The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #201  
Old 03-02-2007, 07:00 PM
Henri M.'s Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Eindhoven / Maastricht, Netherlands
Posts: 1,896
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sister Morphine
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?
When you look at many countries like Britain, since 1666 a parliamentary democracy or the Netherlands, even a republic (!) since 1579 with a remarkable symbiosis with the premier family delivering the person in the highest office (the Stadtholder) or when you look to Belgium which became an independent country in 1830 with a very liberal constitution: most monarchies never experienced absolutism. The days of Louis XIV (l'État: c'est moi!) really are far behind us.

Monarchy is no more than a form of state in which the head of state is 'delivered' by a certain family. That certain family often followed written and unwritten rules which were common in almost all other monarchies (male preferred succession).

It were the progressive governments in the 1970's and 1980's who protested against the 'gender discrimination' in the monarchal system. But this is on itself nonsense because the simple fact that a baby born in a certain family becomes the nation's head of state and not any other citizen, already is a discrimination on itself.

So you either abolish the monarchy, or leave it alone with all their rules.

__________________

Reply With Quote
  #202  
Old 03-02-2007, 07:33 PM
Lena's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Mandø, Denmark
Posts: 3,884
I´m agreeing with you HenriM. And I´m torn between feminism and tradition in the case of someone representing a society, that is known as progressive and an institution, that is a few centuries old and based on tradition.
The final point is though always, that we don´t need to bother as long as the ppl are accepting it. Personally I´m wondering about many things...about the floods of commoners, that are suddenly dignified elegant and noble princesses. About a gym trainer possibly becoming the father of Sweden´s next king or queen. About the programmes, that are called education, about the fields some Royals have chosen or not chosen...the more one is thinking about, the more one is seeing the farce.
But what does that matter, if a majority in a Monarchy is for it...and powerful enough to keep it. Today I´ve read with astonishment, that still 4 of 10 Danes are for an apanage being payed to Alexandra. Not a majority, but still many, who don´t mind to pay to the Ex of the brother of the man, who is first in line to the throne.
Each modern Monarchy is getting the Monarchy, that it´s deserving and wanting. So what should one complain about it. If one is part of a Monarchy with equal primogeniture and doesn´t support it, but a majority is supporting it...one can´t do anything about it. Well, one can let off steam...but this still doesn´t help

Quote:
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.
Well, I think too, that the king isn´t shy either. But Carl Philip is really coming across a bit nervous, insecure and does avoid the limelight. It would be easy for him to get some attention...playing the BIG bloke wouldn´t be hard in his position. A serie of floozies, heavy parties with champagne, extravagant clothes for duties etc. and he would attract more attention. Or he could also attract attention with words...or if he would search for more positive attention, he could dedicate himself to popular topics. In other words, he could act like his younger sister Madeleine...a little bit of eroticism here, a little bit of fight against child abuse there. He isn´t such a person and doesn´t search the limelight. And I would label this is as form of shyness. Some kind of shyness, I´m adoring him for.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #203  
Old 03-02-2007, 07:41 PM
Henri M.'s Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Eindhoven / Maastricht, Netherlands
Posts: 1,896
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lena
In other words, he could act like his younger sister Madeleine...a little bit of eroticism here, a little bit of fight against child abuse there. He isn´t such a guy and doesn´t search the limelight. And I would label this is as form of shyness. Some kind of shyness, I´m adoring him for.
The fact that he does not act like his youngest sister Princess Madeleine, does make him raise in my esteem 100x more !

Your theory does not work because Crown Princess Victoria also is not that celebrity-loving 'sexy' type as Madeleine and she is also not labelled 'shy'.

It really has to do with the Prince, a man in a suit between three glamorous ladies, keeping his mouth shut and standing in the shadow of the King, the Queen and the Crown Princess. It has not so much to do with shyness. Also in other countries we see that the Prince of Orange, or the Prince of Asturias or the Prince of Wales are totally neglected in favour of their spouses Máxima, Letizia and Camilla.

