The change of the Act of Succession - 1979 Constitution change

[Furienna]

Even I admit, that Victoria will make a great queen. However, generally speaking, I rather see a female prime minister or president than a female monarch. The reason for this is, that prime ministers and presidents are elected by the people because of they have done, not because of how they were born, and their children will hardly follow their footsteps (except there are some exceptions, like the two George Bushes). But royals have to keep a dynasty going, and even though women can make great monarchs, it will be the men, who keep the dynasty going, since most children get their father's last name or family name, not their mother's. Of course, it's possible to let royal children get their mother's family name, and not their father's, But that would only make sense, when there is no brother avaible. In the case of Victoria and Carl Philip, I would see it as ridiculous to give Victoria's children the last name Bernadotte, if Carl Philip got children, who will get the last name much more automatically. So when it comes to the dynasty of Bernadotte, it would make more sense NOT to rob Carl Philip of the crown prince title, even when he was a baby.

[ysbel]

The family name is rather arbitrary. The dynasty can decide to let the daughter inherit it as well as the son.

The main advantage of male primogeniture I see is that a male crown prince will find an easier time of finding a wife than a crown princess will finding a husband.

[Next Star]

First of all Victoria and Carl-Philp were babies when the succession law was changed.Second a woman can be head of a monarchy Why? must only men carry this authority? It is sexiest to choose only males to be in line to the throne when there are females born into the family too.The children of female
could hold their father's last name as their middle name so the children has apart of their father's name.The correct term of absoulte successions laws is called cognatic primogenture which allows the eldest child regardless of sex as the heir to the throne.While priomgenture allows the eldest son of the monarch to be the heir to the throne.

[Jo of Palatine]

Originally Posted by Next Star

First of all Victoria and Carl-Philp were babies when the succession law was changed.Second a woman can be head of a monarchy Why? must only men carry this authority? It is sexiest to choose only males to be in line to the throne when there are females born into the family too.The children of female
could hold their father's last name as their middle name so the children has apart of their father's name.

Or they do it like the Gotha does: according to it, the House of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Gluecksburg reigns in Denmark (still, this will change with king Frederick), Norway, reigned in Greece and will reign in the UK once The Prince of Wales succeeds to the throne. So what?

[Penny Lane]

I think Victoria is as qualified as any of the current CP males and maybe more so than any of them except CP Felipe -he and Victoria seem the most ready to take over if need be

[Next Star]

In monarchy it is different from a republic that is why it is the name of the government is not the same when dealing with monarchies they usual go by sex or birth. The only monarchy I can think of that actually elects their monarch is Malaysia there are 13 states in that nation 9 of them are ruled by Princes. Every five years among the 9 nine princes they elect their King for five years. I think a woman can be President, Prime Minister and a monarch not only just a man period.

Originally Posted by Furienna

Even I admit, that Victoria will make a great queen. However, generally speaking, I rather see a female prime minister or president than a female monarch. The reason for this is, that prime ministers and presidents are elected by the people because of they have done, not because of how they were born, and their children will hardly follow their footsteps (except there are some exceptions, like the two George Bushes). But royals have to keep a dynasty going, and even though women can make great monarchs, it will be the men, who keep the dynasty going, since most children get their father's last name or family name, not their mother's. Of course, it's possible to let royal children get their mother's family name, and not their father's, But that would only make sense, when there is no brother avaible. In the case of Victoria and Carl Philip, I would see it as ridiculous to give Victoria's children the last name Bernadotte, if Carl Philip got children, who will get the last name much more automatically. So when it comes to the dynasty of Bernadotte, it would make more sense NOT to rob Carl Philip of the crown prince title, even when he was a baby.

[Madame Royale]

The State of the Vatican City is an elective monarchy. The Pope being elected for a lifetime by the College of Cardinals.

Andorra is considered to be an elective principality. It claims two princely heads of state, the Bishop of La Seu d'Urgell and the President of France. In actuality, it is the King of France who is the rightful Andorran co ruler but this position has been occupied by the President of France since the abolishment of the monarchy.

I'm certain there are others but I can't seem to remember them at the moment.

[Frothy]

Tradition only goes so far. It has been highly "traditional" in all major monarchies for kings to succeed through right of conquest - not any more. The act of giving a brother precedence over a sister is an insult to me and to most modern women. Hence the changes in most European monarchies.

And nobody cares about the ruling house. Again it is traditional for houses to change. The line of succession is recalled in the numerals of the monarchs. We have moved from the Normans to the Windsors via Plantaganet, York, Lancaster, Stuart, Tudor, you name it.

I like the system to be advanced in Holland where the Princess of Orange will confer a princedom-consort on her husband. I greatly look forward to having such a system set up in the UK.

[Frothy]

Furthermore, Furienna, there would be as little problem in both the Queen's children inheriting the name Bernadotte as her younger brother Prince Carl Philip. In plenty of families there are two brothers, and the children of the elder and younger both inherit the family name. There is no conflict there.

But again, it really doesn't matter. The succession is what matters, not the family that sits there. The British monarchy is pre-eminent even with a great number of ruling houses.

[Madame Royale]

I like the system to be advanced in Holland where the Princess of Orange will confer a princedom-consort on her husband

Do you mean when Princess Catharina-Amalia succeeds her father?

Originally Posted by Frothy

I greatly look forward to having such a system set up in the UK.

The style and title of Prince Consort has already been initiated within the British institution, though. HRH Prince Albert of Saxe-Coubrg-Gotha being the first and subsequently the only (thus far) to officially hold the distinction.

HRH the Duke of Edinburgh is and has been referred to as Prince Consort given he is the spouse of a Queen regnant (Prince Henrik of Denmark another example). Although, Philip (I believe) has not been formally conferred as was Albert.

Or, do you referr to the Duchess of Cornwall?

[Frothy]

Madame yes, I am talking about Princess Catherine Amalia. Under the new system she will be Princess of Orange in her own right and confer a Princedom on her husband. The model is perfectly equal b/c the wife of the Prince of Orange will not be Princess of Orange but takes the different consort's title. I think, anyway, am not a Dutch royal expert!

Philip is not Prince Consort, just a prince of the UK. Prince Consort was only used once. King Consort as a title has been conferred on two kings consort, the prince who later became Philip II of Spain (but was not on his wedding day when made King Consort of England) and Bothwell, King Consort of Scotland to Mary Queen of Scots.

So it's all a bit haphazard for the consorts of Ruling Queens in the UK. No clear precedents. Easy to set up a defined system like the Dutch one.

[Madame Royale]

Originally Posted by Frothy

Madame yes, I am talking about Princess Catherine Amalia. Under the new system she will be Princess of Orange in her own right and confer a Princedom on her husband. The model is perfectly equal b/c the wife of the Prince of Orange will not be Princess of Orange but takes the different consort's title. I think, anyway, am not a Dutch royal expert!

Philip is not Prince Consort, just a prince of the UK. Prince Consort was only used once. King Consort as a title has been conferred on two kings consort, the prince who later became Philip II of Spain (but was not on his wedding day when made King Consort of England) and Bothwell, King Consort of Scotland to Mary Queen of Scots.

So it's all a bit haphazard for the consorts of Ruling Queens in the UK. No clear precedents. Easy to set up a defined system like the Dutch one.

Thanks for your reply, Frothy

Re Prince Philip, you shall see that I did note that Philip is not an (or the) official Prince Consort, merely has been accorded the distinction by those outside 'setting' on occasion.

[Next Star]

Most people do not recongize the Vatican as a monarchy being that is the center of the catholic church in most constitutions there is a seperation of church and state. And Queen Marageth II of Denmark has given her husband the title of Prince Consort in 2005 I looked up his bio on the web. Another thing the monarchies are starting to be like the republic allowing women to be head of state no matter what type of goverment it is. Andorra has two princes unlike Liechantenstein and Monaco they just have one I did forget about those others at the time I could only think of Malaysia. Sweden has changed the people look at monarchies paving the way for three other european monarchies to allow the eldest child regardless of sex to be the heir to the throne (Beligum, Netherlands and Norway.

Originally Posted by Madame Royale

The State of the Vatican City is an elective monarchy. The Pope being elected for a lifetime by the College of Cardinals.

Andorra is considered to be an elective principality. It claims two princely heads of state, the Bishop of La Seu d'Urgell and the President of France. In actuality, it is the King of France who is the rightful Andorran co ruler but this position has been occupied by the President of France since the abolishment of the monarchy.

I'm certain there are others but I can't seem to remember them at the moment.

[Madame Royale]

Originally Posted by Next Star

Most people do not recongize the Vatican as a monarchy being that is the center of the catholic church in most constitutions there is a seperation of church and state.

I disagree (respectively) with much of your post, Next Star.

The State of the Vatican City is a sovereign state and is preceded by a elective head of state, that being the Pope and thus being an elective monarchy. Whether some wish to recognise this or not is entirely up to the indavidual but it does not change the fact that the Vatican is, and shall remain, an indapendant (having gained independence in 1929 from the then Kingdom of Italy) and absolute elective monarchy (where this non-hereditary monarch can, and does, exercise supreme executive, legislative and judicial powers within the state of The Holy See).

And Queen Marageth II of Denmark has given her husband the title of Prince Consort in 2005 I looked up his bio on the web.

This I already noted, minus the year it was bestowed upon him. Thanks for providing the year

Another thing the monarchies are starting to be like the republic allowing women to be head of state no matter what type of goverment it is.

This has nothing to do with Republican ideals though. It is a reflection of changes within the monarchial system in terms of sex equality (social progression).

[BeatrixFan]

The State of the Vatican City

is a sovereign state and is preceded by a elective head of state, that being the Pope and thus being an elective monarchy.

That's right. Remember, Cardinals are Princes of the Church. It's not just a romantic label - it's a real title. Popes have a choice of being crowned or inaugurated. The Pope is an absolute ruler. The Holy See is very much an absolute monarchy with the Pope as absolute monarch.

[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. Prince Consort is not hardly used by the husbands' of reigning sovereigns execpt for Henrik of Denmark which has been mention several times before in this thread. 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 do
not even exist.

Originally Posted by Madame Royale

I disagree (respectively) with much of your post, Next Star.

The State of the Vatican City is a sovereign state and is preceded by a elective head of state, that being the Pope and thus being an elective monarchy. Whether some wish to recognise this or not is entirely up to the indavidual but it does not change the fact that the Vatican is, and shall remain, an indapendant (having gained independence in 1929 from the then Kingdom of Italy) and absolute elective monarchy (where this non-hereditary monarch can, and does, exercise supreme executive, legislative and judicial powers within the state of The Holy See).



This I already noted, minus the year it was bestowed upon him. Thanks for providing the year



This has nothing to do with Republican ideals though. It is a reflection of changes within the monarchial system in terms of sex equality (social progression).

[BeatrixFan]

The Pope is very much involved with the Government of the Vatican State. He isn't involved with politics because there are no politics. He appoints his "Government" and they all take their orders directly from him.