The Change of the Act of Succession - 1979 Constitution Change


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Several posts regarding Victoria's Heir have been moved as they are "off topic" in regards to the subject of this thread. A new thread has been created to discuss the Swedish Line of Succession, it can be found here http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f22/swedish-line-succession-12487.html

As I have stated in the past, The purpose of this thread is to discuss the Act of Succession and how it relates to Crown Princess Victoria, Prince Carl Philip, and the concept of the first born child as heir to the throne or the first born son as heir to the throne, etc.

Let's try to stay focused on the subject at hand
 
Last edited:
What bothers me about the switch in roles between Carl Philip and Victoria is not gender based at all. In fact, I think that if there is any "fair" way to pass down the crown, it is simply to give it to the oldest. However, I do not like that Victoria has not been expected (or maybe encouraged) to take on a military role. It is Carl Philip who has gone through the military training typical of an heir and now the elite training. I believe that either the role of monarch should be altered to adapt to the king or queen that occupies it or that she needs to go through intense military training. However, this idea that she will do everything but the military training and Carl Philip will continue the role for her is bogus.
 
The Constitution states that the Head of State holds all the highest ranks in the Armed Forces, though is not the Commander-in-Chief. Like Elizabeth II a future Queen Victoria of Sweden would hold military ranks and even be entitled to wear military uniform though not actually a professional military person. It is notewothy IMO though that she never appears in military uniform at ceremonies ; as did Queen Elizabeth II and both the British Princess Royal and Belgium's Princess Astrid.
 
What bothers me about the switch in roles between Carl Philip and Victoria is not gender based at all. In fact, I think that if there is any "fair" way to pass down the crown, it is simply to give it to the oldest. However, I do not like that Victoria has not been expected (or maybe encouraged) to take on a military role. It is Carl Philip who has gone through the military training typical of an heir and now the elite training. I believe that either the role of monarch should be altered to adapt to the king or queen that occupies it or that she needs to go through intense military training. However, this idea that she will do everything but the military training and Carl Philip will continue the role for her is bogus.

Given that the mandatory conscription in Sweden is, as far as I understand it (any Swede feel free to correct), solely male, and that females may volunteer for it, but aren't called in to service automatically, it seems rather logical that Carl Philip would go through this anyway. Victoria has gone through some sort of basic military training. She has also taken some courses at the Defence academy.
 
That's true. Victoria has had some training, though Carl Philip has had more.
 
While I completely understand Furiennas opinion on "sticking with traditions", I also like the idea of equality between sexes. There was a time when I was younger, when I thought that CP was not treated fair after the change of the Act of Succession, but these times are long gone. I think CPV does a great job and will be a phantastic queen someday.

But there is still one thing that really bothers me: the unfair treatment of the husbands of the current queens (like Beatrix (Netherlands), Elisabeth (Great Britian), Margarete (Denmark)) and the husbands of the future queens (Victoria (Sweden), Ingrid-Alexandra (Norway), Elisabeth (Belgium), Catharina-Amalia (Netherlands) and as of now Leonor (Spain)). Where is the equality here? Why aren't they / won't they be kings? Why only Prince Consort? I mean, Mette-Marit (Norway), Mary (Denmark), Maxima (Netherlands), Matilde (Belgium), Letizia (Spain) will become queen someday. It would only be fair, if the current / future Prince Consorts will be granted the same rights than their female collegues if the female royals are granted the same rights than their royal male collegues. That's what bothers me the most. Equality yes, but regardless of sex of either part of the future reigning couple (royal heir or husband/wife). It would be really sad if there would be a time without real kings in the future, if there will be only female heirs. And it looks this way right now. Only Denmark and Great Britian will have male heirs (well and the little countries like Luxemburg, Lichtenstein, Monaco).

And please excuse my english. I'm not very good with it. Hopefully you understand what I was trying to say. And yeah, hopefully it's okay to wake up a discussion, that's long gone into some kind of hibernation. After all, the last post was in 2007.
 
Both Spain and Britain had a tradition of the "Crown Matrimonial": a man married to a Queen Regnant (i.e., Sovereign/Head of State) bore the title "King" but without any of the consitutional duties of a Sovereign. The spouse of Isabel II of Spain in the 19th century bore the title "King." One unique situation was the accession of William and Mary to the throne of Great Britain in 1689. Mary was the next Protestant heir after the deposition of James II; her spouse William of Orange (already in the line of succession) insisted he reign with her as joint and effective Sovereign. This was never repeated as the husbands of all subsequent female British Queens Regnant were styled "HRH" and Prince.
 
