The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #221  
Old 03-30-2011, 08:54 PM
nascarlucy's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Central Florida Area, United States
Posts: 1,425
My opinion of this has never wavered even though people have disagreed with me on this issue. The firstborn of the Monarch would be the heir to the throne unless there was severe mental health issues or a medical issue (being in a coma with little chance of coming out of it for example) which made them mentally or physically unable to carry out their duties. This would have to be verified by several experts who would go before the parliment and present their findings. The parliament would then aprove or disapprove their findings.

If the Monarch didn't have any children, then the next heir to the throne's first born child would be the heir to the throne and so on.

I know people have tried to explain this to me, but I still don't understand why this process took a couple of years (I guess I don't understand all the legalities or other issues behind this). Since the parliment wanted this to go through, it seems like an up or down vote would be the easiest way to resolve this. Again that just my opinion.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #222  
Old 03-31-2011, 12:15 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: San Francisco, United States
Posts: 2,383
Quote:
Originally Posted by nascarlucy View Post
My opinion of this has never wavered even though people have disagreed with me on this issue. The firstborn of the Monarch would be the heir to the throne unless there was severe mental health issues or a medical issue (being in a coma with little chance of coming out of it for example) which made them mentally or physically unable to carry out their duties. This would have to be verified by several experts who would go before the parliment and present their findings. The parliament would then aprove or disapprove their findings.

If the Monarch didn't have any children, then the next heir to the throne's first born child would be the heir to the throne and so on.

I know people have tried to explain this to me, but I still don't understand why this process took a couple of years (I guess I don't understand all the legalities or other issues behind this). Since the parliment wanted this to go through, it seems like an up or down vote would be the easiest way to resolve this. Again that just my opinion.
It is similar to ratifying amendments to the US constitution. It takes much more than a up or down vote.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #223  
Old 03-31-2011, 02:53 AM
Esmerelda's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,206
Quote:
Originally Posted by nascarlucy
My opinion of this has never wavered even though people have disagreed with me on this issue. The firstborn of the Monarch would be the heir to the throne unless there was severe mental health issues or a medical issue (being in a coma with little chance of coming out of it for example) which made them mentally or physically unable to carry out their duties. This would have to be verified by several experts who would go before the parliment and present their findings. The parliament would then aprove or disapprove their findings.

If the Monarch didn't have any children, then the next heir to the throne's first born child would be the heir to the throne and so on.

I know people have tried to explain this to me, but I still don't understand why this process took a couple of years (I guess I don't understand all the legalities or other issues behind this). Since the parliment wanted this to go through, it seems like an up or down vote would be the easiest way to resolve this. Again that just my opinion.
I think the first born child should be heir to the throne unless they have committed some scandalous crime. If they're mentally ill the next in line would be regent and will become King/Queen in the fullness of time.

Do you mean that if a Monarch doesn't have any children, the throne should bypass the sibling and pass on to the next generation?

I'm not entirely sure why the law took so long to pass through. I read some interviews with an historian, i think it was Hermann Linquist who said it was because of the political situation. In the 70s the monarchy wasn't in a good position and I guess the best scenario for the republicans was for the King to have no sons and thus no heir. The conservatives therefore proposed equal primogeniture when Victoria was born to secure the monarchy. When Carl Philip was born, the other parties didn't really have much choice but to do the 'progressive' thing.
Reply With Quote
  #224  
Old 03-31-2011, 03:55 PM
nascarlucy's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Central Florida Area, United States
Posts: 1,425
If the monarch didn't have children, then the next child his or her younger brother or sister would be heir to the throne. That's what I meant to say.
Reply With Quote
  #225  
Old 03-31-2011, 05:45 PM
Esmerelda's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,206
Quote:
Originally Posted by nascarlucy
If the monarch didn't have children, then the next child his or her younger brother or sister would be heir to the throne. That's what I meant to say.
Oh I see. I thought passing the throne directly to the niece/nephew would be an interesting concept especially if the monarch dies of old age. However, there would be all sorts of complications if he/she does not and with the parents being outranked by their child.
Reply With Quote
  #226  
Old 03-31-2011, 07:36 PM
MRSJ's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: ******, United States
Posts: 1,862
Quote:
Originally Posted by Esmerelda

Oh I see. I thought passing the throne directly to the niece/nephew would be an interesting concept especially if the monarch dies of old age. .
In England the throne was passed from King William V (?) to his niece Victoria but only because her father was deceased .... so conceivably it could happen in Sweden, like if Victoria and Daniel had no children and CP did but passes before Victoria his child would inherit
Reply With Quote
  #227  
Old 04-02-2011, 11:12 AM
nascarlucy's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Central Florida Area, United States
Posts: 1,425
I meant the monarch siblings (brother or sister) if he/she had any would be next in line. The brother or sister would be heir to the throne. However, problems would exist for succession if the monarch lived to be very old and outlived all their siblings. I would guess any children of the heir to the throne would be next, even if their parent died before the monarch did.
Reply With Quote
  #228  
Old 04-02-2011, 12:16 PM
MRSJ's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: ******, United States
Posts: 1,862
Quote:
Originally Posted by nascarlucy
I meant the monarch siblings (brother or sister) if he/she had any would be next in line. The brother or sister would be heir to the throne. However, problems would exist for succession if the monarch lived to be very old and outlived all their siblings. I would guess any children of the heir to the throne would be next, even if their parent died before the monarch did.
Isn't that what I said? If Victoria is Queen and outlives Carl Phillipe and her and Daniel gave no children but Carl does would not his child become Victoria's heir?right now Carl is Victoria's heir and once she's Queen he will continue to be her heir until she has children, and if she doesn't and outlives him wouldn't the heir be his children? It's like Monaco, until PA and Charlene have kids Caroline is the heiress and her oldest son next...... Am I not correct in this? Or is Sweden different?
Reply With Quote
  #229  
Old 04-02-2011, 03:38 PM
Boris's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Los Angeles, United States
Posts: 2,203
Quote:
Originally Posted by MRSJ View Post
Am I not correct in this? Or is Sweden different?
Of course you're correct.
If Victoria remains childless and outlives her siblings, the eldest of nephews/nieces inherits the throne.
Reply With Quote
  #230  
Old 04-03-2011, 12:20 AM
Eve2Eden's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 113
Quote:
Originally Posted by Esmerelda View Post
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 agree. This is the easiest and most sensible (and equitable) way of handling the issue, IMO. It does seem a bit strange nowadays for a female spouse to automatically receive an upgrade to Crown Princess/Queen, while a male spouse must remain "just" a Prince.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Furienna View Post
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.
IIRC, Victoria had no succession rights at all when she was born- women were not eligible for the throne at that time.

Does anyone have more information about the exact timing of the different steps taken to change the succession? I get the impression that the change was already being considered when Victoria was born, and that the new law had in fact been passed by the time Carl Philip was born, but did not officially take effect until he was 7 months old. In that case, it makes sense that they did not make the law retroactive, as in Norway (in addition to the often-made point about the respective ages of the Prince and Princess in Sweden vs. Norway).

I've always wondered why, if he knew the change was coming, the King got as worked up as he did about Carl Philip being displaced...
Reply With Quote
  #231  
Old 04-03-2011, 04:41 AM
Stefan's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Esslingen, Germany
Posts: 5,015
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eve2Eden View Post
I agree. This is the easiest and most sensible (and equitable) way of handling the issue, IMO. It does seem a bit strange nowadays for a female spouse to automatically receive an upgrade to Crown Princess/Queen, while a male spouse must remain "just" a Prince.



IIRC, Victoria had no succession rights at all when she was born- women were not eligible for the throne at that time.

Does anyone have more information about the exact timing of the different steps taken to change the succession? I get the impression that the change was already being considered when Victoria was born, and that the new law had in fact been passed by the time Carl Philip was born, but did not officially take effect until he was 7 months old. In that case, it makes sense that they did not make the law retroactive, as in Norway (in addition to the often-made point about the respective ages of the Prince and Princess in Sweden vs. Norway).

I've always wondered why, if he knew the change was coming, the King got as worked up as he did about Carl Philip being displaced...
I fell the other way. I think male consorts should become King-Consort like earlier in Spain and Portugal.
As for the change of the succesion law. In 1979 the where general elections in Seden in the autumn. And this new elected Parliament had to pass the change of the succession law before it could come in force. Therefore it was only a few months after Carl Philip was born.
__________________
Stefan



Reply With Quote
  #232  
Old 04-03-2011, 04:52 AM
LadyFinn's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Southwest, Finland
Posts: 30,219
Proposition 1977/78:71 om kvinnlig tronföljd - Riksdagen
Swedish goverment proposed the female line of succession on December 1977 to the swedish parliament/Riksdagen.
Reply With Quote
  #233  
Old 04-04-2011, 07:46 PM
Furienna's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Örnsköldsvik, Sweden
Posts: 1,407
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eve2Eden View Post
IIRC, Victoria had no succession rights at all when she was born- women were not eligible for the throne at that time.
You seem to be right! So that was why people were so excited, when our current king was born. None of his four sisters had any right to inherit the thrown, since they were girls. And I assumed, that our succession back then went like the British one goes today, that females are allowed to inherit the thrown, but only if they don't have a brother. But still, if every male member of the royal house had died, surely one of our king's sisters could have become queen? After all, we've had two regent queens in Swedish history, Christina and Ulrica Eleonora.

Quote:
I've always wondered why, if he knew the change was coming, the King got as worked up as he did about Carl Philip being displaced...
Probably because it was more radical than I thought it was. I mean, it went from there being no women in the succession at all to a boy (albeit just a few months old) losing his crown prince title to his sister. It feels like our succession order jumped over a step, where the British succession order now is. Oh well, at least the change to the sucession allowed princes and princesses to marry "commoners" and still keep their royal status, as long as the king gives them permission to do so (hence why Victoria could marry Daniel).
Reply With Quote
  #234  
Old 04-05-2011, 02:34 AM
Esmerelda's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,206
Quote:
Originally Posted by Furienna
You seem to be right! So that was why people were so excited, when our current king was born. None of his four sisters had any right to inherit the thrown, since they were girls. And I assumed, that our succession back then went like the British one goes today, that females are allowed to inherit the thrown, but only if they don't have a brother. But still, if every male member of the royal house had died, surely one of our king's sisters could have become queen? After all, we've had two regent queens in Swedish history, Christina and Ulrica Eleonora.

Probably because it was more radical than I thought it was. I mean, it went from there being no women in the succession at all to a boy (albeit just a few months old) losing his crown prince title to his sister. It feels like our succession order jumped over a step, where the British succession order now is. Oh well, at least the change to the sucession allowed princes and princesses to marry "commoners" and still keep their royal status, as long as the king gives them permission to do so (hence why Victoria could marry Daniel).
Didn't the original law specifically forbid marriage with Swedish commoners? Although in those days, the King would probably not have given his consent to a marriage with a foreign commoner so I guess it amounts to 'no commoners' after all.
Reply With Quote
  #235  
Old 04-05-2011, 03:08 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: alpine village, Germany
Posts: 2,615
Quote:
Originally Posted by Esmerelda View Post
Didn't the original law specifically forbid marriage with Swedish commoners? Although in those days, the King would probably not have given his consent to a marriage with a foreign commoner so I guess it amounts to 'no commoners' after all.
IIRC Karl XIV. Johan (Bernadotte) was elected to become the Crown prince and heir to Sweden bei the Riksdag but once he was king he tried rather successfully to cut back the influence of the Swedish nobility and people on his decisions. Having been a liberal and revolutionary in his younger years, he became more and more of an autocrat with extremly conservative opinions.

So for him, any marriage of his elected dynasty was of utmost importance when it came to secure the future of the Bernadottes. They needed as much Royal blood from the mothers side in future kings and princes as possible to make up for the lack of their blood.

When Oscar I. married Josephine of Leuchtenberg, it was clearly a triumph for the Bernadotte, as she was a sister of the empress of Brazil, sister-in-law of the queen of Portugal, niece of the King of Bavaria and the queens of Prussia, Wuerttemberg and Saxony and the empress of Franz I. of Austria and a first cousin to emperor Franz Joseph, his empress Elisabeth, the queen of Naples, the emperor of Mexico and of king Albert of Saxony, who had married the last Wasa of Sweden-princess Carola.

On her father's side she was a first cousin of emperor Napoleon III, of France, whose mother Hortense de Beauharnais was her father's sister.
Thus Karl's son Oscar I. could call most of the European monarchs "cousin" while his sons Karl XV. and Oskar II. already were blood relations.
So Karl XIV. Johan's act of succession surely made sense once.

