The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #221  
Old 04-14-2018, 12:49 PM
Somebody's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 6,381
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
Keep in mind that, back in 1975, no European monarchy had equal primogeniture. Sweden was the first country to introduce it in 1980, followed by the Netherlands shortly thereafter if I am not mistaken. It was highly unlikely that conservative Spain would be the pioneer .

On the other hand, once the constitution was approved, changing it is exceedingly difficult, which discourages any proposed reform. It might have been considered if Felipe and Letizia had had a son after the infantas, but, since that did not happen, there was no sense or urgency.
Spain had a tradition of women being able to inherit the throne (and other nobility titles!) for a far longer period of time than many other monarchies (for example, Denmark only allowed it in 1953; Liechtenstein is still male-only). So, it would not have been that far-fetched, but it would have been most logical if it was in line with other nobility regulations. So, changing it for the royal family would have resulted in calls for the same rules to be applied to other nobility titles. Nowadays those are by 'equal primogeniture', the crown is 'out of step' (because a constitutional change would be needed).

Furthermore, it is quite logical that Juan Carlos (just like Carl Gustaf) preferred the crown to be passed down in male-line. They are/were kings because of that. It would be illogical to make Juan Carlos king while he had an older sister and then allow his eldest daughter instead of his eldest son to succeed him.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #222  
Old 04-14-2018, 01:03 PM
Somebody's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 6,381
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
Thank you for the information. Who were the prime backers and opponents of equal primogeniture in the 1970s? If equal primogeniture had been enacted in the Constitution of 1978, would Felipe have kept his place, as with Crown Prince Harald and Prince Haakon of Norway and Prince Albert and Prince Philippe of Belgium?
In Norway, Harald's sisters never had succession rights. Haakon indeed kept his place in line ahead of his older sister princess Märtha Louise (as both of them were in their late teens).
In Monaco, male-preference is still alive, that's why Jacques is ahead of his older sister Gabriella. So, prince Albert has never been 'at risk' of loosing his place.
In Belgium, prince Philippe is the eldest child of king Albert and queen Paola, so, there was no way he could loose his place to a younger sister.

Quote:
It is interesting that in European monarchies, the opposition to repealing male preference or semi-Salic/Salic law seems to be more far-reaching amongst male royalty (others include King Carl Gustaf of Sweden, Prince Albert II of Monaco, Prince Laurent of Belgium, Prince Petros of Greece, and Prince Knud of Denmark) than female royalty (Queen Silvia of Sweden is the only one I know of).
How do we know all of them oppose repealing male preference?
King Carl Gustaf is indeed a known example (I didn't know about queen Silvia - but she is only a consort, so her opinion is not as relevant in the greater scheme of things). As I just posted, he was king because of the rules, so, it's rather logical that he was identifying with his son and wanted him to be king just like he was king instead of his eldest sister queen.
Prince Albert is also the reigning prince because of the current rules.
Prince Laurent just wanted to keep his place in the line of succession and not be moved down (which most likely was an important reason why they wanted Astrid and her children in).
Prince Petros of Greece I don't know, but if you mean crown prince Pavlos; again, his elder sister would be crown princess if the rules had been different.
Prince Knud and his eldest son would have been kings, had the rules remained the same, so again, very logical that he opposed as it was HIS birthright that was taken away from him.


Quote:
I assume it will be changed if and when Leonor has a daughter, then a son?
They were looking into it when Letizia was pregnant of Sofía. It is assumed that the gender was revealed during pregnancy, so it was clear that a change wasn't needed (as revising the constitution would open up a can of worms ). So yes, I assume that if Leonor's first born is a girl and she is pregnant with a second child they will look into it again.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #223  
Old 04-14-2018, 01:14 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 7,071
Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post
Spain had a tradition of women being able to inherit the throne (and other nobility titles!) for a far longer period of time than many other monarchies (for example, Denmark only allowed it in 1953; Liechtenstein is still male-only). So, it would not have been that far-fetched, but it would have been most logical if it was in line with other nobility regulations. So, changing it for the royal family would have resulted in calls for the same rules to be applied to other nobility titles. Nowadays those are by 'equal primogeniture', the crown is 'out of step' (because a constitutional change would be needed).

