Royals with Disabilities or Special Needs

[Iluvbertie]

This is interesting but I do think that the respective parliaments wouldn't actually legislate to strip this child of their rights but that the next in line would become regent - the same as if the monarch were to be incapcitated at a later date.

e.g. in Denmark if Margrethe had a bad stroke and couldn't give speeches or sign stuff Fred would simply have to step up and do it as Regent - same with Charles in Britain etc as happened when George III was declared insane.

[fandesacs2003]

KIng Alexander from Greece died very young from septicaemia, because he was beaten by his monkey. At one stage of his illness, doctors proposed to ampute his leg, in order to save his life, but apparently his entourage refused because it was "unacceptable" to be a King with one leg! We know the end of the story.
This is to show how was at this time the mentality!!!! Even a physical handicap was not accepted. Hopefully now minds have changed!!
Personally I believe that in the modern monarchies, like Denmark or Sweden, a relative physical handicap would be accepted.
Germany has a Minister in wheelchair, it does not provoke any problem!!

[PetraHel]

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie

This is interesting but I do think that the respective parliaments wouldn't actually legislate to strip this child of their rights but that the next in line would become regent - the same as if the monarch were to be incapcitated at a later date.

e.g. in Denmark if Margrethe had a bad stroke and couldn't give speeches or sign stuff Fred would simply have to step up and do it as Regent - same with Charles in Britain etc as happened when George III was declared insane.

I see the difference here, because your examples are existing monarchs who are/were healthy and capable of doing their job. Regency is just a replacement in the time of their indiciposition. It should be temporary. But in the case of mentally handicapped successor who will never be able to fulfil the job the regent would be permanent. I don´t see the sense of this permanent regency.

[fandesacs2003]

Originally Posted by PetraHel

I see the difference here, because your examples are existing monarchs who are/were healthy and capable of doing their job. Regency is just a replacement in the time of their indiciposition. It should be temporary. But in the case of mentally handicapped successor who will never be able to fulfil the job the regent would be permanent. I don´t see the sense of this permanent regency.

Good point!. I think in this case, the person automatically looses his rights, before acceeding to the throne. They know before that he/is unable and the replace. Consequently, he/she never becomes the heir!

[Meraude]

Originally Posted by fandesacs2003

Good point!. I think in this case, the person automatically looses his rights, before acceeding to the throne. They know before that he/is unable and the replace. Consequently, he/she never becomes the heir!

Well, a royal heir is a royal heir from birth, whether s/he is first or fifth in line. There have been at least one, if not two Swedish princes that can be said to have had "special needs", prince Erik, son of Gustav V, had epilepsy and a mild retardation, Prince Erik, Duke of Västmanland - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia and prince August, son of Oscar I, Prince August, Duke of Dalarna - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia , had what can be described as "limited intelligence" and neither of them was removed from the line of succession. As both of them were the youngest sons, the likelihood of either of them inheriting the throne was slim.

[nascarlucy]

If a monarch or heir to the throne was born with physical challenges and had a sharp mind and had average or above average intelligence, then I don't see why their succession to the throne would be in question. Having a physical disability doesn't mean that you are incapable of being a King or Queen.

People who have physical disabilities can have children, depending on the severity of it. If they can't have children the normal way, medical science can help that process.

If the royal had serious mental challenges and couldn't understand simple commands or tasks, then the next person in line would be the heir. I heard a few royals who are Kings or Queens made it known to others that as long as they aren't mentally ill or incapciatated, they should be allowed to reign for life. This seems to be very clearly defined.

What isn't clearly defined is when someone is in a coma for a long period of time or suffering severe brain injury. Years ago these types of injuries usually resulted in death. Medical advances have changed that.

Because of medical advances people can survived for years in a coma like state. If a monarch or heir to the throne due to accident or illness went into a coma and after a year or two they still were in a coma, then what would happen. Or if 5 years later, they came out of the coma and recovered enough that their mind was functioning at a normal level.

This would be a real interesting one. A monarch gets the flu and ends up in a coma unexpectedly. The monarch has several children. The monarch is in a coma for about a year. It's decided short thereafter, then that the eldest child takes the throne. Shortly after taking the throne, the monarch comes out of the coma and within a year is almost back to normal as far as intelligence and thinking goes.

[Grandduchess24]

King Juan Carlos I's uncle was deaf/ mute and physically handicapped.

[Meraude]

Originally Posted by nascarlucy

This would be a real interesting one. A monarch gets the flu and ends up in a coma unexpectedly. The monarch has several children. The monarch is in a coma for about a year. It's decided short thereafter, then that the eldest child takes the throne. Shortly after taking the throne, the monarch comes out of the coma and within a year is almost back to normal as far as intelligence and thinking goes.