While I completely understand Furiennas opinion on "sticking with traditions", I also like the idea of equality between sexes. There was a time when I was younger, when I thought that CP was not treated fair after the change of the Act of Succession, but these times are long gone. I think CPV does a great job and will be a phantastic queen someday.
I'm sure too, that Victoria will be a fantastic queen one day. But still, I think how they changed the act of succession was wrong. Carl Philip was born as an heir appearent, a crown prince, while Victoria was "only" born as an heir presumptive. But then, the parlament changed it all, so Victoria became crown princess. Even though they were so tiny back then, that they didn't know what was going on, I don't think it was fair. They should have done like they did in Norway. They too changed the succession laws, so the eldest child, no matter the sex, would be their heir appearant. But they had it come in effect only in the next generation. So that's how Haakon still is crown prince, even though he has an older sister.

But there is still one thing that really bothers me: the unfair treatment of the husbands of the current queens (like Beatrix (Netherlands), Elisabeth (Great Britian), Margarete (Denmark)) and the husbands of the future queens (Victoria (Sweden), Ingrid-Alexandra (Norway), Elisabeth (Belgium), Catharina-Amalia (Netherlands) and as of now Leonor (Spain)). Where is the equality here? Why aren't they / won't they be kings? Why only Prince Consort? I mean, Mette-Marit (Norway), Mary (Denmark), Maxima (Netherlands), Matilde (Belgium), Letizia (Spain) will become queen someday. It would only be fair, if the current / future Prince Consorts will be granted the same rights than their female collegues if the female royals are granted the same rights than their royal male collegues. That's what bothers me the most. Equality yes, but regardless of sex of either part of the future reigning couple (royal heir or husband/wife). It would be really sad if there would be a time without real kings in the future, if there will be only female heirs. And it looks this way right now. Only Denmark and Great Britian will have male heirs (well and the little countries like Luxemburg, Lichtenstein, Monaco).
I totally agree about this. If a king's wife is called "queen", why can't a queen's husband be called "king"? I guess it has to do with fact, that kings were considered superior to queens, so to protect the status of regent queens, their husbands "only" became princes.

And please excuse my english. I'm not very good with it. Hopefully you understand what I was trying to say. And yeah, hopefully it's okay to wake up a discussion, that's long gone into some kind of hibernation. After all, the last post was in 2007.
I think your English is fine. And you can feel free to resurrect threads. By the way, I can't believe, that no one has written in this thread since I did in, what, September 2007?
 
Since many constitutions have changed allowing Princesses to succeed ahead of their younger brothers, IMHO it is time to create a new title for the consorts of reigning Queens and crown princesses. The spouse of a crown prince becomes a crown princess. Why not make the consort (husband) of a crown princess a crown prince consort and when she becomes queen, make the husband His Majesty Prince ..... I believe there should be some method to elevate the spouse of a Queen to a rank higher than a garden variety prince.

I realize this has been debated in these threads before, but wanted to add my opinion.
Thank you.
 
I think the best way round the inequality of titles would be to 'downgrade' female consorts to 'Princess consort' and keep the title King/Queen to the monarch. I might be wrong but I heard that this was being discussed in Holland? Or was it just the fact that Maxima didn't take the title 'Princess of Orange?
 
My opinion of this has never wavered even though people have disagreed with me on this issue. The firstborn of the Monarch would be the heir to the throne unless there was severe mental health issues or a medical issue (being in a coma with little chance of coming out of it for example) which made them mentally or physically unable to carry out their duties. This would have to be verified by several experts who would go before the parliment and present their findings. The parliament would then aprove or disapprove their findings.

If the Monarch didn't have any children, then the next heir to the throne's first born child would be the heir to the throne and so on.

I know people have tried to explain this to me, but I still don't understand why this process took a couple of years (I guess I don't understand all the legalities or other issues behind this). Since the parliment wanted this to go through, it seems like an up or down vote would be the easiest way to resolve this. Again that just my opinion.
 
My opinion of this has never wavered even though people have disagreed with me on this issue. The firstborn of the Monarch would be the heir to the throne unless there was severe mental health issues or a medical issue (being in a coma with little chance of coming out of it for example) which made them mentally or physically unable to carry out their duties. This would have to be verified by several experts who would go before the parliment and present their findings. The parliament would then aprove or disapprove their findings.

If the Monarch didn't have any children, then the next heir to the throne's first born child would be the heir to the throne and so on.

I know people have tried to explain this to me, but I still don't understand why this process took a couple of years (I guess I don't understand all the legalities or other issues behind this). Since the parliment wanted this to go through, it seems like an up or down vote would be the easiest way to resolve this. Again that just my opinion.
It is similar to ratifying amendments to the US constitution. It takes much more than a up or down vote.
 
nascarlucy said:
My opinion of this has never wavered even though people have disagreed with me on this issue. The firstborn of the Monarch would be the heir to the throne unless there was severe mental health issues or a medical issue (being in a coma with little chance of coming out of it for example) which made them mentally or physically unable to carry out their duties. This would have to be verified by several experts who would go before the parliment and present their findings. The parliament would then aprove or disapprove their findings.

If the Monarch didn't have any children, then the next heir to the throne's first born child would be the heir to the throne and so on.

I know people have tried to explain this to me, but I still don't understand why this process took a couple of years (I guess I don't understand all the legalities or other issues behind this). Since the parliment wanted this to go through, it seems like an up or down vote would be the easiest way to resolve this. Again that just my opinion.

I think the first born child should be heir to the throne unless they have committed some scandalous crime. If they're mentally ill the next in line would be regent and will become King/Queen in the fullness of time.

Do you mean that if a Monarch doesn't have any children, the throne should bypass the sibling and pass on to the next generation?

I'm not entirely sure why the law took so long to pass through. I read some interviews with an historian, i think it was Hermann Linquist who said it was because of the political situation. In the 70s the monarchy wasn't in a good position and I guess the best scenario for the republicans was for the King to have no sons and thus no heir. The conservatives therefore proposed equal primogeniture when Victoria was born to secure the monarchy. When Carl Philip was born, the other parties didn't really have much choice but to do the 'progressive' thing.
 
If the monarch didn't have children, then the next child his or her younger brother or sister would be heir to the throne. That's what I meant to say.
 
nascarlucy said:
If the monarch didn't have children, then the next child his or her younger brother or sister would be heir to the throne. That's what I meant to say.

Oh I see. I thought passing the throne directly to the niece/nephew would be an interesting concept especially if the monarch dies of old age. However, there would be all sorts of complications if he/she does not and with the parents being outranked by their child.
 
Esmerelda said:
Oh I see. I thought passing the throne directly to the niece/nephew would be an interesting concept especially if the monarch dies of old age. .

In England the throne was passed from King William V (?) to his niece Victoria but only because her father was deceased .... so conceivably it could happen in Sweden, like if Victoria and Daniel had no children and CP did but passes before Victoria his child would inherit
 
I meant the monarch siblings (brother or sister) if he/she had any would be next in line. The brother or sister would be heir to the throne. However, problems would exist for succession if the monarch lived to be very old and outlived all their siblings. I would guess any children of the heir to the throne would be next, even if their parent died before the monarch did.
 
nascarlucy said:
I meant the monarch siblings (brother or sister) if he/she had any would be next in line. The brother or sister would be heir to the throne. However, problems would exist for succession if the monarch lived to be very old and outlived all their siblings. I would guess any children of the heir to the throne would be next, even if their parent died before the monarch did.

Isn't that what I said? If Victoria is Queen and outlives Carl Phillipe and her and Daniel gave no children but Carl does would not his child become Victoria's heir?right now Carl is Victoria's heir and once she's Queen he will continue to be her heir until she has children, and if she doesn't and outlives him wouldn't the heir be his children? It's like Monaco, until PA and Charlene have kids Caroline is the heiress and her oldest son next...... Am I not correct in this? Or is Sweden different?
 
Am I not correct in this? Or is Sweden different?
Of course you're correct.
If Victoria remains childless and outlives her siblings, the eldest of nephews/nieces inherits the throne.
 
I think the best way round the inequality of titles would be to 'downgrade' female consorts to 'Princess consort' and keep the title King/Queen to the monarch.

I agree. This is the easiest and most sensible (and equitable) way of handling the issue, IMO. It does seem a bit strange nowadays for a female spouse to automatically receive an upgrade to Crown Princess/Queen, while a male spouse must remain "just" a Prince.

But still, I think how they changed the act of succession was wrong. Carl Philip was born as an heir appearent, a crown prince, while Victoria was "only" born as an heir presumptive. But then, the parlament changed it all, so Victoria became crown princess. Even though they were so tiny back then, that they didn't know what was going on, I don't think it was fair.

IIRC, Victoria had no succession rights at all when she was born- women were not eligible for the throne at that time.

Does anyone have more information about the exact timing of the different steps taken to change the succession? I get the impression that the change was already being considered when Victoria was born, and that the new law had in fact been passed by the time Carl Philip was born, but did not officially take effect until he was 7 months old. In that case, it makes sense that they did not make the law retroactive, as in Norway (in addition to the often-made point about the respective ages of the Prince and Princess in Sweden vs. Norway).

I've always wondered why, if he knew the change was coming, the King got as worked up as he did about Carl Philip being displaced...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I agree. This is the easiest and most sensible (and equitable) way of handling the issue, IMO. It does seem a bit strange nowadays for a female spouse to automatically receive an upgrade to Crown Princess/Queen, while a male spouse must remain "just" a Prince.



IIRC, Victoria had no succession rights at all when she was born- women were not eligible for the throne at that time.

Does anyone have more information about the exact timing of the different steps taken to change the succession? I get the impression that the change was already being considered when Victoria was born, and that the new law had in fact been passed by the time Carl Philip was born, but did not officially take effect until he was 7 months old. In that case, it makes sense that they did not make the law retroactive, as in Norway (in addition to the often-made point about the respective ages of the Prince and Princess in Sweden vs. Norway).

I've always wondered why, if he knew the change was coming, the King got as worked up as he did about Carl Philip being displaced...

I fell the other way. I think male consorts should become King-Consort like earlier in Spain and Portugal.
As for the change of the succesion law. In 1979 the where general elections in Seden in the autumn. And this new elected Parliament had to pass the change of the succession law before it could come in force. Therefore it was only a few months after Carl Philip was born.
 
IIRC, Victoria had no succession rights at all when she was born- women were not eligible for the throne at that time.
You seem to be right! :ohmy: So that was why people were so excited, when our current king was born. None of his four sisters had any right to inherit the thrown, since they were girls. And I assumed, that our succession back then went like the British one goes today, that females are allowed to inherit the thrown, but only if they don't have a brother. But still, if every male member of the royal house had died, surely one of our king's sisters could have become queen? After all, we've had two regent queens in Swedish history, Christina and Ulrica Eleonora.

I've always wondered why, if he knew the change was coming, the King got as worked up as he did about Carl Philip being displaced...
Probably because it was more radical than I thought it was. I mean, it went from there being no women in the succession at all to a boy (albeit just a few months old) losing his crown prince title to his sister. It feels like our succession order jumped over a step, where the British succession order now is. Oh well, at least the change to the sucession allowed princes and princesses to marry "commoners" and still keep their royal status, as long as the king gives them permission to do so (hence why Victoria could marry Daniel).
 
Last edited:
Furienna said:
You seem to be right! :ohmy: So that was why people were so excited, when our current king was born. None of his four sisters had any right to inherit the thrown, since they were girls. And I assumed, that our succession back then went like the British one goes today, that females are allowed to inherit the thrown, but only if they don't have a brother. But still, if every male member of the royal house had died, surely one of our king's sisters could have become queen? After all, we've had two regent queens in Swedish history, Christina and Ulrica Eleonora.

Probably because it was more radical than I thought it was. I mean, it went from there being no women in the succession at all to a boy (albeit just a few months old) losing his crown prince title to his sister. It feels like our succession order jumped over a step, where the British succession order now is. Oh well, at least the change to the sucession allowed princes and princesses to marry "commoners" and still keep their royal status, as long as the king gives them permission to do so (hence why Victoria could marry Daniel).

Didn't the original law specifically forbid marriage with Swedish commoners? Although in those days, the King would probably not have given his consent to a marriage with a foreign commoner so I guess it amounts to 'no commoners' after all.
 
Didn't the original law specifically forbid marriage with Swedish commoners? Although in those days, the King would probably not have given his consent to a marriage with a foreign commoner so I guess it amounts to 'no commoners' after all.

IIRC Karl XIV. Johan (Bernadotte) was elected to become the Crown prince and heir to Sweden bei the Riksdag but once he was king he tried rather successfully to cut back the influence of the Swedish nobility and people on his decisions. Having been a liberal and revolutionary in his younger years, he became more and more of an autocrat with extremly conservative opinions.

So for him, any marriage of his elected dynasty was of utmost importance when it came to secure the future of the Bernadottes. They needed as much Royal blood from the mothers side in future kings and princes as possible to make up for the lack of their blood.

When Oscar I. married Josephine of Leuchtenberg, it was clearly a triumph for the Bernadotte, as she was a sister of the empress of Brazil, sister-in-law of the queen of Portugal, niece of the King of Bavaria and the queens of Prussia, Wuerttemberg and Saxony and the empress of Franz I. of Austria and a first cousin to emperor Franz Joseph, his empress Elisabeth, the queen of Naples, the emperor of Mexico and of king Albert of Saxony, who had married the last Wasa of Sweden-princess Carola.

