

[JR76]

King Carl Gustav has published a statement regarding the controversy surrounding his views about the Order of Succession of 1980:
"During the autumn, in two interviews, I received questions about the change to the Order of Succession in 1980 to that of absolute primogeniture. I then shared my thoughts about Prince Carl Philip retroactively losing his position as crown prince in connection with the amendment to the constitution.
It has pained me deeply when, in retrospect, I have heard comments that claim that I would not support my daughter, Crown Princess Victoria, as the heir to the Swedish throne.
I therefore want to make it clear that my replies should not be interpreted as criticism of the right of women to succeed to the throne or of Crown Princess Victoria. This right is natural to me.
The Crown Princess is my successor. She is an extraordinary asset to me, my family and our country. I am proud of her and her tireless work for Sweden."


https://www.kungahuset.se/arkiv/uttalanden/2023-01-05-uttalande-av-h.m.-konungen

 

[LadyFinn]

King Carl Gustav has published a statement regarding the controversy surrounding his views about the Order of Succession of 1980:
"During the autumn, in two interviews, I received questions about the change to the Order of Succession in 1980 to that of absolute primogeniture. I then shared my thoughts about Prince Carl Philip retroactively losing his position as crown prince in connection with the amendment to the constitution.
It has pained me deeply when, in retrospect, I have heard comments that claim that I would not support my daughter, Crown Princess Victoria, as the heir to the Swedish throne.
I therefore want to make it clear that my replies should not be interpreted as criticism of the right of women to succeed to the throne or of Crown Princess Victoria. This right is natural to me.
The Crown Princess is my successor. She is an extraordinary asset to me, my family and our country. I am proud of her and her tireless work for Sweden."


https://www.kungahuset.se/arkiv/uttalanden/2023-01-05-uttalande-av-h.m.-konungen

I'm sure that the King and Margareta Thorgen got before the interview the topics Göran Ellung, the documentary producer, wanted to talk about. And Margareta Thorgen should have known what kind of media storm the King speaking about the change of the heir to the throne 1979/1980 in would cause. Especially because Victoria is so popular and widely respected. So the King should have been prepared to say at the end of his interview "The Crown Princess is my successor. She is an extraordinary asset to me, my family and our country. I am proud of her and her tireless work for Sweden".
So that he wouldn't have had to say it now when he is forced to do so, so that this unfortunate thing won't overshadow his Jubilee year any further.

 

[tommy100]

Sorry but the fact the King's spoken words need to be corrected / added to by a statement, written no doubt by his Communications Director is telling. They finally got it right on attempt 3 it seems, but the King couldn't make the comments in person himself, somehow the words just wouldn't fall from his lips.

 

[Mbruno]

I'm sure that the King and Margareta Thorgen got before the interview the topics Göran Ellung, the documentary producer, wanted to talk about. And Margareta Thorgen should have known what kind of media storm the King speaking about the change of the heir to the throne 1979/1980 in would cause. Especially because Victoria is so popular and widely respected. So the King should have been prepared to say at the end of his interview "The Crown Princess is my successor. She is an extraordinary asset to me, my family and our country. I am proud of her and her tireless work for Sweden".
Not say it now, when he is forced to do so, so that this unfortunate thing won't overshadow his Jubilee year any further.

Well, it is better to say it now (albeit a little late) than not say anything at all and let the interviews stay as the King's final words on the topic.

Besides, as I said, it is plainly obvious that Crown Princess Victoria is his legal successor and that she is recognized as such and is treated accordingly both by the Swedish government/state and the Court. It is pointless to moan about something that was settled a long time ago,and is irreversible and accepted by all.

 

[JR76]

I'm sure that the King and Margareta Thorgen got before the interview the topics Göran Ellung, the documentary producer, wanted to talk about. And Margareta Thorgen should have known what kind of media storm the King speaking about the change of the heir to the throne 1979/1980 in would cause. Especially because Victoria is so popular and widely respected. So the King should have been prepared to say at the end of his interview "The Crown Princess is my successor. She is an extraordinary asset to me, my family and our country. I am proud of her and her tireless work for Sweden".
So that he wouldn't have had to say it now when he is forced to do so, so that this unfortunate thing won't overshadow his Jubilee year any further.

