Titles of the Swedish RF and Changes 2019

[Silverpot]

In Sweden, The Princess (Prinsessan) is used for all princesses, but the distinction between Prinsessan (The Princess) and Prinsessa (Princess) in Swedish is not carried through to the English translation.

https://www.kungahuset.se/kungafamiljen.4.1c3432a100d8991c5b80002606.html

For some reason, the usage is different for the Swedish princes, who are Prins (Prince) rather than Prinsen (The Prince).

There is no distinction, it's just Swedish grammar. The definitive form is put at the end of the noun, -an for female and -en for male words. For some reason it sounds really odd to say prinsen before the name but it's not wrong, just awkward, in some instances, but not always.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

There is no distinction, it's just Swedish grammar. The definitive form is put at the end of the noun, -an for female and -en for male words. For some reason it sounds really odd to say prinsen before the name but it's not wrong, just awkward, in some instances, but not always.

But you said it yourself: -an/-en indicates the definite form. So there is a distinction in Swedish grammar between the definite form (Prinsessan and Prinsen) and the indefinite form (Prinsessa and Prins).

 

[Tatiana Maria]

People who have read my posts in the past two years, after Prince Carl Philip and Princess Madeleine's children lost their membership in the Royal House, might remember me writing several times that although the Royal Court at the time did not clarify whether the children retained their titles of Princess/Prince of Sweden, I thought it was extremely likely (indeed, I think I said I was almost certain) that they had lost them and only retained the courtesy title of Princess/Prince. Not only because it was the way the three sisters of the King who married unequally were treated, but because, as others previously pointed out, when the changes were made to the Royal House in 2019 the Royal Court edited the children's entries at the official website to remove the reference to "Princess/Prince of Sweden".

For example, here is the section for Princess Leonore when she belonged to the Royal House:

H.K.H. Prinsessan Leonore

Leonore Lilian Maria, Prinsessa av Sverige, Hertiginna av Gotland, föddes den 20 februari 2014 som första barn till Prinsessan Madeleine och herr Christopher O'Neill.
​

Compare it to her entry as it appeared after her removal from the Royal House:

Prinsessan Leonore

Prinsessan Leonore Lilian Maria föddes den 20 februari 2014. Prinsessan är Hertiginna av Gotland. Prinsessan Leonore döptes i Drottningholms slottskyrka den 8 juni 2014.
​

In contrast, the section for Prince Oscar (who remains a member of the Royal House) remained unchanged at the time and continued to include "Prince of Sweden".



However, the recently renewed official website has clarified the situation at last. Unlike the unequally married sisters of the King, the children of the King's younger children did retain their title of Princess/Prince of Sweden.

https://www.kungahuset.se/english/royal-house


Here is the beginning of the new entry for Princess Leonore:

Leonore Lilian Maria

Princess of Sweden, Duchess of Gotland
*Ledamot och kommendör av Kungl. Maj:ts Orden*

[...]​

For comparison, the entry for Princess Christina:

Christina Louise Helena

Holds the title Princess Christina, Mrs Magnuson
*Ledamot och kommendör av Kungl. Maj:ts Orden*

[...]​

I will say that while I am pleased the Royal Court has finally provided a clear answer, it comes as a surprise to me, because why did the court bother to remove the Princess/Prince of Sweden from the biographies of Alexander, Gabriel, Leonore, Nicolas, and Adrienne in 2019 if no change to that title was ever intended?

I wonder if the Royal Court might have consciously left it ambiguous in 2019 because at that stage the parliamentary inquiry into the Royal House was still in progress. As we saw in the parliamentary reports last year, the inquiry into the Royal House's appanage branched out to study a variety of legal issues including the succession to the crown and the dynastic rights of different categories of family members. Perhaps this is a stretch, but I wonder if the Royal Court was intentionally vague about the Princess/Prince of Sweden issue until the report was complete just in case the report decided the Act of Succession's "raised within the realm" clause should be read as meaning that Princesses/Princes of Sweden were required to be raised in Sweden.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

And some further title-related updates from the renewed website:

The King's title apparently no longer includes Duke of Jämtland.