But: The change of the act of succession in Sweden meant the change of a law from the 1800s and was thus surely necessary as Sweden is such a modern country.
Reply With Quote
  #236  
Old 04-05-2011, 10:52 AM
Gentry
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Uppsala, Sweden
Posts: 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eve2Eden View Post
...Does anyone have more information about the exact timing of the different steps taken to change the succession? I get the impression that the change was already being considered when Victoria was born, and that the new law had in fact been passed by the time Carl Philip was born, but did not officially take effect until he was 7 months old. ...
Not the exact dates, but to change a Swedish "grundlag" (similar to the constitution) either a referandum need to be called to ratify the Parlaments vote or the parlament have to take it a second time with a general election between the votes (so the voters can stop any untowards cahnge of it), so they parlament toke the first vote well before Carl Phillipe was born, and the second among the first thing they done when called in after the general election.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eve2Eden View Post
...
I've always wondered why, if he knew the change was coming, the King got as worked up as he did about Carl Philip being displaced...
He wasn't exactly worked up. The reporter had to drag it out of him what his peronal preference was regarding the Succession.
Reply With Quote
  #237  
Old 04-06-2011, 05:26 AM
Furienna's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Örnsköldsvik, Sweden
Posts: 1,407
Quote:
Originally Posted by Esmerelda View Post
Didn't the original law specifically forbid marriage with Swedish commoners? Although in those days, the King would probably not have given his consent to a marriage with a foreign commoner so I guess it amounts to 'no commoners' after all.
Prince Sigvard married a Polish-German woman, and he lost his status. Lilian Craig was British, but prince Bertil wasn't allowed to marry her until 1976. Indeed, Carl XVI might not have been allowed to marry Silvia, who was German-Brazilian, if he "only" had been a prince. So no, this wasn't just about Swedish commoners, but all commoners.
Reply With Quote
  #238  
Old 04-06-2011, 05:46 AM
Furienna's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Örnsköldsvik, Sweden
Posts: 1,407
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kataryn View Post
IIRC Karl XIV. Johan (Bernadotte) was elected to become the Crown prince and heir to Sweden bei the Riksdag but once he was king he tried rather successfully to cut back the influence of the Swedish nobility and people on his decisions. Having been a liberal and revolutionary in his younger years, he became more and more of an autocrat with extremly conservative opinions.

So for him, any marriage of his elected dynasty was of utmost importance when it came to secure the future of the Bernadottes. They needed as much Royal blood from the mothers side in future kings and princes as possible to make up for the lack of their blood.

When Oscar I. married Josephine of Leuchtenberg, it was clearly a triumph for the Bernadotte, as she was a sister of the empress of Brazil, sister-in-law of the queen of Portugal, niece of the King of Bavaria and the queens of Prussia, Wuerttemberg and Saxony and the empress of Franz I. of Austria and a first cousin to emperor Franz Joseph, his empress Elisabeth, the queen of Naples, the emperor of Mexico and of king Albert of Saxony, who had married the last Wasa of Sweden-princess Carola.

On her father's side she was a first cousin of emperor Napoleon III, of France, whose mother Hortense de Beauharnais was her father's sister.
Thus Karl's son Oscar I. could call most of the European monarchs "cousin" while his sons Karl XV. and Oskar II. already were blood relations.
So Karl XIV. Johan's act of succession surely made sense once.

But: The change of the act of succession in Sweden meant the change of a law from the 1800s and was thus surely necessary as Sweden is such a modern country.
Yeah, Carl XIV Johan did everything to secure his thrown and make his family as royal as possible. And I can maybe even understand Oscar I (who hadn't been born a royal either) thinking this way. But I don't see any benefit in throwing five princes from later generations (prince Oscar, prince Lennart, prince Sigvard, prince Carl jr and prince Carl Johan) out of the sucession and stripping them of their royal status, especially since at least two of them married aristocrats.
Reply With Quote
  #239  
Old 06-16-2011, 01:16 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Gonzales, Louisiana, United States
Posts: 569
Equal primogeniture

I recollect reading that HM King Carl XVI Gustaf was not happy when his son, HRH Prince Carl Philip, was placed behind his first-born child, HRH (now Crown) Princess Victoria. Has this ever caused any friction between father and daughter? Why was HM not happy when the royal succession was changed in Sweden? Has HM ever state his current emotion regarding equal primogeniture? Does HM believe his eldest child is now capable of being the future Queen of Sweden in her own right? Why was HM not happy about the new law at the time?
Reply With Quote
  #240  
Old 06-16-2011, 01:48 AM
IloveCP's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: -, United States
Posts: 11,063
I think the reason why the King was not happy with the law was beacause,CP was born a Crown Prince,and maybe he does not want his son look back and see that he lost he position in a matter of months.

But I think the king is proud of his daughter and knows she will make a good queen.
__________________

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 anastasia 2020 bridal gown british brownbitcoinqueen canada chittagong cht clarence house coronavirus crown princess victoria danish royalty diana princess of wales dna dubai dutch dutch royal family earl of snowdon emperor facts fantasy movie general news thread hereditary grand duchess stéphanie hill historical drama house of glucksburg intro italian royal family jewellery jumma kent king salman languages list of rulers luxembourg mail mary: crown princess of denmark monaco history nepalese royal jewels nobel 2019 northern ireland norway norwegian royal family palestine prince dimitri princess alexia (2005 -) princess laurentien princess of orange queen mathilde random facts rown royal court royal dress-ups royal jewels royal marriage royal re-enactments. royal wedding royal wedding gown saudi arabia serbian royal family settings sweden thailand thai royal family tips tracts uae customs united kingdom united states of america working royals; full-time royals; part-time royals;


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:40 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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