The Royal Forums

The Royal Forums (http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/)
-   Royal House of Denmark (http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f24/)
-   -   Danish Referendum on Succession Laws; June 2009 (http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f24/danish-referendum-on-succession-laws-june-2009-a-18682.html)

agnessa 10-14-2008 08:46 AM

Danish Referendum on Succession Laws; June 2009
 
I read this article and thought about what our forum members would think about that.

I personally think that it's great because talking about throne it's very important that people can reign no matter is person he or she. Well it's quite unfamiliar for me but thinking in reality I understand that there are actually no difference.

But how you think about that :smile:

Danish Royal Watchers: Danish referendum on succession in June 2009

Duke of Marmalade 10-14-2008 09:22 AM

Interesting to see what will come out of it. The Spanish will have to go the same way in the forseeable future. Personally I think it should not make a difference whether the heir is male or female, it should be the first born, full stop. However, monarchy is much about tradition and history and as much as eg the Dutch are used to female monarchs, other countries, like Spain, are used to males; others, like Britain or Denmark were lucky to experience the worth of a female monarch simply because the male heir was missing.

Coming back to history and tradition. Apart from the fact that both male and female monarchs can be equally as good or bad and therefore sex does not matter at all in terms of suitability, the one thing that IMO still works in favour for males is practicability. A male heir can fully concentrate on his position and work that goes with it. All he needs to do is find a suitable Princess for breeding - at whatever age he likes -, she will have to give birth, raise children, give support etc. A female heiress, eg CP Victoria, will have to do all herself: top job, children (better more than one) before her biological clock starts running out and, most difficult of all, find a suitable husband who is prepared to live a life in the second row. Not the easiest task, as we can already see in Sweden.

Then, there is the issue with the family name. With a male heir it remains through generations but what happens when there is a female heiress who these days is most likely to marry a commoner, producing another heiress marrying a commoner? The name, identity and bloodline finally gets lost and with it the identification (and maybe the need) for the Royal House.

I wonder why the Danish do it now, at this stage, with Christian as first born to be destined to follow his father Frederik. In Spain it will become much more urgent as soon as Letizia has a boy and Leonor losing out on the throne without change of constitution.

Menarue 10-14-2008 09:44 AM

It always puzzles me about this possible change of constitution in Spain so that Leonor can become Queen. How can she become Queen if this discriminatory claim to the throne is changed. If it is changed then it is Infant Helena who will be Queen by right as the eldest child of the King, and she has a son Juan Froilan, so that way Leonor wouldnīt have a chance, and if they go back then King Juan Carlos will have to move off the throne for his sister Infanta Pilar and her descendants...... what a mix up.

Duke of Marmalade 10-14-2008 10:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Menarue (Post 837245)
It always puzzles me about this possible change of constitution in Spain so that Leonor can become Queen. How can she become Queen if this discriminatory claim to the throne is changed. If it is changed then it is Infant Helena who will be Queen by right as the eldest child of the King, and she has a son Juan Froilan, so that way Leonor wouldnīt have a chance, and if they go back then King Juan Carlos will have to move off the throne for his sister Infanta Pilar and her descendants...... what a mix up.

A change can be done retroactively, meaning the next generation to follow up is excluded. It was done in Norway where Haakon remained the heir despite the change to prefer the eldest child. In Sweden Victoria's brother lost his right to the throne when he was only a baby because of the change to prefer the eldest child. In the Spanish case, Felipe will be King and Leonor will be Queen as long as she doesn't have a brother. As soon as she does she will either lose the right or the constitution is being changed. A change would not touch Felipe's right to the throne, what a nightmare, he has been groomed to be monarch all his life (same reason why Haakon remained Norway's heir as he was already 17 when the constitiution changed).

Menarue 10-14-2008 10:11 AM

Well if that is the case Leonor may well become the next Queen.

Jo of Palatine 10-14-2008 11:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duke of Marmalade (Post 837237)

Then, there is the issue with the family name. With a male heir it remains through generations but what happens when there is a female heiress who these days is most likely to marry a commoner, producing another heiress marrying a commoner? The name, identity and bloodline finally gets lost and with it the identification (and maybe the need) for the Royal House.

I'm slowly getting tired with this argument, coming up in different threads at the moment. Countries who change their succession laws normally have already changed their laws on family names before: if the bride wants to keep her name and the newly wed couple wants to make this their new family name, it normally is no longer a problem in most states of Europe.

And there have been historical precedences in the nobility of Europe for centuries, especially in Britain. Or why do you think the current Duke of Sutherland is named Egerton by family name (though he is the senior male line relative to the last duke) when his predeccessor was a Sutherland-Leveson-Gower and the current Countess of Sutherland (next of kin to her predecessor) still is? Only because said Egerton's male line ancestor changed the family name at one point and the rest of the family kept it.

So family names with female heiresses are no problem at all. Of course if Victoria of Sweden marries Mr. Westling, their children can continue to be "Bernadottes".

As for the commoner blood: all those heirs will still be the closest of kin to their predecessors, so the senior heirs to the last king or queen. Is that nothing? Does being the eldest child of a king or a queen not give you superior rights and royalty?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duke of Marmalade (Post 837237)
I wonder why the Danish do it now, at this stage, with Christian as first born to be destined to follow his father Frederik. In Spain it will become much more urgent as soon as Letizia has a boy and Leonor losing out on the throne without change of constitution.

I think they do it exactly because there is not need to do it but they feel it's the only just thing to do in a democratic monarchy with equal rights. It's a long process and they surely don't want the Swedish desaster to happen again.

Al_bina 10-14-2008 12:44 PM

Personally I think that the Danish Royal family is very secure, when it comes to male heirs. Both Crown Prince Frederic and Prince Joachim have got sons. I am not sure what the reasons for this referendum might be.

Lilla 10-14-2008 03:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Al_bina (Post 837313)
I am not sure what the reasons for this referendum might be.

Since 1988 Denmark has had an equality act. In § 1 is written:

"This law aims to promote equality between women and men, including equal integration, equal influence and equal opportunities in all society functions on the basis of women's and men's equal worth. The law is also designed to counteract direct and indirect discrimination because of gender and also to prevent harassment and sexual harassment".

The referendum on succession is simply bringing the principles of this law into use, also when it comes to the succession to the throne. The referendum could have been held back in 1988, but there was no need to do so at the time, as the head of state was female (QMII became Queen in 1972). The need came when CP Frederik got married and was going to have children. It really didn't matter whether his first child was a boy or a girl. The general opinion in parliament and among the Danish people was - now is the time to make a break with the male preference-principle in the act of succession and instead make the principal of the equality act function, also when it comes to the role as head of state.

So the referendum hasn't got anything to do with having sons or not. It is about women's and men's equal worth.

Al_bina 10-14-2008 03:55 PM

If Danish people feel that it is the right time to adapt the succession law to the current times, they have every right to do so. I just do not understand the haste.

Lilla 10-14-2008 04:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Al_bina (Post 837431)
I just do not understand the haste.

You are right - logically there is no haste. The fact that both Frederik and Christian are males makes a referendum like this unnecessary for many years to come.

But the reason for having the referendum now has a political nature and is to be found within the sentiment of the Danes. Women and men are equal - also when it comes to the role as head of state. The referendum will set things straight. I don't think any Danes consider the referendum to be a haste. They more likely think it is something that actually should have been done many years ago - I do.

Regina 10-14-2008 05:09 PM

I don't think it's a waste.

Denmark didn't need this referendum right now, but they seem they want to change the present sucession law because they believe it is not fair and equal as it should be. I find that highly civilized.

Lena 10-14-2008 07:04 PM

I am not seeing a waste or haste either. Actually I am thinking, that this change is overdue (I say that, because I guess, that most Danes would want that...personally I am torn after having watched the Swedish thing way too long ;))
Further - as awful as it may sound - none can guarantee, that Prince Christian would have a long life.
And if a change wouldnīt get done within the next months or years and if there would be a third child of male sex, things could get very weird (as a change got done in the neighbour Monarchies and as it was planned for many years...but as actually by the old law a male person would get prefered)
Things could get ugly or painful between the two remaining siblings...(everything around this scenario is just "if" and "would" of course...but laws have to include "ifs" and "would")

marmi 10-14-2008 08:02 PM

I feel that this should have happened in '88 when the equaltiy law was brought in. It almost undermines it otherwise.
But that is just MO, and I dont want anyone to take offense from it.

Winnie 10-14-2008 08:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duke of Marmalade (Post 837254)
A change can be done retroactively, meaning the next generation to follow up is excluded. It was done in Norway where Haakon remained the heir despite the change to prefer the eldest child. In Sweden Victoria's brother lost his right to the throne when he was only a baby because of the change to prefer the eldest child. In the Spanish case, Felipe will be King and Leonor will be Queen as long as she doesn't have a brother. As soon as she does she will either lose the right or the constitution is being changed. A change would not touch Felipe's right to the throne, what a nightmare, he has been groomed to be monarch all his life (same reason why Haakon remained Norway's heir as he was already 17 when the constitiution changed).

