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
 
  #421  
Old 06-20-2015, 04:25 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: San Francisco, United States
Posts: 2,383
Quote:
Originally Posted by Furienna View Post
Denmark managed to give their princesses succession rights in 1953, even if they always would come behind their brothers until 2009. I wonder if we shouldn't have done something similar here in Sweden, that we should have taken an intermediate step. That would have given our king's sisters a right to inherit the throne, even if Carl Gustaf would have been the heir appearant.
The discussions may have happened simultaneously in Sweden and Denmark. Good for Denmark that they did something about it at the time. But they only had what they considered suitable options in the daughters of King Frederik. Sweden had Prince Bertil and I am sure no-one imagined that he would remain childless and single for so long. If for some reason Carl Gustaf had not been able to ascend the throne, Prince Bertil would next in line.

But if they had made the change in early 50's the same issue would be there. If it was retroactive then the King's sisters would have been in line as heirs (at least Birgitta) and Carl Gustaf who became Crown Prince on the death of this father would have lost his place.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #422  
Old 06-20-2015, 05:22 PM
Stefan's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Esslingen, Germany
Posts: 3,424
Quote:
Originally Posted by Furienna View Post
Denmark managed to give their princesses succession rights in 1953, even if they always would come behind their brothers until 2009. I wonder if we shouldn't have done something similar here in Sweden, that we should have taken an intermediate step. That would have given our king's sisters a right to inherit the throne, even if Carl Gustaf would have been the heir appearant.
Perhaps it woiuld have been done in Sweden in the 1950's if Carl Gustasf would not have been born. I don't think Denmark would have changed the succession law in 1953 if King Frederik IX., and Queen Ingrid would have had a son in 1946 insteed of a third daughter.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #423  
Old 06-20-2015, 05:45 PM
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 it seems like they only talk about it when a reporter asks them about it. So I don't see any problem.
I agree.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Furienna View Post
People will have different opinions, no matter if they're "modern" or not.
It's also very possible that they saw in the two children that Carl Philip was the one with the better temperament to be heir and then monarch. We will never know the cost to Victoria of having to constrain herself into that role. We really don't know anything at all about what the King and Queen were seeing in their children.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
It is also important to note that King Carl Gustaf and Queen Silvia never spoke against or contested equal primogeniture. Their grievance is in fact with the application of an ex post facto law, something which BTW would be unconstitutional for example in the United States.
Correct.

Quote:
Originally Posted by grevinnan View Post
If one reads the documents available online from all the discussions regarding the change one will see that the Swedish Justice department objected to the retroactive implementation of the change in succession. The reason was that changes to the "grundlagen" (constitution) is not done retroactively and neither should this change. The King at the time of the change agreed with the legal community that a change to the constitution should not be done retroactively. Unfortunately the timing of the births of Victoria and Carl Philip were such that Prince Carl Philip was born Crown Prince under the constitution in place at the time but with the retro date of the change Princess Victoria became the Crown Princess. Considering that the issue of succession rights for women has been discussed off and on since 1952 it is just a shame it took so long for it to be finally done.
A good summation. It's the way I have always understood it as well but am never able to articulate.

Also, by indicating such, the King and Queen are supporting both their children, both Victoria, and Carl Philip. It's a pretty big matter for that family because it was something that was 'taken away'. Had to have been disruptive and a difficult adjustment. As Queen Silvia has said: thankfully Carl Philip is okay with what transpired with his destiny (as he must have learned about later). That's a credit to him, and also an indication of what a mellow and relaxed Kingly presence he would have been. (Can you imagine refusing Carl Philip the woman he loved, forcing him into a non-royal union, or to side-step his 'place in line' - on top of all that? Pretty unsettling - maybe - for Carl Philip all round were that to have happened).