The King did say something like this, only badly worded. Very badly worded.
He's never good in sit-down face-to-face interviews, but are often much better when interviewed in more informal settings. I blame the dyslexia he's to old to have benefited from more modern forms of treatment for.
He should have gotten continuous and regular media training and help to memorize things like this before interviews. They knew what the program was going to be about and, as you say, they knew what he would be questioned about and should have prepared accordingly.

 

[Prinsara]

The King did say something like this, only badly worded. Very badly worded.
He's never good in sit-down face-to-face interviews, but are often much better when interviewed in more informal settings. I blame the dyslexia he's to old to have benefited from more modern forms of treatment for.
He should have gotten continuous and regular media training and help to memorize things like this before interviews. They knew what the program was going to be about and, as you say, they knew what he would be questioned about and should have prepared accordingly.

Dyslexia doesn't affect your speech or your thoughts, though. King Olav, Juan Carlos, and all three of CG's own children have never had problems with interviewers or just speaking simply the way Carl Gustav has had, keeps having, and even being married to a literal interpreter has not helped. If the court hasn't thought to media train him in 50 years, that's their fault.

(..)

 

[JR76]

Dyslexia, especially if you haven't benifited from any help for it during your childhood, can affect your speech. The King's children have received extensive help with modern methods of treatment since their early school days so it's not strange that they do much better than their father.
The only known diagnosis of the King that we know of is dyslexia. Whether that's by choice, lack of other diagnoses or because that's all he suffers from is impossible for us to know.

 

[tommy100]

If it is because of dyslexia then why put him up to a programme like this? It seems to be additional to the annual "year in review" programme so not necessary really if the King wasn't up to it. Find another way - something more narrative where he can read a script / notes off screen if needed or a purely observational documentary following his work.

 

[Mbruno]

If it is because of dyslexia then why put him up to a programme like this? It seems to be additional to the annual "year in review" programme so not necessary really if the King wasn't up to it. Find another way - something more narrative where he can read a script / notes off screen if needed or a purely observational documentary following his work.

Queen Elizabeth II was known for not doing one-on-one interviews. In this day and age, monarchs are expected to be more accessible though. Keeping in mind, however, that Carl Gustaf is actually slightly older than King Charles III for example.

 

[Prinsara]

1975. He was exactly the same. Before Victoria, before they changed the Constitution on him; he was exactly set up to be the way he is right now.

Dyslexia can affect your speech, but it doesn't have to. And given that someone like Juan Carlos received whatever level of help CG did (not that much, if anything), I'm not sure why he should be able to speak much more fluently than Carl Gustav. (..)

Edit: Additionally, dyslexia isn't responsible for his chauvinistic views, obviously.

The question is why, from 1975 to now, no one could see that getting this then-very young guy a) more comfortable talking to people/with media generally, b) less seemingly-dismissive of women (I never know if he meant to speak fondly of his sisters or not, but it always comes off the wrong way to my ears), or c) ideally, both?... would be a smart and beneficial thing to aim for?

 

[simonher2]

I think the daughter should take the throne, not the son, but they will do as they please, that's just my opinion

 

[iceflower]

Speculative posts and comments have been removed.

 

[JR76]

Dyslexia can affect your speech,

That is what I wrote.

 

[MARG]

[

Usually, when the King gives an interview, Margareta Thorgren, the director of the information department, is present to follow the interview and to prevent improper questions. Also the Head of the King's Household, his Marshal of the Court is there. And because the King was interviewed, probably also the First Marshal of the Court. But of course they can't say in the presence of the TV-people to the King that he can't say so and stop the interview. And the King is stubborn and has a right to say how he feels, so he said the same things again at the second interview. But he could have said that he is very proud of his daughter and her work for Sweden, that would have helped a little.
When Victoria has been interviewed for TV, Margareta Thorgren has been present or an information officer from the court, and Victoria's Marshal of the Court.