I follow what you are saying but I would like to know exactly who votes on these changes? Can the common member of the country have a say/vote? Also, if the Spanish people want the first born child of JC & Sofia to be Queen instead of Felipe as King, is that possible -- seeing how the law would be changed prior to the death of the present King. What if the general population does not want the next generation excluded? Is that possible? Just wondered because, as you stated, Sweden's prince was already born and it didn't faze them. I read somewhere that Sweden's present King did not like that change and wanted to groom his son for the position of King. Apparently the Royal Family of Sweden didn't have much of a say -- does Spain's Royal Family have more clout?

Duke of Marmalade 10-15-2008 05:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Winnie (Post 837570)
I follow what you are saying but I would like to know exactly who votes on these changes? Can the common member of the country have a say/vote? Also, if the Spanish people want the first born child of JC & Sofia to be Queen instead of Felipe as King, is that possible -- seeing how the law would be changed prior to the death of the present King. What if the general population does not want the next generation excluded? Is that possible? Just wondered because, as you stated, Sweden's prince was already born and it didn't faze them. I read somewhere that Sweden's present King did not like that change and wanted to groom his son for the position of King. Apparently the Royal Family of Sweden didn't have much of a say -- does Spain's Royal Family have more clout?

I am not an expert Winnie but I believe that the members of the public of a country will have the right to vote. Regarding Spain Felipe's position as heir is not touched, it's about the abolishment of the male preference in favour of the eldest child regardless of sex from the next generation onwards. The idea is to make Leonor Queen regardless whether she will have a brother or not. Felipe said after Leonor's birth “in keeping with the logic of the times” his daughter would be his successor “if deemed so by the Cortes (parliament)” and that pretty much sums it up. Men and women are equal and that should be reflected in monarchies too in the 21st century, regardless of all concerns that eg the Swedish King and Queen had, as you say correctly.

BeatrixFan 10-15-2008 06:30 AM

The most common criticism of monarchy as an institution is that it's out-dated and so I think it's wise of the Royal Houses of the world to make sure that they can prove otherwise. This is a nessecary step and I hope to see other countries following suit even if they aren't in the position Denmark is.

Winnie 10-15-2008 10:01 AM

Thank you Duke of Marmalade for clearing up. So, in fact, Sweden's constitutional change started the day it was signed into law [reason prince lost his right to throne and Victoria is future Queen] But if Spain passes the same constitutional change, it is believed that it will not change anything until AFTER Felipe sits on throne. Otherwise, Felipe's older sister would be next in line to be Queen on the King's passing ---if they adopted the SAME wording in Spain as they did in Sweden. Damn, it sure could get down right hairy if not worded exactly correct. Wars have been started over less.

Makes you wonder why Sweden didn't think of that since the Prince was already born and it was known that is what the Swedish King wanted. Someday it will probably make a good movie.

avrilo 10-15-2008 10:29 AM

If you think about it, it is the same to chose someone becuase of their gender or their order of birth. It should be more related to which one of the sibblings is more capable of ruling, or which one has this or that skills required to take the crown

IMO this shouldn't be an urgent matter to Denmark since there is no problem with the sucession line like in Spain, but is good to be prevented rather than having a case like the one in Sweden

Lena 10-15-2008 10:45 AM

Quote:

If you think about it, it is the same to chose someone becuase of their gender or their order of birth. It should be more related to which one of the sibblings is more capable of ruling, or which one has this or that skills required to take the crown
Yes, of course. But starting with capability, would make the Monarchies pointless completely ;)

tdarlene 10-15-2008 01:20 PM

Quote:

Makes you wonder why Sweden didn't think of that since the Prince was already born and it was known that is what the Swedish King wanted. Someday it will probably make a good movie.
I red some time ago that the reason why Victoria will be Queen isntead of her brother, it was because when Princess Victoria was born doctors told that Queen Silvia couldīt have any other children, wether that's true or not I don't know, but Victoria was born and it was decided to change the law, so Victoria could be Queen, so when Prince Carl Phillip was born the law had been already changed and aproved. So if they had changed the law only after Prince Carl Phillip birth, it would be him the next monarch.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:17 AM.

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2014
Jelsoft Enterprises