The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #181  
Old 01-07-2007, 06:34 PM
Lox's Avatar
Lox Lox is offline
Commoner
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: -, Sweden
Posts: 36
By the way, I think it's more correct to say that the Act of Succession (Successionsordningen) was changed in 1980, and not 1979.

1980 was the year that the change went into effect, and 1980 is the year that is used in the media when the change is mentioned.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #182  
Old 01-08-2007, 08:31 AM
GrandDuchess's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Somwhere, Sweden
Posts: 3,403
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lox
By the way, I think it's more correct to say that the Act of Succession (Successionsordningen) was changed in 1980, and not 1979.

1980 was the year that the change went into effect, and 1980 is the year that is used in the media when the change is mentioned.
No.

The Act of Succession was changed finally in 1979 when the second and obligatory vote took place after general elections. It came into effect on 1 January 1980.

So I would say you're wrong there, because the media usually just say when the effect took place, not when it was actually changed.
__________________

__________________
Sofia's Blog (my blog)
Reply With Quote
  #183  
Old 01-08-2007, 10:07 AM
ZandraRae's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Nashville, United States
Posts: 570
I also believe it was 1979, but it really doesn't matter what year, whether '79 or '80, the most important matter here is that the firstborn is always the rightful heir IMO. They changed it when both Carl Phillip & Victoria were young, so it affected neither of them as little kids.
Reply With Quote
  #184  
Old 01-08-2007, 10:41 AM
Lox's Avatar
Lox Lox is offline
Commoner
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: -, Sweden
Posts: 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by GrandDuchess
No.

The Act of Succession was changed finally in 1979 when the second and obligatory vote took place after general elections. It came into effect on 1 January 1980.

So I would say you're wrong there, because the media usually just say when the effect took place, not when it was actually changed.
Ok, 1 January 1980. But you have to agree that 1980 is the year that is most commonly used when the change is mentioned:
http://www.royalcourt.se

And let's not forget the commemorative coin:
http://www.riksbank.se/upload/Bilder...t1/20b_lag.jpg

I still think it's correct to say that the law was changed in 1980. On December 31 1979 the old succession law was still in place, right? Or didn't Sweden have a succession law during the last months of 1979?
Reply With Quote
  #185  
Old 01-08-2007, 05:33 PM
GrandDuchess's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Somwhere, Sweden
Posts: 3,403
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lox
Ok, 1 January 1980. But you have to agree that 1980 is the year that is most commonly used when the change is mentioned:
http://www.royalcourt.se

And let's not forget the commemorative coin:
http://www.riksbank.se/upload/Bilder...t1/20b_lag.jpg

I still think it's correct to say that the law was changed in 1980. On December 31 1979 the old succession law was still in place, right? Or didn't Sweden have a succession law during the last months of 1979?
The media usually writes 1980, because that's the year it came into effect. Much easier for them to just say that, instead of getting mixed into the details.

But it's not correct to say it was changed in 1980 however, because it was not.

Sweden's Act of Succession was changed in 1979, nothing else. The change was made when the Parliament voted on it, and the paperwork (laws and protocolls) was re-printed immediately in 1979. On 31 December 1979 the new law was written and in place, but had yet not come into effect. When laws are made, there are always addendum protocolls which specifies when they will come into force, and this is always later that the actual desicion date.

Since you referred to the Royal Court's website, you can look at Crown Princess Victoria's biography which most accurately says the following:

"Kronprinsessan är, i enlighet med 1979 års successionsordning, som trädde i kraft den 1 januari 1980, Sveriges tronföljare."

or the English version

"In accordance with the 1979 Act of Succession, which entered into force on January 1, 1980, The Crown Princess Victoria is heir to the Swedish throne"