Dagens Nyheter's Leader column (paywall article) "Leader: Doesn't the king understand that Victoria is the monarchy's strongest card?"
Förstår inte kungen att Victoria är monarkins starkaste kort_ - DN.SE

PR expert Paul Ronge thinks that the king should avoid answering certain types of questions.
- I say common sense, so you keep quiet, if only for the sake of the family, says Paul Ronge.
Isn't that disloyal to Victoria?
- Well, it is, but that's what he tried to correct now, with her being a distinguished young woman. That he brought it up at all is unpleasant, unnecessary and inept.
- In that situation, as a crisis manager, I would rather have urged him to "if you feel the same way, then let it be. Say; I have nothing more to add”. It won't be as much fun for journalists, but you don't lose yourself. For better or for worse, he has no advisors and that means that he does away with himself in a different way than those who have good communicators as advisors.
PR-experten sågar kungens utspel_ Mer en kung ur tiden än i tiden

It's hard not to feel for Crown Princess Victoria, when the king once again vents his dissatisfaction with the "new" order. Whether she's wearing boots, trainers or pumps - she has, I swear, not put a foot wrong during the strange queen school that is her life since she was two years old. I am a principled republican, but I would think that the crown princess makes the Republican Association's work much more difficult than the king has done. Maybe she, like her aunt Birgitta, had also wanted to move to Mallorca, play golf and drink gin & tonic, but does she do it? No, she spends Christmas Eve at SL Greater Stockholm Local Traffic Company and her birthdays in front of a stage with "the Swedish artist elite".
The king, like everyone else, is entitled to his opinions, but it seems insensitive and ungrateful that he cannot publicly keep his mouth shut on this matter.
Anna Andersson om kungen och successionsordningen

I have always despised King Carl Gustav, he is at best disingenuous or just a damned liar. As time passes, the details of the change in the succession are lost in the mists of time and it is under cover of this mist that King CG bewails the "retrospective" law that supposedly robbed his son of his heritage.

The actual truth was that the law that saw the change in succession, according to Swedish Constitutional law, was required to be ratified by two successive parliaments. Having already been passed by the first parliament before Prince Carl Philip was even a twinkle in the eye of King Carl Gustav, it was already a done deal.

It suits King Carl Gustav to present his poor infant son being effectively disinherited out of the blue six months after his birth. That is a canard, and that he still holds to this supposed truth after all these years is awful. He may say what he likes in private but does he honestly believe that the Swedish people and Parliament, whose decision it was to make the change, are going to let it go when he says it in public?

I know that Victoria had a difficult youth struggling with both dyslexia and an eating disorder. I cannot help but wonder how much extra stress was added by knowing that her father resented her being the Crown Princess and would never support her position except by giving lip service in public when it was required. Every normal little girl wants her father's approval and I fear that for her it was never really forthcoming. King Carl Gustav has been vocal in his views about Victoria and Carl Philip since they were small children, to see him publicly stabbing his daughter in the back even now is shameful and I do not doubt personally hurtful for Victoria.

They say that living well is the best revenge, if it is so, Victoria is living proof that she has steel in her spine and love in her heart. She is an amazing woman and an even more amazing Crown Princess. Her marriage has brought her a wonderful husband and two beautiful children. They all seem to be lit from within when we see them together, their joy is almost palpable. I have always believed that Victoria's smile was her not-so-secret weapon and to see it in her husband and children is especially wonderful.

 

[JR76]

[I



The actual truth was that the law that saw the change in succession, according to Swedish Constitutional law, was required to be ratified by two successive parliaments. Having already been passed by the first parliament before Prince Carl Philip was even a twinkle in the eye of King Carl Gustav, it was already a done deal.

You can despise the King all you want, but the passing of the change of the Order of Succession was not a done deal. To say so is to disqualify a parliamentary process that is not automatic and put in place to protect the constitutional rights of the Swedish people. Like all parliamentary processes things can change while it's ongoing and any change would have meant that parliament would have had to start over again. Close to half the parliament laid down their votes on both occasions. Had the Social Democrats not decided to do so and instead voted like many of them wanted too the result could have been the total opposite.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

I think the daughter should take the throne, not the son, but they will do as they please, that's just my opinion

They will not do as they please.

According to changed Act of Succession 1980 the King's eldest child Victoria is the successor, passing over Crown Prince Carl Philip who had been the heir apparent until then.

