A Boy for Carl Philip and Sofia - Alexander Erik Hubertus Bertil: April 19, 2016

[Mbruno]

I take it as choice of the parents. While Victoria & Madeleine tend to want more privacy for their families, they understand their positions and interest in their children so they have more control on what's released to the public.

Prince Oscar's last photo op was when he was presented to Sweden (and the world) on the king's birthday (the balcony), in the arms of his mother, the heiress apparent. The balcony presentation showed a grumpy but cute prince (I want my nap) but it defined his station. And Oscar's christening at the Royal Chapel where Estelle was christened also reminds everyone he's the child of a future sovereign.

Alexander looks adorable in the new pics.

I agree about the christening, but I don't think Oscar's appearance on the balcony has any meaningful significance in terms of his status within the dynasty. Putting it in other words, I am pretty sure that, if Alexander were old enough, and had not been born only a few days earlier, the King would also have him in Sofia's arms on the balcony. Future events will confirm if I am right or not.

 

[tausi]

Beautiful family!! Princess Sofia looks stunning!
Prince Alexander is such a cute boy!!

I am also curious about Prince Alexandra's eye color! I hope he gets her mom's eyes!!

 

[polyesco]

lovely photos. I liked that they included both parents

 

[quest]

I take it as choice of the parents. While Victoria & Madeleine tend to want more privacy for their families, they understand their positions and interest in their children so they have more control on what's released to the public.

Prince Oscar's last photo op was when he was presented to Sweden (and the world) on the king's birthday (the balcony), in the arms of his mother, the heiress apparent. The balcony presentation showed a grumpy but cute prince (I want my nap) but it defined his station. And Oscar's christening at the Royal Chapel where Estelle was christened also reminds everyone he's the child of a future sovereign.

Alexander looks adorable in the new pics.

more privacy? good joke, it is not Madeleine is the only one in the royal family to be on social networks and put quite often private photos of her children? I personally do not critical, she did as she wants, but that she has played more private, is fun.

 

[Stefanie]

I still believe CG secretly prefers his son because he wanted him so badly to become the heir to the throne. Usually GP never, as far as I know, releases photos on occasion of his birthdays (only if he has a round one like 30 or 40 or so). So this is not the reason. I find it strange as well that they so far didn´t publish a photo of Daniel and his son f.i. or some other new photos of Oscar....

 

[Countessmeout]

Beautiful family photos. Alexander is sure a big boy, and I agree he looks like Grandpa Hellqvuist. Love we got pics of the entire family, including the dog. Agree better photos then Vic's, but then again these are professionally done where Daniel took the photos of his wife and kids.

I do wish we would get more of Oscar. Its not a competition on number, but I miss seeing a whole family photo, and one with Dan and his son. Even with the balcony, we have only seen Oscar held by Vic, well and Estelle.

 

[rominet09]

Fantastic pix of a really beautiful family !!!!

 

[Dman]

Very nice pictures!

 

[Frelinghighness]

They just seem besotted with their baby

 

[princess carmen]

This is not a competition each couple decides how many and what pictures to release to the public. If Victoria and Daniel wanted more pictures released they would have done so. I would think people would be happy to see these pictures not complain about the others this has nothing to do with Oscar.

 

[crm2317]

He is a beautiful baby! The photos are just wonderful, so dream like.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

Wonderful images of Prince Carl-Philip, Princess Sofia and Prince Alexander. A beautiful new link to the male Bernadotte lineage.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

I still believe CG secretly prefers his son because he wanted him so badly to become the heir to the throne.

He did not wanted him so badly to become Heir to the throne. Crown Prince Carl Philip of Sweden WAS Heir to the throne indeed. His father did object about the retroactivity of the change: "We know you are Crown Prince now, nevertheless we make your sister Crown Princess. Period."

In Norway they did change the succession as well but there the already existing situation was respected: Crown Prince Haakon remained the Heir and was not demoted in favour of his elder sister Princess Märtha Louise. That was an elegant solution for a quite substantial historic change.

 

[Queen Claude]

I still believe CG secretly prefers his son because he wanted him so badly to become the heir to the throne. Usually GP never, as far as I know, releases photos on occasion of his birthdays (only if he has a round one like 30 or 40 or so). So this is not the reason. I find it strange as well that they so far didn´t publish a photo of Daniel and his son f.i. or some other new photos of Oscar....

It's no secret that Carl Gustaf wanted Carl Philip to be his successor but I am hard pressed to see how the release of these photos indicates favoritism or lingering resentment over Carl Philip being stripped of his position as Crown Prince. Even though Carl Philip's birthday was mentioned, the message is pretty much the same as the accompanying message when pictures Of Prince Oscar was released, and that is both families are thanking the public for their well wishes following the births of the newest princes.

The reason that Daniel was not in the photos that were released of Prince Oscar with his mother and sister is because Daniel himself took the pictures.

 

[LadyFinn]

This is not a competition each couple decides how many and what pictures to release to the public. If Victoria and Daniel wanted more pictures released they would have done so. I would think people would be happy to see these pictures not complain about the others this has nothing to do with Oscar.

No one of us knows who decides how many photos of each couple will be published. Only thing which the swedish royal experts highlight very often is that the kind decides everything regarding about the royal family and court.
But we saw at least hundred photos of Oscar at the balcony and we will see hundreds of photos of him at his christening, so we have no reason to complain about.

 

[kathia_sophia]

But we saw at least hundred photos of Oscar at the balcony and we will see hundreds of photos of him at his christening, so we have no reason to complain about.

And we will see him at Victoria's b-day in July, and possibly at Sweden National Day in June (he might not be there but I'm sure they will release an official picture like they did to Estelle over the years).

I'm pleased with the pictures, they look such a lovely and loving little family. The baby is the first born, it's normal to have more pictures taken, just like it happened with Estelle.

The thing with Carl Gustaf is another issue IMO, and even though we know he did want his son to succeed him (and even though I still feel favoritism on him), I'm sure he is somehow happy Victoria is the heir now. She's been a role model for everyone and she is loved by all, even more than him. Having a daughter who is respected and loved by the people, must make him proud of having her as his heir and future Queen (he must feel at ease to leave the swedish crown to her one day).

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

The painpoint was the retroactivity. Imagine that that Parliament decides that only children of a King or a Heir(ess) have the title HRH Prince (Princess) of Sweden. This in an attempt to downsize the number of people who have that position.

When they do this retro-actively: "Sorry Alexander, sorry Leonore, sorry Nicholas... you are no longer a Prince (Princess) of Sweden, you lose your prefix HRH, goodbye" then Prince Carl Philip or Princess Madeleine would most likely feel equally upset about this, as their father felt when, back then, the Crown Prince was stripped from his position.

When Parliament announces that they want to change things "but with respect to the existing positions" then Prince Carl Philip and Princess Madeleine most likely will feel lesser objections because that is an elegant solution with respect for their children Prince Alexander, Princess Leonore and Prince Nicholas.

I am sure King Carl XVI Gustaf is proud on his daughter but indeed, as he is also the Pater Familias and head of the royal dynasty, I can imagine he has an attachment to his son, as many fathers have. It is only natural. He sees his flesh and blood, he sees himself in his son. Of course he will see himself too in Victoria and Madeleine but everyone knows that father-son relations often have another character than father-daughter relations.

 

[LadyFinn]

The painpoint was the retroactivity. Imagine that that Parliament decides that only children of a King or a Heir(ess) have the title HRH Prince (Princess) of Sweden. This in an attempt to downsize the number of people who have that position.

When they do this retro-actively: "Sorry Alexander, sorry Leonore, sorry Nicholas... you are no longer a Prince (Princess) of Sweden, you lose your prefix HRH, goodbye" then Prince Carl Philip or Princess Madeleine would most likely feel equally upset about this, as their father felt when, back then, the Crown Prince was stripped from his position.

When Parliament announces that they want to change things "but with respect to the existing positions" then Prince Carl Philip and Princess Madeleine most likely will feel lesser objections because that is an elegant solution with respect for their children Prince Alexander, Princess Leonore and Prince Nicholas.

I am sure King Carl XVI Gustaf is proud on his daughter but indeed, as he is also the Pater Familias and head of the royal dynasty, I can imagine he has an attachment to his son, as many fathers have. It is only natural. He sees his flesh and blood, he sees himself in his son. Of course he will see himself too in Victoria and Madeleine but everyone knows that father-son relations often have another character than father-daughter relations.

We are at the wrong thread to discuss about this, but already before Victoria was born there had been discussed in Sweden about changing the order of succession. And Prime minister Fälldin's government made a proposition of it in December 1977, then everything started legally and publicly.

 

[HereditaryPrincess]

These new photos were a charming surprise. Little Alexander is a sweet and beautiful baby, and he appears to be a rather big as well. I think all the photos are lovely, but my favourites are the black and white ones, as they have a very warm, almost sentimental feel to them. In the black and white photo of Alexander and Carl Philip, I can see some resemblance to Leonore in Alexander, particularly around the mouth. It was a cute touch for the dog to be included too!

 

[Mari-Anne]

I love the setting of these pictures. Historical backround looks wonderful and the colors provide very lovely spring feeling.
My favorites: Prince Carl Philip adoringly gazing down at the baby while touching his son's head and holding his hand around Sofia's waist and that picture with Carl Philip holding his son against his shoulder. Liked that the dog was also included in the photoshoot.

 

[mary85]

The painpoint was the retroactivity. Imagine that that Parliament decides that only children of a King or a Heir(ess) have the title HRH Prince (Princess) of Sweden. This in an attempt to downsize the number of people who have that position.

When they do this retro-actively: "Sorry Alexander, sorry Leonore, sorry Nicholas... you are no longer a Prince (Princess) of Sweden, you lose your prefix HRH, goodbye" then Prince Carl Philip or Princess Madeleine would most likely feel equally upset about this, as their father felt when, back then, the Crown Prince was stripped from his position.

When Parliament announces that they want to change things "but with respect to the existing positions" then Prince Carl Philip and Princess Madeleine most likely will feel lesser objections because that is an elegant solution with respect for their children Prince Alexander, Princess Leonore and Prince Nicholas.

I am sure King Carl XVI Gustaf is proud on his daughter but indeed, as he is also the Pater Familias and head of the royal dynasty, I can imagine he has an attachment to his son, as many fathers have. It is only natural. He sees his flesh and blood, he sees himself in his son. Of course he will see himself too in Victoria and Madeleine but everyone knows that father-son relations often have another character than father-daughter relations.

When the law was changed there was a conservative government in charge and a conservative majority in parliament. Conservative politicians have alway been pro monarchy in Sweden so it's difficult to see the change in the succession law as a way to hurt Carl Gustav and for sure it was't intented to damage Carl Philip who was only a baby at tht time.
When the process in the change of the law began, they coudn't know if there would have been a male heir. As in the case of the 4 older sisters of Carl Gustav, they were afraid that only girls would be born also in consideration of the fact that Queen Silvia was already 35-36. With the previous law (a salic law) this would have meant the end of the monarchy. It was no coincidence that the social democratic party, a notoriously feminist but anti monarchic party, was firmly against the law change. And this was quite paradoxical.
So one could accuse them of excessive concern or lack of confidence in the royal couple'ability to have a male heir but for sure there was no intention to hurt or offend anyone. Actually, in a certain way, they were more royalist than the king himself!
I frankly think that this was only a typical case of bad timing and "best intentions that turn into something unexpected".

 

[Madame Verseau]

At the end of the day the change in the succession law has been in place for almost thirty-seven years; and there has been no government or voter calls to have Victoria removed as crown princess and have Carl Philip re-instated as heir apparent. Victoria's popularity may be a contributing factor for this. Aftonbladet did an opinion poll a year ago about the popularity of members of the SRF (current and incoming at the time) and who serves Sweden best as its representative suggests that:

Victoria är kungen – av kungligheter | Nyheter | Aftonbladet

A more current poll with the same questions would be a good gauge of public sentiment now.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

At the end of the day the change in the succession law has been in place for almost thirty-seven years; and there has been no government or voter calls to have Victoria removed as crown princess and have Carl Philip re-instated as heir apparent. Victoria's popularity may be a contributing factor for this.

