The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #301  
Old 05-23-2015, 11:08 PM
Cris M's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Niterói, Brazil
Posts: 827
Yes, I'm being serious.

His age at the time is irrelevant. It was his right to be heir apparent, and that right was taken from him. It's water under the bridge now, but it's was unfair.
__________________

__________________
“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
  #302  
Old 05-23-2015, 11:10 PM
HRHHermione's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Boston, United States
Posts: 2,942
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cris M View Post
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.

The proceedings were started before he was born! He was never going to be heir apparent. It was always going to be her, and that was always the right thing to do.

I think it is highly unlikely this has ever bothered him.

I'm also glad it's her, as she's proved time and again how wonderful she is in her role as future queen.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community mobile app
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #303  
Old 05-23-2015, 11:18 PM
Moonmaiden23's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Los Angeles, United States
Posts: 10,069
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
Since the new law was not in effect at the time of Victoria's birth, she was not denied anything at all. It was C-P who was denied his rightful place because of militant feminism and political correctness in Sweden.

The "right and positive" thing would have been to make the law effective with the then legitimate Heir(Carl-Philip) and his offspring, imo.
__________________
"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
  #304  
Old 05-23-2015, 11:26 PM
Cris M's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Niterói, Brazil
Posts: 827
Quote:
Originally Posted by HRHHermione View Post
The proceedings were started before he was born! He was never going to be heir apparent. It was always going to be her, and that was always the right thing to do.
I'm quite aware of the entire situation, thank you very much. I just think they could have changed things a little bit when the Crown Prince was born, and done things like in Norway and Denmark did.

Quote:
Originally Posted by HRHHermione View Post
I think it is highly unlikely this has ever bothered him.

I'm also glad it's her, as she's proved time and again how wonderful she is in her role as future queen.
I agree with you that Prince Carl Philip was probably never bothered by the situation and Crown Princess Victoria will be wonderful Queen to Sweden. I just think the situation was far from ideal.
__________________
“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
  #305  
Old 05-23-2015, 11:34 PM
HRHHermione's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Boston, United States
Posts: 2,942
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moonmaiden23 View Post
Since the new law was not in effect at the time of Victoria's birth, she was not denied anything at all. It was C-P who was denied his rightful place because of militant feminism and political correctness in Sweden.

The "right and positive" thing would have been to make the law effective with the then legitimate Heir(Carl-Philip) and his offspring, imo.

*rolls eyes*

Militant feminism and Political correctness may be how you think of gender equality, but that's not how most people conceive of it.

I think there are probably like, four people in the entire world that think Carl Phillip was done a disservice, and they all post on this forum.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community mobile app
Reply With Quote
  #306  
Old 05-24-2015, 12:12 AM
Moonmaiden23's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Los Angeles, United States
Posts: 10,069
*rolls eyes*

I am impressed that you have polled the whole of Europe on this subject and are aware of the feelings of everyone else.

There is no such thing as "gender equality". Men are men and women are women. That is a fact of nature. The two sexes do not equal one another.

There are however, HUMAN RIGHTS that every man, woman, and child has a right to regardless of gender.
__________________
"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
  #307  
Old 05-24-2015, 12:34 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 2,981
Quote:
Originally Posted by HRHHermione View Post
*rolls eyes*

Militant feminism and Political correctness may be how you think of gender equality, but that's not how most people conceive of it.

I think there are probably like, four people in the entire world that think Carl Phillip was done a disservice, and they all post on this forum.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community mobile app

Ha I agree and I don't know if he would want it any other way. It could have changed many areas of his life such as interests or who he marries.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
Reply With Quote
  #308  
Old 05-24-2015, 01:12 AM
Archduchess Zelia's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
Posts: 2,729
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moonmaiden23 View Post
*rolls eyes*

I am impressed that you have polled the whole of Europe on this subject and are aware of the feelings of everyone else.

There is no such thing as "gender equality". Men are men and women are women. That is a fact of nature. The two sexes do not equal one another.

There are however, HUMAN RIGHTS that every man, woman, and child has a right to regardless of gender.
There's a smashing smiley:

There is, in fact, a such thing as gender equality. And you've pretty much explained what it is in your last paragraph: equality regardless of gender. That neither men nor women should be discriminated against based on their gender – the exact reason why CP was displaced in the line of succession in favour of his older sister.
__________________
"Hope is like the sun. If you only believe it when you see it you'll never make it through the night."
Our Princess

Reply With Quote
  #309  
Old 05-24-2015, 01:17 AM
Moonmaiden23's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Los Angeles, United States
Posts: 10,069
Why can't the DISPLACEMENT of Carl-Philip mean that HE was discriminated against?? Again, the law was not in place at the time of the birth of Princess Victoria.

So by making it retro-active, it actually did discriminate against Carl-Philip.

We can go around and around on this subject but it will not change my opinion one iota.

I think the kid was shafted, but good on him if he's happy with the way things turned out.

Non-discrimination based on gender does not mean the same thing to me personally as "gender equality". But that is a subjective feeling, totally off topic.
__________________
"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
  #310  
Old 05-24-2015, 01:38 AM
Roslyn's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Tintenbar, Australia
Posts: 3,971
A discriminatory law was repealed, it was retro-active and CP was affected by it. I have no sympathy for him.
__________________
"That's it then. Cancel the kitchen scraps for lepers and orphans, no more merciful beheadings, -- and call off Christmas!!!"
Reply With Quote
  #311  
Old 05-24-2015, 01:50 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: n/a, United States
Posts: 695
I must say, it always surprises me to see that there are people who are genuinely upset about CP being "stripped" of his title. It was really only an issue of bureaucratic delay that put him in the position of being heir. The law was going ahead before he was born, regardless of what sex he was going to be.
Reply With Quote
  #312  
Old 05-24-2015, 02:24 AM
Duc_et_Pair's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: City, Netherlands
Posts: 10,455
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.

[...]
No one denies that, but the "unjust" thing here was that the Act was changed with retro-active workings. That means that Prince Carl Philip, the Crown Prince, whom held that position legally like any of his predecessors have held it, was removed. That angered his father, King Carl XVI Gustaf. We do not know what he personally thought about the equality in the Act of Succession (he has four elder sisters above him...), he would have signed it anyway but he found it a bitter pill to swallow that his son was demoted his royal, constitutional and legal birthright by retroactive force.

In most countries retro-active workings of the law are unconstitutional. "Yesterday you drove 100 km per hour. That was lawful. However we have changed the law. With retro-active working we have lowered the maximum speed to 80 km per hour. So.... we will fine you for neglecting the maximum speed." That is absurd but that is exactly what happened in Carl Philip's case.

In Norway they also changed the succession but NOT with retro-active workings. Haakon remained the Heir, above his two year elder sister Märtha Louise. In Norway the lawmaker thought that a position once held by the same law could not be overturned retro-actively, making that legally held position suddenly illegal. That is like changing the rules of a tennis game while the players are actually already in the third game of the second set...
Reply With Quote
  #313  
Old 05-24-2015, 02:58 AM
Moonmaiden23's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Los Angeles, United States
Posts: 10,069
Thank you for making my point with more eloquence than I did.


[Yesterday you drove 100 km per hour. That was lawful. However we have changed the law. With retro-active working we have lowered the maximum speed to 80 km per hour. So.... we will fine you for neglecting the maximum speed." That is absurd but that is exactly what happened in Carl Philip's case.]


I have no objection to the changing of the law but why make it retroactive?
__________________
"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
  #314  
Old 05-24-2015, 03:03 AM
Roslyn's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Tintenbar, Australia
Posts: 3,971
Outside of the areas of criminal law and tax law, both of which are protected by the constitution, the issue of retro-active operation of legislation has apparently not been of any particular concern to Swedish jurists. http://www.scandinavianlaw.se/pdf/39-3.pdf

I've been trying to find the precise date in 1979 when the amending legislation was put before the Riksdag. There's a surprising amount of scholarly material available in English, but so far I haven't found what I'm looking for. I haven't given up yet.

