The Change of the Act of Succession - 1979 Constitution Change

[CrownPrincessJava]

I still cannot understand why people have so much trouble understanding the change of succession. The whole process was debated and agreed upon prior to CP's birth. The King and Queen knew this was going to occur. There was no birthright, per se, in this case. CP was never going to be Crown Prince after the legislation was rubber-stamped. In this case, that act occurred several months after CP's birth. It was not retrospective. There ws no clause that in the event of a male child being born between that time period that the male would precede Victoria.

Also, the next Head of the House of Bernadotte is Victoria - not CP. Spin it how you like, but Victoria is CG's heir apparent.

 

[JR76]

I still cannot understand why people have so much trouble understanding the change of succession. The whole process was debated and agreed upon prior to CP's birth. The King and Queen knew this was going to occur. There was no birthright, per se, in this case. CP was never going to be Crown Prince after the legislation was rubber-stamped. In this case, that act occurred several months after CP's birth. It was not retrospective. There ws no clause that in the event of a male child being born between that time period that the male would precede Victoria.

Also, the next Head of the House of Bernadotte is Victoria - not CP. Spin it how you like, but Victoria is CG's heir apparent.

Agreed. Mistress of the robes, Countess Alice Trolle-Wachtmeister told in an interview around the time of Estelles birth how she and other courtiers was hoping for a boy when the Queen was pregnant for the first time because the Court and the Royal family was aware that a change of law of succession was coming and that the first born child would be the heir to the throne. She also told how gutted and disappointed she felt when it turned out to be a girl but also how she had changed her mind and that Victoria would be a great monarch when it was her turn.
That said, Princess Birgitta in an interview a few months ago told about how she was with the King when he got the message of how the government had decided regarding the succession and his heir and how sad and disappointed he was. Apparently he had still harboured hopes that the changes wouldn't affect his children.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community mobile app

 

[camelot23ca]

I still cannot understand why people have so much trouble understanding the change of succession. The whole process was debated and agreed upon prior to CP's birth. The King and Queen knew this was going to occur. There was no birthright, per se, in this case. CP was never going to be Crown Prince after the legislation was rubber-stamped. In this case, that act occurred several months after CP's birth. It was not retrospective. There ws no clause that in the event of a male child being born between that time period that the male would precede Victoria.

Also, the next Head of the House of Bernadotte is Victoria - not CP. Spin it how you like, but Victoria is CG's heir apparent.

What's strange to me is not that people in general have a hard time understanding the changes but that the Swedish king and Queen seem to have had trouble with the concept, as well! There was no mystery in either the nature or the timing of the changes. There also doesn't seem to have been any reason to think the changes wouldn't apply to the, (then), current generation of royal children. The King and Queen decided to go ahead and conceive a second child at the time they did, with the full knowledge that, if it was a son, his status as heir would be short lived.
It used to be that first born female royal children would be the heiress to the throne only for a short time, and everyone knew they would be displaced when a younger brother came along. CP was heir to the Swedish throne for a short time and everyone knew he would be displaced when the new law came into effect. CP lost nothing more than countless female royals have done, (and in some countries still do), and yet somehow it's his case that's seen as unfair.

 

[CrownPrincessJava]

What's strange to me is not that people in general have a hard time understanding the changes but that the Swedish king and Queen seem to have had trouble with the concept, as well! There was no mystery in either the nature or the timing of the changes. There also doesn't seem to have been any reason to think the changes wouldn't apply to the, (then), current generation of royal children. The King and Queen decided to go ahead and conceive a second child at the time they did, with the full knowledge that, if it was a son, his status as heir would be short lived.
It used to be that first born female royal children would be the heiress to the throne only for a short time, and everyone knew they would be displaced when a younger brother came along. CP was heir to the Swedish throne for a short time and everyone knew he would be displaced when the new law came into effect. CP lost nothing more than countless female royals have done, (and in some countries still do), and yet somehow it's his case that's seen as unfair.

You have also hit the nail on the head. Sweden was a leader, at that time, to get rid of male primogeniture. And as for the King and Queen - it's time they get over it. He hasn't been Crown Prince in over 30 years. Also, their eldest daughter, the Crown Princess is showing us what a great regent she will be.

 

[LadyFinn]

However, we all knew where the King stands and now, in 2015, we know where Queen Silvia stands. And it does not appear to be behind the heir. Now that really could have factored into Victoria's stress induced anorexia. It's a bit hard to be a teenage girl coming into adulthood and the responsibilities of who she is when she knows she either doesn't have the support of either of her parents or has their grudging support in pubic.

I have thought exactly the same way ever since Victoria's anorexia.

 

[MARG]

You have also hit the nail on the head. Sweden was a leader, at that time, to get rid of male primogeniture. And as for the King and Queen - it's time they get over it. He hasn't been Crown Prince in over 30 years. Also, their eldest daughter, the Crown Princess is showing us what a great regent she will be.

I can understand why in Queen Elizabeth's case, regardless that there was no chance whatsoever of a younger brother, she was only ever Heir Presumptive and never Princess of Wales.

Queen Margrethe was never even in the succession because when she was born women could not ascend the throne at all. The law was changed in 1953 and she then became Heir Presumptive but, as with her cousin Elizabeth, never Heir Apparent because theoretically they could both be gazumped by a younger brother.

Both women lived younger lives of restriction that their male counterparts never did and have gone on to become the historic figures that they are on their own merits alone.

All this wittering about Carl Philip being "robbed of his birthright" is just plain silly. That Carl Gustaf didn't believe the Swedish Parliament would follow through with their stated desire, made before the birth of Victoria, let alone Carl Philip, is the King and Queen's problem.

I use the word problem because it is a problem. Over thirty years have passed and still both the King and the Queen appear to be holding on to their ill feelings. That they express them is not only indiscreet but disquieting. It also makes Victoria's achievements even more sweet, having earned them in the school of hard knocks. And gives us a slightly different view of she and Daniel's courtship.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

[...]

I use the word problem because it is a problem. Over thirty years have passed and still both the King and the Queen appear to be holding on to their ill feelings. That they express them is not only indiscreet but disquieting. It also makes Victoria's achievements even more sweet, having earned them in the school of hard knocks. And gives us a slightly different view of she and Daniel's courtship.

Try to imagine yourself into the King's position. He only holds that position because he is a direct male agnate of a whole series of royal Bernadottes. Until he himself changed it, any non-fullfilment to the strict rules led to an exit from the Swedish Royal House. Even noble ladies as Ebba Munck af Fulkila or Elsa von Rosen were seen as a mésalliance. Their spouses were thrown out of the Swedish succession and the Royal House.

Three of the King's own sisters (whom never held succession rights) were also thrown out of the Royal House because they did not comply with the strict rules. All this has changed, but this does not take away that Carl Philip is the next agnatic male of an illustrious dynasty, a future Pater Familias, and apparently the King (and the Queen) have a strong feeling about that.

By all means and by all accounts and by what we all can see, Crown Princess Victoria has an excellent relationship with her parents and she has their full support. She also has an excellent relationship with her brother. He even agreed to let the Galliera inheritance, which consists of an exquisite art collection and a financial fund, pass to Victoria, although he is the legal inheritor. The reason why Prince Carl Philip rather than his elder sister has, until now, been heir to the Galliera inheritance, is that this is an entail governed by male primogeniture.

We may assume Prince Carl Philip will be compensated for his loss. The Galliera collection contains some sixty Italian works and are among the jewels of the Swedish royal collection. Piero di Cosimo’s “Madonna con il Bambino” is widely considered the greatest masterpiece of the collection, while the financial fund was worth millions already at the time of the death of King Gustaf VI Adolf in 1973.

We will see this in more Royal Houses. In Belgium the Von Sachsen-Coburg und Gotha's will end to be a reigning royal family after Elisabeth, despite the fact she has brothers. In Norway the House of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg will loose its throne after Ingrid-Alexandra, despite there is a male agnate (Sverre Magnus).

In the Netherlands the "Orange-Nassaus" were (are) in reality Von Mecklenburg-Schwerin (Juliana), Zur Lippe-Biesterfeld (Beatrix) and Von Amsberg (Willem-Alexander). But in their case -in contrary to Sweden- there were no males left. It is simply how the King and Queen feel. At the same time they approve that Carl Philip marries with someone as Sofia, tja... it is all not very consistent.

 

[Roslyn]

Well put, Marg! I agree.

I, too, have been thinking about Victoria and Daniel's relationship after reading the various posts on this thread during the day. I think that they make an absolutely splendid pair. Every time they are together, especially with their delightful little daughter, when their feelings are even more apparent because each of them lets their guard down a little bit more when she's with them, it is obvious that the two of them are perfectly matched and very much in love. Daniel is a wonderful husband to Victoria, and a loving and involved father who obviously enjoys the company of small children and is very good with them, as we saw at CP's wedding when he took his turn keeping Leonore quiet.

Daniel is clearly a perfect match for Victoria. Yet I understand that there was a fair bit of resistance to him from Victoria's parents. I don't understand that at all. It seems that not only did she have to go through the experience of growing up with the knowledge that her parents resented the fact that it was she and not her younger brother who would be monarch one day, she had the added difficulty that when she did find her perfect consort - a man who would gladly play second fiddle to her and share the family duties with her, which should have assuaged Silvia's fears that being Queen Regnant and mother was an unreasonable burden for her daughter - her parents made him jump through hoops and delayed giving their approval. I wasn't following the Swedish Royals at the time of their courtship, so I can't be sure about the extent of those difficulties, but if there was resistance, I feel very sorry for Victoria indeed.

 

[LadyFinn]

Try to imagine yourself into the King's position. He only holds that position because he is a direct male agnate of a whole series of royal Bernadottes. Until he himself changed it, any non-fullfilment to the strict rules led to an exit from the Swedish Royal House. Even noble ladies as Ebba Munck af Fulkila or Elsa von Rosen were seen as a mésalliance. Their spouses were thrown out of the Swedish succession and the Royal House.

Three of the King's own sisters (whom never held succession rights) were also thrown out of the Royal House because they did not comply with the strict rules. All this has changed, but this does not take away that Carl Philip is the next agnatic male of an illustrious dynasty, a future Pater Familias, and apparently the King (and the Queen) have a strong feeling about that.

By all means and by all accounts and by what we all can see, Crown Princess Victoria has an excellent relationship with her parents and she has their full support. She also has an excellent relationship with her brother. He even agreed to let the Galliera inheritance, which consists of an exquisite art collection and a financial fund, pass to Victoria, although he is the legal inheritor. The reason why Prince Carl Philip rather than his elder sister has, until now, been heir to the Galliera inheritance, is that this is an entail governed by male primogeniture.

We may assume Prince Carl Philip will be compensated for his loss. The Galliera collection contains some sixty Italian works and are among the jewels of the Swedish royal collection. Piero di Cosimo’s “Madonna con il Bambino” is widely considered the greatest masterpiece of the collection, while the financial fund was worth millions already at the time of the death of King Gustaf VI Adolf in 1973.

We will see this in more Royal Houses. In Belgium the Von Sachsen-Coburg und Gotha's will end to be a reigning royal family after Elisabeth, despite the fact she has brothers. In Norway the House of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg will loose its throne after Ingrid-Alexandra, despite there is a male agnate (Sverre Magnus).

In the Netherlands the "Orange-Nassaus" were (are) in reality Von Mecklenburg-Schwerin (Juliana), Zur Lippe-Biesterfeld (Beatrix) and Von Amsberg (Willem-Alexander). But in their case -in contrary to Sweden- there were no males left. It is simply how the King and Queen feel. At the same time they approve that Carl Philip marries with someone as Sofia, tja... it is all not very consistent.

From the king's biography at the court website:
"The new King took "For Sweden - With the times" as his motto, thereby declaring his intention of meeting the demands of society on a modern monarch."

It is 2015, and he should finally live like he said at his motto. Times change, Victoria was made the heir to the throne. And if the king would have lived like his motto, he would have accepted that Victoria will be the future monarch. And put also his wife to accept that.

We have to remember, that the preliminary work for the change was carried out already in 1977-78. It started even before Victoria was born. And the king and queen knew about the process. Carl Philip was not unjustified stripped anything.

 

[Roslyn]

At the same time they approve that Carl Philip marries with someone as Sofia, tja... it is all not very consistent.

Male chauvinist piggery often isn't.

 

[JR76]

Male chauvinist piggery often isn't.

Well said Roslyn


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community mobile app

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

Male chauvinist piggery often isn't.

Interesting. I did not know that chauvinist pigs were limited to males... One is never too old to learn.

Also interesting is that when a candidate running for presidency in your country will stand no chance when photo's appear with her proudly showing underwear and tattooes, appearing in reality soaps: she would be slashed in pieces by (social) media. But when it is Sofia, ah... we all suddenly have to sink deep down through our cracking knees.... "Your Royal Highness".

 

[lise]

Interesting. I did not know that chauvinist pigs were limited to males... One is never too old to learn.

Also interesting is that when a candidate running for presidency in your country will stand no chance when photo's appear with her proudly showing underwear and tattooes, appearing in reality soaps: she would be slashed in pieces by (social) media. But when it is Sofia, ah... we all suddenly have to sink deep down through our cracking knees.... "Your Royal Highness".

Chauvinist Piggery is a male personality problem Duc, but you do have a point Sofia would never be able to run for PM in Australia.

 

[Pranter]

Male? There are female chauvinist pigs out there as well.


LaRae

 

[CrownPrincessJava]

Try to imagine yourself into the King's position. He only holds that position because he is a direct male agnate of a whole series of royal Bernadottes. Until he himself changed it, any non-fullfilment to the strict rules led to an exit from the Swedish Royal House. Even noble ladies as Ebba Munck af Fulkila or Elsa von Rosen were seen as a mésalliance. Their spouses were thrown out of the Swedish succession and the Royal House.

Three of the King's own sisters (whom never held succession rights) were also thrown out of the Royal House because they did not comply with the strict rules. All this has changed, but this does not take away that Carl Philip is the next agnatic male of an illustrious dynasty, a future Pater Familias, and apparently the King (and the Queen) have a strong feeling about that.

By all means and by all accounts and by what we all can see, Crown Princess Victoria has an excellent relationship with her parents and she has their full support. She also has an excellent relationship with her brother. He even agreed to let the Galliera inheritance, which consists of an exquisite art collection and a financial fund, pass to Victoria, although he is the legal inheritor. The reason why Prince Carl Philip rather than his elder sister has, until now, been heir to the Galliera inheritance, is that this is an entail governed by male primogeniture.

We may assume Prince Carl Philip will be compensated for his loss. The Galliera collection contains some sixty Italian works and are among the jewels of the Swedish royal collection. Piero di Cosimo’s “Madonna con il Bambino” is widely considered the greatest masterpiece of the collection, while the financial fund was worth millions already at the time of the death of King Gustaf VI Adolf in 1973.

We will see this in more Royal Houses. In Belgium the Von Sachsen-Coburg und Gotha's will end to be a reigning royal family after Elisabeth, despite the fact she has brothers. In Norway the House of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg will loose its throne after Ingrid-Alexandra, despite there is a male agnate (Sverre Magnus).

In the Netherlands the "Orange-Nassaus" were (are) in reality Von Mecklenburg-Schwerin (Juliana), Zur Lippe-Biesterfeld (Beatrix) and Von Amsberg (Willem-Alexander). But in their case -in contrary to Sweden- there were no males left. It is simply how the King and Queen feel. At the same time they approve that Carl Philip marries with someone as Sofia, tja... it is all not very consistent.

Carl Phillip maybe the next male agnatic, but this will not make him the Head of the dynasty - that will be Victoria. It is the same as with Queen Elizabeth II. Prince Richard, Duke of Gloucester is technically the agnatic head of Windsor, but Queen Elizabeth is recognised as the true legal Head of the house

 

[Roslyn]

Interesting. I did not know that chauvinist pigs were limited to males... One is never too old to learn.

You are obviously too young to remember all the MCP talk from the 1970s.

Also interesting is that when a candidate running for presidency in your country will stand no chance when photo's appear with her proudly showing underwear and tattooes, appearing in reality soaps: she would be slashed in pieces by (social) media. But when it is Sofia, ah... we all suddenly have to sink deep down through our cracking knees.... "Your Royal Highness".

At the moment we have Prime Ministers, not Presidents, but one day we will have the latter. But when our last - and first - female PM was in power, I don't remember her appearing in her underwear or showing tattoos, if she has any. I'm sure she has underwear, but I don't remember any tattoos. And I can't imagine Julia Gillard in a reality soap. However, if she had, or had been, or did, I don't think she would have suffered much in the media. We mock our politicians for incompetence but we tend to be fairly tolerant of their foibles. We tend not to care too much what our leaders do in their private lives. As long as they do their job well, we are prepared to overlook sexual adventures and adultery and a tendency to drink too much, and such things. Actually I think Julia might have been a tad more popular if people thought she posed semi-naked with snakes or appeared on reality TV shows.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

Male? There are female chauvinist pigs out there as well.


LaRae

That is what I thought but psssst.... don't say it too loud.... "political correctness" etc....

 

[Nice Nofret]

.. I know many more of the male kind ....

 

[Cris M]

That is what I thought but psssst.... don't say it too loud.... "political correctness" etc....