[...]

That has nothing to do with Crown Princess Victoria. That has everything to do with the general phenomenon that when a new step has been legalized it is seldom or never turned back in the European context.

When same gender-marriages are given the right to marry, then that is a fait-accompli. No any other following Government will undo this change.

When the age for having the right to vote (and being elected) is set on 18 years, or 16 years even, then that is a fait-accompli. No any other following Government will undo this change.

When the Spanish Government finally changes the succession in order of firstborn, regardless the gender, then that is a fait-accompli. No any other following Spanish Government will undo this change.

Unlike in Norway (change of succession), unlike in the Netherlands and Belgium (changes of the Royal House Act), the changes in Sweden did not respect the existing positions. Crown Prince Carl Philip was born Heir and Crown Prince according the Swedish Constitution which was in force. Later that Constitution was changed, but with retro-active working. That was the painpoint.

Imagine that a new Swedish Parliament changes its mind on the junior lines being Princes of Sweden. And that they decide -with retroactive workings- that Prince Alexander, Princess Leonore and Prince Nicholas loose their title(s) and prefixes.... Exactly the same unpleasant and unelegant situation. Of course Parliament has every right to change its mind on existing situations. All European monarchies have done so, but all have considered the existing situation as it was as a given fact because of existing legislation and have not changed it with retro-active workings.

 

[mary85]

At the end of the day the change in the succession law has been in place for almost thirty-seven years; and there has been no government or voter calls to have Victoria removed as crown princess and have Carl Philip re-instated as heir apparent. Victoria's popularity may be a contributing factor for this. Aftonbladet did an opinion poll a year ago about the popularity of members of the SRF (current and incoming at the time) and who serves Sweden best as its representative suggests that:

Victoria är kungen – av kungligheter | Nyheter | Aftonbladet

A more current poll with the same questions would be a good gauge of public sentiment now.

I agree. But it seem that there is still resentment in Carl Gustav for what has happened and it's quite puzzling that, after so many years as you say, he hasn't been able to get over it.

 

[Countessmeout]

That has nothing to do with Crown Princess Victoria. That has everything to do with the general phenomenon that when a new step has been legalized it is seldom or never turned back in the European context.

When same gender-marriages are given the right to marry, then that is a fait-accompli. No any other following Government will undo this change.

When the age for having the right to vote (and being elected) is set on 18 years, or 16 years even, then that is a fait-accompli. No any other following Government will undo this change.

When the Spanish Government finally changes the succession in order of firstborn, regardless the gender, then that is a fait-accompli. No any other following Spanish Government will undo this change.

Unlike in Norway (change of succession), unlike in the Netherlands and Belgium (changes of the Royal House Act), the changes in Sweden did not respect the existing positions. Crown Prince Carl Philip was born Heir and Crown Prince according the Swedish Constitution which was in force. Later that Constitution was changed, but with retro-active working. That was the painpoint.

Imagine that a new Swedish Parliament changes its mind on the junior lines being Princes of Sweden. And that they decide -with retroactive workings- that Prince Alexander, Princess Leonore and Prince Nicholas loose their title(s) and prefixes.... Exactly the same unpleasant and unelegant situation. Of course Parliament has every right to change its mind on existing situations. All European monarchies have done so, but all have considered the existing situation as it was as a given fact because of existing legislation and have not changed it with retro-active workings.

That comparison is poor at best.

The comparison would be if before Madeleine and CP had children, the parliament announced its intention to remove titled and prefixes from younger grandchildren. And then CG went ahead and gave them anyways.

The change in succession was NOT retroactive. It was dated to when the process started. Like in the UK with their lengthy process, it applies to children born before the law is officially passed. The Swedish parliament started the process before Victoria was even born. CG was well aware even before Victoria was born, that the change was coming. By the time CP was born he knew it was in the final stages. He had no reason to be surprised.

Besides the HRH and titles are decided by the king, not parliament. It was CG who decided who got what.


It was out of practical terms that the law needed changing. Until CP was born, the one and only heir to the throne was Bertil, the king's Uncle, who would not have children. Even Victoria was not in line. With a queen in her mid thirties, they couldn't risk her giving them no male heirs.

 

[princess maggie]

I think I have missed some information in this discussion.The fact that the King is upset that CP is not the heir apparent seems to come up in a lot of the discussion on the forums related to the SRF. I have not read or seen any evidence that this is in fact true(but I am fairly new to the discussion). Are these comments just speculation or is there hard evidence that CG is not in favor of Princess Victoria being his successor? I just see a very united family supporting each other in their roles,which are very demanding IMHO.

 

[Countessmeout]

Back in 2003 the king made some statements during an interview:

“I would prefer that my son Carl Philip is my successor, and I’m sure that the majority of the Swedish people would prefer to have a king on the throne.”

No mention of his son being stripped, simply a preference of his and he assumed the people of Sweden, for a king instead. Interesting considering it was the parliament acting for the people who changed it.

Both the queen and king are on record as saying a man is better suited. A woman will be distracted with the role of being a mother and raising children, and it would be hard to balance both roles. A king would not have such problems.

 

[kathia_sophia]

Both the queen and king are on record as saying a man is better suited. A woman will be distracted with the role of being a mother and raising children, and it would be hard to balance both roles. A king would not have such problems.

It is true but back to the 20th century. Nowadays, the man in the family also raises his children, I've seen couples who both work but also both clean the house and cook, including the husband. The stereotype that the women is always at home and just make babies and raise them is pretty much outdated in the 21st century.

Even though CG said he prefered his son over his daughter to be the successor, because man are more suited for the role, I'm quite surprised he didn't look to his cousin Queen Margrethe of Denmark or Queen Beatrix of The Netherlands. They were and are (in case for QM) capable queens who were not inferior than man and they managed to be KING of their people. He had examples of ruling women so close by and still said that, such a shame.

 

[Madame Verseau]

Back in 2003 the king made some statements during an interview:



No mention of his son being stripped, simply a preference of his and he assumed the people of Sweden, for a king instead. Interesting considering it was the parliament acting for the people who changed it.

Both the queen and king are on record as saying a man is better suited. A woman will be distracted with the role of being a mother and raising children, and it would be hard to balance both roles. A king would not have such problems.

I heard about that quote, and seeing it is just...wrong. One, the Aftonbladet poll shows the people that were polled doesn't share the king's sentiment, otherwise the percentages for popularity and best rep for Sweden would be reversed for Victoria and Carl Philip. Also I haven't seen anything from that time that voters were demanding the members of the Riksdag to be voted out because of the change of the law. And I agree with Kathie Sophia, in 2016 both parents share the equal load. Recently there was an article that Carl Philip is taking paternity leave. Now it looks bad if the consort and the nannies are left with the child-rearing.

 

[Queen Claude]

Back in 2003 the king made some statements during an interview:

“I would prefer that my son Carl Philip is my successor, and I’m sure that the majority of the Swedish people would prefer to have a king on the throne.”

No mention of his son being stripped, simply a preference of his and he assumed the people of Sweden, for a king instead. Interesting considering it was the parliament acting for the people who changed it.

Both the queen and king are on record as saying a man is better suited. A woman will be distracted with the role of being a mother and raising children, and it would be hard to balance both roles. A king would not have such problems.

The irony is astounding that this is the same king who adopted the motto "For Sweden – With the times".

Even though CG said he prefered his son over his daughter to be the successor, because man are more suited for the role, I'm quite surprised he didn't look to his cousin Queen Margrethe of Denmark or Queen Beatrix of The Netherlands. They were and are (in case for QM) capable queens who were not inferior than man and they managed to be KING of their people. He had examples of ruling women so close by and still said that, such a shame.

There's no getting around CG's chauvinistic and anachronistic comments but I suspect that from earliest childhood Carl Gustaf was strongly indoctrinated that males make better monarchs considering how much had to happen for him to come into existence and then get him to the place where he can take the throne, namely his parents having to keep producing children until they produced a child of the right gender, and then his Uncle Bertil making choices/sacrifices that kept him in the line of succession in case he was needed to serve as regent and/or spare.