Swedish Line of Succession

Next Star · #1 04-02-2007, 03:18 PM

I guess Sweden is going to stay old fashioned heir must produce heir.But what if the heir does not want to get married or have a child then what will they do? I am not staying that Victoria does not want to get married and produce a heir.I just speaking in general that is why ? I had wrote that idea out.Not every one wants to marry and have children that is why? You have to seek more options.

Henri M. · #2 04-04-2007, 03:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Next Star

I guess Sweden is going to stay old fashioned heir must produce heir.

If Sweden has remained the 'oldfashioned' way, then not Victoria but her younger brother Carl-Philip would still have been the Crown Prince. Your starting point seems to forget that Sweden has not remained oldfashioned at all, but was the very first counrty to make the succession to make it 'gender free' (and to take away all political influence of the King).

At the cost of Crown Prince Carl-Philip and in favour of his sister Princess Victoria, that was, back then.

By the way: in no any monarchy there is a rule 'heir must produce heir'. And it also never has existed.

Next Star · #3 04-05-2007, 11:43 AM

I disaree whole heartily with your statement Herni M.From what have seen and hear the heir must produce a heir. That is what I mean about being old fashion regardless who the heir to the throne is male or female. If it never existed then why almost every heir as a heir not putting the burden on a sister or brother? From what seen this claim is true my opinion is different from yours.

Henri M. · #4 04-05-2007, 03:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Next Star

I disaree whole heartily with your statement Herni M.From what have seen and hear the heir must produce a heir. That is what I mean about being old fashion regardless who the heir to the throne is male or female. If it never existed then why almost every heir as a heir not putting the burden on a sister or brother? From what seen this claim is true my opinion is different from yours.

"Ideally" a heir gives birth to a heir. See Japan (Masako) or see Belgium (Fabiola). This often to the bitterness of the ladies, painted down as 'tragic and infertile'. But there is no any document that there 'should' be a heir by a heir. Japan is the best example: now suddenly a younger brother to the Crown Prince has become father of a son, all pressure on Masako for a heir has disappeared like snow for the sun.

George IV had no heir and was succeeded by his brother the Duke of Clarence.

William IV had no heir and was succeeded by his niece Princess Victoria of Kent.

King Edward VIII had no heir when he abdicated and left the throne to his brother the Duke of York.

King Willem III, Grand Duke of Luxembourg had no heir and left the Grand Duchy to his cousin the Duke of Nassau.

King Leopold II of the Belgians had no heir and left the throne to his nephew the Count of Flanders.

King Boudouin of the Belgians had no heir and left the throne to his brother the Prince of Liège.

bekalc · #5 04-05-2007, 05:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Henri M.

"Ideally" a heir gives birth to a heir. See Japan (Masako) or see Belgium (Fabiola). This often to the bitterness of the ladies, painted down as 'tragic and infertile'. But there is no any document that there 'should' be a heir by a heir. Japan is the best example: now suddenly a younger brother to the Crown Prince has become father of a son, all pressure on Masako for a heir has disappeared like snow for the sun.

George IV had no heir and was succeeded by his brother the Duke of Clarence.

William IV had no heir and was succeeded by his niece Princess Victoria of Kent.

King Edward VIII had no heir when he abdicated and left the throne to his brother the Duke of York.

King Willem III, Grand Duke of Luxembourg had no heir and left the Grand Duchy to his cousin the Duke of Nassau.

King Leopold II of the Belgians had no heir and left the throne to his nephew the Count of Flanders.

King Boudouin of the Belgians had no heir and left the throne to his brother the Prince of Liège.

Yes, but there's a difference between people who try and fail to have an heir, and people who don't try as well. While not everyone, a lot of those people tried to sire an heir.

And not having a direct heir can cause some real issues. Normally, one hopes that the kid will be raised from birth as the future heir, but well if they aren't the direct heir one never knows because things can change. For example, in Japan especially the boys are trained from a young age, to be the future heir. But with Hisahito it's going to be very hard to do so.

Frankly, it is Victoria's responsiblity to marry and attempt to have an heir. And it is more her responsibility than her siblings.

Henri M. · #6 04-05-2007, 07:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bekalc

Frankly, it is Victoria's responsiblity to marry and attempt to have an heir. And it is more her responsibility than her siblings.

What an absurd statement.
King Baudouin for years was an unmarried King. In the Sixties he finally married Doña Fabiola de Mora y Aragón, daughter of the Marquess de Casa Riera, and Count de Mora. Their marriage bore no fruit. So King Baudouin's 41 year's Reign is now overshadowed by the fact that he had not fathered a Prince or Princess? Come on....

The only responsibility the King had was to maintain and to uphold the Constitution and all the rights of the Belgians. That was what he solemnly pledged. No more, no less.

The Prince of Monaco also still is not married and has no 'own' Heirs. So what? It is perfectly settled that his sister the Princess of Hannover is second in line after him.

bekalc · #7 04-06-2007, 12:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Henri M.