To make a coin is a longer process though (designing, approving, then making them), so since the Parliament's desicion was taken so late that year, the Bank of Sweden obviously waited until it came into effect.
__________________
Sofia's Blog (my blog)
Reply With Quote
  #186  
Old 01-08-2007, 06:52 PM
Lox's Avatar
Lox Lox is offline
Commoner
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: -, Sweden
Posts: 36
OK. But I still don't think that it's wrong to say 1980. The changes went into effect then, and for me, that's what matters.
Reply With Quote
  #187  
Old 01-17-2007, 01:44 PM
Next Star's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: ******, United States
Posts: 838
Okay let's keep cool and just know that Victoria is the heir to the throne and not her brother Carl-Philp regardless of what year the laws of succession were changed. Putting the eldest child first instead of going by the sex of the child making Victoria the future queen while Carl-Philp will still be in line of the throne as well as Madeliene who too will continue to be in the line to the throne unless she gives up her rigths to the throne or marries a prince at is the heir to another royal throne.
__________________
Patience is a virtue.
Reply With Quote
  #188  
Old 02-27-2007, 10:11 PM
Gutsy's Avatar
Commoner
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NYC, United States
Posts: 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daneborn
Bright idea of the day: She could adopt her brother. In order to please the infinitily small minority who thinks he's the ''rightful'' heir he will always be older than the children Victoria will have with her future husband.
In fact the law did rob C-P of his rightful inheritance. To pass an "ex post facto" law depriving an infant of his legal inheritance ( be it crown or a pair of shoes) is repugnant in jurisprudence and simple justice. Especially if that deprivation is done in the name of some abstract "good". It is one thing to alter the law of succession for the future, but what occurred in 1980 was despicable.
Reply With Quote
  #189  
Old 02-27-2007, 10:21 PM
Sister Morphine's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: North Carolina, United States
Posts: 2,830
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gutsy
In fact the law did rob C-P of his rightful inheritance. To pass an "ex post facto" law depriving an infant of his legal inheritance ( be it crown or a pair of shoes) is repugnant in jurisprudence and simple justice. Especially if that deprivation is done in the name of some abstract "good". It is one thing to alter the law of succession for the future, but what occurred in 1980 was despicable.

It would be despicable if Carl Philip was in his teens or young adulthood, had been groomed from birth to be King and then suddenly had the succession changed and made retroactive. Then I could see you saying it was "despicable" as literally the life he had been living for close to 20 years was suddenly wiped out in favor of someone who now had to go all through that, but at a much later age.

He was an infant at the time of the succession change, and therefore wasn't even cognizant of what was going on. I think to call it despicable is a bit of an overexaggeration.
__________________
"The grass was greener / The light was brighter / The taste was sweeter / The nights of wonder / With friends surrounded / The dawn mist glowing / The water flowing / The endless river / Forever and ever......"
Reply With Quote
  #190  
Old 02-27-2007, 10:28 PM
Gutsy's Avatar
Commoner
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NYC, United States
Posts: 39
A question of "right" does not depend upon whether or not your rights are altered or removed at age 20 or 20 days. What kind of society would it be if families and the rights of infants were at the whim of politicians? Carl-Philip was Crown Prince of Sweden at his birth by the law and the constitution in force at the time of his birth. Maybe it's just my "Anglo-Saxon" legal culture but the thought of parliaments passing "ex post facto" laws to take effect on individuals who cannot speak for themselves is, pardon me, despicable. Even the normally reticent King Carl Gustaf was displeased and let it be known. In those days it was more the fashion for the Socialist International elites to look down on him and so he was ignored in way much less likely today.
Reply With Quote
  #191  
Old 02-27-2007, 10:56 PM
Sister Morphine's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: North Carolina, United States
Posts: 2,830
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gutsy
A question of "right" does not depend upon whether or not your rights are altered or removed at age 20 or 20 days. What kind of society would it be if families and the rights of infants were at the whim of politicians? Carl-Philip was Crown Prince of Sweden at his birth by the law and the constitution in force at the time of his birth. Maybe it's just my "Anglo-Saxon" legal culture but the thought of parliaments passing "ex post facto" laws to take effect on individuals who cannot speak for themselves is, pardon me, despicable. Even the normally reticent King Carl Gustaf was displeased and let it be known. In those days it was more the fashion for the Socialist International elites to look down on him and so he was ignored in way much less likely today.