https://www.kungahuset.se/kungl.-huset/h.m.-konungen

The King's father is now designated as Hereditary Prince Gustaf Adolf in some sections of the website (even though the title was not officially used by the court during his lifetime).
https://www.kungahuset.se/kungl.-huset/atten-bernadotte

It is clarified that the King created the Crown Princess Duchess of Västergötland on January 9, 1980. She had become Crown Princess on January 1, 1980.
https://www.kungahuset.se/kungl.-huset/h.k.h.-kronprinsessan

I had always wrongly assumed that Victoria was created a Duchess when she became Crown Princess. I wonder what the reason was for the eight-day gap.

 

[Mbruno]

People who have read my posts in the past two years, after Prince Carl Philip and Princess Madeleine's children lost their membership in the Royal House, might remember me writing several times that although the Royal Court at the time did not clarify whether the children retained their titles of Princess/Prince of Sweden, I thought it was extremely likely (indeed, I think I said I was almost certain) that they had lost them and only retained the courtesy title of Princess/Prince. Not only because it was the way the three sisters of the King who married unequally were treated, but because, as others previously pointed out, when the changes were made to the Royal House in 2019 the Royal Court edited the children's entries at the official website to remove the reference to "Princess/Prince of Sweden".

For example, here is the section for Princess Leonore when she belonged to the Royal House:

H.K.H. Prinsessan Leonore

Leonore Lilian Maria, Prinsessa av Sverige, Hertiginna av Gotland, föddes den 20 februari 2014 som första barn till Prinsessan Madeleine och herr Christopher O'Neill.
​

Compare it to her entry as it appeared after her removal from the Royal House:

Prinsessan Leonore

Prinsessan Leonore Lilian Maria föddes den 20 februari 2014. Prinsessan är Hertiginna av Gotland. Prinsessan Leonore döptes i Drottningholms slottskyrka den 8 juni 2014.
​

In contrast, the section for Prince Oscar (who remains a member of the Royal House) remained unchanged at the time and continued to include "Prince of Sweden".



However, the recently renewed official website has clarified the situation at last. Unlike the unequally married sisters of the King, the children of the King's younger children did retain their title of Princess/Prince of Sweden.

https://www.kungahuset.se/english/royal-house


Here is the beginning of the new entry for Princess Leonore:

Leonore Lilian Maria

Princess of Sweden, Duchess of Gotland
*Ledamot och kommendör av Kungl. Maj:ts Orden*

[...]​

For comparison, the entry for Princess Christina:

Christina Louise Helena

Holds the title Princess Christina, Mrs Magnuson
*Ledamot och kommendör av Kungl. Maj:ts Orden*

[...]​

I will say that while I am pleased the Royal Court has finally provided a clear answer, it comes as a surprise to me, because why did the court bother to remove the Princess/Prince of Sweden from the biographies of Alexander, Gabriel, Leonore, Nicolas, and Adrienne in 2019 if no change to that title was ever intended?

I wonder if the Royal Court might have consciously left it ambiguous in 2019 because at that stage the parliamentary inquiry into the Royal House was still in progress. As we saw in the parliamentary reports last year, the inquiry into the Royal House's appanage branched out to study a variety of legal issues including the succession to the crown and the dynastic rights of different categories of family members. Perhaps this is a stretch, but I wonder if the Royal Court was intentionally vague about the Princess/Prince of Sweden issue until the report was complete just in case the report decided the Act of Succession's "raised within the realm" clause should be read as meaning that Princesses/Princes of Sweden were required to be raised in Sweden.

That is all surprising, but I suspect it has to do with the opinion of the Constitutional Committee that the category of "princes and princesses of Royal House" as used in the Act of Succession includes all persons in the line of succession, regardless of their being designated HRHs and members of the Royal House by the Royal Court or not.



By implication, I would assume that the legal requirement in the Act of Succession that "princes and princesses of the Royal House" be raised in Sweden still applies to Princess Madeleine's children. Leonore, in particular, is already of school age, which, in the past, was mentioned by the Court as the age threshold for the residence requirement to be enforced. So, I wonder what the legal implications will be for Madeleine's children as far as their status as "Princes/Princesses of Sweden" is concerned.

 

[Mbruno]

Bernadotte: When Crown Princess Victoria married Daniel Westling, the Tax Agency found that the family had the surname Bernadotte notwithstanding that they did not use it. There is no law that says Alexander et al could not resume its use.

Prince: While Julian was never a member of the Royal House and thus did not have an HRH or of Sweden, he was created Prince Julian and Duke of Halland by the King, so we can be sure the King at least has the authority to create members of his family Prince/Princess and Duke/Duchess as personal honorary titles. However, the Marshal of the Court claimed at the press conference in 2019 that the grandchildren who were removed from the Royal House were not to share their titles with future spouses and children.

Count: The paragraph stating that the King could ennoble counts (as well as barons and untitled nobility) was removed from the new Constitution in 1975, but the new Constitution did not explicitly disallow the King from creating counts and barons. By way of comparison, the paragraph stating that the King could create dukedoms for royal princes was removed in 1975 as well, but it is clear many more ducal creations have followed after 1975.

Bernadotte: I don't find the specific reference you quoted to be authoritative. First of all, the author himself says that the King's lawyer and the Tax Agency disagree on whether the Royal Family does not have a legal surname , or has one, but does not use it. Second, he admits that, if the Tax Agency's interpretation is correct, its practice of allowing members of the Royal Family to be registered with an asterisk in the surname field is contradictory. Third, he makes a conjecture that the Tax Agency's practice will be abandoned for people born under the new naming law; that conjecture has now been proven false since Princess Estelle at least has been registered with an asterisk in the surname field .

Prince: the Royal Court website has now reverted to refer to Carl Philip's and Madeleine's children as Prince/Princess [xxx] "of Sweden". Moreover, regardless of the definition that the Court uses for "the Royal House" versus the "Royal Family", the constitutional committee of the Swedish Parliament has confirmed that all persons in the line of succession are members of the "Royal House" for the purposes of the Act of Succession, the Instrument of Government, and, I would assume, other public laws and regulations including the law on the use of the Coat of Arms of the Kingdom of Sweden and the ordinance regulating the Royal Orders of Knighthood. That explains why the King's grandchidren can be Knights/Members of the Order of the Seraphim and can use a differenced version of the Grand Coat of Arms of the Kingdom as their personal arms. They are also probaby still subject to the restrictions imposed on "Princes and Princesses of the Royal House" by the Act of Succession. Those are gray areas, however.

Count: if a power is not explicitly attributed to the King by the constitution, then the King does not have such power, unless it is recognized as a royal prerogative by unwritten constitutional convention. It is generally acccepted in Sweden, even by the House of Nobility itself , that the King of Sweden, since 1975, can no longer create new barons and counts.

Inget nyadlande – ingen har längre rätt att adla
Regentens rätt att adla upphörde 1974. Det kan alltså inte adlas några nya personer i Sverige .

How can we explain then the continuing practice of Princes and Princesses of the Royal House being awarded life duchies? That possibility, which existed explicitly in the Instrument of Government of 1809, was also removed from the Instrument of Government of 1974, but apparently falls under the category of recognized unwritten prerogatives that the King has, in this case, to decide the titles and styles of the members of the Royal House (note: that prerogative was also acknowledged in the report of the Constitutional Committee). Could it extend to awarding other life titles such as count in addition to the traditional duchies? Personally, I find it unlikely since it would not be in line with the tradition on the use of titles as also codified in the previous Instrument of Government.

Furthermore, the King could only invoke the royal prerogative to give out such titles if CP's and Madeleine's children were still legally members of the Royal House (in the sense of Swedish public law, not in the definition used by the Royal Court). Most likely, however, CP's and Madeleine's children will not receive consent of the Swedish government to get married, unless the King or his successor (probably Queen Victoria) explicitly requests such consent. Without the aforementioned consent, they and the descendants of their marriages will be excluded from the line of succession and, consequently, from the Royal House (in the sense used in the Act of Succession). If CP's or Madeleine's grandchildren are not born Princes or Princesses of the Royal House, invoking royal prerogative to give them any title will not be possible then, since the prerogative as stated applies to members of the Royal House only.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Except there is no legal reason to deny Sofia the style that a woman marrying into the royal family would normally obtain.