Reply With Quote
  #204  
Old 03-02-2007, 08:30 PM
Furienna's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Örnsköldsvik, Sweden
Posts: 1,407
Of course, there have to be some changes over the centuries. But the monarchies are so much based on traditions and so much based on certain families, that it's just ridiculous to change the succession laws in the name of gender equality.
Reply With Quote
  #205  
Old 03-02-2007, 08:32 PM
Lena's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Mandø, Denmark
Posts: 3,884
Quote:
Originally Posted by Henri M.
The fact that he does not act like his youngest sister Princess Madeleine, does make him raise in my esteem 100x more !

Your theory does not work because Crown Princess Victoria also is not that celebrity-loving 'sexy' type as Madeleine and she is also not labelled 'shy'.

It really has to do with the Prince, a man in a suit between three glamorous ladies, keeping his mouth shut and standing in the shadow of the King, the Queen and the Crown Princess. It has not so much to do with shyness. Also in other countries we see that the Prince of Orange, or the Prince of Asturias or the Prince of Wales are totally neglected in favour of their spouses Máxima, Letizia and Camilla.

Well, I´m partly agreeing. One can´t deny, that the Royal women have a certain status and popularity, that Royal men can never reach. And I might be wrong, but I guess for an new unknown gigantic glittering Tiara on Crown Princess Maxima´s well arranged hairdo, you would always turn your attention from the Prince of Orange to the Princess of Orange

But there are differences! There are many ppl, who see the Prince of Asturias as grand well-groomed man, or the Prince of Orange as an exuberant personality and who doesn´t know the Prince of Wales with his old-fashioned manners and strong opinions? Of course one would need to take also second row examples...and then we could take Prince Laurent or Prince Joachim. They are older, longer in the business and have caused attention through things Carl Philip hadn´t experienced yet or would never experience. This might be a reason, why they are getting more space in mags or the ppl´s talks. But also 10 years ago they got more attention. They made themselves noticeable. There are many ppl, who are thinking, that the king of Sweden has only 2 children...Victoria and Madeleine. Surely not in Sweden, but abroad. And I´m blaming it at least partly to Carl Philip´s personality. He is a prince in a medium-sized Monarchy, he is handsome and would be a very good catch (if one is thinking about it even better than a Crown Prince)...but he is withdrawing himself from this cliché and is leading a "low key" life. And this is making him different and "shyer" to me.

And about his elder sister...she is indeed (thanks god!) not like their younger sister. But she surely knows, how to get attention. One can also use the "girl-next-door show" in this position and for her it´s working. She is giving many interviews (without stuttering...some smart PR-advisors did their work), is a little camera bug and even though her style is mostly boring, she is sometimes breaking out (e.g. Gala in Versailles last december)
Reply With Quote
  #206  
Old 03-02-2007, 08:43 PM
Lena's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Mandø, Denmark
Posts: 3,884
Quote:
Originally Posted by Furienna
Of course, there have to be some changes over the centuries. But the monarchies are so much based on traditions and so much based on certain families, that it's just ridiculous to change the succession laws in the name of gender equality.
But for you as Swede...wouldn´t you think, that the gym trainer as Prince is a bigger change to you?
As I´ve said I´m agreeing, that the change of succession in favour of a first born female does feel like a major cut.
But to me middle class in the most upper upper class is feeling even more strange. There have been Queens before. Their status was based on the lack of brothers or cousins...but they have been there, have fulfilled their job and left quite an impression in History. There have been also things like morgantic marriages (though not in Sweden)...but hardly ever or even not at all for reigning Queens...something, that is actually equal to morgantic marriage for producing the heir and a future Queen by birth does feel like stabbing the Monarchy. At least to me...but it´s none of my business. I´m just watching things with a bucket of popcorn...and what I see is at least truly entertaining
Reply With Quote
  #207  
Old 03-02-2007, 11:14 PM
Next Star's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: ******, United States
Posts: 838
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. 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.
I always felt the eldest child should be the heir to the throne regardless of sex so I not be mad if Victoria were my older sister she is the first born so she should be heir not me Iwas born second if I were Carl-Philip. I think the king would not give his entire fortune just to Victoria being he has two other children I think he would split the fortune three ways for all three of his children. The law had decided I am not the heir anymore and my older sister Victoria is there is nothing I can do about I would just live with it.
__________________
Patience is a virtue.
Reply With Quote
  #208  
Old 03-03-2007, 08:10 AM
ZandraRae's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Nashville, United States
Posts: 570
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lena
But for you as Swede...wouldn´t you think, that the gym trainer as Prince is a bigger change to you?
As I´ve said I´m agreeing, that the change of succession in favour of a first born female does feel like a major cut.
But to me middle class in the most upper upper class is feeling even more strange. There have been Queens before. Their status was based on the lack of brothers or cousins...but they have been there, have fulfilled their job and left quite an impression in History. There have been also things like morgantic marriages (though not in Sweden)...but hardly ever or even not at all for reigning Queens...something, that is actually equal to morgantic marriage for producing the heir and a future Queen by birth does feel like stabbing the Monarchy. At least to me...but it´s none of my business. I´m just watching things with a bucket of popcorn...and what I see is at least truly entertaining
I totally agree Lena. There have been many queens who have and are still, doing an excellent job! Why, oh why can't people accept the fact and give Victoria a chance? I personally am more worried with what Lena said, about a gym trainer being the father of Sweden's future heir. But, we have to give him a chance, too, if that will be the case. People keep surprising us...
Reply With Quote
  #209  
Old 03-03-2007, 09:45 AM
Zonk's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere in, United States
Posts: 12,810
Let's try to stay on topic. I understand the Daniel W. reference but this thread is not about him.
Reply With Quote
  #210  
Old 04-20-2007, 11:47 AM
Thomas Parkman's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Columbia, United States
Posts: 531
Love is always a mess

Particularly, dear members, when you are royal. It is a fact of life that most but not all men like and want to know-in the biblical sense-women and vice versa for women. As a result until very recent times most women but by no means all had children. Ditto for those members of royalty.

Given the nature of society until recent centuries, it was deemed a necessity that the person occupying the throne be male. After all life was a violent, ruthless and bloody affair with warfare a constant fact of life. And the male of the species seemed to be most of the time somewhat better at picking up axes, broadswords etc and hacking up all and sundry. In the meantime, in the unfairness of nature, while the gentlemen had gotten over and probably forgotten that marvelous and indeed lubricious incident at three 0clock in the morning some months back the dear wife was aware that where there were two now three or more were on the way. So she had to stay home and rather, than fight three battles as the poet Euripides noted, give birth to one child. Now much has changed.

But for the royals living a normal life and meeting someone and falling in love and getting married and all the rest is under the relentless and ruthless glare of the paparazzi and the newspapers with their insatiable appetite for something to fill their pages. What better thingie than the latest royal behaving or misbehaving no better and no worse than the rest of us. But it makes relationships even more fiendishly difficult. Witness the Kate/William blow up. I suspect that something along these lines explains the current situation with regard to the three heirs to the Swedish throne.

I also much regret that after Carl Philipp was born he was stripped of his position as crown prince. If the consitution were going to be changed in the matter it should have been done right after the birth of CP Victoria. Cheers.
Reply With Quote
  #211  
Old 04-21-2007, 07:43 PM
Zonk's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere in, United States
Posts: 12,810
Several posts regarding Victoria's Heir have been moved as they are "off topic" in regards to the subject of this thread. A new thread has been created to discuss the Swedish Line of Succession, it can be found here http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums...ion-12487.html

As I have stated in the past, The purpose of this thread is to discuss the Act of Succession and how it relates to Crown Princess Victoria, Prince Carl Philip, and the concept of the first born child as heir to the throne or the first born son as heir to the throne, etc.

Let's try to stay focused on the subject at hand
Reply With Quote
  #212  
Old 09-04-2007, 08:38 PM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 14
What bothers me about the switch in roles between Carl Philip and Victoria is not gender based at all. In fact, I think that if there is any "fair" way to pass down the crown, it is simply to give it to the oldest. However, I do not like that Victoria has not been expected (or maybe encouraged) to take on a military role. It is Carl Philip who has gone through the military training typical of an heir and now the elite training. I believe that either the role of monarch should be altered to adapt to the king or queen that occupies it or that she needs to go through intense military training. However, this idea that she will do everything but the military training and Carl Philip will continue the role for her is bogus.
Reply With Quote
  #213  
Old 09-04-2007, 08:45 PM
Gutsy's Avatar
Commoner
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NYC, United States
Posts: 39
The Constitution states that the Head of State holds all the highest ranks in the Armed Forces, though is not the Commander-in-Chief. Like Elizabeth II a future Queen Victoria of Sweden would hold military ranks and even be entitled to wear military uniform though not actually a professional military person. It is notewothy IMO though that she never appears in military uniform at ceremonies ; as did Queen Elizabeth II and both the British Princess Royal and Belgium's Princess Astrid.
Reply With Quote
  #214  
Old 09-05-2007, 01:54 AM
norwegianne's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Rogaland, Norway
Posts: 6,017
Quote:
Originally Posted by qisabella View Post
What bothers me about the switch in roles between Carl Philip and Victoria is not gender based at all. In fact, I think that if there is any "fair" way to pass down the crown, it is simply to give it to the oldest. However, I do not like that Victoria has not been expected (or maybe encouraged) to take on a military role. It is Carl Philip who has gone through the military training typical of an heir and now the elite training. I believe that either the role of monarch should be altered to adapt to the king or queen that occupies it or that she needs to go through intense military training. However, this idea that she will do everything but the military training and Carl Philip will continue the role for her is bogus.
Given that the mandatory conscription in Sweden is, as far as I understand it (any Swede feel free to correct), solely male, and that females may volunteer for it, but aren't called in to service automatically, it seems rather logical that Carl Philip would go through this anyway. Victoria has gone through some sort of basic military training. She has also taken some courses at the Defence academy.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #215  
Old 09-05-2007, 07:07 AM
Furienna's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Örnsköldsvik, Sweden
Posts: 1,407
That's true. Victoria has had some training, though Carl Philip has had more.
Reply With Quote
  #216  
Old 08-10-2009, 08:00 PM
KitKat2006's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Oldenburg, Germany
Posts: 611
While I completely understand Furiennas opinion on "sticking with traditions", I also like the idea of equality between sexes. There was a time when I was younger, when I thought that CP was not treated fair after the change of the Act of Succession, but these times are long gone. I think CPV does a great job and will be a phantastic queen someday.

But there is still one thing that really bothers me: the unfair treatment of the husbands of the current queens (like Beatrix (Netherlands), Elisabeth (Great Britian), Margarete (Denmark)) and the husbands of the future queens (Victoria (Sweden), Ingrid-Alexandra (Norway), Elisabeth (Belgium), Catharina-Amalia (Netherlands) and as of now Leonor (Spain)). Where is the equality here? Why aren't they / won't they be kings? Why only Prince Consort? I mean, Mette-Marit (Norway), Mary (Denmark), Maxima (Netherlands), Matilde (Belgium), Letizia (Spain) will become queen someday. It would only be fair, if the current / future Prince Consorts will be granted the same rights than their female collegues if the female royals are granted the same rights than their royal male collegues. That's what bothers me the most. Equality yes, but regardless of sex of either part of the future reigning couple (royal heir or husband/wife). It would be really sad if there would be a time without real kings in the future, if there will be only female heirs. And it looks this way right now. Only Denmark and Great Britian will have male heirs (well and the little countries like Luxemburg, Lichtenstein, Monaco).

And please excuse my english. I'm not very good with it. Hopefully you understand what I was trying to say. And yeah, hopefully it's okay to wake up a discussion, that's long gone into some kind of hibernation. After all, the last post was in 2007.
Reply With Quote
  #217  
Old 08-10-2009, 08:33 PM
Gutsy's Avatar
Commoner
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NYC, United States
Posts: 39
Both Spain and Britain had a tradition of the "Crown Matrimonial": a man married to a Queen Regnant (i.e., Sovereign/Head of State) bore the title "King" but without any of the consitutional duties of a Sovereign. The spouse of Isabel II of Spain in the 19th century bore the title "King." One unique situation was the accession of William and Mary to the throne of Great Britain in 1689. Mary was the next Protestant heir after the deposition of James II; her spouse William of Orange (already in the line of succession) insisted he reign with her as joint and effective Sovereign. This was never repeated as the husbands of all subsequent female British Queens Regnant were styled "HRH" and Prince.
Reply With Quote
  #218  
Old 08-11-2009, 06:01 AM
Furienna's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Örnsköldsvik, Sweden
Posts: 1,407
Quote:
Originally Posted by KitKat2006 View Post
While I completely understand Furiennas opinion on "sticking with traditions", I also like the idea of equality between sexes. There was a time when I was younger, when I thought that CP was not treated fair after the change of the Act of Succession, but these times are long gone. I think CPV does a great job and will be a phantastic queen someday.
I'm sure too, that Victoria will be a fantastic queen one day. But still, I think how they changed the act of succession was wrong. Carl Philip was born as an heir appearent, a crown prince, while Victoria was "only" born as an heir presumptive. But then, the parlament changed it all, so Victoria became crown princess. Even though they were so tiny back then, that they didn't know what was going on, I don't think it was fair. They should have done like they did in Norway. They too changed the succession laws, so the eldest child, no matter the sex, would be their heir appearant. But they had it come in effect only in the next generation. So that's how Haakon still is crown prince, even though he has an older sister.

Quote:
But there is still one thing that really bothers me: the unfair treatment of the husbands of the current queens (like Beatrix (Netherlands), Elisabeth (Great Britian), Margarete (Denmark)) and the husbands of the future queens (Victoria (Sweden), Ingrid-Alexandra (Norway), Elisabeth (Belgium), Catharina-Amalia (Netherlands) and as of now Leonor (Spain)). Where is the equality here? Why aren't they / won't they be kings? Why only Prince Consort? I mean, Mette-Marit (Norway), Mary (Denmark), Maxima (Netherlands), Matilde (Belgium), Letizia (Spain) will become queen someday. It would only be fair, if the current / future Prince Consorts will be granted the same rights than their female collegues if the female royals are granted the same rights than their royal male collegues. That's what bothers me the most. Equality yes, but regardless of sex of either part of the future reigning couple (royal heir or husband/wife). It would be really sad if there would be a time without real kings in the future, if there will be only female heirs. And it looks this way right now. Only Denmark and Great Britian will have male heirs (well and the little countries like Luxemburg, Lichtenstein, Monaco).
I totally agree about this. If a king's wife is called "queen", why can't a queen's husband be called "king"? I guess it has to do with fact, that kings were considered superior to queens, so to protect the status of regent queens, their husbands "only" became princes.

Quote:
And please excuse my english. I'm not very good with it. Hopefully you understand what I was trying to say. And yeah, hopefully it's okay to wake up a discussion, that's long gone into some kind of hibernation. After all, the last post was in 2007.
I think your English is fine. And you can feel free to resurrect threads. By the way, I can't believe, that no one has written in this thread since I did in, what, September 2007?
Reply With Quote
  #219  
Old 03-30-2011, 10:11 AM
Non-royal's Avatar
Newbie
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Topeka, United States
Posts: 5
Since many constitutions have changed allowing Princesses to succeed ahead of their younger brothers, IMHO it is time to create a new title for the consorts of reigning Queens and crown princesses. The spouse of a crown prince becomes a crown princess. Why not make the consort (husband) of a crown princess a crown prince consort and when she becomes queen, make the husband His Majesty Prince ..... I believe there should be some method to elevate the spouse of a Queen to a rank higher than a garden variety prince.

I realize this has been debated in these threads before, but wanted to add my opinion.
Thank you.
Reply With Quote
  #220  
Old 03-30-2011, 05:19 PM
Esmerelda's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,206
I think the best way round the inequality of titles would be to 'downgrade' female consorts to 'Princess consort' and keep the title King/Queen to the monarch. I might be wrong but I heard that this was being discussed in Holland? Or was it just the fact that Maxima didn't take the title 'Princess of Orange?
__________________

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
abdication abu dhabi althorp american history anastasia anastasia once upon a time ancestry british chittagong cht clarence house danish history diana princess of wales dutch history dutch royal family dutch royals earl of snowdon facts family tree games heraldry hereditary grand duchess stéphanie hereditary grand duke guillaume hill historical drama imperial household intro italian royal family jacobite japan jewellery jumma kids movie king salman king willem-alexander list of rulers mailing monaco history nepalese royal jewels nobel 2019 norway norway history palestine popularity prince charles of luxembourg prince daniel prince dimitri princess ariane princess chulabhorn walailak princess laurentien princess ribha random facts royal dress-ups royal jewels royal marriage royal re-enactments. royal wedding saudi arabia serbian royal family snowdon spencer family swedish royal family thailand tracts uae customs unsubscribe videos visit from sweden wittelsbach working royals; full-time royals; part-time royals;


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:19 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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