What an absurd statement.
King Baudouin for years was an unmarried King. In the Sixties he finally married Doña Fabiola de Mora y Aragón, daughter of the Marquess de Casa Riera, and Count de Mora. Their marriage bore no fruit. So King Baudouin's 41 year's Reign is now overshadowed by the fact that he had not fathered a Prince or Princess? Come on....

The only responsibility the King had was to maintain and to uphold the Constitution and all the rights of the Belgians. That was what he solemnly pledged. No more, no less.

The Prince of Monaco also still is not married and has no 'own' Heirs. So what? It is perfectly settled that his sister the Princess of Hannover is second in line after him.

If there is no heir, or there is no heir appropriately prepared, then the there can be problems when it comes time for the next person to rule..The next heir's preperation etc. .In the case of Monaco there is actually a lot of uncertainity. It doesn't seem like Andrea who would succeed Caroline is really being prepared for rule. And then there is the issue of all of Albert's illegitimate kids, technically he could maybe change the constitution and bring everything up in the air. Then, what happens if Albert does marry and has a legitimate heir...? There is nothing settled clearly in Monaco. Unlike in Sweden, where Victoria knows she'll take over and has been clearly prepared since she's a little girl.

I never said that a king/queen failed if they didn't have an heir. Sometimes there can be good reasons not to have a marriage in a king/Queen's case.. Or, sometimes a king/queen could be infertility. The King of Belgian did try to have an heir, its quite clear. It's just an heir didn't materalize. But as I mentioned before, there is a big difference between trying to have an heir, and well not trying at all.

Most monarchs will tell you that it is part of their job to secure heirs for the future. Or to at least try to.

Next Star · #8 04-12-2007, 12:37 PM

First of all I am talking about current heirs not those who are deceased no offense to them but I know about the situation and how some royals try to concieve and have a heir but they can not.Now Monaco's situation is totally diifferent the reigning prince who we know as Albert II is not married nor does have a legitmate heir. It is his fault and no one elses being he does not to settle down and try to find a wife and see if he is able to produce a legitmate heir.Now back to Victoria she still has enough time to wed a try to prouce a heir without going through her brother or sister succeeding her as king or queen to their kingdom.

Henri M. · #9 04-12-2007, 01:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Next Star

Now Monaco's situation is totally diifferent the reigning prince who we know as Albert II is not married nor does have a legitmate heir.

Of course the Prince of Monaco has a perfectly legitimate Heir and that is Her Royal Highness Caroline Louise Marguerite Princess of Hannover, Princess of Great Britain and Ireland, Duchess of Braunschweig-Lüneburg née Princess de Monaco.

And of course Crown Princess Victoria already has a prefectly legitimate Heir and that is His Royal Highness Carl Philip Edmund Bertil Prince of Sweden, Duke of Värmland.

You see cows on the road while there are no cows at all. It are not Prince Albert or Crown Princess Victoria who determine the line of succession, it is just the dry factual Constitution which already determines who are in line of succession. And if Albert and Victoria remain childless, so be it. The Constitution does not care about that.

Next Star · #10 04-16-2007, 02:14 PM

I am talking about the head of state or heir having a child as their heir not a brother or sister.No offense but Caroline nor Carl-Philp should have to be future heads of state because their brother or sister has not wed or had a legtimate child as their heir.This puts a lot of pressure on them and the rest of their families to step up and one day be future leaders.Like I am mention in my previous quote all the other heirs have taken the pressure and burdens of their siblings by getting married and having a child as their heir and not a sister or brother like Albert or Victoria. I think Victoria will not be like Albert hopefully in the next two or three years Victoria will wed and I Albert will not.

bekalc · #11 04-18-2007, 05:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Henri M.

Of course the Prince of Monaco has a perfectly legitimate Heir and that is Her Royal Highness Caroline Louise Marguerite Princess of Hannover, Princess of Great Britain and Ireland, Duchess of Braunschweig-Lüneburg née Princess de Monaco.

And of course Crown Princess Victoria already has a prefectly legitimate Heir and that is His Royal Highness Carl Philip Edmund Bertil Prince of Sweden, Duke of Värmland.

You see cows on the road while there are no cows at all. It are not Prince Albert or Crown Princess Victoria who determine the line of succession, it is just the dry factual Constitution which already determines who are in line of succession. And if Albert and Victoria remain childless, so be it. The Constitution does not care about that.

I never said that the Crown of Sweden or Monoco will end if Victoria and Albert remain unmarried did I?

What I said is that it makes things uncertain because if Victoria and Albert do have children that means Caroline and Carl Phillipe are no longer the heirs.

If you think about it means that Caroline's life for example is on hold as is her children. They need to be prepared to take over throne, but well don't want to be to prepared because what if a legitimate kid comes.
It's not necessarily the same for Carl Phillipe because female fertility is well less done now. But what if Victoria decides to have a kid from invitro at 50. Carl Phillipe could already be married by then and preparing his children for the well eventually succession and then bomb. That's why it can be fairly selfish for the monarch to hold off like that. I"m not saying you should marry to marry...
But if a legitimate kid comes, than that's virtual certainty.

Lena · #12 04-18-2007, 05:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bekalc

But what if Victoria decides to have a kid from invitro at 50. Carl Phillipe could already be married by then and preparing his children for the well eventually succession and then bomb.

Now that would be an most interesting case. To get that done, she could either be in the lucky position of still having eggs resulting in a healthy baby. Or she would use a frozen egg (and then Carl Philip and his children could know about her plan) or she would get an egg of a donator. But would the baby be then her offspring, and the one, who is first/second in line to the throne. Complicated question, that would make the modern world and old traditions clashing in an most interesting way

Then again these days all Royals seem to live with the motto "I´m creating my own rules"...so maybe Victoria could then adopt the baby, she has self carried. Or it would be declared automatically to her baby, because 200 years ago, they had no genetic tests either

Well, all grey theory...Miss "I love children & animal" would better reproduce yourself. Nearly 50 year old prince Albert is already enough of a "desperate figure", but an 50 year old crown princess or queen having decided to live alone and/or not having children is it even more...talking about double standards here.

bekalc · #13 04-18-2007, 06:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lena

Now that would be an most interesting case. To get that done, she could either be in the lucky position of still having eggs resulting in a healthy baby. Or she would use a frozen egg (and then Carl Philip and his children could know about her plan) or she would get an egg of a donator. But would the baby be then her offspring, and the one, who is first/second in line to the throne. Complicated question, that would make the modern world and old traditions clashing in an most interesting way

Then again these days all Royals seem to live with the motto "I´m creating my own rules"...so maybe Victoria could then adopt the baby, she has self carried. Or it would be declared automatically to her baby, because 200 years ago, they had no genetic tests either

Well, all grey theory...Miss "I love children & animal" would better reproduce yourself. Nearly 50 year old prince Albert is already enough of a "desperate figure", but an 50 year old crown princess or queen having decided to live alone and/or not having children is it even more...talking about double standards here.

Who knows what would happen. I have a feeling though Victoria is an honest person, and would admit that it wasn't her egg. And if it wasn't her egg, then I don't think the baby should count in the succession because its not of her blood/dna even if she carried the baby.

Furienna · #14 04-18-2007, 08:48 PM

I just wish one of three siblings can produce an heir soon.

**Marengo** · #15 04-19-2007, 06:37 AM

Well, not to soon, 9 months after a marriage and not 1 day sooner

ZandraRae · #16 04-20-2007, 09:44 AM

Right on Marengo! All we need is a scandal with one of the three siblings having an illegitmate child out of wedlock. Carl Gustav would have a heart attack. Let's wait. All other CP's are in their 30's, Victoria still has time.

Furienna · #17 04-21-2007, 06:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZandraRae

Right on Marengo! All we need is a scandal with one of the three siblings having an illegitmate child out of wedlock. Carl Gustav would have a heart attack. Let's wait. All other CP's are in their 30's, Victoria still has time.

But Sweden is a liberal country though, when it comes to this issue. During the last five decades, the status of the illegitimate have increased. I don't even think a royal having an illegitimate would raise too many eyebrows anymore.

**Zonk** · #18 04-21-2007, 08:35 PM

Please note that several posts from the Act of Succession - 1979 Consitutional thread have been moved here. The purpose of this thread is to discuss the Swedish Line of Succession. Any posts relating who succeeds Victoria if she has no children, etc should been posted here.

Current order of succession

Have fun posting!

**Hans-Rickard** · #19 04-25-2007, 02:42 PM

If Victoria have no children when she is the new swedish monarch it will be an very unlycky situation but dont worry, it will never happen!

If Victoria is over 40 years old and proclaimed Queen Victoria I The Queen of Sweden and that whitout having an own heir Prince Carl Philip will take over as Crownprince and we have the same situation as in monaco.
But I think this situation will re-open the general-discussion about a republic constitution, the same discussion who was discussed under Gustaf VI Adolfs final years and under the beginning of Carl XVI Gustafs period.

Lets pray for that this situation never came back!

Next Star · #20 04-25-2007, 02:55 PM

Hans-Rickard there is no way Carl-Philp would become Crown Prince even if Victoria does not wed and has no children.He will just be prince and heir presumptive and not heir apparent there is a difference between these two terms. An heir apparent can not be removed by the birth of others that is what Victoria is now they only to remove that right is the by the law meaning the consititution has to be changed in over for someone else to proceed over the line and be first and heir the throne as she is.Heir presumptive is a person
who can be removed by the birth of other meaning as long as there is no other person who has a stronger claim to the throne they will inherit the throne.