Political correctness nowadays means that you must demand respect to everyone, but you are also free to have no respect for people whose opinions you disagree with, specially conservatives.

I'm a proud conservative and politically incorrect person, and I indent to continue as such. Although I admit I have a soft spot for Princess Sofia (not that she'd be an ideal Queen, but Prince Daniel will never be the ideal Prince Consort either).

 

[Cris M]

I don't think the argument of countless Princesses who have lost their position as first in line to the throne because of younger brothers is good enough. Those Princesses were always heirs presumptives, there was always the assumption they could loose their position at any time.

Princess Caroline of Monaco for example. She was born Hereditary Princess, heir to the throne, but lost the title and the position the following year, after her brother's birth. There was always the possibility that would happen.

Prince Carl Philip, on the other hand, was born Crown Prince, first in line and heir apparent to the Swedish Throne. That there was a new law being passed by the Parliament is irrelevant. By the constitutional order in force at the time of his birth, nothing could take alway his rights as first born son of the King of Sweden (unless he was raised outside the country or converted to another faith).

Yes, I do believe Prince Carl Philip was unjustly stripped of his birth rights, and nothing will change my opinion (I have complete disregard for modern feminist arguments). That said, I'm sure Crown Princess Victoria will be an outstanding Queen and that Sweden will be in good hands.

 

[Furienna]

Try to imagine yourself into the King's position. He only holds that position because he is a direct male agnate of a whole series of royal Bernadottes. Until he himself changed it, any non-fullfilment to the strict rules led to an exit from the Swedish Royal House. Even noble ladies as Ebba Munck af Fulkila or Elsa von Rosen were seen as a mésalliance. Their spouses were thrown out of the Swedish succession and the Royal House.

Three of the King's own sisters (whom never held succession rights) were also thrown out of the Royal House because they did not comply with the strict rules. All this has changed, but this does not take away that Carl Philip is the next agnatic male of an illustrious dynasty, a future Pater Familias, and apparently the King (and the Queen) have a strong feeling about that.

Thank you!

I know that many people today feel very strongly about equal rights for women, and that's cool. But they also have to understand King Carl Gustaf was raised in a very conservative environment, where only the men could continue the Bernadotte dynasty. And I believe that he was already an adult before anybody tried to convince him otherwise. And as far as I can tell, he has been supportive of Victoria, even if he personally feels that Carl Philip should have continued to be his first heir.

And I also have to say that when the successions laws were changed in 1979, that was a really huge deal. Not only was Victoria made the crown princess after not having any right in the succession before. But the crown prince was stripped of his title, which was really strange, even if he only was a baby. So I can see how their parents were puzzled by all this. You can of course feel that after thirtyfive years, they should have gotten over it. But they are also the representatives of an old system, which is all about keeping old traditions alive. So I can understand if they still feel that too much was changed too fast.

 

[Furienna]

Prince Carl Philip, on the other hand, was born Crown Prince, first in line and heir apparent to the Swedish Throne. That there was a new law being passed by the Parliament is irrelevant. By the constitutional order in force at the time of his birth, nothing could take alway his rights as first born son of the King of Sweden (unless he was raised outside the country or converted to another faith).

Yes, I do believe Prince Carl Philip was unjustly stripped of his birth rights, and nothing will change my opinion (I have complete disregard for modern feminist arguments). That said, I'm sure Crown Princess Victoria will be an outstanding Queen and that Sweden will be in good hands.

I couldn't have said that better myself.

 

[Pranter]

I don't think the argument of countless Princesses who have lost their position as first in line to the throne because of younger brothers is good enough. Those Princesses were always heirs presumptives, there was always the assumption they could loose their position at any time.

Princess Caroline of Monaco for example. She was born Hereditary Princess, heir to the throne, but lost the title and the position the following year, after her brother's birth. There was always the possibility that would happen.

Prince Carl Philip, on the other hand, was born Crown Prince, first in line and heir apparent to the Swedish Throne. That there was a new law being passed by the Parliament is irrelevant. By the constitutional order in force at the time of his birth, nothing could take alway his rights as first born son of the King of Sweden (unless he was raised outside the country or converted to another faith).

Yes, I do believe Prince Carl Philip was unjustly stripped of his birth rights, and nothing will change my opinion (I have complete disregard for modern feminist arguments). That said, I'm sure Crown Princess Victoria will be an outstanding Queen and that Sweden will be in good hands.

Yep, I agree.