Traditionally men have not derived titles from their wives, but women traditionally do take the female version of their husbands titles as we can see from the current kings sisters (Baroness, Princess, Mrs) and with his late aunt HRH Princess Lilian Duchess of Halland.

Except Sweden no longer practices morganatic marriages. Which means that if she marries CP people are going to have to suck it up because she'll be a princess.

Comparing the hypothetical situation of her not getting titles to Chris not having titles is a poor analogy. In western custom, women typically take their husband's names at marriage, the husband pretty much never does the same (and him doing so is not automatic). While it is becoming more common for women to chose not to take their husband's names, it pretty much doesn't happen in Royal circles unless the woman is a heir herself. For Sofia to chose to not hold titles would be to go against custom. She could, but I wouldn't expect it. Chris on the other hand not accepting a title wasn't at all abnormal.

If Sofia was deliberately denied a title, however - if the King or the government decided that she couldn't hold her husband's titles as is the right of any wife in Sweden - then they would be recreating morganatic law in the 21st century.

If for whatever reason a woman is deemed not fit to represent a country as a royal then that country through its monarch or government should not consent to her marrying into the family. To grant consent and then to take a step backwards and try to say that the marriage is unequal or morganatic and that she is not to have any titles, or to only have lesser titles, is to take a step backwards.

Where did you all read that there would need to be a legal reason for a woman to be denied the right to take her husband's title but not for the other way around?

Professor Martin Sunnqvist's extremely well researched 2021 report to the parliamentary committee on the honours system, public flag days and allowance to the royal court (page 139) does not appear to bear that out:

Av tradition har hustrun följt mannens stånd, vilket gällde enligt 9 kap. 1 § i 1734 års giftermålsbalk och fortsatte att gälla enligt 4 § lagen om införande av 1920 års giftermålsbalk. Detta har lett till att prinsars hustrur per automatik har fått titeln prinsessa.816 Vad som numera gäller är mera oklart, men det har ansetts att konungen tilldelade prins Bertils gemål Lilian prinsesstiteln vid giftermålet. Om det är korrekt torde även prinsessan Sofia ha tilldelats en prinsesstitel, precis som konungen har förlänat titeln prins till prins Daniel. Det synes vara en lämplig ordning att beslut fattas i varje enskilt fall, eftersom det inte längre går att falla tillbaka på 1734 års giftermålsbalk.


(By tradition the rank of the wife followed that of the husband, which was in accordance with chapter 9, section 1 of the marriage code of 1734 and continued to apply under section 4 of the law on the implementation of the marriage code of 1920. This led to wives of princes automatically receiving the title of princess. The current state of matters is less clear, but the king was considered to have conferred Prince Bertil's spouse Lilian with the princess title upon the marriage. If this is correct, Princess Sofia must also have been conferred with a princess title, just as the king granted the title of prince to Prince Daniel. It seems to be a suitable arrangement that a decision is taken on each individual occasion, since it is no longer possible to fall back on the marriage code of 1734.)
​

https://www.regeringen.se/4a718f/co...-av-anslaget-till-hovet-sou-202174-bilaga.pdf


By the way, when did the marriage code of 1734/1920 cease to apply? (Evidently it was before 1976.)

 

[JR76]

By the way, when did the marriage code of 1734/1920 cease to apply? (Evidently it was before 1976.)

The marriage code of 1734 was replaced by the marriage code of 1920 which in turn was replaced by the marriage code of 1987. In addition to this there were numerous amendments to the law of 1920 during the years of it's application.

 

[royal_enthusiast]

If Prince Carl Philip and Princess Sofia divorced, does anyone know what titles Princess Sofia may possibly keep after the divorce?

Would she still be a Princess of Sweden? A duchess? Would she still be a member of the royal house? Or perhaps, would she still be a Princess of Sweden but lose the HRH and her membership of the royal house as kind of compromise.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

If Prince Carl Philip and Princess Sofia divorced, does anyone know what titles Princess Sofia may possibly keep after the divorce?