The King does not oppose that Victoria is the successor. He only voiced his displeasure that an ex post facto law was introduced. The law retroactively changed the legal consequences (or status) that existed before the enactment.

This was highly unusual. In most nations with a written constitution, ex post facto legislation usually is prohibited. Imagine that the State implies retroactive taxation or charges. Or that the State punishes people for acts which did not constitute a criminal offence under the law in force at the time committed.

The mixed feelings of the King were actually very understandable !

 

[ppetrica]

I find it quite strange that the King had no problem with Victoria losing her position as heir to the throne when Carl Philip was born (22 months after her birth), but still has a problem with Carl Philip losing the position back to Victoria (7 months after his birth).

 

[SirGyamfi1]

I find it quite strange that the King had no problem with Victoria losing her position as heir to the throne when Carl Philip was born (22 months after her birth), but still has a problem with Carl Philip losing the position back to Victoria (7 months after his birth).

Here’s the thing, prior to this change, women were never part of the succession to the throne, all of the current King’s sisters were not in the succession so Victoria never lost her position. If the King’s sisters were in the succession, then Victoria would not be on the throne.

 

[ppetrica]

Here’s the thing, prior to this change, women were never part of the succession to the throne, all of the current King’s sisters were not in the succession so Victoria never lost her position. If the King’s sisters were in the succession, then Victoria would not be on the throne.

So you're saying that before Carl Philip was born, the King and the monarchy had no heir at all despite Victoria?
I wasn't aware of that, thanks! I don't know why I always assumed that his heirs were always going to be all his children and that only the order changed with the change of the succession law.
He was the first king who didn't ban unequal marriages, so I guess I automatically assumed that all his children would automatically be included in line of succession, even though I knew that his sisters weren't.

 

[SirGyamfi1]

So you're saying that before Carl Philip was born, the King and the monarchy had no heir at all despite Victoria?
I wasn't aware of that, thanks! I don't know why I always assumed that his heirs were always going to be all his children and that only the order changed with the change of the succession law.
He was the first king who didn't ban unequal marriages, so I guess I automatically assumed that all his children would automatically be included in line of succession, even though I knew that his sisters weren't.

I wouldn’t say it the way you are saying it, but I assume that at that point since Sweden politically had changed so much, Victoria was or would have been heiress presumptive or heir apparent until she was almost initially displaced in the succession by the birth of her brother. Unlike the early beginnings of the Bernadotte dynasty, there were less male successors overtime because many of them many married morganatically and lost their succession rights or they were simply childless.

I think the fact that Victoria was born first was what triggered some of the changes to the succession and so yes they were all in the succession at this point in time unlike in previous generations when only sons could accede to the throne. I think all the King’s children were or would have been in the succession seeing as there weren’t many other royal Bernadotte Princes after him. I would say at that particular time, the succession was more of male-preference than just Salic law so Victoria could have succeeded if her brother wasn’t born.

He stopped the unequal marriages because he was in love with the now Queen Sylvia who isn’t of royal birth so it would make sense to change the laws about marriages.

Please re read what I typed, I think I misunderstood what you put out initially.

 

[Mbruno]

So you're saying that before Carl Philip was born, the King and the monarchy had no heir at all despite Victoria?
I wasn't aware of that, thanks! I don't know why I always assumed that his heirs were always going to be all his children and that only the order changed with the change of the succession law.
He was the first king who didn't ban unequal marriages, so I guess I automaticSally assumed that all his children would automatically be included in line of succession, even though I knew that his sisters weren't.

Before the constitutional amendment, succession to the Crown was agnatic meaning that only male descendants in paternal line of King Karl XIV Johan (born Jean-Baptiste Bernadotte) were eliglible to succeed. Before Carl Philip was born, the only eligible successor to King Carl XVI Gustaf was his uncle, Prince Bertil, Duke of Halland, who had no children.

