Danish Referendum on Succession Laws: June 2009


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
Status
Not open for further replies.
UserDane said:
It is only good that people are 'hell bent' on rectifying an obvious inequality - thank God for that. It may be that when males and females hopefully have equal rights, there are still inequality in the royal institution. Perhaps so, but that is in my book no reason for not adjusting what can be adjusted. And this can and hopefully will be.
Click to expand...

Well, in this case, the constitution is more important for me, than something which wont be an isue until maybe 50 years from now.

If people are interested in an argument about the fairness of the Royal privileges then by all means. If we are trying to change or update the Royal Family, then why not look at issues of tax, the forcemet of religion, the fact the Royal Family can not be punished unless the Monarch gives his or her concent. These are all rellevant issues that could be debated, as long as we are actually changeing the constitution.

But no, we have chosen to focus on a small matter of equallity, which is not really an issue right now, with 2 males at the head of the line.

The reason we are only focusing on that, is because that can be changed. People are in favor of it, so it should pass. But the major problem is still a legal one. Because what we are changeing is not actually the constitution, but rather the law (tronfølgeloven) which the constitution refers to. We will therefore in actuallity have a constitution refearing to a law, that no longer excists or which have been drasticly changed, thereby creating a very dangerous precidence of alowing difference between the constitution and the actuall law.

You will effectively open the door, for situations, where you could change important rights, garantied in the constitution, by changing the law behind it, without having the need for a refferendum.

Read more about it here. Please...:flowers:

Professor: Fogh sjusker med tronfølgeloven - Danmark

http://borgerligbums.wordpress.com/2008/10/07/derfor-nej-til-ny-tronfølgelov/

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=43107645928&ref=mf

I personally dont have a problem with equality, but the protection of the constitution is far more important.

And again, why are we rushing this law now, when this is hardly a pressing issue? Why are we not discussing other issues regarding the Royal Family that are also old fashined and may need "an update"? And why not use this chance to revice other parts of the constitution, now that we seem to be doing it anyways?

No, I dont like this one bit. I hate to be the paranoid looney, but at best, this is just sloppy legal work. At worst, this is a gateway to effectlively rendering the constitution that grants all of us our rights, useless. And since no politician is willing to debate this, even if the opposition in the Parliamant felt the same way last year, then I am forced to say NO. Atleast for now...
 
I have already said why I don't like the idea of equal primogeniture. In short, it's not that equal. They'll never let a queen's husband have the title of king, because they think that the title of queen is lesser than the title of king. How equal is that? Now, if they decide to correct it by calling a king's wife princess consort or some other invented title, the whole monarchy thing will become artificial and pointless. If they propose absolute gender equality among royals and not just a partial equality, I will support them.

While we are discussing iwhat's "fair" and "just", why should the firstborn inherit the throne? Isn't it outdated and discriminatory against the younger children, who are just as much monarchs' children as are the older children? Shouldn't the throne be inherited by the one who is most compentent? :ermm:

Tricota said:
Well, in this case, the constitution is more important for me, than something which wont be an isue until maybe 50 years from now.

If people are interested in an argument about the fairness of the Royal privileges then by all means. If we are trying to change or update the Royal Family, then why not look at issues of tax, the forcemet of religion, the fact the Royal Family can not be punished unless the Monarch gives his or her concent. These are all rellevant issues that could be debated, as long as we are actually changeing the constitution.
Click to expand...

It's amazing that I wrote the exact same thing without reading your post! I'm glad there is someone else who is reasonable and not just yelling: "Oh, it's not equal, we're in 21st century, blah-blah-blah". I too think that there are more pressing issues in the Danish Royal Family when it comes to equality.

Freedom of religion comes to my mind. I am not sure whether there is a law which states that members of the Danish Royal Family must be Lutherans, but they sure have to be at least de facto. Does anyone really think that Countess Alexandra, Princess Marie and the Crown Princess all converted to Lutheranism because they thought it was the right decision or something like that? In my opinion, freedom of religion is a more pressing issue because the line of succession will not be altered by the referendum, while a royal marriage occured recently and the bride had to convert.