Would she still be a Princess of Sweden? A duchess? Would she still be a member of the royal house? Or perhaps, would she still be a Princess of Sweden but lose the HRH and her membership of the royal house as kind of compromise.

If they keep it simple: a married wife can, by social custom, be addressed by her spouse's name and eventual titles. Sofia Hellqvist became Princess Sofia of Sweden by virtue of her marriage to Prince Carl Philip of Sweden. Logica would say: with the end of said marriage, Sofia ceases to be a member of the Royal House and is no longer addressed as the wife of Prince Carl Philip. But in 2023 everything is possible.

 

[Somebody]

I completely follow your logic Duc_et_Pair, I guess it would depend on the normal naming customs in Sweden. If they normally revert back to their own name (which I seem to remember from her sister's divorce), I see no reason why that would be different for someone who was previously membered to a member of the royal house.

The UK seems one of probably a few exceptions where people tend to keep their married name even after a divorce, which custom is subsequently also applied in the nobility and royal family.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

For what it is worth, King Carl XVI Gustaf's opinion in 1977 was that the husband of a queen regnant should retain the title of prince after a divorce. Interesting, he also believed that issues of titles and membership of the Royal House should be decided in accordance with not only Swedish practice but European princely law as well.

https://www.riksdagen.se/sv/dokument-lagar/dokument/proposition/om-kvinnlig-tronfoljd_G10371/html

Personally, I was under the impression that divorcées retained their married names more often than not (possibly because the ex-wives of the various non-royal Bernadottes appear to prefer to keep the name, as did Prince Daniel's sister), but I have not looked at any statistics.

 

[doro]

How the future of the Dukedom of Västergötland when Victoria becomes Queen?

 

[Archduchess Zelia]

She remains Duchess of Västergötland when she ascends the throne – just like CG is still the Duke of Jämtland.

 

[Silverpot]

She remains Duchess of Västergötland when she ascends the throne – just like CG is still the Duke of Jämtland.

I'm not sure about that, The King renounced the duke title when he ascended the throne, as the tradition bids.

Victoria can chose to do therwise of course.

 

[JR76]

For what it is worth, King Carl XVI Gustaf's opinion in 1977 was that the husband of a queen regnant should retain the title of prince after a divorce. Interesting, he also believed that issues of titles and membership of the Royal House should be decided in accordance with not only Swedish practice but European princely law as well.

His Majesty also referred to this princely law (fursterätten) when he removed his grandchildren from the Royal House claiming that as master of his house it was his right to organise said house.

Personally, I was under the impression that divorcées retained their married names more often than not (possibly because the ex-wives of the various non-royal Bernadottes appear to prefer to keep the name, as did Prince Daniel's sister), but I have not looked at any statistics.

I don't know about any statistics, but it's not legally possible to make someone change their surnames after a divorce. Judging from people I know a divorcée is more likely to keep their ex-spouse's surname or a surname that they choose together if there are children born to the couple.

 

[Heavs]

His Majesty also referred to this princely law (fursterätten) when he removed his grandchildren from the Royal House claiming that as master of his house it was his right to organise said house.


I don't know about any statistics, but it's not legally possible to make someone change their surnames after a divorce. Judging from people I know a divorcée is more likely to keep their ex-spouse's surname or a surname that they choose together if there are children born to the couple.

The UK seems to split the difference. The Monarch is "the font of all honours" and can create a person the Duke of ABC but only Parliament can then take that away. The Monarch has control over how and when HRH and Prince/ss are used. It's actually surprisingly difficult to renounce an aristocratic title (at least after 1 year) and not just for royals.

It's the same in the UK. A woman is more likely to keep her married name if there are children or perhaps she is well known professionally by that name. Or I suppose if it is considered "better" than her maiden name for whatever reason.

CG's 1977 opinion that a divorced husband of a Queen Regnant should retain "Prince" might end up in the sort of "middle ground" of "Diana, Princess of Wales" and "Sarah, Duchess of York" to distinguish them from any further person a Queen R might marry, perhaps? Or he may have changed it completely since then.

Interesting thread, I had not realised that CP and Madeleine's children eventually retained "of Sweden" without retaining the HKH. Interesting.

I can't find any definite info right now, but does Prince Julian have a COA and the Order of the Seraphim? Because although his is "of Sweden" he was never a member of the royal house and I don't remember his being um, "grandfathered" in.

 

[Somebody]

As can be seen on these pictures, prince Julian did receive the Order of the Seraphim at the time of his christening.

And this is supposedly his Coat of Arms (the same as prince Bertil's, the previous duke of Halland).

 

[Heavs]

As can be seen on these pictures, prince Julian did receive the Order of the Seraphim at the time of his christening.

And this is supposedly his Coat of Arms (the same as prince Bertil's, the previous duke of Halland).

Thanks. I had seen those photos before but I hadn't noticed the Order.

That COA was precisely why I asked actually because it seemed like people were *assuming* it would be like or the same as Prince Bertil's. A couple of websites even put it next to the baby but say "this one is Bertil's but presumably it's similar." But there doesn't seem to be anything official that I can find either way, but it's late and my google fu may be failing me.

 

[Mbruno]

Thanks. I had seen those photos before but I hadn't noticed the Order.

That COA was precisely why I asked actually because it seemed like people were *assuming* it would be like or the same as Prince Bertil's. A couple of websites even put it next to the baby but say "this one is Bertil's but presumably it's similar." But there doesn't seem to be anything official that I can find either way, but it's late and my google fu may be failing me.

The use of personal arms by the Swedish royals is actually regulated by law. Basically, as far as I understand, what the law says is that the Greater Coat of Arms of Sweden coincides with the King's personal coat of arms and that, in addition, the King can give "other members of the Royal House" permission to use the greater national coat of arms as their personal arms with such changes and additions that the head of state determines. My understanding is that the State Herald advises the King on the design of the personal coats of arms of members of the Royal House.

There was some confusion regarding Prince Julian because, when his siblings were stripped of the HRH (before he was born), the Court's press release seemed to suggest that they (and by extension any future child of Prince Carl Philip such as Julian) were no longer considered members of the Royal House. If so, how can Julian have a royal coat of arms under current law?

The answer seems to be that, following the interpretation of the Constitutional Committee of the Swedish Parliament, any reference to the "Royal House" in Swedish law, including the Act of Succession and the Instrument of Government (and, I assume, by extension the law on the Coat of Arms of Sweden) is to be interpreted as a reference to all persons in the line of succession to the throne, regardless of their titles or styles, which the Committee accepted is a matter to be decided by the King on his own discretion.

Therefore, Prince Julian is still a "member of the Royal House" in the strict legal sense and, accordingly, entitled to a personal coat of arms that is a differenced version of the Greater Coat of Arms of Sweden, even though, for internal purposes, including titles and styles, the Royal Court now uses a narrower definition of "Royal House" that does not include Prince Carl Philip's or Princess Madeleine's children.

It is all quite messy to be honest. To make things worse, it looks like "the Royal House" also includes Queen Silvia, Prince Daniel and Princess Sofia, as they have also been given (registered) royal coats of arms, even though, following the Constitutional Committee's interpretation, they are not in the line of succession. Maybe we could say that the Royal House includes then people in the line of succession or the King plus their respective consorts, but that definition fails in the case of Chris O'Neill, who is not a member of the Royal House and does not have a royal coat of arms.

And what about Princess Birgitta? She is also considered a member of the Royal House (by the Court at least) and bears personal arms, but is not (and never has been) in the line of succession either, nor is she a consort of someone who is in the line of succession. Princess Birgitta's arms were granted, however, before the current law on royal arms came into force, so maybe the King at the time had greater freedom to grant personal coats of arms as he saw fit. Furthermore, the style HRH at the time was borne by all paternal line descendants of King Karl XIV Johan as long as their marriages were dynastic, which is Birgitta's case.

 

[Heavs]

The use of personal arms by the Swedish royals is actually regulated by law. Basically, as far as I understand, what the law says is that the Greater Coat of Arms of Sweden coincides with the King's personal coat of arms and that, in addition, the King can give "other members of the Royal House" permission to use the greater national coat of arms as their personal arms with such changes and additions that the head of state determines. My understanding is that the State Herald advises the King on the design of the personal coats of arms of members of the Royal House.

