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
 
  #161  
Old 12-30-2006, 08:37 PM
BeatrixFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,843
I think that that's the benefit of Royal Houses being so inter-twined. Ingrid Alexandra can call Queen Victoria for advice and know she'll get good advice from a family member. It must make the job easier and I'm sure it's been a comfort for Carl Gustav to know that Margrethe, Harald and Elizabeth are there for him if he needs them.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #162  
Old 12-30-2006, 08:42 PM
Next Star's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: ******, United States
Posts: 874
Advising others are good even some monarchs what to know what to do.Victoria as much work ahead of her being that she will be furture queen and I know that her brother and sister will support her throught her reign as queen and her mother then will be the queen mother if their mother outlives their father.
__________________

__________________
Patience is a virtue.

I'm head of a dynastic house no matter what others say.
Princess Kamorrissa,Countess of Welle
Reply With Quote
  #163  
Old 12-30-2006, 08:48 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Melbourne & Sydney, Australia
Posts: 3,983
Quote:
Originally Posted by Next Star
You have the right to your own opinion Madame Royale but the fact is the world is starting to see that a woman can be head of state regardless of what type of government it is. The Vatican has the most unique monarchy because the pope is not involued with politics or government he is the head of the roman catholic church and the Vatican.

I think that Victoria will be great as Queen of Sweden and that is good to go by birth instead of going by sex and allowing the eldest child regardless of sex to be the heir to the throne and be the future king or queen to their native land instead of allowing only males and overlooking the females as if there they donot even exist.
And you have the right to your opinion Next Star (infact I dont recall questioning it), but its not so much my opinion as it is the way it is

You compared the changes of monarchial hereditary succession to a republican administration and that was (largely) an incorrect comparison. It has nothing to with it whatsoever. I did note though that it is about change within the worlds oldest institution and a clear sign of social progression (a result of, perhaps).

I agree that the first born should inherit no matter what sex. It is the way I have always thought and it is the way I shall continue to think.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #164  
Old 12-30-2006, 08:56 PM
Next Star's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: ******, United States
Posts: 874
I know you were not questioning my opinion I was stating that you have the right to disagree in respectful way to my post and I am delighted that you agree with my view of the eldest child regardless of sex being the heir to the throne and not just going by the sex of a child.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Madame Royale
And you have the right to your opinion Next Star (infact I dont recall questioning it), but its not so much my opinion as it is the way it is

You compared the changes of monarchial hereditary succession to a republican administration and that was (largely) an incorrect comparison. It has nothing to with it whatsoever. I did note though that it is about change within the worlds oldest institution and a clear sign of social progression (a result of, perhaps).

I agree that the first born should inherit no matter what sex. It is the way I have always thought and it is the way I shall continue to think.
__________________
Patience is a virtue.

I'm head of a dynastic house no matter what others say.
Princess Kamorrissa,Countess of Welle
Reply With Quote
  #165  
Old 12-30-2006, 08:58 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Melbourne & Sydney, Australia
Posts: 3,983
Nice to have an understanding
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #166  
Old 12-31-2006, 04:13 PM
Zonk's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere in, United States
Posts: 10,167
The discussion on the Vatican City, various forms of government, etc. has gone on long enough. Let's get back on topic please. Victoria, Carl Phillip and the Act of Sucession. Thank you.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #167  
Old 01-07-2007, 06:34 PM
Lox's Avatar
Lox Lox is offline
Commoner
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: -, Sweden
Posts: 36
By the way, I think it's more correct to say that the Act of Succession (Successionsordningen) was changed in 1980, and not 1979.

1980 was the year that the change went into effect, and 1980 is the year that is used in the media when the change is mentioned.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #168  
Old 01-08-2007, 08:31 AM
GrandDuchess's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Somwhere, Sweden
Posts: 3,407
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lox
By the way, I think it's more correct to say that the Act of Succession (Successionsordningen) was changed in 1980, and not 1979.

1980 was the year that the change went into effect, and 1980 is the year that is used in the media when the change is mentioned.
No.

The Act of Succession was changed finally in 1979 when the second and obligatory vote took place after general elections. It came into effect on 1 January 1980.

So I would say you're wrong there, because the media usually just say when the effect took place, not when it was actually changed.
__________________
Sofia's Blog (my blog)
Reply With Quote
  #169  
Old 01-08-2007, 10:07 AM
ZandraRae's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Nashville, United States
Posts: 572
I also believe it was 1979, but it really doesn't matter what year, whether '79 or '80, the most important matter here is that the firstborn is always the rightful heir IMO. They changed it when both Carl Phillip & Victoria were young, so it affected neither of them as little kids.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #170  
Old 01-08-2007, 10:41 AM
Lox's Avatar
Lox Lox is offline
Commoner
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: -, Sweden
Posts: 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by GrandDuchess
No.

The Act of Succession was changed finally in 1979 when the second and obligatory vote took place after general elections. It came into effect on 1 January 1980.

So I would say you're wrong there, because the media usually just say when the effect took place, not when it was actually changed.
Ok, 1 January 1980. But you have to agree that 1980 is the year that is most commonly used when the change is mentioned:
http://www.royalcourt.se

And let's not forget the commemorative coin:
http://www.riksbank.se/upload/Bilder...t1/20b_lag.jpg

I still think it's correct to say that the law was changed in 1980. On December 31 1979 the old succession law was still in place, right? Or didn't Sweden have a succession law during the last months of 1979?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #171  
Old 01-08-2007, 05:33 PM
GrandDuchess's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Somwhere, Sweden
Posts: 3,407
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lox
Ok, 1 January 1980. But you have to agree that 1980 is the year that is most commonly used when the change is mentioned:
http://www.royalcourt.se

And let's not forget the commemorative coin:
http://www.riksbank.se/upload/Bilder...t1/20b_lag.jpg

I still think it's correct to say that the law was changed in 1980. On December 31 1979 the old succession law was still in place, right? Or didn't Sweden have a succession law during the last months of 1979?
The media usually writes 1980, because that's the year it came into effect. Much easier for them to just say that, instead of getting mixed into the details.

But it's not correct to say it was changed in 1980 however, because it was not.

Sweden's Act of Succession was changed in 1979, nothing else. The change was made when the Parliament voted on it, and the paperwork (laws and protocolls) was re-printed immediately in 1979. On 31 December 1979 the new law was written and in place, but had yet not come into effect. When laws are made, there are always addendum protocolls which specifies when they will come into force, and this is always later that the actual desicion date.

Since you referred to the Royal Court's website, you can look at Crown Princess Victoria's biography which most accurately says the following:

"Kronprinsessan är, i enlighet med 1979 års successionsordning, som trädde i kraft den 1 januari 1980, Sveriges tronföljare."

or the English version

"In accordance with the 1979 Act of Succession, which entered into force on January 1, 1980, The Crown Princess Victoria is heir to the Swedish throne"


To make a coin is a longer process though (designing, approving, then making them), so since the Parliament's desicion was taken so late that year, the Bank of Sweden obviously waited until it came into effect.
__________________
Sofia's Blog (my blog)
Reply With Quote
  #172  
Old 01-08-2007, 06:52 PM
Lox's Avatar
Lox Lox is offline
Commoner
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: -, Sweden
Posts: 36
OK. But I still don't think that it's wrong to say 1980. The changes went into effect then, and for me, that's what matters.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #173  
Old 01-17-2007, 01:44 PM
Next Star's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: ******, United States
Posts: 874
Okay let's keep cool and just know that Victoria is the heir to the throne and not her brother Carl-Philp regardless of what year the laws of succession were changed. Putting the eldest child first instead of going by the sex of the child making Victoria the future queen while Carl-Philp will still be in line of the throne as well as Madeliene who too will continue to be in the line to the throne unless she gives up her rigths to the throne or marries a prince at is the heir to another royal throne.
__________________
Patience is a virtue.

I'm head of a dynastic house no matter what others say.
Princess Kamorrissa,Countess of Welle
Reply With Quote
  #174  
Old 02-27-2007, 10:11 PM
Gutsy's Avatar
Commoner
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NYC, United States
Posts: 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daneborn
Bright idea of the day: She could adopt her brother. In order to please the infinitily small minority who thinks he's the ''rightful'' heir he will always be older than the children Victoria will have with her future husband.
In fact the law did rob C-P of his rightful inheritance. To pass an "ex post facto" law depriving an infant of his legal inheritance ( be it crown or a pair of shoes) is repugnant in jurisprudence and simple justice. Especially if that deprivation is done in the name of some abstract "good". It is one thing to alter the law of succession for the future, but what occurred in 1980 was despicable.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #175  
Old 02-27-2007, 10:21 PM
Sister Morphine's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: North Carolina, United States
Posts: 2,725
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gutsy
In fact the law did rob C-P of his rightful inheritance. To pass an "ex post facto" law depriving an infant of his legal inheritance ( be it crown or a pair of shoes) is repugnant in jurisprudence and simple justice. Especially if that deprivation is done in the name of some abstract "good". It is one thing to alter the law of succession for the future, but what occurred in 1980 was despicable.

It would be despicable if Carl Philip was in his teens or young adulthood, had been groomed from birth to be King and then suddenly had the succession changed and made retroactive. Then I could see you saying it was "despicable" as literally the life he had been living for close to 20 years was suddenly wiped out in favor of someone who now had to go all through that, but at a much later age.

