Popularity of the Monarchy in Sweden


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Should the King abdicate then ? Would that be good for the monarchy ? I don't think CG has any intention to abdicate and he's still relatively young at 69.
He won't abdicate, in my opinion. Some people think he should but I don't think it will hurt them if he stays a bit longer. I think Victoria likes that she has more time with Estelle and other coming children, a luxuary Silvia and the King didn't have. So I think there is two reasons the King wont abdicate. 1. As he said himself: He's not done and "That's not how we do things here" 2. To give Victoria space for her family. BUt I DO think they see Victorias popularity and is piggybacking a bit on that, having the King and Victoria do alot of engagements together to "hide" the king a bit, and also loosen and lighten him up :) BUt this is just my speculations.
 
Should the King abdicate then ? Would that be good for the monarchy ? I don't think CG has any intention to abdicate and he's still relatively young at 69.

Erhm,I've neve said or suggested that the King should abdicate! I've only said that Victoria is more popular than her father, and that she will do a eccellent work when her time comes!
 
Last edited:
Also, don't quote me on this, I heard that the royal family has gotten 7,8 million sek (about £600k or 900k$) increase in money in the new budget. So it doesn't sound like a group of people planning to abolish the monarchy :p

It was the Minister for Finance, who presented the budget for 2016 and told that the royal court gets SEK 7,8 million more next year.

The monarchy in Sweden is not in danger during the next years although the Republican Association wants Sweden to be Republic. And the reason that they want Sweden as a republic has nothing to do that the king married Silvia, Victoria married Daniel, Carl Philip married Sofia and Madeleine married Chris. The Republican Association wants Sweden to be a republic because according to them it is not democratic that the Head of State is born to his/her position and not elected by the people of Sweden. Silvia, Daniel, Sofia and Chris aren't a problem to the Republican Association, the king, Victoria and Estelle are.
The other things that the Republican Association repeats at their articles are that Victoria and Estelle have to be made free of their burden and have right to themselves decide what they want to do in their lives. And that the weddings and christenings of the members of the royal family should be private events and not be paid mostly from the apanage, by taxpayers.

I have always seen Victoria as an extremely strong woman, after she got over her anorexia. Victoria is super popular and extremely respected in Sweden. Many of the republicans have said that they would vote for her as the first president. And people in social media who have republican opinions, praise Victoria and acknowledge her skills and good work. Daniel is also very popular and respected because of his work.
Victoria's and Daniel's strong love and deep mutual respect to each other is something Sweden can rely in the future. Although Victoria is a strong woman, she needs a husband who supports her with 100 %, and who understands his position as a prince consort. And she has found that man, lucky for her and lucky for Sweden. Daniel said today in Uppsala: "In this role I have now, my wife is my role model".

It is good that the king and Victoria have started working more together, just the two of them. Perhaps a small transition phase has started. I would like to see the king abdicate in 5-8 years, but I don't believe he will, if he stays healthy, because he has said that he will never abdicate.

And where have people got the impression that the politicians had trouble accepting Daniel as Victoria's husband? After Daniel had proposed Victoria, Victoria had said yes, the king gave his consent to the marriage. The king, in accordance with the procedures set out in the Swedish Constitution, requested the agreement by the Swedish Government, which was subsequently communicated to the King in connection with an information council held on 24th February 2009 at the Royal Palace and the engagement was published.
 
I do not see why the King to step down. He is still young and quite active. Besides herself and Victoria would not want. You need to have more time for her family off course from his duties as heir. As for the great popularity she have that is good for the monarchy besides she is the future Queen. The monarchies are not lost with just discussions .
 
Whoa, you do not know Swedes at all I can see. I can almost promise that the marriages of Daniel etc have done way more good in the eyes of the people than it has done bad.

You are confusing Crown Princess Victoria's personal popularity with support for a monarchical system. I think it are two different things.

Let me word it differently: I think Felipe de Borbón as an individual person is a popular and well-liked dude. The support for the monarchy in Spain however is not equal to the statistics for Felipe himself.

I think that Queen Máxima is a veeeeery popular and well-liked person. The system of a monarchy on itself does not have the same approval. It is very well possible that the Dutch monarchy will collapse despite personal popularity of the persons. It is not one and one is two.
 
Last edited:
Maybe a dumb question but aren't we making a mountain out of a molehill?
In every monarchy there are people (and politicians) who want to end their monarchy, but this rarely amounts to much...
I mean: not even a well known gossip mag like "Bunte" has reported on this and if *they* don't consider it worth mentioning that's also saying something...
 
I think the monarchy is not in danger but at the same time it would not surprise me to see a change. And as said: once Sweden, or Norway, or Spain has said "adieu" to the monarchy, other monarchies will follow. When "modern" Sweden says goodbye to the Bernadottes, I can see the "progressive" Dutch not wanting to log behind and say goodbye to the Von Amsbergs too. Mark my words. It is all not that strong as it looks, is my personal idea.
 
Maybe a dumb question but aren't we making a mountain out of a molehill?
In every monarchy there are people (and politicians) who want to end their monarchy, but this rarely amounts to much...
I mean: not even a well known gossip mag like "Bunte" has reported on this and if *they* don't consider it worth mentioning that's also saying something...

Indeed. Isn't a motion to abolish the monarchy proposed every year in the Swedish parliament anyway ? The only difference in this case, if I understood it correctly, is that the motion was signed by MPs from 3 different parties, which in itself doesn't mean much.

I'd be worried only if the prime minister or the leader of the main opposition party (which I suppose is now the Moderate Party) announced that abolishing the monarchy would be in their party platform/manifesto for the next general election.
 
I think the monarchy is not in danger but at the same time it would not surprise me to see a change. And as said: once Sweden, or Norway, or Spain has said "adieu" to the monarchy, other monarchies will follow. When "modern" Sweden says goodbye to the Bernadottes, I can see the "progressive" Dutch not wanting to log behind and say goodbye to the Von Amsbergs too. Mark my words. It is all not that strong as it looks, is my personal idea.
I agree with you that when one of them falls, alot will follow. That is one of the reasons the Windsors made some distance between themselves and other royal houses in the past.
 
How would the monarchy would have stood if Car Philip were still the crown prince and married Sofia? Would there have been a different perception of the royal house? Would Sofia, given her past, have been accepted as a wife of a future head of state, a future queen? If Victoria's popularity is helping in the public's acceptance of her being the next sovereign, how would a hypothetical Crown Prince couple would have been received as the next monarch and his queen consort? It's the one thing an elected head of state has in common with one born to the role - likability is key in gaining and remaining in power.
 
"excessive emotional dependence" = being in love. ;)
 
How would the monarchy would have stood if Car Philip were still the crown prince and married Sofia? Would there have been a different perception of the royal house? Would Sofia, given her past, have been accepted as a wife of a future head of state, a future queen? If Victoria's popularity is helping in the public's acceptance of her being the next sovereign, how would a hypothetical Crown Prince couple would have been received as the next monarch and his queen consort? It's the one thing an elected head of state has in common with one born to the role - likability is key in gaining and remaining in power.
Well, this is a very un-answerable question. Because Carl Phillip would have been raised a bit different, doing more of the things Victoria did. They wouldn't be the same people as they are now so it's not a question that can be answered.
 
@hernameispekka - are you suggesting that if Carl Philip were raised differently - groomed for the throne - he would have made a different choice in a wife? A lot of people dismissed Daniel for a fling and not prince consort material. No one saw him coming - or staying. But Daniel also did not have scandal attached to his name. Sofia does. Would the king and the Riksdag consented to Carl Philip's marriage to Sofia if Carl Philip were heir apparent? Princess is one thing; queen is another. Would Carl Philip have been forced to choose between the crown and his heart?
 
@hernameispekka - are you suggesting that if Carl Philip were raised differently - groomed for the throne - he would have made a different choice in a wife? A lot of people dismissed Daniel for a fling and not prince consort material. No one saw him coming - or staying. But Daniel also did not have scandal attached to his name. Sofia does. Would the king and the Riksdag consented to Carl Philip's marriage to Sofia if Carl Philip were heir apparent? Princess is one thing; queen is another. Would Carl Philip have been forced to choose between the crown and his heart?
No, not at all a slight towards Sophia. Just that he would probably have studied more, been less of a party prince etc and he would have different life experiences shaping him into another person than he is now, hence my inability to answer that question at all! Because who know how he would handle that pressure. Would he be more of the hard working kind that Victoria is? Or would he had crumbled under the pressure? etc etc. If Victoria went to another gym everything would have been different. etc etc. We don't know what choices in life shape and change how our life turns out so questions like that are way to complex to be able to answer.
 
Of course Carl Philip (and Madeleine) were raised in a different way. They are not heirs to the throne. So there is no way of knowing what would have happened if one of them had been heir and raised differently.

But if CP had been the heir, I don't see any reason why he would have to give up the love of his life. I'm glad that I live in a nation where everyone, including royals, are allowed to marry whomever they want. And where people are judged not by their past.
 
I don't understand why Daniel got all the criticism because people were skeptical when it was announced the engagement. But had it been Soifa, no one would have bat an eye. Don't get it at all. And I can understand why Daniel was welcomed a bit coldly at the beginning, but when it comes to Sofia, if CP had been the heir, she can't be judged for her past.
 
I don't understand why Daniel got all the criticism because people were skeptical when it was announced the engagement. But had it been Soifa, no one would have bat an eye. Don't get it at all. And I can understand why Daniel was welcomed a bit coldly at the beginning, but when it comes to Sofia, if CP had been the heir, she can't be judged for her past.
I don't think it was much issue around him at all, that I can remember. Maybe in more conservative circles. But all I remember was people being happy because they seemed cute together + it being good PR that he was "one of the people".
 
I don't think it was much issue around him at all, that I can remember. Maybe in more conservative circles. But all I remember was people being happy because they seemed cute together + it being good PR that he was "one of the people".

Yes I know. But rumours had it many eyesbrows were raised (the King especially) and many in the upper classes were skeptical that he wouldn't fit the role etc (which IMO was understable given that nobody knew much about Daniel). So, what I mean is that if there were doubts about Daniel, why wouldn't have been any about Sofia? That's all:flowers:
 
I don't think it was much issue around him at all, that I can remember. Maybe in more conservative circles. But all I remember was people being happy because they seemed cute together + it being good PR that he was "one of the people".

Maybe the people in Sweden were happy for Victoria and Daniel. And why would they have not been? Daniel was a well-mannered young man raised well by his parents, with a healthy way of living, who had worked hard his whole life after he finished school.
But the press wrote how Daniel was a boy from the country with a cap, who couldn't talk with people and who was dumb. And they wrote constantly that the king didn't accept him and that the friends of the royal family didn't accept him. The king didn't want to talk about Daniel as Victoria's boyfriend before the engagement in public, and hardly after that. The press wrote that Daniel's businesses went well, because Victoria was his girlfriend. But the press hasn't written at all that it helped Sofia's Project Playground that she was a girlfriend of a prince...

But now we are getting totally away from the subject. There is no need to speculate what would have happened if Carl Philip would be the crown prince. The royal family is now what it is and goes forward with the king, Victoria as the crown princess and Estelle as her heir.
The SOM-institute publishes probably next spring again the figures of the popularity of the monarchy, the government etc. Then we will see, where the royal family stands. During the last years we have seen that the royal weddings and christenings haven't remarkably raised the popularity of the royal family. Now the weddings are done, some christenings are coming. But if the royal family wants to raise it's popularity, it has to be done with their work and by avoiding scandals.
 
Last edited:
Yes I know. But rumours had it many eyesbrows were raised (the King especially) and many in the upper classes were skeptical that he wouldn't fit the role etc (which IMO was understable given that nobody knew much about Daniel). So, what I mean is that if there were doubts about Daniel, why wouldn't have been any about Sofia? That's all:flowers:
Yeah, I know that there was some stuff around him. But I've only found that out later on. I never saw anything online or heard bad words about them from anyone before that :p Soo :p Well, it was some stuff in like Aftonbladet and things. But most people here regard them as a borderline tabloid...
 
Yeah, I know that there was some stuff around him. But I've only found that out later on. I never saw anything online or heard bad words about them from anyone before that :p Soo :p Well, it was some stuff in like Aftonbladet and things. But most people here regard them as a borderline tabloid...

Same here. Don't get me wrong, I totally love and support Prince Daniel, I just reported what it was said at that time.:flowers: You didn't actually answer my question though:lol:
 
Its difficult to imagine a better Crown Princess than Victoria. No doubt she helps the overall institution of monarchy within Sweden
 
Same here. Don't get me wrong, I totally love and support Prince Daniel, I just reported what it was said at that time.:flowers: You didn't actually answer my question though:lol:
I was trying to get away from the little of topicness :p But I see no problem with Sofia so I'm not the right person to ask :) But if I was to hazard a guess. There is a difference between being a owner of a sucsessful buisness in Stockholm and Sofias work history.
 
I was trying to get away from the little of topicness :p But I see no problem with Sofia so I'm not the right person to ask :) But if I was to hazard a guess. There is a difference between being a owner of a sucsessful buisness in Stockholm and Sofias work history.

