The change of the Act of Succession - 1979 Constitution change

[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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

Originally Posted by Madame Royale

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.

[Lox]

By the way, I think it's more correct to say that the Act of Succession (Successionsordningen) was changed in 1980, and not 1979.

1980 was the year that the change went into effect, and 1980 is the year that is used in the media when the change is mentioned.

[GrandDuchess]

Originally Posted by Lox

By the way, I think it's more correct to say that the Act of Succession (Successionsordningen) was changed in 1980, and not 1979.

1980 was the year that the change went into effect, and 1980 is the year that is used in the media when the change is mentioned.

No.

The Act of Succession was changed finally in 1979 when the second and obligatory vote took place after general elections. It came into effect on 1 January 1980.

So I would say you're wrong there, because the media usually just say when the effect took place, not when it was actually changed.

[ZandraRae]

I also believe it was 1979, but it really doesn't matter what year, whether '79 or '80, the most important matter here is that the firstborn is always the rightful heir IMO. They changed it when both Carl Phillip & Victoria were young, so it affected neither of them as little kids.

[Lox]

Originally Posted by GrandDuchess

No.

The Act of Succession was changed finally in 1979 when the second and obligatory vote took place after general elections. It came into effect on 1 January 1980.

So I would say you're wrong there, because the media usually just say when the effect took place, not when it was actually changed.

Ok, 1 January 1980. But you have to agree that 1980 is the year that is most commonly used when the change is mentioned:
http://www.royalcourt.se

And let's not forget the commemorative coin:
http://www.riksbank.se/upload/Bilder...t1/20b_lag.jpg

I still think it's correct to say that the law was changed in 1980. On December 31 1979 the old succession law was still in place, right? Or didn't Sweden have a succession law during the last months of 1979?

[GrandDuchess]

Originally Posted by Lox

Ok, 1 January 1980. But you have to agree that 1980 is the year that is most commonly used when the change is mentioned:
http://www.royalcourt.se

And let's not forget the commemorative coin:
http://www.riksbank.se/upload/Bilder...t1/20b_lag.jpg

I still think it's correct to say that the law was changed in 1980. On December 31 1979 the old succession law was still in place, right? Or didn't Sweden have a succession law during the last months of 1979?

The media usually writes 1980, because that's the year it came into effect. Much easier for them to just say that, instead of getting mixed into the details.

But it's not correct to say it was changed in 1980 however, because it was not.

Sweden's Act of Succession was changed in 1979, nothing else. The change was made when the Parliament voted on it, and the paperwork (laws and protocolls) was re-printed immediately in 1979. On 31 December 1979 the new law was written and in place, but had yet not come into effect. When laws are made, there are always addendum protocolls which specifies when they will come into force, and this is always later that the actual desicion date.

Since you referred to the Royal Court's website, you can look at Crown Princess Victoria's biography which most accurately says the following:

"Kronprinsessan är, i enlighet med 1979 års successionsordning, som trädde i kraft den 1 januari 1980, Sveriges tronföljare."

or the English version

"In accordance with the 1979 Act of Succession, which entered into force on January 1, 1980, The Crown Princess Victoria is heir to the Swedish throne"

To make a coin is a longer process though (designing, approving, then making them), so since the Parliament's desicion was taken so late that year, the Bank of Sweden obviously waited until it came into effect.

[Lox]

OK. But I still don't think that it's wrong to say 1980. The changes went into effect then, and for me, that's what matters.

[Next Star]

Okay let's keep cool and just know that Victoria is the heir to the throne and not her brother Carl-Philp regardless of what year the laws of succession were changed. Putting the eldest child first instead of going by the sex of the child making Victoria the future queen while Carl-Philp will still be in line of the throne as well as Madeliene who too will continue to be in the line to the throne unless she gives up her rigths to the throne or marries a prince at is the heir to another royal throne.

[Gutsy]

Originally Posted by Daneborn

Bright idea of the day: She could adopt her brother. In order to please the infinitily small minority who thinks he's the ''rightful'' heir he will always be older than the children Victoria will have with her future husband.

In fact the law did rob C-P of his rightful inheritance. To pass an "ex post facto" law depriving an infant of his legal inheritance ( be it crown or a pair of shoes) is repugnant in jurisprudence and simple justice. Especially if that deprivation is done in the name of some abstract "good". It is one thing to alter the law of succession for the future, but what occurred in 1980 was despicable.

[Sister Morphine]

Originally Posted by Gutsy

In fact the law did rob C-P of his rightful inheritance. To pass an "ex post facto" law depriving an infant of his legal inheritance ( be it crown or a pair of shoes) is repugnant in jurisprudence and simple justice. Especially if that deprivation is done in the name of some abstract "good". It is one thing to alter the law of succession for the future, but what occurred in 1980 was despicable.

It would be despicable if Carl Philip was in his teens or young adulthood, had been groomed from birth to be King and then suddenly had the succession changed and made retroactive. Then I could see you saying it was "despicable" as literally the life he had been living for close to 20 years was suddenly wiped out in favor of someone who now had to go all through that, but at a much later age.

He was an infant at the time of the succession change, and therefore wasn't even cognizant of what was going on. I think to call it despicable is a bit of an overexaggeration.

[Gutsy]

A question of "right" does not depend upon whether or not your rights are altered or removed at age 20 or 20 days. What kind of society would it be if families and the rights of infants were at the whim of politicians? Carl-Philip was Crown Prince of Sweden at his birth by the law and the constitution in force at the time of his birth. Maybe it's just my "Anglo-Saxon" legal culture but the thought of parliaments passing "ex post facto" laws to take effect on individuals who cannot speak for themselves is, pardon me, despicable. Even the normally reticent King Carl Gustaf was displeased and let it be known. In those days it was more the fashion for the Socialist International elites to look down on him and so he was ignored in way much less likely today.

[Sister Morphine]

Originally Posted by Gutsy

A question of "right" does not depend upon whether or not your rights are altered or removed at age 20 or 20 days. What kind of society would it be if families and the rights of infants were at the whim of politicians? Carl-Philip was Crown Prince of Sweden at his birth by the law and the constitution in force at the time of his birth. Maybe it's just my "Anglo-Saxon" legal culture but the thought of parliaments passing "ex post facto" laws to take effect on individuals who cannot speak for themselves is, pardon me, despicable. Even the normally reticent King Carl Gustaf was displeased and let it be known. In those days it was more the fashion for the Socialist International elites to look down on him and so he was ignored in way much less likely today.

Swedish Parliament was already working on changing the line of succession BEFORE Carl Philip was born. In fact, I believe they finished the law up shortly after the Queen gave birth. Because Carl Philip was born in mid-to-late 1979, they waited until January 1 of the new calendar year to make it official. So whether he was a boy or a girl, the line of succession was going to change, and it was going to be retroactive. I don't know if TM knew the gender of the child, but everything I've read told me that shortly after Victoria was born, they set about to alter it. So it really didn't matter one bit what sex the next-born child was. Victoria was to be heiress.