Furthermore, it is quite logical that Juan Carlos (just like Carl Gustaf) preferred the crown to be passed down in male-line. They are/were kings because of that. It would be illogical to make Juan Carlos king while he had an older sister and then allow his eldest daughter instead of his eldest son to succeed him.
As you said, there was a tradition of females inheriting the throne ( not without opposition though, see e.g the Carlist wars). But female inheritance is not necessarily the same as equal primogeniture, which I still think would have been a big leap in 1978.
Reply With Quote
  #224  
Old 04-14-2018, 01:23 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 7,071
Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post
In Norway, Harald's sisters never had succession rights. Haakon indeed kept his place in line ahead of his older sister princess Märtha Louise (as both of them were in their late teens).
In Monaco, male-preference is still alive, that's why Jacques is ahead of his older sister Gabriella. So, prince Albert has never been 'at risk' of loosing his place.
In Belgium, prince Philippe is the eldest child of king Albert and queen Paola, so, there was no way he could loose his place to a younger sister.



How do we know all of them oppose repealing male preference?
King Carl Gustaf is indeed a known example (I didn't know about queen Silvia - but she is only a consort, so her opinion is not as relevant in the greater scheme of things). As I just posted, he was king because of the rules, so, it's rather logical that he was identifying with his son and wanted him to be king just like he was king instead of his eldest sister queen.
Prince Albert is also the reigning prince because of the current rules.
Prince Laurent just wanted to keep his place in the line of succession and not be moved down (which most likely was an important reason why they wanted Astrid and her children in).
Prince Petros of Greece I don't know, but if you mean crown prince Pavlos; again, his elder sister would be crown princess if the rules had been different.
Prince Knud and his eldest son would have been kings, had the rules remained the same, so again, very logical that he opposed as it was HIS birthright that was taken away from him.



They were looking into it when Letizia was pregnant of Sofía. It is assumed that the gender was revealed during pregnancy, so it was clear that a change wasn't needed (as revising the constitution would open up a can of worms ). So yes, I assume that if Leonor's first born is a girl and she is pregnant with a second child they will look into it again.
I don’t think Carl Gustaf and Silvia were against equal primogeniture per se. What both have said or implied though many times is that they thought it was wrong that the reform applied retroactively to Victoria and Carl Philip. I won’t get into the validity or merit of their complaint, which has already been discussed ad nauseam in other forums, but it suffices to say that is clearly how they felt at the time. The King of Sweden is pretty much powerless, however, under the Instrument of Government of 1974 and both CG and Silvia knew they had no alternative, but to accept the will of the Riksdag. According to the latest interview I saw where Silvia made a comment about that ( shortly after Victoria got married), the family is now at peace with that decision .
Reply With Quote
  #225  
Old 04-14-2018, 01:37 PM
Somebody's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 6,381
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
I don’t think Carl Gustaf and Silvia were against equal primogeniture per se. What both have said or implied though many times is that they thought it was wrong that the reform applied retroactively to Victoria and Carl Philip. I won’t get into the validity or merit of their complaint, which has already been discussed ad nauseam in other forums, but it suffices to say that is clearly how they felt at the time. The King of Sweden is pretty much powerless, however, under the Instrument of Government of 1974 and both CG and Silvia knew they had no alternative, but to accept the will of the Riksdag. According to the latest interview I saw where Silvia made a comment about that ( shortly after Victoria got married), the family is now at peace with that decision .
However, it would have been equally weird if for example Madeleine had been a boy that CP was the crown prince but Victoria would be behind one younger brother and ahead of another. Best to arrange these things when the then king/queen and/or crown prince(ss) are not in the middle of starting/extending their family. However, the need for those reforms is normally seen when they are...

In Denmark they picked the right moment for introducing equal primogeniture (although the family was still extending): no changes were needed.

