The Change of the Act of Succession - 1979 Constitution Change

[mattep74]

To be fair to our goverment it wasnt that they suddenly woke up with Carl-Philip beeing born and changed the constitution. After Victoria was born the Moderate party was affraid that she would be the only child and since the constitution didnt allow women to be heirs it had to be changed. The first vote to change the constitution happened in May 1978, but to change the constitution you need to have a election in between. The next election was in September 1979, after Carl-Philip had been born.

[LadyFinn]

Originally Posted by LadyFinn

Proposition 1977/78:71 om kvinnlig tronföljd - Riksdagen
Swedish goverment proposed the female line of succession on December 1977 to the swedish parliament/Riksdagen.

As I wrote before, the swedish government proposed the female line of succession already on 8th December 1977. And just like Mattep74 writes, there had to be an election before the proposion could be accepted.

[Palmerston]

Laughable that the rules of succession were changed – some of the main arguments posted here approbating the change seem beyond parody: an invocation of ‘fairness’, ‘equality’ & ‘egalitarianism’ – how can these be applied objectively to the most unfair, unegalitarian & hierarchical institution on the planet? They have no substance whatsoever.

The sovereign isn’t a public servant – he isn’t there to satisfy the fancies and whims of the popular zeitgeist; if that’s what you want, then cease the charade and abolish the monarchy and instigate a full blown republic. If the monarchy isn’t rooted in the past then it loses any legitimacy it has. Quite frankly it’s disgusting that a bunch of control freaks in the Swedish parliament (well, they are leftists I suppose, that’s what leftists love: control) forced these measures on the reluctant King. These are fundamental changes that affect his family – and for what? Just so a bunch of miscreants in the Swedish parliament can feel edified at having made an intrinsically unfair institution slightly more, errrm, ‘fair’?

[Meraude]

Originally Posted by Palmerston

The sovereign isn’t a public servant – he isn’t there to satisfy the fancies and whims of the popular zeitgeist; if that’s what you want, then cease the charade and abolish the monarchy and instigate a full blown republic. If the monarchy isn’t rooted in the past then it loses any legitimacy it has. Quite frankly it’s disgusting that a bunch of control freaks in the Swedish parliament (well, they are leftists I suppose, that’s what leftists love: control) forced these measures on the reluctant King. These are fundamental changes that affect his family – and for what? Just so a bunch of miscreants in the Swedish parliament can feel edified at having made an intrinsically unfair institution slightly more, errrm, ‘fair’?

No, it wasn't the leftists in the parliament who wanted a change in the order of succession, it was the conservative and center-right parties that lead the government at the time of both votes in the parliament. Many in the left-wing block was against the change, as they hoped that there wouldn't be any male heir born and that the monarchy would be abolished due to lack of a male heir. Social democrats: Gender equality a pretext to save the monarcy: S: "Jämställdhet svepskäl för att rädda monarkin" - Ekot

Voting 1977: 159 for a change, 18 against, 130 abstain
Voting 1979: 165 for a change, 21 against, 147 abstain
(Members of the social democratic party abstained from voting as they considered it a non-important matter.)

[Palmerston]

Originally Posted by Meraude

No, it wasn't the leftists in the parliament who wanted a change in the order of succession, it was the conservative and center-right parties that lead the government at the time of both votes in the parliament. Many in the left-wing block was against the change, as they hoped that there wouldn't be any male heir born and that the monarchy would be abolished due to lack of a male heir. Social democrats: Gender equality a pretext to save the monarcy: S: "Jämställdhet svepskäl för att rädda monarkin" - Ekot

Doesn't sound like there are any conservatives in Sweden to be blunt. Whilst 'conservatives' in Sweden were besmirching their monarchy, conservatives in the UK were safeguarding the hereditary peers in House of Lords. What a difference in calibre.

I don't buy this hollow argument that 'equality' legitimises the most unfair and unequal institution on the planet. The monarchy is either legitimate by precedent and tradition or it isn't at all; if you tweak and nudge it to fit the zeitgeist you're doing nothing but delegitimatising it. It becomes a plaything for ideologues and the fancies of those in control.

[Furienna]

I don't think it really was Conservatives either, who wanted the change, but it rather was Liberals.

[Kataryn]

Originally Posted by Palmerston

The monarchy is either legitimate by precedent and tradition or it isn't at all; if you tweak and nudge it to fit the zeitgeist you're doing nothing but delegitimatising it. It becomes a plaything for ideologues and the fancies of those in control.

Monarchy is legitimised by the fact that the voters want to keep it. The fact that Sweden needed an election in between passing new legislation about the succession to the throne and putting the new law in use shows that the voters (the "people") of Sweden could have voted against that change but didn't. They can abolish the monarchy anytime once they vote an anti-monarchical party to power and do so again after this party used their majority in parliament to pass legislation for a change of the system. So it is perfectly legit as it shows the wish of the people of Sweden to have Victoria (aka first-born child) to be next souverain.

[MARG]

Originally Posted by mattep74

. . . . . After Victoria was born the Moderate party was affraid that she would be the only child and since the constitution didn't allow women to be heirs it had to be changed . . . . .

So,are you saying that unlike the UK where Victoria and Elizabeth, both being the only child, took their place in the succession, Victoria and Madeline were not even "in line" and without CP the throne would have devolved to the nearest male relative?

[Meraude]

Originally Posted by MARG

So,are you saying that unlike the UK where Victoria and Elizabeth, both being the only child, took their place in the succession, Victoria and Madeline were not even "in line" and without CP the throne would have devolved to the nearest male relative?

Yes, Sweden had adopted agnatic primogeniture (Salic law) in 1810 when the first Bernadotte, Karl Johan, became crown prince of Sweden. If the order of succession hadn't been changed in 1980 and the king and queen hadn't had any sons, the only one who was in line to the throne after king Carl Gustaf would have been his uncle prince Bertil, born in 1912. The fact that Bertil had been the only male in his generation in the order of succession after the death of prince Gustav Adolf, the father of king Carl Gustav, in 1947, was why prince Bertil couldn't marry Lilian Craig until 1977, after having been together with her for 33 years. You can find a list of the Swedish order of succession from 1809 and forward here: Svenska tronföljden - Wikipedia

[Meraude]

Originally Posted by Furienna

I don't think it really was Conservatives either, who wanted the change, but it rather was Liberals.

Conservative with a C = moderaterna, conservative with a c = borgerliga partier, and the Liberal party (Folkpartiet) is a part of the borgerliga partier.

[Furienna]

Moderaterna haven't been conservative for many years.

[grevinnan]

Originally Posted by Meraude

Conservative with a C = moderaterna, conservative with a c = borgerliga partier, and the Liberal party (Folkpartiet) is a part of the borgerliga partier.

At one point moderaterna was called Högerpartiet. At the same time we also had Bondepartiet. I kind of like those old names.

[Kataryn]

Originally Posted by MARG

So,are you saying that unlike the UK where Victoria and Elizabeth, both being the only child, took their place in the succession, Victoria and Madeline were not even "in line" and without CP the throne would have devolved to the nearest male relative?

Problem was - there was no nearer male relative anymore with Sucession rights and a son of his own.

[Meraude]

Originally Posted by Furienna

Moderaterna haven't been conservative for many years.

This is not a political forum, and regardless what anyone thinks of the political views of the Swedish Moderata Samlingspartiet today, they do belong in the conservative spectrum of the political field (and they are a part of the center-right group in European parliament). To classify the Moderaterna as Conservatives makes it easier for those members who don't understand and/or are not interested in Swedish politics, and for whom Conservative/Liberal/Socialist parties are a understandable division when it comes to political parties and opinions.