I seriously doubt that a monarch would be deposed if s/he ended up in a coma. The monarch would continue being the monarch while his/her eldest child or, if the child is a minor, a member of the royal family would be appointed regent and take over the duties of the monarch. Karl XIV Johan of Sweden was functioning as a regent from 1811 until the death of Carl XIII in 1818.

The most wellknown royal regent was the future king George IV of the United Kingdom during his father's illness (George III), from 1811 until 1820. He was known as HRH The Prince Regent during this time and the period is known as the Regency Era: British Regency - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Anyone who have read a number of romantic historical novels are familiar with the Regency Era, as it's one of the most favoured settings for such novels.

[Muhler]

I think that an heir with a fairly uncomplicated physical disabliity. I.e. semi paralyzed, blind, deaf and so on, would have no problem becoming a monarch.
I actually believe he/she would be seen as a role model.

An heir with a severe mental handicap, would almost certainly be bypassed in Denmark. There is no point in having a regent for decade after decade.

A monarch would almost certainly be represented by a regent, until the monarch dies.
There is a big difference in being a monarch and an heir, let alone an heir who is a minor.

[kathia_sophia]

nowadays an heir with physical disabilities would not loose his/her rights to succeed the throne, because he/she can perform royal duties (with great care for his/her health) and bear children, even if is born with reprodutive problems he/she can become monarch and be succeed by nephew/niece or brother/sister. the same goes for the monarch.

now mental disabilities is another talk. it is very dificult subject depending on the level of mental capablity. but if it is severe, in case an heir is born with this health issues, he/she would be replaced by a younger brother/sister they might have later. in case of a monarch to suffer mental issues later while ruling, and depending on each country and its constitution, the ruling monarch will still be king/queen until his/her death while the Regent will perform the monarch's duty.

all this in Europe, because in other monarchies such as middle east they would probably take other meanusers.

[Iluvbertie]

To remove an heir for any reason will require legislation which means actually passing a law to say xxxx can't be king/queen because they have yyyy disability and then have the present monarch sign that legislation. That means debates in parliament and the spectre of discrimination.

Much easier to have them become monarch with the next in line as the regent for the length of their reign just as if they had become incapacitated after becoming monarch.

The other issue is - what if the have xxxx disability at age 18 and the legislation is passed to remove them from the line of succession but then at age 35 a cure for that disability is found - do they then repeal the previous legislation - what if they have already missed out on being monarch?

Too many cans of worms opened to remove them when it would be simply easier to have a regent act for them.

[Muhler]

In that case, too bad.

I disagree with you. Bypassing an heir isn't that big a deal, and the parliaments will do it, if need be. - Probably with an overwhelming consent by the people.
It happened in Denmark in 1953. A change in the Constitution and Law of Succession meant that the heir was replaced. In this case Princess Margrethe was appointed the successor.
It happened later on in Sweden. As we all know, Victoria was not supposed to have become Crown Princess.

- In these two cases neither of the original heirs had handicaps.
The Parliaments, I believe, would have little qualms of doing what would be seen as the necessary and most practical thing to do. Not least by the people.

What if-cures/scenarios are of little interest to the general public.

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie

To remove an heir for any reason will require legislation which means actually passing a law to say xxxx can't be king/queen because they have yyyy disability and then have the present monarch sign that legislation. That means debates in parliament and the spectre of discrimination.

Much easier to have them become monarch with the next in line as the regent for the length of their reign just as if they had become incapacitated after becoming monarch.

The other issue is - what if the have xxxx disability at age 18 and the legislation is passed to remove them from the line of succession but then at age 35 a cure for that disability is found - do they then repeal the previous legislation - what if they have already missed out on being monarch?

Too many cans of worms opened to remove them when it would be simply easier to have a regent act for them.

[nascarlucy]

Since attitudes and opinions have changed greatly over the last several decades regarding people with physical and mental challenges, I believe that a monarch or heir to the throne who had physical challenges would be admired and looked upon as a role models for others. This would be very true especially if someone was going through the same issues that they were or had a family member who was going through the same thing.

The same would be true if they had some mental challenges and were able to overcome them. Unlike centuries or decades ago, they wouldn't be hidden from view or locked away somewhere like many individuals were.

[Daria_S]

Originally Posted by nascarlucy

Since attitudes and opinions have changed greatly over the last several decades regarding people with physical and mental challenges, I believe that a monarch or heir to the throne who had physical challenges would be admired and looked upon as a role models for others. This would be very true especially if someone was going through the same issues that they were or had a family member who was going through the same thing.

The same would be true if they had some mental challenges and were able to overcome them. Unlike centuries or decades ago, they wouldn't be hidden from view or locked away somewhere like many individuals were.

