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
 
  #61  
Old 05-16-2006, 11:15 PM
Toledo's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Spain, residing in the USA, United States
Posts: 1,522
What if the Act of Succession wouldn't have been changed?

Victoria will be happily married and with kids and Carl, as the Heir, will be waiting for his Miss Right to get the approval from the King.

I have the impression that the fact that the heir is Victoria puts more public pressure on her that if it was Carl the heir to the throne. Royal women seem to be more scrutinized and criticized than their male counterparts.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old 05-17-2006, 01:56 AM
UserDane's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 1,965
Quote:
Originally Posted by Furienna
....If it wasn't for anything else, I would have liked it to be that way because the name of Bernadotte could have been carried on. Sure, Victoria's children might be called "Bernadotte" too, but it wouldn't be the same thing.
What? Why wouldn't it be the same thing to have the name of Bernadotte carried on by Victoria's children instead of her brother's?
Sorry, you are of course entitled to your own opinion I'm just so surprised about the complete 'outdatedness' of this.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 05-17-2006, 03:46 AM
Jo of Palatine's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Munich, Germany
Posts: 3,323
Quote:
Originally Posted by UserDane
What? Why wouldn't it be the same thing to have the name of Bernadotte carried on by Victoria's children instead of her brother's?
Sorry, you are of course entitled to your own opinion I'm just so surprised about the complete 'outdatedness' of this.
It is especially interesting as relations via the DNA can only be proven via the female line. Thus it would make more sense from a "dynastic" point of view to follow the bloodlines through the females of a family.

Of course, there was a sense in having a male head of the state for centuries. Just look at Sweden and why they selected Jean-Baptiste Bernadotte as their Crown Prince in their time of need when Napoleon threatened to conquer Sweden as well as the rest of Continental Europe (he already had Swedish Pommern). Of course a woman never would have been able in these times to lead the country out of its trouble.

During these times male characteristics were needed and thus men reigned.
Today we have a completely different situation in the countries that decided to change their Acts of Succession. And maybe we'll see that happen in the UK as well if Prince William fathers a daughter first.

Today the souverain is a symbol for the state and the positive characteristics the state stands for: compassion, patience, stability, strength to name but a few. These are all things that can be represented by a woman as well as by a man. Thus, there is no sense anymore in making a distinction between the two genders.

And I think it's a logical thing: you are born into a position and fortunately or undfortunately it's you as the firstborn child of the souverain who has to pay in duties to your country for the privileges of the rest of the family. Well, one has to do the job in the end. As the Netherlands or Belgium or the UK showed, there is always the possibility to abdictate if for whatever reasons you don't feel like doing the job any longer. Others, like king Albert II. only show when it's their turn what kind of personality they are - I remember the discussions if Albert shouldn't renounce his rights for the sake of Philippe and see how well it turned out with Albert as king.

As for CP Victoria: I guess there are reasons why her mother (Who probably knows her as nobody else does) states that there are reasons why the king and queen would have prefered their son to become king...Maybe Victoria really would be better off if she wasn't the CP. But the same was said so often about Queen Elizabeth - wouldn't she live a better life if she could have stayed Princess Elizabeth of York. But - you never know that for sure. Victoria was born into a family who earns their keep with a kind of rare occupation and the duty to follow in her father's footsteps fell to her. Now she has to cope with it. And, as I said before: there is always a way out. Noone can force a Royal head of the state to stay on his or her throne if the person does not want it. But there's a price to pay... But don't we all pay our dues?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old 05-17-2006, 04:50 AM
betina's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
Posts: 538
Hmm I can count several women in history that ruled the contry and gained more territory. Margrete 1. of Denmark, Elizabeth 1. of England, Christina of Sweden and i think there will be more.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old 05-17-2006, 08:40 AM
Jo of Palatine's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Munich, Germany
Posts: 3,323
Quote:
Originally Posted by betina
Hmm I can count several women in history that ruled the contry and gained more territory. Margrete 1. of Denmark, Elizabeth 1. of England, Christina of Sweden and i think there will be more.
What I meant was that at the time directly after the French Revolution which changed the way people looked at their monarchs (it was the beginning of the end of the absolutism) a female ruler would not have been able to get elected in Sweden as they needed not only a ruler but a military leader as well. Don't forget that it needed the combined efforts of Jean-Baptiste Bernadotte (then already Crown prince Carl Johan of Sweden) at Leipzig and the duke of Wellington at Waterloo to finish Napoleon off. I simply doubt that in 1812-1815 a queen would have been able to do what Carl Johan did - he finally got Norway in the bargain, don't forget that.

While his son Oscar made the dynastic effort in putting the Bernadottes firmly within the relations of most European houses: his wife Josephine was not interesting because of her Napoleonic relations (her father was the stepson of Napoleon) but much more because through her mother she was the direct cousin of Emperor Franz Joseph of Austria, his wife Elisabeth ("Sisi"), and of the crown princes of Prussia, Saxonia and Bavaria because they all were grandchildren of the then king of Bavaria who had negociated quite important marriages for his daughters. Plus Josephine brought quite the dowry as her father was very good when it came to business and inherited quite a lump sum from his mother, the empress Josephine.

I hadn't realized that till I visited Drottningholm palace and saw the portraits of Queen Josephine's cousins in the ballroom there. Quite impressing!
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old 05-17-2006, 05:07 PM
Sister Morphine's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: North Carolina, United States
Posts: 2,726
I think primogeniture is the only way to go, really. Women are just as capable of being Regent as a man. Was it fair that Carl Philip was stripped of his birthright? You could say that no, it wasn't fair......but is it fair that Victoria would have been denied the right to rule simply because she's female?

With primogeniture, first born wins out regardless of gender and you don't have these silly [no offense] arguments about whether or not women are fit to rule a country. Victoria seems like a very smart women and I'm sure that she will balance all that is required of her as Queen with what is required of her as a mother.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old 05-17-2006, 10:35 PM
Gutsy's Avatar
Commoner
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NYC, United States
Posts: 39
Rex Sveciae

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sister Morphine
I think primogeniture is the only way to go, really. Women are just as capable of being Regent as a man. Was it fair that Carl Philip was stripped of his birthright? You could say that no, it wasn't fair......but is it fair that Victoria would have been denied the right to rule simply because she's female
To rule ( or simply "reign") is NOT a right in itself. It is a right granted by the seeming happenstance of birth AND the law. When Prince Carl Philip was born, under the law and constitution of the Kingdom of Sweden in effect at his birth, he was in fact and in law Crown Prince of Sweden. If the King had suddenly died in 1979 the young boy would have been King.
The 1980 Succession Law did in fact do an injustice. No decent government passes laws with penalties or effects that are retroactive: imposing a penalty for something and upon someone after the fact. The Prince was penalized for being the second-born AND male.
If the Swedish Government saw fit to alter the succession from the point of passage on, it would have been a just enactment. As it is, it was petty and mean and a clear attempt to tarnish the monarchy.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #68  
Old 05-17-2006, 11:14 PM
soCal girl's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Irvine, United States
Posts: 1,683
While I think Victoria will make a great Queen, I don't think the law should have been retroactive either. Carl Philip was born Crown Prince and to be stripped of that, even as a baby, is not a very nice gesture. I think females and males should be equal in succession but the law should have been changed before Carl Philip was born or activated for the next generation.
__________________
사랑
Reply With Quote
  #69  
Old 05-17-2006, 11:24 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: ., United States
Posts: 244
Well this is the way politicians wanted it, which should be a good lesson for all other royals ... God may want you there, the people may want you there, you may want to be there ... but you better do exactly what you're told and don't rock the boat because the elected representatives can turn any princess into a pumpkin with the wave of a wand
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #70  
Old 05-18-2006, 01:00 AM
Jo of Palatine's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Munich, Germany
Posts: 3,323
IIRC, the Swedish Reichstag started negociating the new Act of Succession the moment Princess Victoria was born and it was clear from the beginning that government and people wanted the firstborn child to become the next ruler. It was just a bad coincidence that a prince was born before the new legislation was valid. So yes, in a sense they stripped Prince Carl Philip of his rank but it was clear that this would happen and as he was just a baby then it shouldn't have mattered to much to him. After all, he is a member of a society which is very keen on gender equality and thus he learned his lesson about this topic at an early age.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #71  
Old 05-18-2006, 02:06 AM
Sister Morphine's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: North Carolina, United States
Posts: 2,726
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jo of Palatine
IIRC, the Swedish Reichstag started negociating the new Act of Succession the moment Princess Victoria was born and it was clear from the beginning that government and people wanted the firstborn child to become the next ruler. It was just a bad coincidence that a prince was born before the new legislation was valid. So yes, in a sense they stripped Prince Carl Philip of his rank but it was clear that this would happen and as he was just a baby then it shouldn't have mattered to much to him. After all, he is a member of a society which is very keen on gender equality and thus he learned his lesson about this topic at an early age.
Yeah, I remember reading that as well. It took more than one vote and by the time it finally passed, Carl Philip had already been born. So they were planning on doing it, it just took longer than expected.

I hardly think this was a malicious wrong-doing on the government's part.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #72  
Old 05-18-2006, 02:24 AM
soCal girl's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Irvine, United States
Posts: 1,683
I know that the law change was already underway when Carl Philip was born. But I still think that since he was born with the title Crown Prince, it was still unfair to strip him of that. I'm all for gender equality but in this situation, I would have preferred that Carl Philip remained Crown Prince and the new law affect his children. If Carl Philip was Crown Prince and had a daughter first, than she should be the next heir. [Just to be clear, I love Victoria and she will be a great Queen, wife (if an engagement is ever announced....) and mother.]
__________________
사랑
Reply With Quote
  #73  
Old 05-18-2006, 02:24 AM
GrandDuchess's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Somwhere, Sweden
Posts: 3,407
Clearing things out! Please read this before making any more assumptions...

The Parliament decided upon the change of the Act of Succession long before any of the King and Queen’s children were born.

The preliminary work for the change war carried out already in 1977-78. Since changing the Act of Succession means a change of the Constitution, the Parliament needed to vote on the matter two times, with an election in between those two votes.

The first vote was carried out in the Parliament in 1978, and the second one in 1979, after the general elections. The change of the Act of Succession came into force in January 1980.

In Norway it was a different case, because Crown Prince Haakon was 17 and Princess Märtha Louise was 19 at the time they changed their succession laws. It was deemed inappropriate to take away the Crown Prince title from Haakon, making Märtha Louise heir, after he had been raised his whole life to one day succeed to the throne and become King of Norway.


For me personally, it's impossible to defend equal rights for men and women, at the same time as trying to defend why Prince Carl Philip shouldn't have been stripped of being the heir. For me it just doesn't make sense - either we want equal situations for both sexes, with the first born being heir, or then we don't. I do, so even if I also find it strange that a part of the Constitution was changed retroatively, I do agree with the law change.

And since neither Victoria or Carl Philip was born when the law was planned, I don't think it's fair to blame this on anyone, there are strict obligations for the Parliament when changing the Constitution, they couldn't "do anything" about the fact that the Queen had her first child (Victoria, born in July 1977) before they could carry out the second vote in the fall of 1979 (Carl Philip was born in May 1979).

If Carl Philip would've been born just a few months later, say February 1980, this dicussion wouldn't even be happening.
__________________
Sofia's Blog (my blog)
Reply With Quote
  #74  
Old 05-18-2006, 05:52 AM
Jo of Palatine's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Munich, Germany
Posts: 3,323
Quote:
Originally Posted by GrandDuchess
The Parliament decided upon the change of the Act of Succession long before any of the King and Queen’s children were born.
Thank you, Grand Duchess, for explaining the facts in particular. :)
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #75  
Old 05-18-2006, 07:52 PM
Furienna's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Örnsköldsvik, Sweden
Posts: 1,223
So really, you would have prefered, that princess Margareta Mrs Ambler was queen because she was the oldest child in that generation?

And really, not even primogeniture is "fair". As long as there are younger siblings in a royal family, they will be less important than their older sibling the heir, whether that's a girl or a boy, and whether a boy or a girl is oldest. No matter if Victoria or Carl Philip is the heir, Madeleine is stuck behind them both. Succession is based on tradition, and to change them just because of some hippy ideas of there not being any differences between male and female is just ridiculous.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #76  
Old 05-22-2006, 12:27 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Philadelphia, United States
Posts: 161
I am not from Sweden but I would like to say that I don't see why women can't rule even if there is a male in her immediate family. Women are the ones that do all the hard work as it is in the first place concerning the birthing and caring for children. The woman goes through the hours of labor necessary that would produce heirs to the throne. It the woman who has to has to keep a level headed when dealing with a husband, children, home and all in between. To use the woman's womb as a birthing chamber and then tell her that she can't or none of her females can ascend to the throne (if they are eldest of the bunch) just because she has some boys in the mix is horrifying to me and it scares me that people still think this way.

If the woman is of sound mind, intelligent, charming, elegant, gracious, generous, firm when she needs to be and soft when she needs to be, what is wrong with her becoming ruler as first born? What makes the male so entitled to something more than a female? There were plenty of not so good Kings of all ERFs who trashed their country and perhaps if their older sister had been allowed to rule, things could have gone differently. The male may drop his seed off and go about his business, but it is the woman who toils and suffers, but the male has the right to just automatically become king because why? Men have been ruling this world for years and we are no closer to: world peace, ending poverty, hunger, pollution, war, racism, classicm, sexism, under their ruling thumb. Many of the great changes in societies have been institued by us lowly women in the first place.

As the new Chileans President Michelle Bachelet said in the May article of Vogue, "There are studies about how women solve problems. They have a different kind of ethics than men. Usually the woman tries to find a win-win solution. They are more interested in the process than men, who are interested mainly in the results...Woman can be firm, but they can also be caring, nurturing-you can do both things, depending on what's needed." Sounds the like the kind of person who I would want as my ruler if it were me. But to each it's own.

Hippy indeed. Equality doesn't mean disregarding the differences between men and women, it means that despite those difference everyone should automatically have right to be on the same level in the situation they are born in. Being a male doesn't make you more prone to being a better leader nor does it make you entitled just because you are male. C-P did not come from anywhere differen than CPV. They came from the same parents, the same way. The only difference is that CPV came first, in which that should be the only thing that matters. And even then, if for some reason CPV was not mentally capable of handling the job, then I would why people would want to skip her and go to the next person. But I would feel that way even if CP had been the first born. As it stands, if you're healthy and able there is no reason why first born be they male or female should not be second in line for crown.
__________________
"I had this garden party for my father's birthday, I said to RSVP cause it was a sit-down dinner, but people came who did not RSVP and so I was totally buggin'...but, by the end of the day, it was like, the more the merrier...So, if the government could just get in the kitchen, rearrange some things, we could certainly party with the Ha-ti-ans." Cher--Clueless
Reply With Quote
  #77  
Old 05-23-2006, 03:31 PM
Furienna's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Örnsköldsvik, Sweden
Posts: 1,223
But do you really think, that a female leader can't make mistakes or be a bad leader? Do you think, that everything a woman does it good, just because a woman does it? That's just as wrong as thinking that everything a man does is right just because a man does it. And also, you might wonder, if the oldest one always is "the best" to make a monarch.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #78  
Old 05-25-2006, 04:28 AM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Philadelphia, United States
Posts: 161
I don't think I ever said that a woman should just be ruler because she is woman. I said that a woman should be allowed to rule despite her having brothers. And that she should be ruler if she is first born just like a man, just like it has been between the men for centuries upon centuries. That is only fair and right. Men and women are different, but men get first pick all the time at being leader and no one ever asks the question should male leader be picked just because he is male. That thought never crosses most minds. People assume and accept that this is the way things are and what difference does it make? Well, it makes a difference to me. Because that's not how it should be.