It could be reasonably argued that had Victoria been free to follow her own ambitions, she may have been a less stressed teenager. Possible. But it is what it is, and I for one think the King and Queen handled it well, both Victoria and Carl Philip themselves being the evidence for that, and the obvious closeness of the whole family.
__________________
Russian National Anthem: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bGoNaLjQrV8
O Magnum Mysterium: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWU7dyey6yo
Reply With Quote
  #424  
Old 06-20-2015, 05:52 PM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is offline
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 2,938
People in this thread are acting like Sweden is the only monarchy to change it's succession laws retroactively like this. It's not. It's the only European monarchy in the modern era to do so and have a male heir apparent lose his place to an elder sister, but it's not the only one to retroactively change it's succession.

When Denmark changed it's succession laws in the 1950s from agnatic primogeniture to make preference primogeniture it displaced the heir presumptive, Knut, Hereditary Prince of Denmark, in favour of his niece, the then Princess Margrethe. When Denmark later introduced absolute primogeniture there was no need for retroactivity as there were no females who were being displaced by younger brothers at the time.

When Norway went from agnatic primogeniture to absolute primogeniture in the early 90s there was a degree of retroactivity - Märtha Louise wasn't in the succession at all previously, but was after the law passed, which said that women born in the 20 years before the law passed were granted succession rights under male preference primogeniture, while women born after it were granted succession rights after absolute primogeniture. You could argue that this is what Sweden should have done, except doing so fails to consider that in Sweden the individuals affected by the law hadn't been born when the process of passing it started, and weren't out of diapers when it was passed, while in Norway Haakon and Märtha Louise were almost adults.

When Luxembourg, Belgium, and the Commonwealth each introduced absolute primogeniture they also did so with retroactivity to their laws, the heirs not being changed only because the eldest born was male. When William and Kate were expecting their first child as the Connonwealth succession was being changed it was made clear that the child, regardless of gender, would be the heir. And let's be honest, that's the kind of attitude that Carl Gustav and Silvia should have taken when Sweden's succession was being changed - rather than ignore the changes being made and make it clear that they didn't support them, they should have treated Victoria as the heir and Carl Philip as the second in line from the get-go. Having done otherwise simply makes them look like they didn't support their government - when the government is supposed to be the representative of the people, and the monarch is supposed to reign at the will of the people.
Reply With Quote
  #425  
Old 06-20-2015, 05:54 PM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Boston, United States
Posts: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by MARG View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Daffodil View Post
The former Mr Westling is the great-grandson of Brita Westling and Anders Andersson.
Can you fill me in on the relevance of the people quoted?
It's what makes it amusing when people claim that Estelle will be the first queen of the Westling line, rather than a queen of the Bernadotte line. If that were the case, she'd be carrying on the surname of her great-great-grandmother, not a patrilineal surname.
Reply With Quote
  #426  
Old 06-20-2015, 06:01 PM
Lady Nimue's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Pacific Palisades, United States
Posts: 2,094
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ish View Post
People in this thread are acting like Sweden is the only monarchy to change it's succession laws retroactively like this. It's not.
That's not what I have been reading, and responding to. It's the suggestion that the King and Queen are somehow purveying on a topic that must cause Victoria great distress and discomfort. Plus the suggestion that they have said things privately to their children that must be painful to them. Such statements have no basis in any credible evidence imo. The suggestion that the parenting of the King and Queen is in question is what I am pushing back against.

In fact, this family, that I have watched with great interest all my life, have always manifested the utmost love for all their children imo. It would be hard to imagine Silvia, for example, dealing in any way but with understanding and sensitivity with Victoria and Carl Philip on this matter'

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ish View Post
It's the only European monarchy in the modern era to do so and have a male heir apparent lose his place to an elder sister, but it's not the only one to retroactively change it's succession.
Then that's all sorted.
__________________
Russian National Anthem: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bGoNaLjQrV8
O Magnum Mysterium: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWU7dyey6yo
Reply With Quote
  #427  
Old 06-20-2015, 10:47 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 628
I don't agree with the King and Queen's opinion regarding the succession changes or with the way they've handled questions about it over the years. That being said, I don't think their attitude regarding this one issue makes them bad parents. On the contrary, from reading things their children have said over the years it sounds like they were loving parents who did the best they could given the huge official demands placed on their time. Certainly the family seems close now, and if her parents' attitude towards the succession change did place added stress on Victoria, it seems to have been balanced out by other things they got right.
Reply With Quote
  #428  
Old 06-21-2015, 05:01 AM
MARG's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posts: 6,048
Quote:
Originally Posted by Furienna View Post
But it seems like they only talk about it when a reporter asks them about it. So I don't see any problem.
Well, they have certainly resisted any attempts to pry information out of them regarding some of the quite lurid past scandals, and there were several. From the distance of 35 years hindsight, this should have been a no-brainer. So no, it was their choice to give what amounts to in-depth exposés.

This wedding may have seen the marriage of a Prince who was once Crown Prince for seven months, but the die was cast when parliament decided to change the Act of Succession and followed through when, in 1977 the first reading of the Act passed with an easy majority. That it would pass its second reading after the next General Election was a given. King Carl Gustaf and Queen Silvia would have done well to accept the will of the people rather than lamenting the past and enjoy the upcoming the wedding instead of indulging themselves publicly in bitterness.

Both the King and the Queen were well aware that the Succession was to be vested in the first issue of Carl Gustaf, regardless of gender. That this should happen made sense since the King has four sisters who were never in line for the throne. He also had an uncle who delayed a marriage that would exclude him from both the Succession itself but, more importantly, the right to act as Regent should his brother die before his heir was of age or, worst case scenario, that he would survive both his brother and nephew.

That Queen Silvia blamed it all on the feminist movement was a canard, after all, Carl Gustaf had to the change the condition that prevented both his Uncle and himself from marrying the women they loved. Silvia's "revisionist" history enables her to vent on her on what she feels her son lost, totally glossing over the self-interest that enabled her own marriage.

But I can't help wondering if their lack of diplomacy, or common sense may have caused hurt and pain to her. It has almost certainly humiliated her. Who wouldn't be with your parents publicly lamenting that their son isn't, who you are?

A while before Victoria's engagement was announced, I joked that the King wouldn't give permission for Victoria and Daniel to marry until Victoria was past child-bearing age. I forgot that she could have just married Daniel without the king's blessing, and in so doing, remove herself from the Succession. Just a little food for thought.

Immediately prior to the announcement of their engagement the King was mired in scandal and there's nothing like a humongous Royal Wedding to take our minds off things. Whatever the reason, their behavior was badly done and brings no credit on the House of Bernadotte.
__________________
MARG
"Words ought to be a little wild, for they are assaults of thoughts on the unthinking." - JM Keynes
Reply With Quote
  #429  
Old 06-21-2015, 05:12 AM
Duc_et_Pair's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: City, Christmas Island
Posts: 5,924
Quote:
Originally Posted by Furienna View Post
[...] So what if their opinion isn't political correct these days? They still have the right to keep it. [...]
Amen to that.
Reply With Quote
  #430  
Old 06-21-2015, 05:23 AM
Duc_et_Pair's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: City, Christmas Island
Posts: 5,924
Quote:
Originally Posted by camelot23ca View Post
I don't agree with the King and Queen's opinion regarding the succession changes or with the way they've handled questions about it over the years. That being said, I don't think their attitude regarding this one issue makes them bad parents. On the contrary, from reading things their children have said over the years it sounds like they were loving parents who did the best they could given the huge official demands placed on their time. Certainly the family seems close now, and if her parents' attitude towards the succession change did place added stress on Victoria, it seems to have been balanced out by other things they got right.
The King and Queen love their three children to bits and from all accounts, from all what we read and could see, there is a visibly strong and loving relationship between the parents and their children. Having said that, this does not mean that they may hold different views on the succession and probably feel saddened that the unbroken male agnatic line of the House Bernadotte will be ended after Victoria and that the Bernadotte family is no longer the same as the royal family of Sweden (unless we close our eyes for the cosmetic trick of Westling changing his name in Bernadotte).