I personally dislike changes. I wouldn't mind gender inequality, religious inequality, or anything else that has something to do with equality because monarchy is based on inequality, but if you're changing it anyway, change everything and start with the most pressing problem!
 
Kotroman said:
While we are discussing iwhat's "fair" and "just", why should the firstborn inherit the throne? Isn't it outdated and discriminatory against the younger children, who are just as much monarchs' children as are the older children? Shouldn't the throne be inherited by the one who is most compentent? :ermm:

I wouldn't mind gender inequality, religious inequality, or anything else that has something to do with equality because monarchy is based on inequality
Click to expand...

I couldn't agree more. Monarchies are inherently unequal, and it's no more "unfair" to deny youngest children the throne than it is to deny women.
 
This excelent article in Spanish analyses at lenght the referendum of the day after tomorrow, Sunday.
They say in short that it risks to fail due to small attendance and that Danish people, despite the fact of being largely pro-monarchy, see little sense in bothering for something that will have consequences only in 80 years time.......

index
 
yes i am in agreement, it was accepted in sweden and there's talks (only talks i may add) in my own country, about ammending the laws of succession to the same effect.
after all was the danish laws of succession altered to enable the present queen margaret II, to succeed her father king frederick IX back in 1953 by popular acclaim. altough it is said that it irked prince knud somewhat.
its not it is being done behind closed doors is it, the people is to decide the matter, if the peoples voice decide for it, all well and done, or against likewise. at least it will be the peoples choice.
 
Here's an article that says that the voter turnout so far has been 39.1 percent. The newspaper claims that there needs to be a 50 percent turnout if the law is likely to be changed. The paper predicts a close election:

Tronfølgeloven på vippen - EP-valg

Here's another article that talks about how the government's campaign for the referendum is coming under fire for appearing to campaign for a "yes" vote. Critics are saying that the government was biased during the campaign.

Royal referendum campaign under fire (in English)
 
Only 39%? Well, the Danish people know the referendum wouldn't change anything de facto. I hope they also realize how unequal this equal primogeniture is.
 
The referendum was held on the same date as the elections for the European parliament. And European elections usually have a low turn-out (it's the same here in Germany, and also in other European countries).
If they would have done it together with national elections, I think that the turn-out would have been much higher.
 
According to the latest exitpoll we are going to have equal heirs to the crown...according to tv2 one of the biggest tv stasions her in Denmark 42 % danse has sat their mark at Yes.
 
Tilia C. said:
The referendum was held on the same date as the elections for the European parliament. And European elections usually have a low turn-out (it's the same here in Germany, and also in other European countries). .
Click to expand...

That's true. Here in Baden-Württemberg the attendance is only higher because there are also Commnual Elections as are in 6 other german federal States.
 
Lilla said:
This is only acording to an exit poll. The final result isn't avaliable yet.
Click to expand...

Enough of the votes has now been counted and statistically it is now reliable to say it is a yes and the changes to The Succession Act have passed the referendum.

40% of the voters have turned up at the polls with a yes vote and 79 have voted yes.
 
According to this article, over 78 percent of those who participated in the referendum, approved the proposed change.
The article is in English.
 
I expected it would turn out this way, and from where I sit whatever the Danes decide to do is perfectly fine. However, if I were able to participate I would have had to vote "no" as well for some of the reasons already mentioned. It seems rather odd to me when people start trying to apply the rules of "fairness" to royalty. Isn't being born royal inherently unfair in and of itself? Don't get me wrong, I'm all for it, but it just seems as though you are going to be "unfair" to someone either way so why fix what is not broken?