In terms of the oldest being the one to rule, I see nothing wrong with that. If you are 25 and your youngest siblings are years younger, are subjects and Parliament supposed to wait until they are all of age to decide who should rule? The oldest succeeds for a reason and it is up to them to take the training and studies they have been given to do the best possible job as Crown. I do, however, and I mentioned this, think that should the oldest not be able to rule for whatever reason, of course it should go to whomever is next in line. Why shouldn't it? The first isn't always the best-we know this from history-but the male isn't always the best either, so if we're going to apply the theory to one, we must apply to all in my personal opinion.
__________________
"I had this garden party for my father's birthday, I said to RSVP cause it was a sit-down dinner, but people came who did not RSVP and so I was totally buggin'...but, by the end of the day, it was like, the more the merrier...So, if the government could just get in the kitchen, rearrange some things, we could certainly party with the Ha-ti-ans." Cher--Clueless
Reply With Quote
  #79  
Old 11-29-2006, 09:55 AM
Lox's Avatar
Lox Lox is offline
Commoner
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: -, Sweden
Posts: 36
A lot of people here in Sweden will, if asked, tell you that they prefer Carl Philip as heir to the throne. He was born as a crown prince, and it was wrong to take that away from him. However, I think that everyone supports a gender-neutral succession, but that should only concern Carl Philips children.

I'm a Carlist. Are you?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #80  
Old 11-29-2006, 11:45 AM
Yennie's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Skåne, Sweden
Posts: 2,599
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lox
A lot of people here in Sweden will, if asked, tell you that they prefer Carl Philip as heir to the throne. He was born as a crown prince, and it was wrong to take that away from him. However, I think that everyone supports a gender-neutral succession, but that should only concern Carl Philips children.

I'm a Carlist. Are you?
I´m not. Mainly because I think Victoria is much better for the role than Carl Philip. But also due to the fact that the change of the act of succession happend when they were to small to understand what happend.
If´they had been older, like the case in Norway with Haakon and Märta Louise, I think it would have been wrong to change titles though...
__________________

__________________
Life is like a box of chocolates... you'll never know what you're gonna get
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
When did your opinion of Diana change and why? ysbel Diana, Princess of Wales (1961-1997) 1113 06-05-2011 11:20 PM
What would you change? Lena Royal Chit Chat 20 06-23-2010 06:31 PM
Change of name of our community to TRF... Andy R Forum Announcements and Admin 2 08-29-2004 04:29 PM




Popular Tags
abdication belgium birth brussels carl philip charlene chris o'neill crown prince frederik crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit crown princess victoria current events fashion germany grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri hohenzollern infanta leonor infanta sofia jordan king carl xvi gustav king constantine ii king felipe king felipe vi king harald king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander letizia luxembourg nobility official visit olympic games ottoman pieter van vollenhoven pregnancy president hollande prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince constantijn prince floris prince pieter-christiaan princess aimee princess anita princess ariane princess astrid princess beatrix princess catharina-amalia princess charlene princess mabel princess madeleine princess margriet princess mary queen anne-marie queen fabiola queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen silvia royal royal fashion russia sofia hellqvist spain state visit sweden the hague wedding william



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:27 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2014
Jelsoft Enterprises

Royal News Delivered to your Email!

You can get the latest Royal News right in your inbox.

unsusbcribe at anytime with one click

Close [X]