Prince Bertil had two other living brothers at the time, Sigvard and Carl Johan Bernadotte, who would be eligible but they had been both excluded from the line of succession because they had married commoners, which was also forbidden under the Act of Succession. The constitutional amendment, in addition to introducing equal primogeniture, also repealed the ban on unequal marriages and replaced it with a "softer" clause that says simply that marriages of "Princes and Princesses of the Royal House" must be consented to by the Swedish government upon request by the King, or else the Prince or Princess who marries and his or her respective descendants forefeit their succession rights.

 

[Prinsara]

That is what I wrote.

And I was responding to that.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Mbruno's description of the Act of Succession as it stood from 1810 to 1979 - including the bans on female succession and unequal marriages - is the correct one. The older version is quoted here, should anyone wish to check for themselves.

https://data.riksdagen.se/dokument/G10371

It should be further noted that the ban on unequal marriages was already softened in 1937 to permit unequal marriages to non-Swedes. This relaxation provided King Carl XVI Gustaf the option of retaining Prince Bertil in the line of succession to the Crown when Bertil married the Welsh Lilian Craig.

As the unequal marriage restriction was part of the Constitution, the King had no power to lift it himself.

I think the fact that Victoria was born first was what triggered some of the changes to the succession

As explained in the link above, Parliament appointed former governor Ingvar Lindell to investigate female succession in December 1975. This was before King Carl XVI Gustaf had even announced his engagement to Silvia Sommerlath.

The King does not oppose that Victoria is the successor.

The King has been consistent in his statements between 1979 and 2022 that he would prefer Carl Philip had remained his heir apparent, and his latest press release did not resile from his position. So I think we can safely say he does indeed oppose the fact that Victoria is his successor, even if he is proud of her work as Crown Princess.

He only voiced his displeasure that an ex post facto law was introduced. The law retroactively changed the legal consequences (or status) that existed before the enactment.

This was highly unusual. In most nations with a written constitution, ex post facto legislation usually is prohibited. Imagine that the State implies retroactive taxation or charges. Or that the State punishes people for acts which did not constitute a criminal offence under the law in force at the time committed.

The mixed feelings of the King were actually very understandable !

The law did not retroactively change the legal status that existed before its enactment. The constitutional amendment applied solely to the period after the law had taken effect on January 1, 1980.

The law continues to recognize the status of Carl Philip as Crown Prince of Sweden during the period of time before the change entered into force (May 13, 1979 through December 31, 1979). So, the leveling of retroactive taxes or ex post facto criminal charges are not appropriate comparisons.

The appropriate comparison in tax law would be if an individual paid a low rate of taxes from May through December 1979, a new tax law came into force on January 1, 1980, and the individual has to pay a higher rate of taxes beginning in 1980.

The appropriate comparison in criminal law would be if an individual engaged in a legal activity from May through December 1979, the said activity was criminalized by a new law with effect from January 1, 1980, the individual continued to engage in that activity during 1980, and they were charged with a crime for the acts they committed in 1980.

I can imagine that the King was very much not amused at all with the way it was handled back then. Not only did it deprive his son from his position and title by birthright, it was also a gigantic blow to the usual royal prerogative that the King organizes his House. It must have felt as if that the King had zero comma zero to say about his own son, his Heir but also not about his own House.

The Kings of Sweden have never had the prerogative of unilaterally selecting their own successors. Prior to 1544, all Swedish monarchs were elected. From 1544 onwards, all laws of hereditary succession to the Crown have been approved by Parliament.

 

[Prinsara]

It should be further noted that the ban on unequal marriages was already softened in 1937 to permit unequal marriages to non-Swedes. This relaxation provided King Carl XVI Gustaf the option of retaining Prince Bertil in the line of succession to the Crown when Bertil married the Welsh Lilian Craig.

If Bertil was allowed to marry Lilian and keep his position as of 1937, why didn't they do so?

 

[Tatiana Maria]

If Bertil was allowed to marry Lilian and keep his position as of 1937, why didn't they do so?

Because, as Mbruno alluded to, the Act of Succession to this day provides that Princes of the Royal House who marry without the consent of the monarch automatically forfeit their right to the crown. (The clause was modified in 1980 to included princesses, but it was not new.) The previous kings before Carl XVI Gustaf refused to grant their official consent for Bertil to marry Lilian, so he would not have retained his position if they married.