Swedish Parliament was already working on changing the line of succession BEFORE Carl Philip was born. In fact, I believe they finished the law up shortly after the Queen gave birth. Because Carl Philip was born in mid-to-late 1979, they waited until January 1 of the new calendar year to make it official. So whether he was a boy or a girl, the line of succession was going to change, and it was going to be retroactive. I don't know if TM knew the gender of the child, but everything I've read told me that shortly after Victoria was born, they set about to alter it. So it really didn't matter one bit what sex the next-born child was. Victoria was to be heiress.
__________________
"The grass was greener / The light was brighter / The taste was sweeter / The nights of wonder / With friends surrounded / The dawn mist glowing / The water flowing / The endless river / Forever and ever......"
Reply With Quote
  #192  
Old 02-28-2007, 09:17 AM
ZandraRae's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Nashville, United States
Posts: 570
We have a thread especially to disucss who the rightful heir should be. But since we are on this topic, I have voiced my opinion many times before, and I still stand by it. Victoria IMO is the rightful heir, since she is the oldest. Anyways, Carl Phillip does not seem bothered by it, and if he isn't, we shouldn't be either.
Reply With Quote
  #193  
Old 02-28-2007, 12:05 PM
Gutsy's Avatar
Commoner
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NYC, United States
Posts: 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZandraRae
We have a thread especially to disucss who the rightful heir should be. But since we are on this topic, I have voiced my opinion many times before, and I still stand by it. Victoria IMO is the rightful heir, since she is the oldest. Anyways, Carl Phillip does not seem bothered by it, and if he isn't, we shouldn't be either.
Where is that thread? Thanks.
Btw: I'm not saying Victoria is not the "rightful heir" in the sense that she is not the legitimate heir to the Crown under current Swedish law. What I AM saying was that parliamentary actions that made her heir are dubious in terms of common justice and legal practice.
Reply With Quote
  #194  
Old 03-01-2007, 01:16 AM
Next Star's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: ******, United States
Posts: 838
I don't see now Carl-Philip was even rob of something he knew nothing about? The law was changed before he was born but did not come into affect until the early part of 1980. This has been mention numerous times about this law change. This is good that Carl-Philip is not the heir to the throne he seems very shy. His older sister Victoria does not come off as someone shy and she has good head on her shoulders like they say everything happens for a reason being Carl-Philip was not meant to be heir and Victoria was meant to be the heir to the throne.
__________________
Patience is a virtue.
Reply With Quote
  #195  
Old 03-01-2007, 11:30 AM
Gutsy's Avatar
Commoner
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NYC, United States
Posts: 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by Next Star
I don't see now Carl-Philip was even rob of something he knew nothing about? The law was changed before he was born but did not come into affect until the early part of 1980. This has been mention numerous times about this law change. This is good that Carl-Philip is not the heir to the throne he seems very shy. His older sister Victoria does not come off as someone shy and she has good head on her shoulders like they say everything happens for a reason being Carl-Philip was not meant to be heir and Victoria was meant to be the heir to the throne.
Let us assume that at your birth you were the heir-in-law to your father's fortune and would inherit both his wealth and position. As you lay in your cradle other men decide it really would be "fairer" that your sister get everything instead; ignoring your parents' wishes. Of course, as an infant you would have no knowledge of this until later. So your sister grows up being groomed for your father's position and fortune instead of you. Might one not then seem a bit shy' and one's sister more confident?
Would it all 'be for a reason"; other than the fact that other people decided you shouldn't inherit what was rightfully yours from birth?
As for C-P's shyness, of course could it not have been different if he were still Crown Prince at his father's side?
Btw: anything I say in this thread in no way is meant to disrespect the Crown Princess.
Reply With Quote
  #196  
Old 03-01-2007, 11:37 AM
Henri M.'s Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Eindhoven / Maastricht, Netherlands
Posts: 1,896
Prince Carl Philip of Sweden, Duke of Värmland and his father, The King are totally outshadowed by the Queen and the two glamorous Princesses.

Please do not make the mistake to label that as 'shy'.

The Prince (and The King) simply are on second stage for media. But they are not shy. Both the King and Prince Carl-Philip do their public appearances with great charm and often with jolly good cheer.
Reply With Quote
  #197  
Old 03-02-2007, 04:34 AM
Jo of Palatine's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Munich, Germany
Posts: 3,322
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gutsy
Let us assume that at your birth you were the heir-in-law to your father's fortune and would inherit both his wealth and position. As you lay in your cradle other men decide it really would be "fairer" that your sister get everything instead; ignoring your parents' wishes.
One can view this situation from the other side. There is this nice little girl - when she was born it was clear that she can't inherit, because she was "only" a girl. So some "other man" decided that they changed the law meaning that, while all children get their share (titles, money etc.) the oldest child should inherit the position and the "work" - no matter if the child be a girl or a boy. On changing the law, a boy is born who by law becomes the main heir, even though he is only the second child and has an older sister. This unfair situation is reversed when the law is finally changed - now the first child is the heir, no matter what the gender. Sounds much more fair to me!
__________________
'To dare is to lose one step for but a moment, not to dare is to lose oneself forever' - Crown Prince Frederick of Denmark in a letter to Miss Mary Donaldson as stated by them on their official engagement interview.
Reply With Quote
  #198  
Old 03-02-2007, 08:37 AM
Henri M.'s Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Eindhoven / Maastricht, Netherlands
Posts: 1,896
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jo of Palatine
One can view this situation from the other side. There is this nice little girl - when she was born it was clear that she can't inherit, because she was "only" a girl. So some "other man" decided that they changed the law meaning that, while all children get their share (titles, money etc.) the oldest child should inherit the position and the "work" - no matter if the child be a girl or a boy. On changing the law, a boy is born who by law becomes the main heir, even though he is only the second child and has an older sister. This unfair situation is reversed when the law is finally changed - now the first child is the heir, no matter what the gender. Sounds much more fair to me!
Isn't this unfair that a younger, possibly more talented, sibling will always come behind because he/she has an elder brother/sister?

Isn't that an unfairness as well?

The problem is that modern emancipatory thought and political correctness are glued on an old and ancient institution with old and ancient rules. But no matter what you do, any other sibling but the eldest still is discriminated.
Reply With Quote
  #199  
Old 03-02-2007, 05:38 PM
Furienna's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Örnsköldsvik, Sweden
Posts: 1,407
That's true. I find the change of the succession in 1980 more and more ridiculous. You can't make an old institution like the monarchy into a completely equal. The monarchy should follow its traditions, not the ideas of the time.
Reply With Quote
  #200  
Old 03-02-2007, 06:14 PM
Sister Morphine's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: North Carolina, United States
Posts: 2,830
Quote:
Originally Posted by Furienna
That's true. I find the change of the succession in 1980 more and more ridiculous. You can't make an old institution like the monarchy into a completely equal. The monarchy should follow its traditions, not the ideas of the time.

The Monarchy represents the people, and is for the people.....the same as an elected government. If the people change, if the times change....shouldn't those who serve the people, no matter what the capacity, change too? I mean, should we go back to the days of Absolute Monarchies with the King upon the throne by divine rule? Female royals are now subserviant to men, have no rights and are merely marriage chattle?
__________________

__________________
"The grass was greener / The light was brighter / The taste was sweeter / The nights of wonder / With friends surrounded / The dawn mist glowing / The water flowing / The endless river / Forever and ever......"
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
carl gustav, constitution, constitutional change, crown princess victoria, king carl xvi gustav, prince carl philip, succession, sweden


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
What Would You Change? Lena Royal Chit Chat 21 01-11-2015 07:09 PM
When did your opinion of Diana change and why? ysbel Diana, Princess of Wales (1961-1997) 1113 06-05-2011 11:20 PM
Change of name of our community to TRF... Andy R Forum Announcements and Admin 2 08-29-2004 04:29 PM




Popular Tags
abu dhabi althorp american history anastasia anastasia once upon a time ancestry bangladesh british chittagong cht danish history diana princess of wales dutch history dutch royal family dutch royals family tree games haakon vii heraldry hereditary grand duchess stéphanie hereditary grand duke guillaume hill house of orange-nassau imperial household intro italian royal family jacobite japan jewellery jumma kids movie king willem-alexander list of rulers mailing maxima monaco history nepalese royal jewels nobel 2019 norway norway history palestine popularity prince charles of luxembourg prince daniel princess ariane princess catharina-amalia princess chulabhorn walailak princess elizabeth princess laurentien princess ribha pronunciation random facts royal jewels royal marriage royal re-enactments. royal wedding saudi arabia serbian royal family snowdon spain spencer family swedish royal family thailand tracts unsubscribe videos visit from sweden wedding gown wittelsbach working royals; full-time royals; part-time royals;


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:34 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2020
Jelsoft Enterprises
×