ETA, I just found the thread on TRF of the 1979 Constitutional Change. Post No. 73 in that thread tells us that the preliminary work was done in 1977/78. There had to be two votes of the Riksdag with an election in between in order to make the change to the Constitution. One was held in 1978 and the 2nd in 1979 after the election which had been held on 16 September. The change came into effect in January 1980.

CP was not suddenly and unfairly robbed of his birthright. The process for change had started before he was even conceived.
__________________
"That's it then. Cancel the kitchen scraps for lepers and orphans, no more merciful beheadings, -- and call off Christmas!!!"
Reply With Quote
  #315  
Old 05-24-2015, 03:49 AM
JR76's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Malmö, Sweden
Posts: 3,101
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair View Post
No one denies that, but the "unjust" thing here was that the Act was changed with retro-active workings. That means that Prince Carl Philip, the Crown Prince, whom held that position legally like any of his predecessors have held it, was removed. That angered his father, King Carl XVI Gustaf. We do not know what he personally thought about the equality in the Act of Succession (he has four elder sisters above him...), he would have signed it anyway but he found it a bitter pill to swallow that his son was demoted his royal, constitutional and legal birthright by retroactive force.

In Sweden the King doesn't sign new laws. He's totally disconnected from lawmaking process.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community mobile app
Reply With Quote
  #316  
Old 05-24-2015, 04:03 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Warsaw, Poland
Posts: 9,111
If he were a Heir, he would have probably never been allowed to marry Sofia.
Reply With Quote
  #317  
Old 05-24-2015, 04:12 AM
Stefan's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Esslingen, Germany
Posts: 5,015
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair View Post
No one denies that, but the "unjust" thing here was that the Act was changed with retro-active workings. That means that Prince Carl Philip, the Crown Prince, whom held that position legally like any of his predecessors have held it, was removed. That angered his father, King Carl XVI Gustaf. We do not know what he personally thought about the equality in the Act of Succession (he has four elder sisters above him...), he would have signed it anyway but he found it a bitter pill to swallow that his son was demoted his royal, constitutional and legal birthright by retroactive force.

In most countries retro-active workings of the law are unconstitutional. "Yesterday you drove 100 km per hour. That was lawful. However we have changed the law. With retro-active working we have lowered the maximum speed to 80 km per hour. So.... we will fine you for neglecting the maximum speed." That is absurd but that is exactly what happened in Carl Philip's case.

In Norway they also changed the succession but NOT with retro-active workings. Haakon remained the Heir, above his two year elder sister Märtha Louise. In Norway the lawmaker thought that a position once held by the same law could not be overturned retro-actively, making that legally held position suddenly illegal. That is like changing the rules of a tennis game while the players are actually already in the third game of the second set...
The Problems was that in Sweden the law was already voted by the Riksdag at the time of Carl Philip's birth. But it had to be voted a second time and between the votes elections had to held (The where held in late 1979). So you can also blame the timing of Carl Philip's birth. If he had been born a half year later things would have been different. And that also the King must have known.
__________________
Stefan



Reply With Quote
  #318  
Old 05-24-2015, 04:36 AM
Duc_et_Pair's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: City, Netherlands
Posts: 10,455
It is just deemed not appropriate in many circkles. To give another example of changes in a royal position. In 2002 the Netherlands changed the Royal House Act. Goal: to make the Royal House smaller and concentrate on the King, the Heir and their eventual children.

The titles Prince of the Netherlands and Prince of Orange-Nassau would only be born by these core royals, so that these titles would always indicate "a close bond with the bearer of the Crown". The Dutch Government found it "not desirable" that there were people somewhat furtherer related to the bearer of the Crown with these titles.

This means that the sons of Princess Margriet would be stripped of their title Prins van Oranje-Nassau. That was the aim of this whole Act. But the Dutch lawmaker thought it was "not opportune" or "not gentlemanlike" or "not appropriate" (all these arguments were used in the debate on the Bill) to take away the styles and titles which were held by Princess Margriet's sons. So they refused to give the modernized Act a retro-active working. Exacltly alike the change in Norway, which had no retroactive working to Prince Haakon.
Reply With Quote
  #319  
Old 05-24-2015, 04:57 AM
Stefan's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Esslingen, Germany
Posts: 5,015
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair View Post
It is just deemed not appropriate in many circkles. To give another example of changes in a royal position. In 2002 the Netherlands changed the Royal House Act. Goal: to make the Royal House smaller and concentrate on the King, the Heir and their eventual children.

The titles Prince of the Netherlands and Prince of Orange-Nassau would only be born by these core royals, so that these titles would always indicate "a close bond with the bearer of the Crown". The Dutch Government found it "not desirable" that there were people somewhat furtherer related to the bearer of the Crown with these titles.

This means that the sons of Princess Margriet would be stripped of their title Prins van Oranje-Nassau. That was the aim of this whole Act. But the Dutch lawmaker thought it was "not opportune" or "not gentlemanlike" or "not appropriate" (all these arguments were used in the debate on the Bill) to take away the styles and titles which were held by Princess Margriet's sons. So they refused to give the modernized Act a retro-active working. Exacltly alike the change in Norway, which had no retroactive working to Prince Haakon.
In the Uk this was done in 1917 when King George V. published the Letters Patenct about the Titles. Then Prince Alistair of Connaught lost his Tlte as Prince and became stylöed as Earl of Macduff.
And one can not compare the change in the netherlands with the one in Sweden as it was a long time after the sons of Princess margreit had been born. In Sweden Carl Philip was born in the middle of the change of the law. For sure the King and Queen must have known that if a son would be born that he would only be the Heir for a short time.
And in Norway the change was not retroactive because of the special wish of King Harald and Queen Sonja.
__________________
Stefan



Reply With Quote
  #320  
Old 05-24-2015, 05:03 AM
MARG's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posts: 9,516
Quote:
The Swedish Constitution
Four fundamental laws make up the Constitution: the Instrument of Government, the Act of Succession, the Freedom of the Press Act and the Fundamental Law on Freedom of Expression.

Fundamental rights
To amend a fundamental law, the Riksdag must pass the amendment on two separate occasions, separated by a parliamentary election. The fundamental laws take precedence over all other statutes and no law may contravene the Constitution.

https://sweden.se/society/the-swedis...of-government/
No, the King was not in favour, but Sweden is a Constitutional Monarchy. I find it weird that people lauding human rights aren't angry that a 2-year-old Victory got the right royal boot or Displaced under the 1810 law. Luckily for her the law was in train and the amendment passed in 1979 and took effect in 1980, a matter of months after CP birth. Judging by the extraordinary lengths the Swedish Government go through to amend a fundamental right, I am not surprised they made it retrospective and restored the right of succession for Victoria.

Since everything happened before he was born or could even crawl, I fail to see how the Act of Succession amendment can have affected him and his lifestyle over the last 36 years. Unless, that is, he has been raised to resent the change in law, which would perhaps account for his lifestyle.

However, there seems such connections between the siblings I rather think that is not the case and tend to think his dyslexia and it's attendant learning difficulties and which was a secret until relatively recently, would have been a hard thing to handle.
__________________

__________________
MARG
"Words ought to be a little wild, for they are assaults of thoughts on the unthinking." - JM Keynes
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 althorp anastasia anastasia once upon a time bridal gown british chittagong cht clarence house danish royalty diana princess of wales dubai dutch dutch royal family earl of snowdon facts general news thread heraldry hereditary grand duchess stéphanie hereditary grand duke guillaume hill historical drama house of glucksburg imperial household intro italian royal family jacobite japan jewellery jumma king salman languages list of rulers mail mary: crown princess of denmark monaco history nepalese royal jewels nobel 2019 northern ireland norway norwegian royal family palestine popularity prince charles of luxembourg prince daniel prince dimitri princess chulabhorn walailak princess laurentien princess of orange princess ribha queen mathilde random facts royal dress-ups royal jewels royal marriage royal re-enactments. royal wedding royal wedding gown saudi arabia serbian royal family settings snowdon spencer family swedish royal family thailand tracts uae customs united states of america wittelsbach working royals; full-time royals; part-time royals;


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:14 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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