In Monaco the spouse of Princess Charlotte, from the illustrious and ancient noble House De Chalencon de Polignac, changed his name too, into Grimaldi. But Charlotte was the last Grimaldi left. That is not the case with Victoria. We may find it absurd etc. but everyone has the right to have a feeling on the matter and apparently the King and Queen find it a pity that the "cut" in the unbroken Bernadotte line was placed while their son, the Crown Prince, was having that birthright. I think that is a legitime feeling and why not.
Reply With Quote
  #431  
Old 06-21-2015, 08:33 AM
SLV's Avatar
SLV SLV is offline
Courtier
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Amsterdam, Netherlands
Posts: 966
Well, in the end they are "just" descendants of a French general (and commoner). Who, during the Napoleonic wars, 200 years ago, was ellected king after the Swedish had deposed their own king. How Royal is that? ;-)
Reply With Quote
  #432  
Old 06-21-2015, 08:49 AM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 1,784
Quote:
Originally Posted by MARG View Post
.


A while before Victoria's engagement was announced, I joked that the King wouldn't give permission for Victoria and Daniel to marry until Victoria was past child-bearing age. I forgot that she could have just married Daniel without the king's blessing, and in so doing, remove herself from the Succession. Just a little food for thought.

In both scenarios, the King's "evil" plan to restore Carl Philip and/or his line to the throne woud have worked, wouldn't it? Except that there was no evil plan ! Carl Gustaf never conspired to remove Victoria from the succession even though random circumstances like her falling in love with Daniel theoretically could have given him a credible chance to do just that. More significantly, there is no evidence that Carl Gustaf ever failed to acknowledge her daughter as the heir. In terms of the education and training she received, the state funding/staff available to her and the public duties she undertakes, it appears to me that her position in the royal house vis-a-vis her younger siblings is pretty clear and unambiguous.

Quite frankly, I feel that many posters in this thread, based on selective quoting of some interviews by Carl Gustaf and Silvia, are imagining a family conflict or tension that simply doesn't exist. The only fact I am willing to acknowledge is that the King and Queen (and many Swedish legal scholars BTW) believe that the retroactive application of the 1980 amended Act of Succession was unfair, but got over it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SLV View Post
Well, in the end they are "just" descendants of a French general (and commoner). Who, during the Napoleonic wars, 200 years ago, was ellected king after the Swedish had deposed their own king. How Royal is that? ;-)
Yes, but their family subsequently married princesses from many different very blue-blooded sovereign families of Europe. King Carl Gustaf for example descends from Queen Victoria of the UK both on his father's and his mother's side and, matrilenially, he also descends from the previous Swedish Vasa dynasty.
Reply With Quote
  #433  
Old 06-21-2015, 08:58 AM
Duc_et_Pair's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: City, Christmas Island
Posts: 5,924
Quote:
Originally Posted by SLV View Post
Well, in the end they are "just" descendants of a French general (and commoner). Who, during the Napoleonic wars, 200 years ago, was ellected king after the Swedish had deposed their own king. How Royal is that? ;-)
Exactly for that reason the Bernadottes adapted a strict and shrewd marriage policy to "uplift" the "parvenu" dynasty... And with success: they managed to marry into all Royal Houses, even the Catholic ones. So this proves that the Bernadottes were painfully aware that every marriage should add new prestige to the young royal family. When Crown Prince Gustav of Sweden and Norway (himself a son of a Nassau) married Princess Viktoria von Baden in 1881 it became widely promoted that as a result their son, (the later) King Gustaf VI Adolf of Sweden could therefore claim to be the direct heir to the House of Holstein-Gottorp (Swedish line) and the House of Vasa as well as the Bernadotte kings of Sweden... the blame of "upstarts" or "parvenus" occupying the Swedish throne disappeared.

Reply With Quote
  #434  
Old 06-21-2015, 09:36 AM
SLV's Avatar
SLV SLV is offline
Courtier
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Amsterdam, Netherlands
Posts: 966
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair View Post
Exactly for that reason the Bernadottes adapted a strict and shrewd marriage policy to "uplift" the "parvenu" dynasty... And with success: they managed to marry into all Royal Houses, even the Catholic ones. So this proves that the Bernadottes were painfully aware that every marriage should add new prestige to the young royal family. When Crown Prince Gustav of Sweden and Norway (himself a son of a Nassau) married Princess Viktoria von Baden in 1881 it became widely promoted that as a result their son, (the later) King Gustaf VI Adolf of Sweden could therefore claim to be the direct heir to the House of Holstein-Gottorp (Swedish line) and the House of Vasa as well as the Bernadotte kings of Sweden... the blame of "upstarts" or "parvenus" occupying the Swedish throne disappeared.