There was some confusion regarding Prince Julian because, when his siblings were stripped of the HRH (before he was born), the Court's press release seemed to suggest that they (and by extension any future child of Prince Carl Philip such as Julian) were no longer considered members of the Royal House. If so, how can Julian have a royal coat of arms?

The answer seems to be that, following the interpretation of the Constitutional Committee of the Swedish Parliament, any reference to the "Royal House" in Swedish law, including the Act of Succession and the Instrument of Government (and, I assume, by extension the law on the Coat of Arms of Sweden) is to be interpreted as a reference to all persons in the line of succession to the throne, regardless of their titles or styles, which the Committee accepted is a matter to be decided by the King on his own discretion.

Therefore, Prince Julian is still a "member of the Royal House" in the strict legal sense and, accordingly, entitled to a personal coat of arms that is a differenced version of the Greater Coat of Arms of Sweden, even though, for internal purposes, including titles and styles, the Royal Court now uses a narrower definition of "Royal House" that does not include Prince Carl Philip's or Princess Madeleine's children.

It is all quite messy to me to be honest. To make things worse, it looks like "the Royal House" also includes Queen Silvia, Prince Daniel and Princess Sofia, as they have also been given (registered) royal coats of arms, even though, following the Constitutional Committee's interpretation, they are not in the line of succession. Maybe we could say that the Royal House includes then people in the line of succession or the King plus their respective consorts, but that definition fails in the case of Chris O'Neill, who is not a member of the Royal House and does not have a royal coat of arms.

And what about Princess Birgitta? She is also considered a member of the Royal House (by the Court at least) and bears personal arms, but is not (and never has been) in the line of succession either, nor is she a consort of someone who is in the line of succession. Princess Birgitta's arrms were granted, however, before the current law came into force, so maybe the King at the time had a greater freedom to grant personal coats of arms. Furthermore, the style HRH at the time was borne by all paternal line descendants of King Karl XIV Johan as long as their marriages were dynastic, which is Birgitta's case.

I agree, it seems to be clear as mud. It's even worse than the UK's "working royals" vs "royal family" because they don't try and have two versions of "The Royal House" simultaneously, one that officially includes the King, Queen, CP couple, Estelle, Oscar, CP, Sofia and Madeleine ege HKHs, but that a 2nd slightly less official "Royal House" also exists that includes everyone in the LOS and they get everything but HKH but are still "royal house" even though they're only listed as "Bernadotte Dynasty" officially.

It seems to be that the King is trying his best to please everyone? Or please all aspects of himself perhaps. He knew he had to make a decision on the Madeleine's Children Question sooner rather than later because it looked like they were in the US for good but he didn't want to strip them of everything. And to make it fair decided to make only the heir's children "official" members of the Royal House vs Royal Family. But he also can't quite bear to shut his other grandchildren, perhaps particularly those of his son out of "of Sweden" so waits until the review is concluded before quietly putting it back on their pages (and perhaps never removing it officially as websites aren't the actual declarations), even though they are listed under "Bernadotte Dynasty".

I don't actually disagree that a monarch should have the authority to choose who is HRH, which Duchy, who gets which royal orders etc but it does run the risk of becoming very, very messy and unclear. Especially when it comes to the Succession which is also necessarily a government and constitutional matter.

I think Julian surprised his grandfather. If he knew there was a new baby potentially coming soon after then he may have tried to hold off until then because it did complicate things as joyful as his existence is for his family.

 

[LadyFinn]

As can be seen on these pictures, prince Julian did receive the Order of the Seraphim at the time of his christening.

And this is supposedly his Coat of Arms (the same as prince Bertil's, the previous duke of Halland).

This is the Coat of Arms of Prince Julian, at the website of the Swedish National Archives.
https://riksarkivet.se/Media/Bilder/heraldik/PrinsJulian.png
Nya heraldiska vapen 2021 - Riksarkivet
And at the website of Leif Ericsson, the painter of the Swedish Royal Family's Coats of Arms:
https://leifericsson.se/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Serafimersköldar-2021-light.jpg

 

[PhillyMonarchist]

will Daniel Keep his duke title when Victoria becomes Queen?