I'm not sure how similar the situation is in Denmark but in Great Britain male premoginature is only one of many things that are discriminatory about the monarchy. That is not just the perks but also things like; the royals cannot have free speech (not allowed to voice their opinions and keep their jobs), some are not allowed to work at all (being royal would give them an unfair advantage), they have no freedom of movement (Parliament must agree to the Queen leaving the country), they have no political freedom (cannot vote) and they have no freedom of religion or the freedom to marry who they want without losing their job. Does putting elder sisters ahead of younger brothers really make everything 'even steven' in a monarchy?

As I said, it doesn't really bother me either way, I'm fine with decision of the Danish people, I just don't understand the concept of trying to make a monarchy more "fair".
Long live Queen Margrethe II!
:daneflag: :denmarkstandard: :daneflag:
 
:previous:Well said. You know, we ordinary citizens should complain that we are being discriminated because we were not born as royals. We should all have equal rights to the Crown, with no regard to ancestry, gender, religion, etc. That would be ultimately equal and fair, right? :rolleyes:
 
I do hope that the people of Denmark who voted in the referendum have considered and discussed the subject as much as we all did here! There's nothing worse than people voting for something without looking at all the reasons for and against it before making a final decision!

Whatever the end result will be, the main thing for me is the continued future of the Danish monarchy - as secure as ever and with many future generations to reign.

I think the purpose of enshrining equality in law is to prevent prejudice (gender, racial, religious etc) where prejudices exists in society to the detriment of groups and individuals. However, whilst I agree that there may be on the face of it some unfairness in not allowing a female eldest child to inherit the throne, is this really to the detriment of society? Would such a change be a true reflection on society? Do all families of all classes and backgrounds treat their children equally? Are there not many parents who have had two or three boys in row that secretly hope for a girl this time or vice-versa? Whilst it is always a hope that the royal family will be a symbol of unity, reflecting the nation, and to set a good example to the people, in reality the people themselves always go off and do their own thing regardless of what changes there are in the law or indeed the royal family itself.

Anyway, Good Luck Denmark!
 
Marsel77 said:
According to this article, over 78 percent of those who participated in the referendum, approved the proposed change.
The article is in English.
Click to expand...

I am very very glad that this has passed.
You are right Bones it does not make everything "even stevens" but it is a step. Of course royals are always going to be different than commoners, they will always have perks that we don't but then again, we have perks that they don't. We are allowed to vote, we are allowed to speak our mind, we are alllowed to more freely, marry who we wish and worship a religion we wish. The royals may look upon us with jealousy as we do sometimes to them.
 
Jacknch said:
I do hope that the people of Denmark who voted in the referendum have considered and discussed the subject as much as we all did here! There's nothing worse than people voting for something without looking at all the reasons for and against it before making a final decision!
Click to expand...

Sage advice for any election on any issue. Things would be a whole lot better on every sort of issue if people would seriously think things over and discuss them before voting. It might also make for less animosity and more understanding of the opposite position even if agreement is not possible.
 
Jacknch said:
I do hope that the people of Denmark who voted in the referendum have considered and discussed the subject as much as we all did here! There's nothing worse than people voting for something without looking at all the reasons for and against it before making a final decision!

Whatever the end result will be, the main thing for me is the continued future of the Danish monarchy - as secure as ever and with many future generations to reign.
Click to expand...

I agree Jacknch. I think it is of great importance to have a discussion about the role of monarchy today. Without such a discussion it is impossible for the monarchy to develope in accordance with a modern world and the royals will be stuck in the past - not because they want to - but because it wouldt not be legitimate for them to modernize their roles and they will have no knowledge about what the people actually are expecting of them when preforming their role in a modern sociaty. A discussion will legitimate change and show the direction.

IMO such a discussion will save the monarchy while no discussion ultimatly will be the end of monarchy. I think it has been very healthy that the refferendum has started this debate. I do think as well that the small minority of republican Danes who is now using this debate to promote their viewpoint is in for a surprise when they find out, that the Danes voting NO or Blank, all had their individual reasons for doing so which did not necessarily have anything to do with wanting the end of the monarchy.
 
Thanks Bones and Lilla for responding to my comments! The other thing I just thought of regarding the importance of discussion and debate on issues such as monarchy is that people easily forget the importance of why these institutions exist and they can easily become irrelevant in people's minds. :flowers:
 
Jacknch said:
Thanks Bones and Lilla for responding to my comments! The other thing I just thought of regarding the importance of discussion and debate on issues such as monarchy is that people easily forget the importance of why these institutions exist and they can easily become irrelevant in people's minds. :flowers:
Click to expand...

Yes, you are so right. It is importand for us to recall through debate why thing are the way they are and that there is a reason for this :flowers:
 
According to historian Steffen Heiberg, the Queen is opposed to the change. See Dronningen imod ændring af tronfølgeloven - Danmark Once the monarch's word loses every authority (that is, the right to oppose to something which concerns her family's tradition), the monarchy becomes ridiculous. Why would anyone want a doll who cannot decide about her own family as head of state?

Heiberg also says:

* If you change the monarchy and make it look like the rest of the society, it will lose its special status.
 
Kotroman said:
* If you change the monarchy and make it look like the rest of the society, it will lose its special status.
Click to expand...

Indeed. But i don't see how giving Denmark equal primogenture makes royals the same as us??
 
I dare to assume that the primogeniture will be the last thing the governments has changed in order to be in tune with the spirit of times. What other changes can possibly be introduced? ... selecting the best among a king's/queen's children to ascend the throne ?
 
Al_bina said:
I dare to assume that the primogeniture will be the last thing the governments has changed in order to be in tune with the spirit of times. What other changes can possibly be introduced? ... selecting the best among a king's/queen's children to ascend the throne ?
Click to expand...

Now that would be a tiny bit to far. But i don't think it is the last thing the government has done?
 
Kotroman said:
According to historian Steffen Heiberg, the Queen is opposed to the change. See Dronningen imod ændring af tronfølgeloven - Danmark Once the monarch's word loses every authority (that is, the right to oppose to something which concerns her family's tradition), the monarchy becomes ridiculous. Why would anyone want a doll who cannot decide about her own family as head of state?

Heiberg also says:

* If you change the monarchy and make it look like the rest of the society, it will lose its special status.
Click to expand...

I am alwayes on guard when someone claims to be capable of telling what is going on inside the head of somebody else - just like Steffen Heiberg is being quoted to do in this article in regard to QMII. Especially in this case as the Queen has been challenged by one journalist after another to tell what she thought about the issue resulting only in a polite refusal on her behalf to utter a word.

I guess this was the best Berlingske Tidende could do in order to get an answer - using the telepathic abilities of Steffen Heiberg :lol:
 
Lilla said:
I am alwayes on guard when someone claims to be capable of telling what is going on inside the head of somebody else - just like Steffen Heiberg is being quoted to do in this article in regard to QMII. Especially in this case as the Queen has been challenged by one journalist after another to tell what she thought about the issue resulting only in a polite refusal on her behalf to utter a word.

I guess this was the best Berlingske Tidende could do in order to get an answer - using the telepathic abilities of Steffen Heiberg :lol:
Click to expand...

Nobody has used "telepathic abilities" to claim otherwise :whistling:

It seems that Mr Heiberg's "telepathic abilities" are respected widely, as he is one of the acknowledged Danish historians.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

M
Laws of the House of Grimaldi
Replies
3
Views
501
Tatiana Maria
T
T
Constitutional and Dynastic Matters in the Norwegian Monarchy
Replies
6
Views
1K
Tatiana Maria
T
M
Family Bylaws Concerning the House Law of the House of Luxembourg-Nassau
Replies
1
Views
455
Tatiana Maria
T
Jihan
Discussion About The Fallen Dynasties
Replies
20
Views
1K
SirGyamfi1
S
Blog Real
Kings and Queens of Scotland
Replies
8
Views
523
Blog Real
Blog Real

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom