The Change of the Act of Succession - 1979 Constitution Change

[maidmarion]

All points are well taken. Thanks to all for the insights. This is what creates great discussions.
Cheers,
MM

 

[Lillia]

Well, I still don't see the point of having a female heir, if there would be a male avaible. When it comes to royal houses, tradition is much more important than equality.

I just don't know sometimes.

In the name if tradition, we have seen the troubles of a current CPrince and his wife.

Sometimes it's easy to talk from the outside of tradition, when one is not living it every single solitary day and having these rules and regimines determine almost every aspect of your life. I would bet that it's not always so wonderful to have to live in what some might term 'a guilded cage' but then again, that's just me.

The grandeur and spectacle of it can be fine and good, but when it destroys someone (I'm not talking about everyone who's royal, but certain very high profile examples), I have to wonder just what is more important.

How about this: there used to be a tradition that women were not allowed to own property or go to school or learn to read. I wonder what some people think if that were the standard that they themselves had to live today?

In the end, tradition is fine, as long as it's not hurting people or depriving them of their right to live life like everyone else. but that's just my opinion.

 

[Penny Lane]

I think primogeniture is the only way to go, really. Women are just as capable of being Regent as a man. Was it fair that Carl Philip was stripped of his birthright? You could say that no, it wasn't fair......but is it fair that Victoria would have been denied the right to rule simply because she's female?

With primogeniture, first born wins out regardless of gender and you don't have these silly [no offense] arguments about whether or not women are fit to rule a country. Victoria seems like a very smart women and I'm sure that she will balance all that is required of her as Queen with what is required of her as a mother.

I agree completly primogenture is the best and only way to go the throne is inherited by the firstborn -male or female.It seems by and large women have been proven the better and longer serving rulers than their male counterparts.Victoria is a level-headed young woman and is the best suited of the three siblings.I think Carl prefers that is sister is first in line over him.I do think if Carl was CP you would still here alot about Victoria girls get more press attention.If William and Harry had sisters they would get more attention than Harry,maybe not William since he's the heir but sister's would get alot of attention.

 

[lilytornado]

I am all for equality, but I also can understand that some people see the difficulties... I don´t know if this is true, but for me it seems as if for a female heir it is much more difficult to get a fitting husband, than for a male...
Maybe Carl-Gustav isn´t soo oldfashioned, maybe he just saw that it might be harder for Victoria than for Carl-Philipp...
Other than that I think Victoria will make a great queen.

 

[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]

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.

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?

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]

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.

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]

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.

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.

 

[Next Star]

Okay the pope is not involued with politics but government and by the way. I am the next future monarch watch me I'll be shaking hands with Victoria and meeting their future queen someday. The eldest child heir not just the son because he is male and second way it go Sweden.

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.

 

[BeatrixFan]

Back on this planet.....it's interesting to note that although Sweden has "equal rights" and other countries are now following by changes in the law, the Vatican is one monarchy that will never change the rules. You can always be sure that the monarch will be male. I'm sure Victoria will do an excellent job as Queen. She seems to cope well with being a Crown Princess. If she can be a role model to the younger generation - like Princess Ingrid-Alexandra of Norway, I can see alot of successful monarchs in the future.

 

[Next Star]

I understand why the Vatican does women to be head of the church because
in the bible it clearly states only a man can be head of the church. I agree Beatrix that Victoria holds her self up very well knowing that one day she will be Queen of Sweden and when Ingrid-Alexandra of Norway, Elisabeth of Beligum and Catharia-Amelia of Netherlands get older they can follow her example as being the crown princess. I am on this planet regardless of what you say I'll be a future monarch and rule over my domain and you will talk about me.

Back on this planet.....it's interesting to note that although Sweden has "equal rights" and other countries are now following by changes in the law, the Vatican is one monarchy that will never change the rules. You can always be sure that the monarch will be male. I'm sure Victoria will do an excellent job as Queen. She seems to cope well with being a Crown Princess. If she can be a role model to the younger generation - like Princess Ingrid-Alexandra of Norway, I can see alot of successful monarchs in the future.

​

 

[BeatrixFan]

I think that that's the benefit of Royal Houses being so inter-twined. Ingrid Alexandra can call Queen Victoria for advice and know she'll get good advice from a family member. It must make the job easier and I'm sure it's been a comfort for Carl Gustav to know that Margrethe, Harald and Elizabeth are there for him if he needs them.

 

[Next Star]

Advising others are good even some monarchs what to know what to do.Victoria as much work ahead of her being that she will be furture queen and I know that her brother and sister will support her throught her reign as queen and her mother then will be the queen mother if their mother outlives their father.

 

[Madame Royale]

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.

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 donot even exist.

And you have the right to your opinion Next Star (infact I dont recall questioning it), but its not so much my opinion as it is the way it is

You compared the changes of monarchial hereditary succession to a republican administration and that was (largely) an incorrect comparison. It has nothing to with it whatsoever. I did note though that it is about change within the worlds oldest institution and a clear sign of social progression (a result of, perhaps).

I agree that the first born should inherit no matter what sex. It is the way I have always thought and it is the way I shall continue to think.

 

[Next Star]

I know you were not questioning my opinion I was stating that you have the right to disagree in respectful way to my post and I am delighted that you agree with my view of the eldest child regardless of sex being the heir to the throne and not just going by the sex of a child.

And you have the right to your opinion Next Star (infact I dont recall questioning it), but its not so much my opinion as it is the way it is

You compared the changes of monarchial hereditary succession to a republican administration and that was (largely) an incorrect comparison. It has nothing to with it whatsoever. I did note though that it is about change within the worlds oldest institution and a clear sign of social progression (a result of, perhaps).

I agree that the first born should inherit no matter what sex. It is the way I have always thought and it is the way I shall continue to think.

 

[Madame Royale]

Nice to have an understanding

 

[Zonk]

The discussion on the Vatican City, various forms of government, etc. has gone on long enough. Let's get back on topic please. Victoria, Carl Phillip and the Act of Sucession. Thank you.