On her father's side she was a first cousin of emperor Napoleon III, of France, whose mother Hortense de Beauharnais was her father's sister.
Thus Karl's son Oscar I. could call most of the European monarchs "cousin" while his sons Karl XV. and Oskar II. already were blood relations.
So Karl XIV. Johan's act of succession surely made sense once.

But: The change of the act of succession in Sweden meant the change of a law from the 1800s and was thus surely necessary as Sweden is such a modern country.
 
...Does anyone have more information about the exact timing of the different steps taken to change the succession? I get the impression that the change was already being considered when Victoria was born, and that the new law had in fact been passed by the time Carl Philip was born, but did not officially take effect until he was 7 months old. ...
Not the exact dates, but to change a Swedish "grundlag" (similar to the constitution) either a referandum need to be called to ratify the Parlaments vote or the parlament have to take it a second time with a general election between the votes (so the voters can stop any untowards cahnge of it), so they parlament toke the first vote well before Carl Phillipe was born, and the second among the first thing they done when called in after the general election.

...
I've always wondered why, if he knew the change was coming, the King got as worked up as he did about Carl Philip being displaced...
He wasn't exactly worked up. The reporter had to drag it out of him what his peronal preference was regarding the Succession.
 
Didn't the original law specifically forbid marriage with Swedish commoners? Although in those days, the King would probably not have given his consent to a marriage with a foreign commoner so I guess it amounts to 'no commoners' after all.
Prince Sigvard married a Polish-German woman, and he lost his status. Lilian Craig was British, but prince Bertil wasn't allowed to marry her until 1976. Indeed, Carl XVI might not have been allowed to marry Silvia, who was German-Brazilian, if he "only" had been a prince. So no, this wasn't just about Swedish commoners, but all commoners.
 
IIRC Karl XIV. Johan (Bernadotte) was elected to become the Crown prince and heir to Sweden bei the Riksdag but once he was king he tried rather successfully to cut back the influence of the Swedish nobility and people on his decisions. Having been a liberal and revolutionary in his younger years, he became more and more of an autocrat with extremly conservative opinions.

So for him, any marriage of his elected dynasty was of utmost importance when it came to secure the future of the Bernadottes. They needed as much Royal blood from the mothers side in future kings and princes as possible to make up for the lack of their blood.

When Oscar I. married Josephine of Leuchtenberg, it was clearly a triumph for the Bernadotte, as she was a sister of the empress of Brazil, sister-in-law of the queen of Portugal, niece of the King of Bavaria and the queens of Prussia, Wuerttemberg and Saxony and the empress of Franz I. of Austria and a first cousin to emperor Franz Joseph, his empress Elisabeth, the queen of Naples, the emperor of Mexico and of king Albert of Saxony, who had married the last Wasa of Sweden-princess Carola.

On her father's side she was a first cousin of emperor Napoleon III, of France, whose mother Hortense de Beauharnais was her father's sister.
Thus Karl's son Oscar I. could call most of the European monarchs "cousin" while his sons Karl XV. and Oskar II. already were blood relations.
So Karl XIV. Johan's act of succession surely made sense once.

But: The change of the act of succession in Sweden meant the change of a law from the 1800s and was thus surely necessary as Sweden is such a modern country.
Yeah, Carl XIV Johan did everything to secure his thrown and make his family as royal as possible. And I can maybe even understand Oscar I (who hadn't been born a royal either) thinking this way. But I don't see any benefit in throwing five princes from later generations (prince Oscar, prince Lennart, prince Sigvard, prince Carl jr and prince Carl Johan) out of the sucession and stripping them of their royal status, especially since at least two of them married aristocrats.
 
Equal primogeniture

I recollect reading that HM King Carl XVI Gustaf was not happy when his son, HRH Prince Carl Philip, was placed behind his first-born child, HRH (now Crown) Princess Victoria. Has this ever caused any friction between father and daughter? Why was HM not happy when the royal succession was changed in Sweden? Has HM ever state his current emotion regarding equal primogeniture? Does HM believe his eldest child is now capable of being the future Queen of Sweden in her own right? Why was HM not happy about the new law at the time?
 
I think the reason why the King was not happy with the law was beacause,CP was born a Crown Prince,and maybe he does not want his son look back and see that he lost he position in a matter of months.

But I think the king is proud of his daughter and knows she will make a good queen.
 
Back
Top Bottom