 

[Somebody]

will Daniel Keep his duke title when Victoria becomes Queen?

If Victoria keeps hers officially, I suppose he will keep his as well but I don't think he will suddenly be known by that title but expect him to continue to be known as Prince Daniel (or alternatively The Prince Consort).

 

[PhillyMonarchist]

Those princesses weren't in line to the throne and neither were their children, so there situation is not comparable. If Madeleine had not agreed to allow her children titles (which was most likely the wish of her father - Leonore was born as the spare in her generation!), they would have been the first in Swedish history to be in line to the throne but not be prince(ss).

Imho the alternative of having non-royals in line to the throne would have been option as well (Norway for example chose that route - but Märtha Louise herself had already been demoted, unlike Madeleine) but the situation of her children was a completely new one to Sweden. Children of a princess in line to the throne; the only other person that applied to was: Estelle. Of course, she was in a special position of being also the heir to the heir, so, they could have decided either way but there wasn't a precedent to follow.

Currently, the European monarchies are divided in whether everyone in line to the throne is titled or not.

Only titled:
Sweden (all princes; some HRH and 'of Sweden'; others no (longer) HRH and of Sweden)
Denmark (all princes; some HRH; some HH)
The Netherlands (some princes of the Netherlands (HRH); some counts of Orange-Nassau; previously: some princes of Orange-Nassau (HH))
Belgium (all princes - all HRH)
Luxembourg (all princes - some HRH other HH - some of Luxembourg; some of Nassau)
Liechtenstein (all princes - all HSH)

Both titled and untitled:
Norway (children of ML (a princess but not a RH) are untitled)
Spain (children of infanta's are grandees of Spain - sons go before daughters in line of succession)
United Kingdom (children of princesses are untitled unless their father is titled/received a title; children of non-titled people are also untitled)
Monaco (children of the Sovereign are titled; the others are not)

Expect for Alexandra of course

 

[Heavs]

This is the Coat of Arms of Prince Julian, at the website of the Swedish National Archives.
https://riksarkivet.se/Media/Bilder/heraldik/PrinsJulian.png
Nya heraldiska vapen 2021 - Riksarkivet
And at the website of Leif Ericsson, the painter of the Swedish Royal Family's Coats of Arms:
https://leifericsson.se/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Serafimersköldar-2021-light.jpg

Thank you,glad to get a definite answer when it seemed mind in speculation.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

She remains Duchess of Västergötland when she ascends the throne – just like CG is still the Duke of Jämtland.

Carl XVI Gustaf was the first monarch to persist in using his ducal title after ascending the throne, and I hope Victoria will not follow her father's example. From the historically conscious viewpoint, it is totally illogical considering the origins of duchies as feudal states which remained under the sovereignty of the king but were governed autonomously by a member of the royal family as a vassal of the sovereign. To paraphrase a comment I read elsewhere, it is strange for the king to own part of his own realm as a vassal of himself.

I'm not sure about that, The King renounced the duke title when he ascended the throne, as the tradition bids.

The King has referred to himself as Duke of Jämtland after his accession, and until the revision of the official website last year, his biography on kungahuset.se also referred to him as Duke of Jämtland (see the captures on archive.org).

 

[doro]

According to the blog A Royal Heraldry, at the part two of the royal dukedoms of Sweden, Carl XVI Gustaf was Duke of Jämtland from 1950 until 1973

 

[Tatiana Maria]

They can take it up with the King since he is the one who decided that he was still the Duke of Jämtland after 1973.

"Carl Gustaf Folke Hubertus, King of Sweden, Duke of Jämtland, became Sweden's Head of State on 15 September 1973 at the age of 27, succeeding his grandfather, King Gustaf VI Adolf."

Official site

 

[Prinsara]

There may be a sentimental reason for it; "the Duke" is how his father used to refer to him as a baby, for the months their lives overlapped. Perhaps he found out and wanted to keep that link for the sake of his father.