;) I was kidding of course, Im aware my question was a bit off topic.:flowers:
 
Its difficult to imagine a better Crown Princess than Victoria. No doubt she helps the overall institution of monarchy within Sweden

I totally agree with you. If the monarchy was abolished, and we had a president instead, I have no doubt that she would win the presidential election if she was a candidate :)
 
Last edited:
I totally agree with you. If the monarchy was abolished, and we had a president instead, I have no doubt that she would win the presidential election if the was a candidate :)
I agree. I would vote for her. I have the uttermost trust and respect for her and her judgement.
 
Its difficult to imagine a better Crown Princess than Victoria. No doubt she helps the overall institution of monarchy within Sweden

The attributed popularity seems not translate in approval ratings which is once more an illustration that having a good opinion of a person (Victoria in this case) not necessarily means being in favour of a monarchical system of state.

I think many Parliamentarians have a very good opinion of Victoria but nevertheless support the democratic principle of an elected head of state.

I totally agree with you. If the monarchy was abolished, and we had a president instead, I have no doubt that she would win the presidential election if she was a candidate :)

Victoria's popularity also is vested in her neutrality. Du moment she runs for the presidency and has to debate with Stefan Löfven (Labour), Jessica Polfjärd (Moderates) or Gustav Fridolin (Greens) about issues like Sweden's entry to the NATO, about the enormous influx of immigrants and the effects on society, about cuts in the Swedish welfare state, about the reforms in the EU and the Schengen zone, about the entry into he common currency (Euro), about God-knows-what, then she looses her angelic perfectly impartial face and becomes a politician like any other. People saying "she will win presidential elections!" judge her for what she is now: a pretty lady with a cute toddler and a total unknown political stance. But that is not how someone enters elections and wins these...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Victoria's popularity also is vested in her neutrality. Du moment she runs for the presidency and has to debate with Stefan Löfven (Labour), Jessica Polfjärd (Moderates) or Gustav Fridolin (Greens) about issues like Sweden's entry to the NATO, about the enormous influx of immigrants and the effects on society, about cuts in the Swedish welfare state, about the reforms in the EU and the Schengen zone, about the entry into he common currency (Euro), about God-knows-what, then she looses her angelic perfectly impartial face and becomes a politician like any other. People saying "she will win presidential elections!" judge her for what she is now: a pretty lady with a cute toddler and a total unknown political stance. But that is not how someone enters elections and wins these...


You make very good points. However, it also reinforces what I wrote before: would the Swedes prefer to have an elected partisan president with lots of personal powers as in neighboring Finland when they can have instead a powerless, perfectly neutral and non-controversial Head of State with an "angelic impartial face" and a nice looking family ? That is what makes me skeptical about the Swedish republican movement.

Personally, I think that, if Sweden ever becomes a republic, it would make more sense to have a German-like president, who would also be politically neutral, than a Finnish-like one.
 
Last edited:
You make very good points. However, it also reinforces what I wrote before: would the Swedes prefer to have an elected partisan president with lots of personal powers as in neighboring Finland when they can have instead a powerless, perfectly neutral and non-controversial Head of State with an "angelic impartial face" and a nice looking family ? That is what makes me skeptical about the Swedish republican movement.

Personally, I think that, if Sweden ever becomes a republic, it would make more sense to have a German-like president, who would also be politically neutral, than a Finnish-like one.
I agree. Some of my main points for monarchy is to avoid like the US where they have a leader that should both fill the role of good decider and politician but also the role of showing up at tv-shows and the PR part of the country. I'd rather have ONE person focused on leading the county and ONE focused on promoting the country.
 
I think that when monarchies turn into republics, the role of the monarch which is ceremonial of nature, will be filled by a President, equally ceremonial of nature.

The President of the former monarchy which is Germany, Mr Joachim Gauck, has a largely ceremonial role. The real leader of the country is the Chancellor, at the moment that is Mrs Angela Merkel.

The President of the former monarchy which is Italy, Mr Sergio Mattarella, has a largely ceremonial role. The real leader of the country is the Prime Minister, at the moment that is Mr Matteo Renzi.

The President of the former monarchy which is Greece, Mr Prokopis Pavlopoulos, has a largely ceremonial role. The real leader of the country is the Prime Minister, at the moment that is Mr Alexis Tsipras.

It is hard to see monarchies with a ceremonial head of state for centuries turning into a presidential style country à la the United States, France or Russia.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom