The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #281  
Old 06-28-2014, 09:19 PM
Moonmaiden23's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Los Angeles, United States
Posts: 10,068
Another poster in this thread made the comment that the law was made retroactive to appease aggressive feminist politicians in the Swedish Parliament.

My opinion-which is meaningless since I am not a Swede-is that it was pointless. What would have been harmful about applying the new law to the existing Heir and his children going forward?
__________________

__________________
"Be who God intended you to be, and you will set the world on fire" St. Catherine of Siena

"The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice". Martin Luther King Jr. 1929-1968
Reply With Quote
  #282  
Old 06-28-2014, 09:53 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 6,262
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moonmaiden23 View Post
The discussions began directly after the birth of Victoria. The law was not passed in the Rikstag until Carl-Philip was already seven months old. He already had the position of Crown Prince automatically at his birth.

Luxembourg and Belgium both passed similar legislation regarding Succession laws but did not pass the law retroactively.Only in Sweden was the extraordinary gesture of stripping the existing Heir of his title and giving it to his sister done.
The changes to the law of succession in Denmark were also retroactive, effectively depriving Hereditary Prince Knud, a 53-year-old man (not a seven-month boy !) of his position as heir to the throne. In Belgium, on the other hand, the change in the law retroactively put Princess Astrid and her children ahead of Prince Laurent.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #283  
Old 06-29-2014, 02:38 AM
Stefan's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Esslingen, Germany
Posts: 5,015
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarNoe View Post
I was under the impression that the law was already in the process before Carl-Philip was born, just didn't get completed til after the birth. Or is that wrong?
Yes it was already in the Process but had to be voted again by a new elected Riksdag. Abnd elections to the Riksdag took place in autumn 1979. So it could also have not been done before the birth of Carl Philip.
__________________
Stefan



Reply With Quote
  #284  
Old 06-29-2014, 07:06 AM
Icea's Avatar
Commoner
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Ludvika, Sweden
Posts: 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarNoe View Post
Ouch! There was obviously some serious foot dragging by the law makers!
Not really, they actually passed the new succession law as quickly as they could!

The Swedish succession law (which dictates who inherits the throne) is apart of the Swedish constitution. In order to change anything in the constitution there has to be a vote in two separate parliaments before that law can take effect.

The discussion about letting women inherit the throne started in 1975 and intensified when Victoria was born. The parliament proposed changing the law and in 1978 they had the first vote in which the majority wanted women to be able to inherit the throne. The next election in Sweden wasn't held until September 1979 and so they had to wait until that time in order to hold the second vote on the matter. Carl Philip was born in May 1979 and since the law hadn't been changed at that point, he became crown prince. After the election in September parliament once again voted on the issue and a majority wanted the first born to be heir. That law came in effect January 1st 1980.

I'm not sure whether parliament intended for the law to work retroactively when they held the first vote (it's possible they had already proposed that Victoria would become crown princess no matter if she had any siblings) or if this question came up as they were about to vote for the second time in 1979. However since they had started to change the law when Victoria was born and hadn't had siblings yet, I think it's possible that parliament wanted to change the law with the intent of making Victoria crown princess and that's why it came in effect retroactively.
Reply With Quote
  #285  
Old 06-29-2014, 09:25 AM
MarNoe's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Utah, United States
Posts: 740
Quote:
Originally Posted by Icea View Post
Not really, they actually passed the new succession law as quickly as they could!

The Swedish succession law (which dictates who inherits the throne) is apart of the Swedish constitution. In order to change anything in the constitution there has to be a vote in two separate parliaments before that law can take effect.
Thank you. That explains quite well why it took so long.
Reply With Quote
  #286  
Old 06-29-2014, 09:41 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: England, United Kingdom
Posts: 3,188
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moonmaiden23 View Post
Even though the boy was only seven months, what was done to him was ridiculous and unjust. Why make the new Succession rules retroactive in the first place?

The result is that the queen and especially the king have probably gone overboard to indulge Carl-Philip's every whim out of a sense of guilt. Did he even complete his education? What does he do other than race cars?
I imagine in the eyes of the Swedish parliament it would have been just as unfair for Victoria to stop being heir to the throne and replaced with her brother just because she was born a girl and he a boy.
Reply With Quote
  #287  
Old 06-29-2014, 10:18 AM
Avicenna's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: North of Lake Constance, Germany
Posts: 543
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
The changes to the law of succession in Denmark were also retroactive, effectively depriving Hereditary Prince Knud, a 53-year-old man (not a seven-month boy !) of his position as heir to the throne. In Belgium, on the other hand, the change in the law retroactively put Princess Astrid and her children ahead of Prince Laurent.
Denmark:

There were two changes in Denmark. You are mentioning the 1953 Change (following the 1953 Referendum) which was about the succession rights of females. Prior to it women were not allowed at all thus making the kings brother (Knud) the heir to the throne. This change gave women only in the case of no male heir the possibility to succeed.

The second change took place in 2009 after the 2009 Referendum. This time it granted equal rights to both male and female descendant. So no matter what the gender is, the first born will take over.

The situation you mention is therefor a bit different. After all it's normal that siblings loose their place in the line once children are born to a couple.
Reply With Quote
  #288  
Old 06-29-2014, 01:46 PM
Lady Nimue's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Pacific Palisades CA, United States
Posts: 4,420
Quote:
Originally Posted by Icea View Post
Not really, they actually passed the new succession law as quickly as they could!

The Swedish succession law (which dictates who inherits the throne) is apart of the Swedish constitution. In order to change anything in the constitution there has to be a vote in two separate parliaments before that law can take effect.

The discussion about letting women inherit the throne started in 1975 and intensified when Victoria was born. The parliament proposed changing the law and in 1978 they had the first vote in which the majority wanted women to be able to inherit the throne. The next election in Sweden wasn't held until September 1979 and so they had to wait until that time in order to hold the second vote on the matter. Carl Philip was born in May 1979 and since the law hadn't been changed at that point, he became crown prince. After the election in September parliament once again voted on the issue and a majority wanted the first born to be heir. That law came in effect January 1st 1980.

I'm not sure whether parliament intended for the law to work retroactively when they held the first vote (it's possible they had already proposed that Victoria would become crown princess no matter if she had any siblings) or if this question came up as they were about to vote for the second time in 1979. However since they had started to change the law when Victoria was born and hadn't had siblings yet, I think it's possible that parliament wanted to change the law with the intent of making Victoria crown princess and that's why it came in effect retroactively.
Thank you for this clarification. Makes perfect sense that they went with Victoria since the intent was there when they started, it was just the timing of the change.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tommy100 View Post
I imagine in the eyes of the Swedish parliament it would have been just as unfair for Victoria to stop being heir to the throne and replaced with her brother just because she was born a girl and he a boy.
Quite so.
Reply With Quote
  #289  
Old 06-29-2014, 11:50 PM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Richmond, United States
Posts: 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moonmaiden23 View Post
I understand and agree if the Rikstag had decided to change the Succession to allow females to succeed going forward, but to strip Carl-Philip of his rights retro-actively was unfair. I do not blame the king for being angry about it.

I wonder if C-P had been groomed as Heir all along would his attitude be different...his approach to his duties, responsibilities and his choice of a future wife?
I completely agree. The Rikstag should not have gone against the King's wishes and taken the Crown Prince title away from C-P and given it to Victoria. I think C-P would be an entirely different person today had that not happened and his choice of spouse completely different. And, as much as I love Victoria, I think she would have been happier. The strain on her in the job she has with her dyslexia, prosopagnosia, and past anorexia issues must be immense. Perhaps her father actually knew what was best for her personally and what was best for his family and the Rikstag disregarded his opinion. He has reason to be upset. I am not criticizing Victoria at all. She is wonderful. I think it is an amazing tribute to her as an individual that she has excelled in the face of these difficulties, but it must be a great stress. The Rikstag should have left things as Providence arranged them and changed the law moving forward.
Reply With Quote
  #290  
Old 06-30-2014, 12:04 AM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Somewhere, United States
Posts: 1,013
No one on this earth can change the past, and yet some feel he has a right to be angry and this happened how many years ago, over 30, I really don't know how old Prince Carl is yet to still hold a grudge for that long says something about King Carl. The past is just that, *The Past* and none of us in this world can change that nor predict the future. It's really moot to say how PC would or won't be now. If he wanted to be more then he is besides a playboy prince then he should do more to help the people of Sweden yet he is know for car racing, stealing other people's designs in pottery and vacations, that is all his own doing, not anybody else. He should take a look at some other princes and try to follow their example even though he isn't a crown prince, even another prince in England does way more then he does and this one even served in the military and he isn't a crown prince. It's called *work* and that is something he is shy about.
Reply With Quote
  #291  
Old 06-30-2014, 12:52 AM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Richmond, United States
Posts: 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by SElizabeth View Post
No one on this earth can change the past, and yet some feel he has a right to be angry and this happened how many years ago, over 30, I really don't know how old Prince Carl is yet to still hold a grudge for that long says something about King Carl. The past is just that, *The Past* and none of us in this world can change that nor predict the future. It's really moot to say how PC would or won't be now. If he wanted to be more then he is besides a playboy prince then he should do more to help the people of Sweden yet he is know for car racing, stealing other people's designs in pottery and vacations, that is all his own doing, not anybody else. He should take a look at some other princes and try to follow their example even though he isn't a crown prince, even another prince in England does way more then he does and this one even served in the military and he isn't a crown prince. It's called *work* and that is something he is shy about.
You are right in that we can't change the past. I too would prefer to see a more serious and focused C-P. It is never impressive to watch anyone, much less a member of the Head of State's family, act like a pampered, self centered, unserious, aimless, party prince/princess. Character reveals itself in actions.

I hope C-P and Sofia are starting a new chapter and that they are serious about making their marriage a long, successful, and committed one. It's not a game.
Reply With Quote
  #292  
Old 05-23-2015, 06:11 PM
Pranter's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 12,091
I think he was done a wrong turn when they changed the line of succession after he was born.

LaRae
Reply With Quote
  #293  
Old 05-23-2015, 06:46 PM
Cris M's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Niterói, Brazil
Posts: 827
Regarding his place in the line of succession: am I against absolute primogeniture? Certainly not. I'm not against any form of hereditary succession, I accept all of them and like to read about their peculiarities. But I do think the way it was done in Sweden was wrong, stripping Prince Carl Philip of his birth right. They could have given succession rights to Princess Victoria, but wait until de next generation to implement absolute primogeniture. Only God knows how Prince Carl Philip would have turn out as heir apparent.
__________________
“If a thousand thrones I had, I would give a thousand thrones to get the slaves free in Brazil."

Princess Isabel (1846-1921), Princess Imperial and Regent of the Empire of Brazil, after she signed the Golden Law, in 1888, abolishing slavery in Brazil.
Reply With Quote
  #294  
Old 05-23-2015, 09:44 PM
HRHHermione's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Boston, United States
Posts: 2,942
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moonmaiden23 View Post
I agree with this post. But I also agree with Pranter that stripping him of his title of Heir was unjust. Maybe as Heir his upbringing would have instilled more discipline, and his character would be different, if that had not occurred.

I think it would have been far more unjust for his older sister to be denied her rightful place as oldest child because of ancient sexism.

Victoria is the heir and that is right and positive. Carl-Phillip seems to enjoy his life as it is.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community mobile app
Reply With Quote
  #295  
Old 05-23-2015, 10:12 PM
Cris M's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Niterói, Brazil
Posts: 827
Quote:
Originally Posted by HRHHermione View Post
I think it would have been far more unjust for his older sister to be denied her rightful place as oldest child because of ancient sexism.

Victoria is the heir and that is right and positive. Carl-Phillip seems to enjoy his life as it is.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community mobile app
But Crown Princess Victoria was not born heir apparent, Prince Carl Philip did. The very concept of Monarchy is not really fair, but it was unjust to strip Prince Carl Philip of his birthright.

Sweden could have done like Norway, introducing absolute primogeniture, but not taking away Crown Prince Haakon's birthright and favoring his older sister.
__________________
“If a thousand thrones I had, I would give a thousand thrones to get the slaves free in Brazil."

Princess Isabel (1846-1921), Princess Imperial and Regent of the Empire of Brazil, after she signed the Golden Law, in 1888, abolishing slavery in Brazil.
Reply With Quote
  #296  
Old 05-23-2015, 10:15 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: City, Kazakhstan
Posts: 8,012

You are correct. Prince Carl Philip was stripped off the rightful title by overzealous politicians.
Reply With Quote
  #297  
Old 05-23-2015, 10:26 PM
Pranter's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 12,091
It should of started with his heirs instead of stripping the title from him.


LaRae
Reply With Quote
  #298  
Old 05-23-2015, 10:30 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Durham, United States
Posts: 1,419
I have to agree, the new rules should have started with the next generation. It was not fair to strip him of his right.
Reply With Quote
  #299  
Old 05-23-2015, 10:31 PM
Cris M's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Niterói, Brazil
Posts: 827
Exactly.

Norway, Denmark and others have done the right thing. Sweden was wrong stripping Prince Carl Philip of his birthright. Belgium also stripped Prince Laurent of birthright, favouring Princess Astrid, but he was not the direct heir, so it didn't make a big difference.
__________________
“If a thousand thrones I had, I would give a thousand thrones to get the slaves free in Brazil."

Princess Isabel (1846-1921), Princess Imperial and Regent of the Empire of Brazil, after she signed the Golden Law, in 1888, abolishing slavery in Brazil.
Reply With Quote
  #300  
Old 05-23-2015, 10:59 PM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is offline
Moderator Emeritus
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 4,107
Are you serious? CP was less than a year old when he was "stripped" of his position as heir apparent. Given as legislature tends to take more than 7 months to come into affect, I would guess that the legislation was probably in the process of being passed before CP was even born.

If CP had actually been of an age where he was old enough to understand what was being "taken" from him I might see the point, but given as he wasn't even old enough to understand the point of a toilet I think people might be exaggerating what he was deprived of.
__________________

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
#royalrelatives #royalgenes anastasia 2020 armstrong-jones bangladesh baptism brownbitcoinqueen canada chittagong coronavirus countess of snowdon cover-up crown princess victoria danish royalty dna dragons dutch dutch royal family emperor fantasy movie future haakon vii hill history house of grimaldi house of orange-nassau interesting introduction israel jewelry jumma kent list of rulers luxembourg maxima mbs nepal nepalese royal family nobel prize prince charles prince constantijn princely family of monaco princess alexia (2005 -) princess catharina-amalia princess chulabhorn princess dita princess elizabeth pronunciation queen maud queen maxima rown royal balls royal court royal events royal family royal jewels royal spouse royalty royal wedding russian court dress spain startling new evidence stuart sweden thailand thai royal family tips tracts united kingdom von hofmannsthal wedding gown


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:54 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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