The change of the Act of Succession - 1979 Constitution change - Page 3

Paula** · #41 05-15-2006, 01:55 PM

The fact of the law's change makes me VERY happy, as a woman I see for the first time in a monarchy something fare for a woman
We are in 2006 HELLO men aren't better than women nodoby is better than nobody

Sexist people for me is the same as stupid people
just my opinion I don't want to offend anyone with this ;]

Furienna · #42 05-16-2006, 07:24 AM

How would a man be more suitable as a regent than a woman just because of their sexes? Well, maybe he wouldn't be. And in Denmark, it made sense to change the law to let Margarethe be the heir instead of her uncle Knut. But I still think women only should be regents if they have no suitable close male relatives. It might sound sexist, but I can't help it. That's what I think. And if a royal family only have daughters, like Fredrik and Ingrid in Denmark, I see no problem with making the oldest daughter heir. But if there is a son, he should have more right to the thrown than his female relatives.

betina · #43 05-16-2006, 07:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Furienna

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.

OMG sorry to say this but what century are you living in. I think there is a point in the women to be head of the state. then you can be 100% sure that the child is from the queen. You never know if the male regents decendants really is his children.
And by the way. Why did it make sence that Queen Margrethe got prefered above her uncle Knud??

Furienna · #44 05-16-2006, 09:06 AM

Because her uncle only was two years younger than his father and only died some years after his brother. It was time for a new generation.

Gita · #45 05-16-2006, 09:11 AM

I would prefer Crown Princess Victoriua be herself - which she always is, she never puts a show on than doll herslf up all the time if that is what she is comfortable doing.

Little_star · #46 05-16-2006, 09:50 AM

I think if the change had never taken place, then the most obvious difference would be that C-P would have the duties V has and she would be able to live a relatively carefree lifestyle.

I also think the press would play up a rivalry between the 2 sisters, more they already do.

ysbel · #47 05-16-2006, 10:34 AM

I can see your point about not wanting the crown to skip generations but would Bertil have been prepared for the crown?

I thought that the women always had the advantage even with the old laws because their reign was always so much longer than the men. Under the old laws the Dutch house had three queens in a row and the two British queens, Victoria and Elizabeth are close to reigning longer than all the Kings that came between them. So the 19th and 20th century are in my opinion, the centuries of the Queens even with the old laws.

betina · #48 05-16-2006, 11:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Furienna

Because her uncle only was two years younger than his father and only died some years after his brother. It was time for a new generation.

Yes but Prince Knud had sons

ysbel · #49 05-16-2006, 12:41 PM

Women couldn't inherit the throne at all under the old Danish law even if the monarch had no sons. A succession law like that could cause the crown to skip to someone outside of the immediate family who was not prepared to take the throne. I don't know what the Swedish laws were but Sweden did have a Queen Christina so it looks like Sweden allowed women to take the throne.

At the expense of boring you

there are four types of succession:

Pure Salic: women can't inherit the throne and men descended from the female line can't inherit the throne

Semi-Salic: women can't inherit the throne but men descended from the female line can inherit the throne

Male Primogeniture: women can inherit the throne but sons in the same immediate family take precedence

Primogeniture: the eldest child regardless of sex inherits the throne

Does anyone know what type of succession the Swedes had before the law was changed in the 70s?

Lyle · #50 05-16-2006, 01:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Little_star

I also think the press would play up a rivalry between the 2 sisters, more they already do.

That's an interesting take on the situation. I once commented to a Swede that CP Victoria is very beautiful. They then proceded to tell me that it is a good thing she is the Crown Princess, because Princess Madeleine is so beautiful that if Victoria weren't the Crown Princess no one would even notice her.

Paula** · #51 05-16-2006, 01:37 PM

Primogeniture is the only fare

Oppie · #52 05-16-2006, 01:49 PM

Quote:

Does anyone know what type of succession the Swedes had before the law was changed in the 70s

I think it was a form of Pure Salic. If there were no male heirs then one would be elected and it could be a female in the case of Queen Eleonora (I think that was her name). I think a few countries had this. I think Luxembourg has the same case. Female are only able to become monarchs if there is no male heirs, (Lichtenstein still has Pure Salic I think)

Furienna · #53 05-16-2006, 03:19 PM

Whoops! See how little I know about Denmark's royal family! I didn't think Knud had children or was married! Well, then, one of Knud's sons should have been king after their uncle... But they must have prefered Margarethe. Maybe because she was more well-known than her male cousins. Can someone answer that?

And I don't think we had pure salic. We had male primogeniture. We had both Christina and Ulrika Eleonora as reigning queens when there was no male heir around.

And really, not even primogeniture is "fair". What about the younger siblings in any royal family?

GrandDuchess · #54 05-16-2006, 04:15 PM

A tip for those of you whom want to know about the succession rules in the Swedish history, read this thread at the SRMB before it disappears! http://members3.boardhost.com/scandi...147112730.html

ysbel · #55 05-16-2006, 04:24 PM

Thanks GrandDuchess! That's a great link!

Quote:

Originally Posted by furienna

Whoops! See how little I know about Denmark's royal family! I didn't think Knud had children or was married! Well, then, one of Knud's sons should have been king after their uncle... But they must have prefered Margarethe. Maybe because she was more well-known than her male cousins. Can someone answer that?

I've heard various things. Knud's mother-in-law supported the Nazis and that didn't make the couple very popular in Denmark during the German occupation. I've also heard that Knud's children were less 'photogenic' but that idea seems pretty farfetched.

GrandDuchess · #56 05-16-2006, 04:39 PM

Well I'm not an expert on the Rosenborgs, but as far as I've understood it, Prince Knud was considered to be a bit "slow" (not fully developed, a bit behind the curtains, or however to express it), and that was a major reason for the Danish Parliament deciding to introduce agnatic-cognatic primogeniture in 1953, making Princess Margrethe new heir to the throne (and her two sisters, Benedikte and Anne-Marie placed just behind her), and securing new blood in the line, as they didn't want Prince Knud's children (which he had together with his cousin Caroline Mathilde) to be close to the throne either.

betina · #57 05-16-2006, 06:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Furienna

Whoops! See how little I know about Denmark's royal family! I didn't think Knud had children or was married! Well, then, one of Knud's sons should have been king after their uncle... But they must have prefered Margarethe. Maybe because she was more well-known than her male cousins. Can someone answer that?

And I don't think we had pure salic. We had male primogeniture. We had both Christina and Ulrika Eleonora as reigning queens when there was no male heir around.

And really, not even primogeniture is "fair". What about the younger siblings in any royal family?

Prince Knud was Married to Princess Caroline-Mathilde of Denmark (they were cousins). They had 3 children: Princess Elisabeth (b.1935) Prince Ingolf (b.1940) and Prince Christian. The sons are now titled as Counts of Rosenborg. Only Christian have children. Twins Camilla and Josephine and a younger daughter Feodora.

Karisma · #58 05-16-2006, 07:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lyle

That's an interesting take on the situation. I once commented to a Swede that CP Victoria is very beautiful. They then proceded to tell me that it is a good thing she is the Crown Princess, because Princess Madeleine is so beautiful that if Victoria weren't the Crown Princess no one would even notice her.

I don´t agree about that. Swedes seem to be very satisfied with Victoria and people in common think she i much more "Majesty" than Madeleine. She is more "a sweet face" while Victoria have " dignity".