The change of the Act of Succession - 1979 Constitution change - Page 6

maidmarion · #**101** 12-04-2006, 09:39 PM

I believe that the "Act of Succession" that has transpired in Sweden is a fabulous example of what the monarchy stands for today. We have talked and discussed in many previous posts about how much the monarchy has evolved and changed to reflect todays societies while still maintaining it's connections with the past. We love our monarchies no doubt about it or we wouldn't be on this site.

Perhaps the time has now arrived in which this standard should be upheld for all reigning and non-reigning monarchies. This would allow the "first born" to succeed regardless of gender. Some people refer respectfully about their monarchy as something they cherish to be "OF THEM" or representative of themselves. For them to refect us would mean to change for we are not the same societies we were before the equality movement or even 20 years for that matter!

Birthright, can be a very deep and personal subject for the modern monarchies of today. We look to them as an opportunity to relate to all of us and the societies they reign over. Perhaps the time has come for them to do so aswell. Ask the people, change can be good and I truly believe that Victoria will prove all her critics wrong. Progress can be and is good. The Act of Succession was changed and passed before the children were born anyway. We must think positive and move forward.

Thanks for listening,
MM

avrilo · #**102** 12-04-2006, 09:59 PM

I really dont understand this Act of Sucession change, for me is equally discriminatory to chose one to be King or Queen just because the order of birth as it is gender.

soCal girl · #**103** 12-05-2006, 02:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by avrilo

I really dont understand this Act of Sucession change, for me is equally discriminatory to chose one to be King or Queen just because the order of birth as it is gender.

True, either way it's unfair. However, there is no way to choose an heir fairly. The fairest way is by birth order. Carl Philip and Madeleine seem to have no problem with their big sis being Queen. I think both view it as having the best of both worlds. All the privilege and status without the pressure of becoming a future monarch. Sure, they have some official responsibilities now and then but I'm sure the perks such as, private Gucci shopping visits, entrance into the best clubs/restaurants, and traveling the world outweigh the downsides. The Swedes seem to be happy with their future Queen and that's all that matters. At first it seemed a little unfair to me that Carl Philip be "down-graded" to just a Prince but it seems like everything worked out in the end.

Next Star · #**104** 12-06-2006, 04:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zonk

Let's try to stay on topic which is supposed to be a discussion on the actual Act of Succession.

Okay! The actual change of law that deals with the line of succession gives the oldest child regardless of sex to be heir to the throne insteading going by sex like the prevoius law. Carl-Philp was the only person in to the line before the law was changed.Making this law change allowed his two sisters to be in the line of succession when they had no places at all. This is showing how an Heir-Apparent can be removed. Sorry Zonk!

maidmarion · #**105** 12-07-2006, 09:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Next Star

Okay! The actual change of law that deals with the line of succession gives the oldest child regardless of sex to be heir to the throne insteading going by sex like the prevoius law. Carl-Philp was the only person in to the line before the law was changed.Making this law change allowed his two sisters to be in the line of succession when they had no places at all. This is showing how an Heir-Apparent can be removed. Sorry Zonk!

I think what Zonk was trying to imply was that we were straying off topic. Thanks for the insight NextStar.

MM

Next Star · #**106** 12-13-2006, 04:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maidmarion

I think what Zonk was trying to imply was that we were straying off topic. Thanks for the insight NextStar.

MM

I said a little bit about the law being changed Victoria had no place at all than become first in line to the throne.That was the only thing I said about the law. I admit it looks more like a opinion than a actual law change. And your welcome maidmarion

**Zonk** · #**107** 12-13-2006, 04:54 PM

My warning was not to cancel any discussion regarding Act of Succession (which is the subject of this thread) but rather to end the discussion on any mental illness which is not the subject of this thread.

Frothy · #**108** 12-13-2006, 05:57 PM

Furienna,

The obvious difference between discriminating by age and disciminating by sex is that in the lottery of 'who is the oldest' both sexes have an equal chance; in the lottery of 'boys first' women are totally disadvantaged.

There are no, absolutely zero, differences between men and women when it comes to ruling a country as a constitutional monarch.

In my lifetime I expect to see the changes of Sweden and Norway applied to Great Britain, too. You may be sure that if Prince William's eldest child is a girl, the current climate will not admit of her being disinherited by a younger brother. I cannot wait to see that change and I will be agitating for it.

In the meantime the best of luck to the Crown Princess. As a woman it makes me so glad to see it.

Furienna · #**109** 12-13-2006, 06:45 PM

I don't really get what you mean there. If we're going to talk discrimination, Carl Philip is now discriminated in favor of Victoria, instead of the other way around, because he happened to be born after her. And Madeleine has to be the only one left to have a chance, no matter if Victoria or Carl Philip is the heir. We can't talk about equality when it comes to succession, but we have to talk about tradition. If the politicians feel they can change the act of succession only because of their ideas on equality, why not get rid of the monarchy all together in the name of equality? And how will you be able to change the Brittish succession laws from USA?

