The change of the Act of Succession - 1979 Constitution change - Page 2

madeleine victoria · #21 04-14-2006, 09:44 AM

i think everything would change except how the media covers the siblings. they are the most good-looking blue blooded royals imo

so i don't think the way they received the media now would change except that maybe CP would get the most attention than her siblings because he's the heir.

Daneborn · #22 04-14-2006, 09:05 PM

king carl gustaf's sisters didn't wait for him to marry, they were all married before their little brother.

carl-philip and madeleine hardly have any duties, i doubt any of them would swap their easy lifestyle with the hardworking victoria.

if carl-philip and emma marry first they would definitely get more coverage. but media has never been interested in emma, who seems a little greyish. it's all about daniel and jonas, and victoria and madeleine.

i think victoria, and the press secretary mrs. tarras-wahlberg, will argue with you if you claim she's treated well by media. it's a well-known fact in sweden that they are all very fed up with the way media portray them.

Caswallan · #23 04-15-2006, 01:21 AM

Well like I said I don't get alot of media coverage in Canada. So that is all I have based my opinion on. Sorry to hear otherwise. :(

grevinnan · #24 04-15-2006, 02:31 AM

Isn't most of the coverage of the royal family tastefully and respectfully done? I only read online swedish papers but it seems as if there are only a handful of journalists / reporters and publications that clearly have stepped waaaay over the line. It appears that mostly the royal family and the institution of the monarchy are treated well.

Does this issue look different from "hemlandets" perspective.

Yennie · #25 04-15-2006, 06:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by grevinnan

Isn't most of the coverage of the royal family tastefully and respectfully done? I only read online swedish papers but it seems as if there are only a handful of journalists / reporters and publications that clearly have stepped waaaay over the line. It appears that mostly the royal family and the institution of the monarchy are treated well.

Does this issue look different from "hemlandets" perspective.

They are generally very well threated. It has gotten "worse" recently, but that is just because the press respected the royal childrens need for privacy when they were children/teenagers. Now when they are adults they has to handle the attention. It comes with the job imo.

However; I think there are some things we dont know about. Many photos of them taken by paparazzies are never published in swedish media. When I had access to All over press, I saw new paparazzi photos of the rf (especially princess Madeleine) almost every day. I never saw any of the photos anywher else than on the website, so I think there are alot of things happening that we dont know of

Gita · #26 04-15-2006, 11:30 AM

Overall compared to some of the other European Royals they get a lot of privacy.

christinacg · #27 04-15-2006, 07:38 PM

Although I love Victoria, I think it would be cool if Carl-Philip was crown prince. He'd get so much more media attention. Its a shame he doesnt now b/c I think he's so handsome. He'd be like the Swedish Prince William.
Victoria's life would obviously be different. She's probably be married to Daniel by now. But Madeleine's life wouldnt be different I dont think.

soCal girl · #28 04-15-2006, 08:50 PM

I think Madeleine's life would be different. Her close relationship to Carl Philip is obvious but I think it would have been different if he was the Crown Prince. He would be gone more and would be preparing for a life as King. I think Victoria and Madeleine would be closer if Carl Philip was the Crown Prince.

kaydura0717 · #29 04-15-2006, 11:05 PM

True but I also got the impression that they were all sort of close. But I agree that compared to other royals the swedish royals do get alittle more privacy and respect.

contessa · #30 05-13-2006, 07:52 AM

Why was the succession changed after they were all born? You would think it would be changed in the next generation not when a son was already born. If anyone could clear it up I would very much interested in knowing.

soCal girl · #31 05-13-2006, 04:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by contessa

Why was the succession changed after they were all born? You would think it would be changed in the next generation not when a son was already born. If anyone could clear it up I would very much interested in knowing.

Carl Philip was born the Crown Prince but then Parliament decided it was unfair that eligibility for the crown be gender-based. They decided whoever was the eldest would be the next heir. This all happened when Victoria and Carl Philip were babies so they decided to activate the change this generation. In Norway, the change was made when Haakon and Martha-Louise were grown-up so it was deemed unfair to have it apply to that generation. So Haakon is still Crown Prince and then his firstborn, Ingrid Alexandra, became the next heir. (I'm pretty sure that's what happened in Norway)

margotantoinette · #32 05-13-2006, 04:31 PM

yes, that's exactly what happened in Norway. The change was made when Haakon and Martha-Louise were old enough to be aware of it, and so it was decided to "grandfather clause" them so to speak, and to only activate the changes for the next generation, so that Ingrid is the heir and not her younger brother Sverre Magnus.

Oppie · #33 05-13-2006, 04:43 PM

I wonder not only what effect it would have had on them but on the rest of the European Houses, since I believe this one was the first to allow the eldest to succeded regardless of gender. I wonder what would have happened in the other countries.

Solange · #34 05-14-2006, 09:57 AM

Is it true that the King opposed to this change and would've prefered for Carl Philip to be his heir?

Yennie · #35 05-14-2006, 11:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solange

Is it true that the King opposed to this change and would've prefered for Carl Philip to be his heir?

Yes he did say saomething like that at the time, but if you ask him now he is more "politically correct" :)

Also Queen Silvia said she thought it could be hard for a woman to have the "top job" because of her role as a mother....

Karisma · #36 05-14-2006, 04:46 PM

Of course we can put forward a hypothesis. But I doubt it´s anything we ever shall think about in reality.

The change of succession was decided before both Victoria and Carl Philip was born. But Swedish law and democracy requires that two Parliaments take constitutional amendments. And there have to be an general election between them. The first Parliament had alredy decided in direction to change the succession when Victoria was born.

Victoria conducted an interview in 2005 when she had a question about the difficult choice between love and The Swedish crown. "I would take The Crown" - she answerd.

Furienna · #37 05-14-2006, 06:46 PM

Actually, I would have prefered, that the law hadn't been changed. Thinking that girls/women and boys/men are just alike is crazy. There is a difference between the sexes, or there wouldn't have been two sexes. It sounds so nice with equality between the sexes, but even though men and women are just as much worth, it doesn't mean, that they're the same. So yes, I would have prefered, that Carl Philip would have remained the heir because he's a boy, and if there is a male heir, he should be chosen before a female heir. If it wasn't for anything else, I would have liked it to be that way because the name of Bernadotte could have been carried on. Sure, Victoria's children might be called "Bernadotte" too, but it wouldn't be the same thing.

Yennie · #38 05-15-2006, 06:03 AM

But how could a man be more suitable for the job, simply because he is a man? Yes, I agree on the name part and I understand that perhaps it can be a bit hard for a woman when she have children, like the first time when you breastfeed and so on...

But in this case, I prefer Victoria over Carl Philip. Sure, if he had been rasied as crown prince, perhaps he would have been different. But imo he is to shy and not head-of-state material at all (sorry Carl Philip, but I like you anyway :) )

PreDoc · #39 05-15-2006, 06:22 AM

The change was a good one. It provides the longest training period for an extraordinarily restrictive job (since the oldest child will spend the most time being groomed for king/queen).

It also eliminates the ridiculous notion that one must continue procreating until a male child is born.

Ideally, an elected monarchy would create competition to be the best (be that the most cunning, most intelligent, most beautiful, most whatever). Of course the pool of candidates would have to be a bit large because many family members would presumably not want to be saddled with this lifelong obligation.