LaRae

 

[Pranter]

That is what I thought but psssst.... don't say it too loud.... "political correctness" etc....

I deal with all that PC crap all the time...I'm conservative, Christian, and pro-Constitution.... and I am a female who thinks feminism (the distorted anti-man femi-nazi type) has done more harm to women and families than good....and you know how women like to eat their own.


LaRae

 

[Pranter]

.. I know many more of the male kind ....

You must not have met very many rabid feminists then.



LaRae

 

[Mbruno]

Agreed. Mistress of the robes, Countess Alice Trolle-Wachtmeister told in an interview around the time of Estelles birth how she and other courtiers was hoping for a boy when the Queen was pregnant for the first time because the Court and the Royal family was aware that a change of law of succession was coming and that the first born child would be the heir to the throne. She also told how gutted and disappointed she felt when it turned out to be a girl but also how she had changed her mind and that Victoria would be a great monarch when it was her turn.
That said, Princess Birgitta in an interview a few months ago told about how she was with the King when he got the message of how the government had decided regarding the succession and his heir and how sad and disappointed he was. Apparently he had still harboured hopes that the changes wouldn't affect his children.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community mobile app

I think Queen Silvia's position is also very clear. In the interview below to Brazilian TV, she basically says the same thing she said in that most recent 2015 Gernan interview, including the reference to the women's movement of the 1970s. Her attitude, like the King's, is one of resignation, i.e. they both accepted "the will of the people", even though it is clear that she feels that applying the law retroactively was wrong.

I believe it would be unfair though to say that CP Victoria doesn't have her parents' full support now. In fact, in the interview below, the Queen praises Victoria for her preparation and commitment to her role as heiress to the throne. Clearly, Victoria was raised as the heir whereas Carl Philip was not. Victoria's position in the royal house is pretty clear and unambiguous as she is the only child of Carl Gustaf with a household (i.e staff) of her own and takes a full range of state and diplomatic duties that are not shared with her siblings. The family came to terms with the reality imposed by the new law and, as the Queen said again below, Carl Philip also "accepted it" and "everything is fine" now.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=itwoYjEYe-I#t=881

 

[Mbruno]

Carl Phillip maybe the next male agnatic, but this will not make him the Head of the dynasty - that will be Victoria. It is the same as with Queen Elizabeth II. Prince Richard, Duke of Gloucester is technically the agnatic head of Windsor, but Queen Elizabeth is recognised as the true legal Head of the house

In my humble opinion, the way to solve that kind of conflict is to no longer associate the Royal House with any particular family. In other words, the law should define who belongs to the Royal House, e.g. the monarch, his/her consort and siblings, and his/her children and grandchildren (with respective consorts if any). The aforementioned persons should not use a last name and should belong simply to the House of xxxx (name of the country inserted, like the designation "House of Belgium" now used by the Belgian Coburgs).

There would be no question then whether Victoria's children are Bernadottes, or, for that matter, whether Queen Elizabeth II's children are "Windsors" or Queen Beatrix' (or Juliana's, or Wilhemina's ) children are Orange-Nassaus . Technically, the answer to all of the previous questions would be "no, they are not", but that has been ignored in practice both in Sweden and in Britain and the Netherlands.

 

[Roslyn]

But the crown prince was stripped of his title, which was really strange, even if he only was a baby. So I can see how their parents were puzzled by all this.

His parents should not have been "puzzled" by it, and CP wasn't stripped of anything. He was born into a Sweden in which the process of changing the male primogeniture system was already underway. It was only a matter of time before the parliamentary process was completed. As others have carefully and accurately stated already, but ignored by some, the changes to the law were already underway long before CP was conceived, and, apparently, before Victoria was born. It's not as though it was something that was suddenly foisted on an unsuspecting CG and Silvia.

 

[Furienna]

Maybe so, but CP was still already born as the crown prince when the new law came. So it would have made sense to let it only affect future generations, like they did it in Norway.

 

[MichelleQ2]

This thread has been a fascinating read. Admittedly, I know very little about the Swedish royal family other than the basics. I pose a question to those more informed ...could Victoria's stress battles growing up and into her role influence a desire to have Estelle be an only child or ...to have a significant gap in age so that Estelle firmly established as the heir?

Estelle has been very visible as a young royal child - Not just in released photographs but in actually attending events. I hate to speculate on something as private a decision as conceiving children. But given Victoria's parents apparently reluctant support of Victoria's role, perhaps she wants to insure that her daughter never has any doubt.