Frothy · #**110** 12-14-2006, 09:18 AM

I'm in the UK, should have updated the profile.

It isn't just "politicians"' ideas about equality, Furienna; your idea that males are inherently more suited to rule than females is the minority one. There is widespread acceptance in Sweden of Victoria as CP, and when you say "politicians", remember that politicians are only in a position to enact changes - as in the case of the change to the Swedish succession, planned before the births of Victoria and CP - because a majority of the people elected them into government.

The people chose the politicians who made the changes, so the people ultimately approve this change.

A constitutional monarch has little power, and women as well as men are equally able to act as a symbol. It is not suprising that the least discriminatory method of succession is chosen - primogeniture discriminates only on age, male primogeniture (your choice) on both age and sex.

As for tradition, there is not a monarchy in the world which hasn't changed ruling house, laws, etc at one point or another.

Speaking as an ardent monarchist, I want the institution to survive, and to do that it needs to be made as relevant as possible. A British stripped-down monarchy with equal succession rights for men and women will be the way forward.

It is working very well in Sweden. And now we see the idea taken up all over the place - Norway and Holland too. We are in an ideal situation to bring in changes, because with either male primogeniture or regular primogeniture, the first three in line to the throne would be Charles, William and Harry. To make the change now before William's daughter or son is born makes every kind of good sense. Nothing practical will change for two generations.

Lox · #**111** 12-17-2006, 09:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frothy

Speaking as an ardent monarchist, I want the institution to survive, and to do that it needs to be made as relevant as possible.

You're absolutely right, if the European monarchies wants to survive, then a gender neutral succession is inevitable. There isn't really any good argument against such a succession.

However, Carl Philip is the rightful Crown Prince of Sweden. I hope that Victoria never gets married, so that Carl Philip and his descendants will inherit the throne.

foiegrass · #**112** 12-17-2006, 09:41 AM

Well I just don't think its very nice to take a position away from you when you're only a little kid. It would have been nicer to execute this act for carl phillip's descendants, like Norway!

Henri M. · #**113** 12-17-2006, 10:00 AM

Why boys first and not girls?

Why the eldest first and not the youngest?

Why the eldest of the King and not the eldest of one of his sisters?

The whole succession is an invention of man. For centuries it was a firstborn male-preferred system, in almost all monarchies.

Gita · #**114** 12-17-2006, 11:05 AM

Even if you feel Lox that Prince Carl Philip is the rightful heir to the throne I don't think it is very nice of you to say you hope that Crown Princess Victoria never marries.

Lox · #**115** 12-17-2006, 12:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gita

Even if you feel Lox that Prince Carl Philip is the rightful heir to the throne I don't think it is very nice of you to say you hope that Crown Princess Victoria never marries.

Let me rephrase that, then. I hope that Victoria never gives birth to an heir.
Nicer or worse?

Long live King Carl XVII Philip!

**Stefan** · #**116** 12-17-2006, 03:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by foiegrass

Well I just don't think its very nice to take a position away from you when you're only a little kid. It would have been nicer to execute this act for carl phillip's descendants, like Norway!

There took a second boting of the new law place after the birth of Prince Carl Philip. Could they not made this voting earlier and then let the law came in force lets say at the beginning of May, short before the expected birth. So Prince Carl Philip would have not become Crown Prince at all and n ot removed the Title after 6 monts.
Or had there elections to take place ??

kwanfan · #**117** 12-17-2006, 03:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by foiegrass

Well I just don't think its very nice to take a position away from you when you're only a little kid. It would have been nicer to execute this act for carl phillip's descendants, like Norway!

I think it makes far more sense to change the succession when the heirs are young. Therefore, you don't have someone being raised their entire life as the heir, and have their position change when they are in their adulthood.

Danielane · #**118** 12-17-2006, 03:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Henri M.

Why the eldest first and not the youngest?

Most logical: when the first child is born, you never know if there will be a youngest one. And you have to wait to know which one will be the youngest...

ZandraRae · #**119** 12-17-2006, 04:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kwanfan

I think it makes far more sense to change the succession when the heirs are young. Therefore, you don't have someone being raised their entire life as the heir, and have their position change when they are in their adulthood.

Very much agreed on this one. Carl Phillip was very small when the law was changed, as was Victoria. At that age, neither knew what was happening. It would have been very cruel to take CP's title when he was let's say in his teen years or older, b/c then he would have understood the situation. I don't live in Sweden, but if I did, I would be very proud to have a queen such as Victoria one day.