So by your reasoning, the name 'Bernadotte' is not what matters, but the names(blood) of the women they married. So if it is not the name Bernadotte what makes Estelle royal, what does it matter that 'technically' she should be called Westling?
Reply With Quote
  #435  
Old 06-21-2015, 09:49 AM
Duc_et_Pair's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: City, Christmas Island
Posts: 5,924
Quote:
Originally Posted by SLV View Post
So by your reasoning, the name 'Bernadotte' is not what matters, but the names(blood) of the women they married. So if it is not the name Bernadotte what makes Estelle royal, what does it matter that 'technically' she should be called Westling?
The Bernadottes before Carl XVI Gustaf understood why it was important that they had to be linked with the families or the dynasties which do matter. The fact that -so far- a fitness trainer named Daniel Westling is a great Prince of Sweden, is at the same time the best advertorial for ending the whole circus.

Go the Italian or the German way and choose a meritorious lady or gentleman to be the democratically elected head of state. The only justification for a monarchy, for delivering the head of state purely by natural succession is because they are what they are, often for centuries and because of the great prestige they (once) had (or hopefully still have). Really, I am in favour of a monarchy but when Dylan Jansen from Eindhoven becomes His Royal Highness Prince Dylan of the Netherlands, Prince of Orange-Nassau, then the whole shaky house of cards tumbles down. There is no logic in having a monarchy. It is purely an appeal on the underbelly. But it is an extremely thin line and I am sure anyone of you understands what I mean but tja... show that you are oh so polictically correct and oh no... "it does not matter at all, or course not"... "we are modern, you see"...

No. When you are "modern", please call for a republic. I prefer a republic above a half-baked monarchy. Either they stick to the rules or they can better end the whole puppet theatre.

Reply With Quote
  #436  
Old 06-21-2015, 08:00 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 628
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair View Post
The King and Queen love their three children to bits and from all accounts, from all what we read and could see, there is a visibly strong and loving relationship between the parents and their children. Having said that, this does not mean that they may hold different views on the succession and probably feel saddened that the unbroken male agnatic line of the House Bernadotte will be ended after Victoria and that the Bernadotte family is no longer the same as the royal family of Sweden (unless we close our eyes for the cosmetic trick of Westling changing his name in Bernadotte).

In Monaco the spouse of Princess Charlotte, from the illustrious and ancient noble House De Chalencon de Polignac, changed his name too, into Grimaldi. But Charlotte was the last Grimaldi left. That is not the case with Victoria. We may find it absurd etc. but everyone has the right to have a feeling on the matter and apparently the King and Queen find it a pity that the "cut" in the unbroken Bernadotte line was placed while their son, the Crown Prince, was having that birthright. I think that is a legitime feeling and why not.
Is it the name that's important or the bloodline?

If it's the name - Estelle is just as much a Bernadotte as Carl Philip and his future children, full stop. There's no trickery in Daniel taking the surname Bernadotte, just as there's no special magic in males traditionally keeping their own family name.

If it's the bloodline, well, unlike prior heirs born to kings or princes, we know beyond a shadow of a doubt that Estelle is the biological child of the next monarch. Descent through the female line is the only way to ensure continuity of the bloodline. Who knows how many sons of grooms or footmen or courtiers have reigned as kings, (and you thought a fitness trainer was bad)!
Reply With Quote
  #437  
Old 06-21-2015, 08:03 PM
Lady Nimue's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Pacific Palisades, United States
Posts: 2,094
Quote:
Originally Posted by camelot23ca View Post
Is it the name that's important or the bloodline?

If it's the name - Estelle is just as much a Bernadotte as Carl Philip and his future children, full stop. There's no trickery in Daniel taking the surname Bernadotte, just as there's no special magic in males traditionally keeping their own family name.

If it's the bloodline, well, unlike prior heirs born to kings or princes, we know beyond a shadow of a doubt that Estelle is the biological child of the next monarch. Descent through the female line is the only way to ensure continuity of the bloodline. Who knows how many sons of grooms or footmen or courtiers have reigned as kings, (and you thought a fitness trainer was bad)!
Well said.
__________________
Russian National Anthem: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bGoNaLjQrV8
O Magnum Mysterium: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWU7dyey6yo
Reply With Quote
  #438  
Old 06-21-2015, 09:27 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: New Orleans, United States
Posts: 1,457
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair View Post
The Bernadottes before Carl XVI Gustaf understood why it was important that they had to be linked with the families or the dynasties which do matter. The fact that -so far- a fitness trainer named Daniel Westling is a great Prince of Sweden, is at the same time the best advertorial for ending the whole circus.

Go the Italian or the German way and choose a meritorious lady or gentleman to be the democratically elected head of state. The only justification for a monarchy, for delivering the head of state purely by natural succession is because they are what they are, often for centuries and because of the great prestige they (once) had (or hopefully still have). Really, I am in favour of a monarchy but when Dylan Jansen from Eindhoven becomes His Royal Highness Prince Dylan of the Netherlands, Prince of Orange-Nassau, then the whole shaky house of cards tumbles down. There is no logic in having a monarchy. It is purely an appeal on the underbelly. But it is an extremely thin line and I am sure anyone of you understands what I mean but tja... show that you are oh so polictically correct and oh no... "it does not matter at all, or course not"... "we are modern, you see"...

No. When you are "modern", please call for a republic. I prefer a republic above a half-baked monarchy. Either they stick to the rules or they can better end the whole puppet theatre.


I am about to vomit. What monarchy on the face of this planet is pure and unbroken, and what bloodline in this earth is "untainted" by "common blood"??

As a matter of fact, it's monarchy that has been the theater for so long--sham marriages for political gain, marital infidelity that could make cockroaches blush, murder, intrigue, treason, treachery, and backstabbing to fill any number of telenovelas on Telemundo. And you think modern monarchies are a farce and theater??

The Bernadottes could have just as easily been marrying into other families to raise their prestige and fill their coffers with foreign money, and they certainly did a good job of filling their jewel vault as just one example.

So who on this green earth should care who they marry now? Monarchies change, dynasties change, and those revolutions are a lot less dainty than what everyone sees today - when a perfectly-nice guy gets to marry his sweetheart and turns out to be massively popular, industrious, a good speaker, and handsome in tails to boot.
Reply With Quote
  #439  
Old 06-21-2015, 10:10 PM
Lady Nimue's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Pacific Palisades, United States
Posts: 2,094
Two very powerful to-the-point posts said with honesty. You speak the truth. 'Pure (royal) bloodlines' are a fallacy. They never existed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by casualfan View Post
I am about to vomit. What monarchy on the face of this planet is pure and unbroken, and what bloodline in this earth is "untainted" by "common blood"??

As a matter of fact, it's monarchy that has been the theater for so long--sham marriages for political gain, marital infidelity that could make cockroaches blush, murder, intrigue, treason, treachery, and backstabbing to fill any number of telenovelas on Telemundo. And you think modern monarchies are a farce and theater??
Exactly so.
__________________
Russian National Anthem: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bGoNaLjQrV8
O Magnum Mysterium: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWU7dyey6yo
Reply With Quote
  #440  
Old 06-21-2015, 10:29 PM
JessRulz's Avatar
Administrator
Blog Editor
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 6,771
This thread has now been reopened after a few days to allow cooler heads to prevail.

Please remember the forum rule which requires that fellow posters be treated with respect.
__________________

__________________
**TRF Rules and FAQ**
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 calendar 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 grand duke jean greece harald illegitimate children kate middleton king abdullah ii king felipe king felipe vi king willem-alexander may 2016 member introduction monarchy new zealand nobel gala norway november 2016 october 2016 opening of parliament picture of the week prince bernhard prince charles 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 royal fashion royal visits september 2016 state visit state visit to denmark state visit to france 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 09:56 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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