I agree with you, and hope that if something like this did happen, people would keep an open mind and allow the person to shine. However, sometimes it's all about appearances, and if the monarchy is dependent on a particular country's parliament/central government, it may be a bit more complicated than that. Sometimes politics is about looking good and having the world view your nation as a source of strength and power. We know pretty darn well that some don't view people with special needs as human beings that have strengths, weaknesses, capabilities, etc., and if someone like that is in power, he may very well make sure that the current monarch signs some ridiculous piece of legislature that will change the law of succession, thus banning the heir with a particular exceptionality from ever getting to the throne. It's sick, I know, and I don't agree with it at all, but unfortunately, it is the world we all live in. I see it at schools, when children with special needs are kept away from their typically developing peers, and the sad thing is, it's not because of some law (we know the law saw just the opposite), but because of the culture of the school and the attitude of the principal (actually, I should say the culture of the school that is not portrayed by the mission statement).

[Meraude]

Whether a person with a mental handicap would be able to function as a monarch or not depends very much on what role a monarch have in his/her country. For example if the monarch are supposed to sign new laws and perhaps to advice the prime minister it would be quite difficult to have a monarch who would not be able to understand the laws s/he was to sign or give advice to a prime minister. Take for example the British monarchy, I doubt that a person with mental challenges would be able to perform the duties queen Elizabeth have now. The same is true when it comes to the monarchies in the Middle East where the monarch have a strong political role.

As for a country like Sweden where the monarchy have a rather weak support, the possibility of a mentally handicapped monarch could very well be seen as a reason to change the constitution and become a republic instead.

[XeniaCasaraghi]

Physical disability is one thing, mental disability is another. Depending on the severity I would think that a child with certain mental disabilities would be passed over for monarch but would still be a member of the RF and could possibly take on some kinds of duties. I see no problem with a monarch with physical disabilities, though people would have to get used to such a change occurring. I don't know all the different roles certain monarchs in certain countries have to take.
In the Middle East Im sure such a scenario would be a huge NO
In Leichenstein (sp) and Monaco the Prince has a serious role to play in the country and it's laws so I would think that would be another No.
In England I know the Queen calls on the PM to form a government but that seems like a formality more than anything, I'm probably wrong about that.
I do not know how the Swedish, Denmark, or Netherlands work.
And for some reason in the case of Japan I think people wouldn't even k ow the Emperor had a mental disability because it would be kept a secret.
I don't know if this has any affect on the conversation, but I know of at least 2 presidents who were physically disabled and they went through a lot of trouble to keep it quiet.

[nascarlucy]

Sometimes physical challenges aren't always evident (especially if it's a mild case or if it's something that comes and goes). If a monarch or an heir to the throne had a physical challenge that fits into this category, my guess is that it would be kept a secret from the public as much as possible.

[Princess Peach]

Great thread!!!

It must be kept in mind that all disabilities are on a spectrum of severity. Let's take autisim for example, which is among the most prevalent. It is a spectrum. It ranges from quite mild cases where the child/person has full intellectual capabilities and some mild sensory integration dysfunction to those cases where the child/person has intellectual disabilities, massive, intrusive sensory disabilities, and it is just unfair, to both public AND the disabled individual, or impossible for that person to assume the role of monarch.

I think it would depend on the severity of the disability and the role that particular monarch is expected to play. I do believe that in the European monarchies, which are the ones that I follow, they would try as much as possible to allow that child to assume the role, and to change the role to the extent feasible in order to accommodate him/her (within constitutional boundaries). I personally think it would bring great recognition and public awareness to those special needs people in our society, and I think that the particular country would be very proud of this individual monarch.

Let's face it. It's not a matter of "if", it's a matter of "when," even if that when is 250 years from now.

[Danishla]

I love this thread and I know we are talking about serius disability here but I wanted to bring up the example of Princess Victoria dyslexia which she made public, and I feel it was so edifying and an example to people who suffer from a similar condition. So, yes I believe that public recognition elevates and humanizes their positions in society in a very special way.
BBC NEWS | Europe | Swedish princess reveals bullying secret

[Princess Peach]

Originally Posted by Danishla

I love this thread and I know we are talking about serius disability here but I wanted to bring up the example of Princess Victoria dyslexia which she made public, and I feel it was so edifying and an example to people who suffer from a similar condition. So, yes I believe that public recognition elevates and humanizes their positions in society in a very special way.
BBC NEWS | Europe | Swedish princess reveals bullying secret

I admire Victoria for coming forward with that, and also for coming forward with her food disorder issues. Princess Beatrice is also dyslexic.

I'd go one step further and say I applaud anyone in the public eye who comes forward with a revelation of a disability, a disorder, an addiction, etc, etc, etc. It does help to humanize the condition and to remove some of the stigmas that surround them.