In Luxembourg a change was made but I never heard either the grand duke and grand duchess or prince Sebastién complain that he suddenly was demoted in favor of his sister who had no succession rights before.
Reply With Quote
  #226  
Old 04-14-2018, 02:10 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 3,629
Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post
Spain had a tradition of women being able to inherit the throne (and other nobility titles!) for a far longer period of time than many other monarchies (for example, Denmark only allowed it in 1953; Liechtenstein is still male-only).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
As you said, there was a tradition of females inheriting the throne ( not without opposition though, see e.g the Carlist wars). But female inheritance is not necessarily the same as equal primogeniture, which I still think would have been a big leap in 1978.
I think Somebody is commenting that Spain was historically ahead of most other countries. In the early twentieth century there were just three European monarchies, Spain included, which allowed women to inherit the throne even when there were heirs male through a cadet branch, and I believe Spain and Portugal were the only ones to allow female succession to most titles of nobility.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post
So, it would not have been that far-fetched, but it would have been most logical if it was in line with other nobility regulations. So, changing it for the royal family would have resulted in calls for the same rules to be applied to other nobility titles. Nowadays those are by 'equal primogeniture', the crown is 'out of step' (because a constitutional change would be needed).
I concur with you that it would be logical to amend the nobility regulations along with the succession to the throne, but none of the monarchies that changed to equal primogeniture have done it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post
Furthermore, it is quite logical that Juan Carlos (just like Carl Gustaf) preferred the crown to be passed down in male-line. They are/were kings because of that. It would be illogical to make Juan Carlos king while he had an older sister and then allow his eldest daughter instead of his eldest son to succeed him.
I see it as logical, when introducing new regulations, not to demote a king or crown prince who was raised for the crown in favor of an adult princess who was not well educated for it because she was not the heiress. (Harald and Haakon of Norway supported equal primogeniture even though they had older sisters.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post
In Norway, Harald's sisters never had succession rights. Haakon indeed kept his place in line ahead of his older sister princess Märtha Louise (as both of them were in their late teens).
In Monaco, male-preference is still alive, that's why Jacques is ahead of his older sister Gabriella. So, prince Albert has never been 'at risk' of loosing his place.
In Belgium, prince Philippe is the eldest child of king Albert and queen Paola, so, there was no way he could loose his place to a younger sister.
Crown Prince Harald of Norway would have lost his place to his older sister Princess Ragnhild had equal primogeniture been applied to all of the Norwegian royal family.
Prince Albert of Belgium (not Monaco) and his son Philippe would have lost their places to Albert's older sister Grand Duchess Joséphine-Charlotte of Luxembourg and her daughter Marie-Astrid had equal primogeniture been applied to all of them.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post
How do we know all of them oppose repealing male preference?
King Carl Gustaf is indeed a known example (I didn't know about queen Silvia - but she is only a consort, so her opinion is not as relevant in the greater scheme of things). As I just posted, he was king because of the rules, so, it's rather logical that he was identifying with his son and wanted him to be king just like he was king instead of his eldest sister queen.
Prince Albert is also the reigning prince because of the current rules.
Prince Laurent just wanted to keep his place in the line of succession and not be moved down (which most likely was an important reason why they wanted Astrid and her children in).
Prince Petros of Greece I don't know, but if you mean crown prince Pavlos; again, his elder sister would be crown princess if the rules had been different.
Prince Knud and his eldest son would have been kings, had the rules remained the same, so again, very logical that he opposed as it was HIS birthright that was taken away from him.
All of them criticized or rejected the repeal of male preference, Salic, or semi-Salic law. As you say, Laurent of Belgium may only have wanted to keep his own place, but I think your explanation "he was identifying with his son and wanted him to be king just like he was king" is a very valid one for many of them.

About Prince Petros, who would have been crown prince from 1964-1967 under the old rules.
http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums...ml#post1092386


Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
I don’t think Carl Gustaf and Silvia were against equal primogeniture per se. What both have said or implied though many times is that they thought it was wrong that the reform applied retroactively to Victoria and Carl Philip. I won’t get into the validity or merit of their complaint, which has already been discussed ad nauseam in other forums, but it suffices to say that is clearly how they felt at the time. The King of Sweden is pretty much powerless, however, under the Instrument of Government of 1974 and both CG and Silvia knew they had no alternative, but to accept the will of the Riksdag. According to the latest interview I saw where Silvia made a comment about that ( shortly after Victoria got married), the family is now at peace with that decision .
King Carl Gustaf and Queen Silvia did maintain in interviews in the 1970s that a man would be preferred as monarch. The king, via the Marshal of the Realm, also pressed the government to introduce male-preference succession.
om kvinnlig tronföljd Proposition 1977/78:71 - Riksdagen
Reply With Quote
  #227  
Old 04-14-2018, 03:20 PM
Somebody's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 6,381
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
I concur with you that it would be logical to amend the nobility regulations along with the succession to the throne, but none of the monarchies that changed to equal primogeniture have done it.
In Spain the nobility titles are currently according to equal primogeniture if I am not mistaken; so in this case the nobility titles are ahead of the crown instead of the other way around. However, there is a big difference in countries (such as the UK and Spain) where there is only one title holder; and countries where the whole family shares the same title.

Quote:
see it as logical, when introducing new regulations, not to demote a king or crown prince who was raised for the crown in favor of an adult princess who was not well educated for it because she was not the heiress. (Harald and Haakon of Norway supported equal primogeniture even though they had older sisters.)

Crown Prince Harald of Norway would have lost his place to his older sister Princess Ragnhild had equal primogeniture been applied to all of the Norwegian royal family.
True, but normally it is a two-step procedure; not going from 'not eligible' to 'equal primogeniture' including replacing someone who was raised to inherit the throne (only exception I can think of is Luxembourg but without real implications). So, in 1990 (when it was introduced in Norway), there was no way that crown prince Harald would be replace by his elder sister who had no succession rights - which was confirmed in 1971 when male-preference cognatic primogeniture was introduced. Haakon wasn't an adult yet, and royal families tend to make us believe that no distinction is made between their children, so at that point it was still possible to make sure that Märtha Louise (who was 18 or 19) got the proper education to be a future queen. Felipe was only 12 when his father ascended the throne which in itself had been very uncertain, so at that point he wasn't raised as the heir.

Quote:
Prince Albert of Belgium (not Monaco) and his son Philippe would have lost their places to Albert's older sister Grand Duchess Joséphine-Charlotte of Luxembourg and her daughter Marie-Astrid had equal primogeniture been applied to all of them.
Josephine-Charlotte lost her rights to the throne when marrying the future grand duke of Luxembourg; they would never had let her keep (or introduce) her Belgian succession rights. If equal primogeniture had been applied from the start, they wouldn't have been close to the throne, is in that case her grandfather wouldn't have been king of the Belgians...

Quote:
All of them criticized or rejected the repeal of male preference, Salic, or semi-Salic law. As you say, Laurent of Belgium may only have wanted to keep his own place, but I think your explanation "he was identifying with his son and wanted him to be king just like he was king" is a very valid one for many of them.

About Prince Petros, who would have been crown prince from 1964-1967 under the old rules.
http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums...ml#post1092386
Thanks, always great to learn something new; however, this was not about the introduction of equal primogeniture but to male-preference cognatic primogeniture. Which has been the standard in Spain for a very long time...

Quote:
King Carl Gustaf and Queen Silvia did maintain in interviews in the 1970s that a man would be preferred as monarch. The king, via the Marshal of the Realm, also pressed the government to introduce male-preference succession.
om kvinnlig tronföljd Proposition 1977/78:71 - Riksdagen
The king's position was clear to me. I didn't know that Silvia was also advocating alongside her husband. However, the king did change rules that were in his favor (such as marrying a commoner), so some self-interest might have played a part in being willing to change one and not the other...
Reply With Quote
  #228  
Old 04-14-2018, 05:36 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 3,629
Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post
True, but normally it is a two-step procedure; not going from 'not eligible' to 'equal primogeniture' including replacing someone who was raised to inherit the throne (only exception I can think of is Luxembourg but without real implications). So, in 1990 (when it was introduced in Norway), there was no way that crown prince Harald would be replace by his elder sister who had no succession rights - which was confirmed in 1971 when male-preference cognatic primogeniture was introduced. Haakon wasn't an adult yet, and royal families tend to make us believe that no distinction is made between their children, so at that point it was still possible to make sure that Märtha Louise (who was 18 or 19) got the proper education to be a future queen. Felipe was only 12 when his father ascended the throne which in itself had been very uncertain, so at that point he wasn't raised as the heir.