He was an infant at the time of the succession change, and therefore wasn't even cognizant of what was going on. I think to call it despicable is a bit of an overexaggeration.
__________________
"The grass was greener / The light was brighter / The taste was sweeter / The nights of wonder / With friends surrounded / The dawn mist glowing / The water flowing / The endless river / Forever and ever........ "
Reply With Quote
  #176  
Old 02-27-2007, 10:28 PM
Gutsy's Avatar
Commoner
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NYC, United States
Posts: 39
A question of "right" does not depend upon whether or not your rights are altered or removed at age 20 or 20 days. What kind of society would it be if families and the rights of infants were at the whim of politicians? Carl-Philip was Crown Prince of Sweden at his birth by the law and the constitution in force at the time of his birth. Maybe it's just my "Anglo-Saxon" legal culture but the thought of parliaments passing "ex post facto" laws to take effect on individuals who cannot speak for themselves is, pardon me, despicable. Even the normally reticent King Carl Gustaf was displeased and let it be known. In those days it was more the fashion for the Socialist International elites to look down on him and so he was ignored in way much less likely today.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #177  
Old 02-27-2007, 10:56 PM
Sister Morphine's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: North Carolina, United States
Posts: 2,725
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gutsy
A question of "right" does not depend upon whether or not your rights are altered or removed at age 20 or 20 days. What kind of society would it be if families and the rights of infants were at the whim of politicians? Carl-Philip was Crown Prince of Sweden at his birth by the law and the constitution in force at the time of his birth. Maybe it's just my "Anglo-Saxon" legal culture but the thought of parliaments passing "ex post facto" laws to take effect on individuals who cannot speak for themselves is, pardon me, despicable. Even the normally reticent King Carl Gustaf was displeased and let it be known. In those days it was more the fashion for the Socialist International elites to look down on him and so he was ignored in way much less likely today.

Swedish Parliament was already working on changing the line of succession BEFORE Carl Philip was born. In fact, I believe they finished the law up shortly after the Queen gave birth. Because Carl Philip was born in mid-to-late 1979, they waited until January 1 of the new calendar year to make it official. So whether he was a boy or a girl, the line of succession was going to change, and it was going to be retroactive. I don't know if TM knew the gender of the child, but everything I've read told me that shortly after Victoria was born, they set about to alter it. So it really didn't matter one bit what sex the next-born child was. Victoria was to be heiress.
__________________
"The grass was greener / The light was brighter / The taste was sweeter / The nights of wonder / With friends surrounded / The dawn mist glowing / The water flowing / The endless river / Forever and ever........ "
Reply With Quote
  #178  
Old 02-28-2007, 09:17 AM
ZandraRae's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Nashville, United States
Posts: 572
We have a thread especially to disucss who the rightful heir should be. But since we are on this topic, I have voiced my opinion many times before, and I still stand by it. Victoria IMO is the rightful heir, since she is the oldest. Anyways, Carl Phillip does not seem bothered by it, and if he isn't, we shouldn't be either.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #179  
Old 02-28-2007, 12:05 PM
Gutsy's Avatar
Commoner
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NYC, United States
Posts: 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZandraRae
We have a thread especially to disucss who the rightful heir should be. But since we are on this topic, I have voiced my opinion many times before, and I still stand by it. Victoria IMO is the rightful heir, since she is the oldest. Anyways, Carl Phillip does not seem bothered by it, and if he isn't, we shouldn't be either.
Where is that thread? Thanks.
Btw: I'm not saying Victoria is not the "rightful heir" in the sense that she is not the legitimate heir to the Crown under current Swedish law. What I AM saying was that parliamentary actions that made her heir are dubious in terms of common justice and legal practice.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #180  
Old 03-01-2007, 01:16 AM
Next Star's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: ******, United States
Posts: 874
I don't see now Carl-Philip was even rob of something he knew nothing about? The law was changed before he was born but did not come into affect until the early part of 1980. This has been mention numerous times about this law change. This is good that Carl-Philip is not the heir to the throne he seems very shy. His older sister Victoria does not come off as someone shy and she has good head on her shoulders like they say everything happens for a reason being Carl-Philip was not meant to be heir and Victoria was meant to be the heir to the throne.
__________________

__________________
Patience is a virtue.

I'm head of a dynastic house no matter what others say.
Princess Kamorrissa,Countess of Welle
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




Additional Links
Popular Tags
birth charlene chris o'neill crown prince frederik crown prince haakon crown princess letizia crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit crown princess victoria current events diana fashion grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri hohenzollern infanta elena jordan king abdullah ii king carl xvi gustav king felipe king felipe vi king harald king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander luxembourg olympic games ottoman pieter van vollenhoven pom pregnancy president komorowski prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince constantijn prince felipe prince floris prince laurent prince pieter-christiaan princess princess alexia (2005 -) princess anita princess ariane princess beatrix princess catharina-amalia princess charlene princess claire princess elisabeth princess laurentien princess letizia princess mabel princess madeleine princess margriet princess marie princess marilene princess mary queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen paola queen rania queen silvia queen sofia royal russia spain state visit wedding william


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

RV & Travel Trailer Communities

Our RV & Travel Trailer sites encompasses virtually all types of Recreational Vehicles, from brand-specific to general RV communities.

» More about our RV 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 2002-2012 Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:23 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]