Josephine-Charlotte lost her rights to the throne when marrying the future grand duke of Luxembourg; they would never had let her keep (or introduce) her Belgian succession rights. If equal primogeniture had been applied from the start, they wouldn't have been close to the throne, is in that case her grandfather wouldn't have been king of the Belgians...
Albert and Philippe of Belgium and Harald and Haakon of Norway were referred to as examples of male heirs to the throne who had older sisters, or whose fathers had older sisters, and who did not lose their places upon the introduction of equal primogeniture.

However, if I am understanding correctly, you are suggesting that the likelihood of replacing Felipe with Elena in 1978 was markedly higher than the likelihood of replacing Harald with Ragnhild with 1990 or Albert with Joséphine-Charlotte in 1991. I agree that the latter two would never have been considered.

Indeed, the monarchies that transitioned from male-only directly to equal primogeniture (in 1980 in Sweden, in 1990 in Norway, and in 1991 in Belgium) did not replace anyone who was raised to inherit the throne. Neither did Luxembourg when it transitioned from semi-Salic (not male-only) to equal primogeniture in 2010/11 (Grand Duke Henri's eldest child was Hereditary Grand Duke Guillaume, and Guillaume was unmarried). On the other hand, Denmark's restoration of succession rights for women (until 1851, women had been able to inherit the Danish throne) and introduction of male-preference cognatic primogeniture replaced Prince Ingolf.

Princess Joséphine-Charlotte of Belgium never was in line to succeed to the throne, so there were no difficulties when she married the grand duke of Luxembourg in 1953. Märtha Louise of Norway (born in 1971 and not in line at birth) was allowed a place in the line of succession when the constitution was changed in 1990, but as you stated, she did not replace her younger brother.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post
Thanks, always great to learn something new; however, this was not about the introduction of equal primogeniture but to male-preference cognatic primogeniture. Which has been the standard in Spain for a very long time...


The king's position was clear to me. I didn't know that Silvia was also advocating alongside her husband. However, the king did change rules that were in his favor (such as marrying a commoner), so some self-interest might have played a part in being willing to change one and not the other...
Actually, my comment was about changes to rules of succession in favor of women, which is relevant to Greece's introduction of male-preference cognatic primogeniture. Couldn't your explanation about the self-interest of the king of Sweden be applicable to Petros, too?
__________________

Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The Change of the Act of Succession - 1979 Constitution Change Binny Royal House of Sweden 520 12-20-2020 02:44 PM
Review of the Luxembourg Constitution: April 2009 Lalla Meriem Grand Ducal Family of Luxembourg 17 04-28-2011 10:34 AM
The Red Nose Debate Donna Prince Albert, Princess Charlene and Family 28 01-07-2008 07:50 AM




Popular Tags
american archie mountbatten-windsor baby names baptism birth britain britannia british british royal family british royals brownbitcoinqueen buckingham palace camilla's family camilla parker-bowles camilla parker bowles carolin china chinese clarence house cpr dresses dubai duchess of sussex duke of sussex earl of snowdon general news thread george vi gradenigo hello! hereditary grand duchess stéphanie hereditary grand duke guillaume history hochberg house of windsor hypothetical monarchs jewellery kensington palace king edward vii list of rulers luxembourg meghan markle monarchy mountbatten names nepalese royal family pless prince charles of luxembourg prince harry princess alexia (2005 -) princess chulabhorn princess dita princess eugenie princess laurentien princess of orange princess ribha queen consort queen elizabeth ii queen louise resusci anne royal jewels royalty of taiwan solomon j solomon sussex swedish queen thailand thai royal family tradition uae customs united states wales


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:01 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2021
Jelsoft Enterprises
×