The Change of the Act of Succession - 1979 Constitution Change

[Somebody]

In Sweden, Daniel changed his last name to Bernadotte so that, whereas Estelle and Oscar themselves (and probably Estelle's children after them) do not use a family name, Oscar's children will probably be Bernadottes too and, in any case, the Royal House will continue to be called Bernadotte. It remains to be seen what will happen in Belgium and especially in Spain.

I wouldn't be surprised if Leonor's children would for example be 'de Bórbon y 'surname husband'. Other noble families (the children of the duchess of Alba are probably most famous in having different versions with either their father's or their mother's surname first) have swapped as well. In that way they can easily continue to be 'de Bórbon' if they would wish so.

So, let's assume she marries this young men (with both an impressive name and lots of noble ancestors; youngest son of the 6th Duke of Alcúdia y Sueca and the 13th Marquesa de La Casta): Don Jaime Ruspoli y Álvarez de las Asturias Bohorques, Sanchíz y Rumeu, dei Principi Ruspoli (Madrid, March 10, 2000 –). Maestrante de Granada.

Their children could be either Don/Doña X de Bórbon y Ruspoli OR Don/Doña X Ruspoli de Bórbon (infante/a de España, príncipe Ruspoli), maestrante de Granada.

 

[Silverpot]

The press did have "a field day" at the time. I will emphasize the valid quotes in bold facing so that they are easier to find:





Note that these articles were not written by TRF posters, but are from AFP (Agence France-Presse) and TV2, both of which are established press organizations.

Below are links to Aftonbladet articles on the 2003 interview, if you prefer to search for the quotes in Swedish.

Kungen: Grundlagen är lustig | Aftonbladet
Du har fel, kungen! | Aftonbladet

These quotes come from muddy sources to say the least; AFP? And it's not TV2 but something called "nettavisen" which sounds Danish or Norwegian to my ears.
But now to the most interesting bit and that is the articles in Aftonbladet, which both appeared in 2003 and that corresponds well with my feeling that this is a recent idea. They ask Tarras-Wahlberg about it and she answers: "Så klart tror jag aldrig att han uttalat sig, jag har ändå arbetat med detta ett antal år. Det där får man nog skriva på ett annat konto än hans uppfattning." He hasn't said that so clearly, and I have worked with this for many years. You will have to ascribe that to somebody elses opinion, because it's not his".

The other article uses a small provincial weekly newspaper as a source (and an interview that never took place)and it's this article Aftonbladet hasn't been able to trace now that they have taken a new look into it.


I wonder what happened in 2003 that triggered this rumour, the internet, perhaps? Because it certainly wasn't around at the time when the children were born and the succession change.



I rather got the impression at the time of the decision, that he was relieved. He certainly knew what kind of pressure his mother had to endure and was happy that Silvia and him could relax. The dynasty would survive even if there were no son.

 

[Somebody]

You completely miss the point.

Traditional naming conventions were sexist. Women "belonged" to their husbands and therefore did not transmit their own surnames or dynastic membership to their children. It's an artificial, man-made convention.

And the idea that a name is "the simplest and most straightforward definition" of membership in family is absurd. Names are artificial labels that can be changed.

Biology defines membership in a family not names. I am a member of my mother's family just as much as my father's.

Engage in mental gymnastics if you wish, but male-preference primogeniture is based on sexist rules and conventions.

So, of how many families are you a member? How many generations would you go back?

 

[Gawin]

So, of how many families are you a member? How many generations would you go back?

I'm puzzled by your questions. Biologically, I am member of many families, back to the dawn of time, as we all are. My membership is not dictated by the surname (artificial label) I choose to use or society chooses to assign me.

Including a son's children in a family while automatically excluding a daughter's is a sexist, arbitrary rule.

 

[Somebody]

I'm puzzled by your questions. Biologically, I am member of many families, back to the dawn of time, as we all are. My membership is not dictated by the surname (artificial label) I choose to use or society chooses to assign me.

Including a son's children in a family while automatically excluding a daughter's is a sexist, arbitrary rule.

So, in your case the whole concept of a dynasty doesn't exist?!

I fully agree that 'in practice' we belong to both families, however, in hereditary systems not everyone can be king/queen and in terms of royal work they had to choose: especially when princes and princesses married each other: they had to choose where to live: they couldn't be active members of both families, representing for example both Sweden and the Netherlands.

And who should belong to a royal family? At some point a large part of the country would all be 'princes and princesses' and all be part of that same royal family... if each and every descendant of anyone in the royal family would still be considered to be part of that same royal family.

As a side note: is it also problematic that the eldest gets preference over the younger siblings? Is that age discrimination or birth-order discrimination?

 

[Tatiana Maria]

For future reference, here is the quote in Swedish from the Aftonbladet article:

Det har kungen ännu inte accepterat.

- Självklart, svarade han i går i en intervju med Rapport på frågan om han tycker att grundlagsändringen var fel.

- Jag tycker det är enkelt. En grundlag som arbetar retrospektivt, det är lustigt.

Tidigare kritik

Och redan 1980 ska kungen ha uttalat sig kritiskt mot lagändringen.

- Själv vill jag ha min son Carl Philip som efterträdare, sa han då enligt Vestmanlands läns tidning.​

These quotes come from muddy sources to say the least; AFP? And it's not TV2 but something called "nettavisen" which sounds Danish or Norwegian to my ears.

[...]

The other article uses a small provincial weekly newspaper as a source (and an interview that never took place)and it's this article Aftonbladet hasn't been able to trace now that they have taken a new look into it.

AFP is a well-known international press agency, and TV2 (refer to the URL: http://pub.tv2.no/nettavisen/english/article158322.ece) is indeed Norwegian - it is one of the largest broadcasters in that country.

If there is a source which states that the King has been misquoted in both cases (the 1980 statement and the 2003 statement) by multiple press organizations, please share it. Otherwise, if even reports from reputable media outlets are to be disbelieved at first sight, then I am afraid that all of the discussions on this forum are pointless.

I wonder what happened in 2003 that triggered this rumour, the internet, perhaps? Because it certainly wasn't around at the time when the children were born and the succession change.

I rather got the impression at the time of the decision, that he was relieved. He certainly knew what kind of pressure his mother had to endure and was happy that Silvia and him could relax. The dynasty would survive even if there were no son.

At the time his children were born he did want the dynasty to survive even if there were no son, but he also wanted his son, if he had one, to continue the dynasty rather than his daughter: See the recommendations submitted to Parliament by the Royal Court in 1977.

 

[Gawin]

So, in your case the whole concept of a dynasty doesn't exist?!

I fully agree that 'in practice' we belong to both families, however, in hereditary systems not everyone can be king/queen and in terms of royal work they had to choose: especially when princes and princesses married each other: they had to choose where to live: they couldn't be active members of both families, representing for example both Sweden and the Netherlands.

And who should belong to a royal family? At some point a large part of the country would all be 'princes and princesses' and all be part of that same royal family... if each and every descendant of anyone in the royal family would still be considered to be part of that same royal family.

As a side note: is it also problematic that the eldest gets preference over the younger siblings? Is that age discrimination or birth-order discrimination?

No, not at all, I am not arguing the concept of *dynasty* doesn't exist. I was responding to your questions regarding family (I don't consider myself a member of a *dynasty*) as well as the following two statements made by Mbruno [bold facing mine]:

"Many people support male-preference primogeniture not because they are sexist , but rather because they are traditionalists who would rather see the Crown kept in the same ( patrilineal ) family rather than starting a new dynasty."

No, male-preference primogeniture is in fact sexist. This why many countries have abolished it.

"The simplest and most straightforward definition is that one is a member of a given family when he or she uses the family's name. And the traditional naming convention, which had been observed in Europe for centuries, was that family names were transmitted in paternal line."

No, an artificial labeling system is not the simplest and most straightforward definition of who belongs to a given family. Biology is the most simple and straightforward definition.

Furthermore, a naming system that automatically excludes a daughter's children but not a son's is sexist.

Yes, a *dynasty* is distinct from a family and it necessary to construct rules in order to define who is and isn't a member. But again, rules that automatically exclude a daughter's children but not a son's are sexist. And it is possible to formulate rules without incorporating male-preference primogeniture.

And yes, you make a good point. Giving preference to the eldest child over the younger is birth-order discrimination. For me it's not on par with gender-based discrimination and apparently the countries that have rejected male-preference primogeniture in favor of absolute primogeniture agree.

But at the same time, I would never defend my position by insisting it's not a form of discrimination when it is. Likewise, one cannot claim male-preference primogeniture isn't sexist.

 

[Mbruno]

At the time his children were born he did want the dynasty to survive even if there were no son, but he also wanted his son, if he had one, to continue the dynasty rather than his daughter: See the recommendations submitted to Parliament by the Royal Court in 1977.

Which, again, was the default rule at the time in all European monarchies that had cognatic succession (Denmark, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain, the UK, etc.).

Carl Gustaf vowed to be a king in tune with times, but he didn't have to be ahead of his time, nor did the Swedish Royal Court.

Male-preference primogeniture was a reasonable compromise in line with existing practice in other countries, so I can't see why the King or the Court should be criticized for holding that position at the time. When Parliament decided otherwise, the King democratically submitted to Parliament's will, which is what he had to do anyway, even though the law retroactively affected his son. I don't see how Carl Gustaf is at fault.

 

[victor1319]

On a slightly more abstract level: The royal court is for all royals in our democratic times a very delicate place!

And history will show, whether Fitness Trainers make good Kings... They would have in the medieval times, this is pretty sure, when strong men were needed.

But I think, just imho, that a royal Princess does not necessarely have to fall in love with her personal trainer...

Monarchy is a relic from the dawn of history. I think a well and life long prepared Monarch is much better than a ceremonial President above a Prime Minister - but that is just in my humble opinion too! But what, if the folks say: Oh, the new Monarch is very much like his commoner parent!? A future question not only in Sweden!

One can't simply elect a new Monarch, if one dislikes, what is to be seen! Only abandon Monarchy....

And the question of sucession, this thread is all about, shows imho, that the politicians of Sweden have not that much respect for the Monarchy! I mean, the Prince was stripped of his then right as a heir to the Crown after his birth, correct? This is a total "no-go" in questions of the law!

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Well, Lilian had to wait thirty years. I think she was then considered acceptable, at that point.

General sexism (not just CG's) dictates that because men are more important, future-queen's consort must be more impressive than "prince's wife" (which is a transformative honor in itself). They wanted Victoria to get what they thought she needed; Carl Philip to have what he wanted. Hoping for a more educated/wealthier man then backfired with Madeleine; unfaithful first fiancé, and husband wanting nothing to do with being royal.

That makes sense. It has always been a source of confusion for me why a number of polls and debates have been conducted posing questions in the vein of whether it was acceptable for the Crown Princess to marry a commoner, considering two commoners prior to Daniel Westling successfully married into the Royal House, including the now Queen. Your theory would explain why a commoner husband in the 21st century engendered more concern among the Swedish public than the two commoner wives who became a queen and a princess in 1976, or the commoner wife who became a princess in 2015.

I don’t think your argument makes sense. If they wanted Victoria to have a “ more impressive husband” , they would have forced her to marry a foreign prince from an old sovereign family ( either reigning or non-reigning ),. Several years of courtship didn’t make Daniel “ more impressive” on paper IMHO.

I also think that, if Carl Philip were the Crown Prince, he might not have married someone like Sofia. His marriage was “ easier” to consent to, if that is what you are arguing, not so much because he is a man who should always get what he wants , but precisely because his marriage was less consenquential to the State as neither he nor his future children would probably ascend the throne.

I don't think Prinsara was suggesting that the King and Queen defined "impressive" as "an old sovereign family", and in any case I don't think forcing their daughter into a marriage with a husband chosen by them would have been a realistic option in 21st-century Sweden.

But you are right that Prince Carl Philip's marriage was less consequential for the monarchy and that possibly influenced the more encouraging approach he received compared to his older sister.

 

[Mbruno]

That makes sense. It has always been a source of confusion for me why a number of polls and debates have been conducted posing questions in the vein of whether it was acceptable for the Crown Princess to marry a commoner, considering two commoners prior to Daniel Westling successfully married into the Royal House, including the now Queen. Your theory would explain why a commoner husband in the 21st century engendered more concern among the Swedish public than the two commoner wives who became a queen and a princess in 1976, or the commoner wife who became a princess in 2015.




I don't think Prinsara was suggesting that the King and Queen defined "impressive" as "an old sovereign family", and in any case I don't think forcing their daughter into a marriage with a husband chosen by them would have been a realistic option in 21st-century Sweden.

But you are right that Prince Carl Philip's marriage was less consequential for the monarchy and that possibly influenced the more encouraging approach he received compared to his older sister.

Silvia's case is also slightly different from Daniel's because CG was already king when he married her.


It is interesting that , while princes and princesses of the Royal House of Sweden need the consent of the government to marry, the King himself does not (unlike in other countries such as Denmark and the Netherlands where Parliament has to consent, I think, to marriages of the King).


Daniel as a groom also had an additional complication: besides being a commoner, he was perceived to be of a lower social class too and not very broadly educated. Without any snobbish intention, I see Daniel in a different category e.g. from Letizia (a journalist and award-winning international correspondent), Maxima (the daughter of a landowner and former government minister and herself an investment banker), or even Mary (a university-educated advertising executive and daughter of a university professor and renowned mathematician).

 

[Prinsara]

Daniel as a groom also had an additional complication: besides being a commoner, he was perceived to be of a lower social class too and not very broadly educated. Without any snobbish intention, I see Daniel in a different category e.g. from Letizia (a journalist and award-winning international correspondent), Maxima (the daughter of a landowner and former government minister and herself an investment banker), or even Mary (a university-educated advertising executive and daughter of a university professor and renowned mathematician).

Someone somewhere once said (not meanly) that Victoria marrying Daniel was probably the 21st century equivalent of marrying the stable boy. Whatever the accuracy in the analogy, I giggle thinking about it.

Yes, this is exactly why I said Daniel was "not impressive" enough. If Victoria had wanted to marry someone like Chris O'Neill — wealthy, connected, widely educated — and interested in being a prince, of course, I'm sure there would have been a wedding much faster. Because she wanted to marry the gym-owning guy from Ockelbo...approval was slower.

Snobbery aside, the qualities that have made Dan a good husband and partner for Victoria and a hard-working member of the SRF were harder to see and promote at the time.

 

[KellyAtLast]

But Daniel wasn’t just a trainer wasn’t he part owner of the gym. So he was an executive. Sofia was jobless when she got with Carl Philip and she was jobless the entire time she was in a relationship with him. She only appeared in the odd charity photo op to whitewash her previous activities. But outside of that she did nothing.

 

[Countessmeout]

So, in your case the whole concept of a dynasty doesn't exist?!

I fully agree that 'in practice' we belong to both families, however, in hereditary systems not everyone can be king/queen and in terms of royal work they had to choose: especially when princes and princesses married each other: they had to choose where to live: they couldn't be active members of both families, representing for example both Sweden and the Netherlands.

And who should belong to a royal family? At some point a large part of the country would all be 'princes and princesses' and all be part of that same royal family... if each and every descendant of anyone in the royal family would still be considered to be part of that same royal family.

As a side note: is it also problematic that the eldest gets preference over the younger siblings? Is that age discrimination or birth-order discrimination?

That's why countries like Sweden have rules about marrying a foreign heir. So they don't have divided loyalties. Victoria could not have marry Fred for instance without losing her place on the throne.

And if they married a younger sibling really there is little issue. If Joachim and Victoria were married, it would be expected he would represent Sweden officially (don't think anyone would complain if he cheered for Denmark sometimes in sporting events). If they were both younger siblings, there would be less need for them to decide. They could have patronages in both countries, or focus which ever one they lived in.

Seems simple. If you marry into the royal family, you marry Into the royal family. Meaning you and your children are part of the royal family. Daniel even took Bernadotte. His children both in legal name, and in DNA, are just as much Bernadottes as Alexander and Gabriel are. The joys of living in modern times, we know you inherit 50% of your DNA from each parent. Just because he got a Y chromosome from dad, doesn't make Carl Philip any more a Bernadotte then either of his sisters. Exact same amount of DNA.

Why wouldn't a dynasty exist? A dynasty is a family, carrying on the blood line of the family. That's exactly what Victoria did by having two children.

There has to be some way to decide. If it was election by the king, well then he just chooses his favorite child. Nothing unbias about that.

You simplify how they are chosen. Prior:

-had to be male, had to be the first born male
-now it simply is first born


As for 'large amount of the country would be princes' has that ever happened? Have kings who have had numerous sons ever had hundred or so descendants who were all royals? All monarchies have laws in place to who is entitled to the title prince/ss. These laws work just as well for including women, as they do for including men. In the UK, only the children and male line grandchildren of the monarch (and the children of the heir's heir). That would be simple enough to change it to all grandchildren, female line as well as male line. Adding Zara and Peter would make no difference. Two more titles. Not populating the Uk with princes and princesses. And since their children would never be the grandchildren of a monarch, then they would never be prince/princess.

In Sweden they have taken steps with now removing the HRH from the grandchildren not from the heir.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Daniel as a groom also had an additional complication: besides being a commoner, he was perceived to be of a lower social class too and not very broadly educated. Without any snobbish intention, I see Daniel in a different category e.g. from Letizia (a journalist and award-winning international correspondent), Maxima (the daughter of a landowner and former government minister and herself an investment banker), or even Mary (a university-educated advertising executive and daughter of a university professor and renowned mathematician).

I agree with your categorizations, but my point was that the same could well be said of Lilian Craig and Sofia Hellqvist, yet it was not held against them (in this century) in the same way it was held against Daniel Westling.

And the question of sucession, this thread is all about, shows imho, that the politicians of Sweden have not that much respect for the Monarchy! I mean, the Prince was stripped of his then right as a heir to the Crown after his birth, correct? This is a total "no-go" in questions of the law!

Would you say then that the politicians of a country which has a hereditary monarchy are showing disrespect in voting to install a republic? Abolition of a monarchy strips not only the heir but the reigning monarch of their right to the Crown.

Which, again, was the default rule at the time in all European monarchies that had cognatic succession (Denmark, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain, the UK, etc.).

Carl Gustaf vowed to be a king in tune with times, but he didn't have to be ahead of his time, nor did the Swedish Royal Court.

Male-preference primogeniture was a reasonable compromise in line with existing practice in other countries, so I can't see why the King or the Court should be criticized for holding that position at the time. When Parliament decided otherwise, the King democratically submitted to Parliament's will, which is what he had to do anyway, even though the law retroactively affected his son. I don't see how Carl Gustaf is at fault.

If the comments I have read on forums and social media are a guide, then the King has largely escaped criticism for holding that position in the 1970s. The criticism seems to have centered on his unsolicited expressions of his opinions after Parliament had already made its decision, contrary to the expectation that, as you mentioned, he democratically submit to Parliament's will.

And who should belong to a royal family? At some point a large part of the country would all be 'princes and princesses' and all be part of that same royal family... if each and every descendant of anyone in the royal family would still be considered to be part of that same royal family.

As for 'large amount of the country would be princes' has that ever happened? Have kings who have had numerous sons ever had hundred or so descendants who were all royals? All monarchies have laws in place to who is entitled to the title prince/ss.

Liechtenstein is in the position of having a hundred or so princes/ses. It doesn't appear to be perceived as problematic, at least by foreign observers.

 

[Countessmeout]

Likely as most foreigners would be hard pressed, unless royal fans, even to name one or two royals from Liechtenstein. Nor know how many of them there are.

Even among royal fans, the focus is on the main line. Hans Adam, his children and their grandchildren.

As long as the title doesn't come with any special position, or money from tax payers, I don't think anyone really complains. A private citizen titled Prince, is of no more concern then a non royal Earl of lord. As long as they pay their required taxes and all hundred of them are not paraded out on national day.


The major monarchies all have rules in place to limit that from happening. Even those with titles, being part of the 'royal house' is limited by certain guidelines.

 

[Somebody]

And the question of sucession, this thread is all about, shows imho, that the politicians of Sweden have not that much respect for the Monarchy! I mean, the Prince was stripped of his then right as a heir to the Crown after his birth, correct? This is a total "no-go" in questions of the law!

If I understood Tatiana Maria's explanation correctly, the law to install absolute primogeniture had already been voted for once by the time of CP's birth; they just needed to wait until after another election cycle to vote a second time for this to be implemented.

In that we it can be seen as somewhat parallel to the process to change the British rules for succession - which applied to all births after 28 October 2011 even though it took some years to get it approved by all different parliaments, so while it was decided in October 2011, the Succession to the Crown Act was dated in 2013, it only came into effect in all realms by March 2015. Nonetheless, it applied retroactively among others to Tāne Lewis (b. 2012) and Rufus Gilman (b. 2012) who took their place behind their sisters instead ahead of them (of course, the impact of them is negligible especially compared to CP being king or not, but still.

 

[Countessmeout]

Here is a bit about the process

The process of amending the Swedish constitution to give then baby Victoria the Swedish crown had begun in 1977 with the government report SOU 1977:5 Kvinnlig tronföljd, following the princess’ birth in 1977. The decision to review the adoption of female succession was taken even earlier, already in 1975, with a vote in Parliament of 151 in favor and 149 against. The final proposal (Proposition 1977/78:71) was brought before the Parliament in 1978 and 1979. Because changing the Act of Succession meant amending the Swedish Constitution, it had to be voted on twice by Parliament, with a general election in between. (8 kap. 14 § Regeringsformen (RF) [Instrument of Government] [Constitution].) A general election was held on September 16, 1979. The final vote in favor of gender neutral royal succession was cast on November 7, 1979. The law entered into force on January 1, 1980. Thus, the titles of the royal children were changed on that day.

So yes not only did the process start before Carl Philip, but the process of discussion started after the King and queen were married in 1975. There was no question when Victoria was born, she would eventually be heir. It was just a slow process and unfortunately CP was born before it passed. But his birth didn't negate the fact the process had already been put in motion.

 

[MARG]

Carl Philip lost nothing as the change of succession had to go through two consecutive Parliamentary sittings. CP was born after the first and before the second.

CG knew that his preference for it to become law for his grandchildren was rejected by Parliament before all the I's were dotted and the t's were crossed and the Succession legislation was brought before Parliament. In short the change was already in train before Silvia was pregnant with her second child let alone that her next child would be a boy.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

The King referred to the constitutional amendment as retroactive (assuming the translation is accurate). In fact, it was not. To be technical, a "retroactive" law is a law that applies to a period of time prior to the entry into force of the law.

An example of a true retroactive law is the section of the British Succession to the Crown Act that recognized certain marriages which were not recognized as valid until the law entered into force. The British law stated that "A void marriage under that Act is to be treated as never having been void if [...]". Should an affected person have contracted an invalid marriage in 2010, not only would their marriage be valid after the law entered into force in 2015, but their marriage would be treated as if it had been valid in the period from 2010 to 2015.

The amendment of the Act of Succession in 1980 would have been an actual retroactive law if, for instance, it stated that Victoria would be treated as if she had been Crown Princess from birth.

But that is not what is stated in the law. It entered into force on January 1, 1980, and Victoria became Crown Princess with effect from January 1, 1980. To this day, Carl Philip is treated as having been the Crown Prince from May 13 through December 31, 1979.

So yes not only did the process start before Carl Philip, but the process of discussion started after the King and queen were married in 1975.

Parliament appointed former governor Ingvar Lindell to make recommendations regarding female succession in December 1975. The King and Silvia Sommerlath announced their engagement in March 1976. So the process began before it was even certain that the King would marry.

 

[Mbruno]

The King referred to the constitutional amendment as retroactive. In fact, it was not. To be technical, a "retroactive" law is a law that applies to a period of time prior to the entry into force of the law.

An example of a true retroactive law is the section of the British Succession to the Crown Act that recognized certain marriages which were not recognized as valid until the law entered into force. The British law stated that "A void marriage under that Act is to be treated as never having been void if [...]". Should an affected person have contracted an invalid marriage in 2010, not only would their marriage be valid after the law entered into force in 2015, but their marriage would be treated as if it had been valid in the period from 2010 to 2015.

But the UK Succession to the Crown Act didn't change the position in the line of succession of anyone who was born before October 2011. For example, it didn't put Princess Anne and her descendants ahead of Prince Andrew or Prince Edward (and their respective descendants), nor did it place Lady Louise ahead of James, Viscount Severn. In Sweden, Victoria and her future descendants displaced Carl Philip and his future descendants in the order of succession, and, technicalities and subtle semantic differences aside, that is what the King meant by "retroactive".



BTW that happend in Denmark too and in an even more dramatic fashion as Knud, who had been the Hereditary Prince for a significant part of his life, was suddenly replaced by Margrethe. It may not be "retroactive" in the strict sense, but it certainly changes an expectation of right and is questionable.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

But the UK Succession to the Crown Act didn't change the position in the line of succession of anyone who was born before October 2011. For example, it didn't put Princess Anne and her descendants ahead of Prince Andrew or Prince Edward (and their respective descendants), nor did it place Lady Louise ahead of James, Viscount Severn. In Sweden, Victoria and her future descendants displaced Carl Philip and his future descendants in the order of succession, and, technicalities and subtle semantic differences aside, that is what the King meant by "retroactive".

I know, I was only pointing out that the definition of "retroactive" is not the same as what the King meant to communicate. It would be more accurate to say that the amendment of 1980 affected persons already living.

BTW that happend in Denmark too and in an even more dramatic fashion as Knud, who had been the Hereditary Prince for a significant part of his life, was suddenly replaced by Margrethe. It may not be "retroactive" in the strict sense, but it certainly changes an expectation of right and is questionable.

I agree that what happened in Denmark was far more dramatic. It is difficult to understand why the displacement of Crown Prince Carl Philip in Sweden in 1980 is viewed as more questionable than the displacement of Prince Knud and Prince Ingolf in Denmark in 1953:

Prince Knud and Prince Ingolf were displaced due to discrimination against their physical appearance. Crown Prince Carl Philip was displaced for the sake of gender equality and achieving a more stable succession.

Prince Knud and Prince Ingolf had no expectation of being displaced from their positions, given that King Frederik and Queen Ingrid had received medical advice not to have further children and had not borne any children in seven years. Crown Prince Carl Philip's displacement was anticipated even before his birth.

Prince Knud and Prince Ingolf, at age 52 and 13, had the maturity to be conscious of their future positions as well as their displacement (and in Ingolf's case, of the bullying he received at school due to being displaced). Crown Prince Carl Philip, an infant, was too young to hold any conscious expectations.

 

[Prinsara]

I agree that what happened in Denmark was far more dramatic. It is difficult to understand why the displacement of Prince Carl Philip in Sweden in 1980 is viewed as more questionable than the displacement of Prince Knud and Prince Ingolf in Denmark in 1953:

Prince Knud and Prince Ingolf were displaced due to discrimination against their physical appearance. Prince Carl Philip was displaced for the sake of gender equality and achieving a more stable succession.

And also the possible Nazi sympathies of Princess Caroline Mathilde and her family, equally problematic and unsavory, and also the thought that the monarch's child should be able to succeed [him], regardless of gender, equally stabilizing the future succession. In Denmark one might say the need was more pressing; that's why it happened sooner.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

And also the possible Nazi sympathies of Princess Caroline Mathilde and her family, equally problematic and unsavory, and also the thought that the monarch's child should be able to succeed [him], regardless of gender, equally stabilizing the future succession. In Denmark one might say the need was more pressing; that's why it happened sooner.

From the articles and discussions I read it appears to me that the displacement of Prince Knud and Prince Ingolf was linked mostly to their physical appearance and to poor regard for Knud himself, but we can discuss that in the Danish forum.

Regarding stable succession, I would say Sweden had a more pressing need than Denmark. As of 1953, both had strictly agnatic succession laws, but in Denmark there were four princes of the royal house who were young enough to be expected to produce sons (Ingolf, Christian, Gorm, and Georg), whereas there were only two in Sweden (Bertil and Carl Gustaf). Unless you meant that in Denmark there was a higher risk of the direct line not continuing, in which case I agree.

 

[Somebody]

But the UK Succession to the Crown Act didn't change the position in the line of succession of anyone who was born before October 2011. For example, it didn't put Princess Anne and her descendants ahead of Prince Andrew or Prince Edward (and their respective descendants), nor did it place Lady Louise ahead of James, Viscount Severn. In Sweden, Victoria and her future descendants displaced Carl Philip and his future descendants in the order of succession, and, technicalities and subtle semantic differences aside, that is what the King meant by "retroactive".

However, the law was not changed until 2013 - 2015 (depending on the realm); so, it was applied retroactively but the initial decision had been made in October 2011; just like the initial decision had already been made before CP was born (it was just waiting for a second approval for constitutional reason - if I understand it correctly); just like it took several years to get it all arranged for the line of succession in the UK and the other realms.

Does anyone know the exact dates of the first and second vote on the Succession Act?

Edit: found the second date: November 7, 1979 (so, less than 6 months after CP's birth).
The government's proposal is dated on 8 December 1977, so less than 6 months after Victoria's birth and almost 1 1/2 years before CP's birth. And a decision to review was already taken in 1975

The relevant part:

The process of amending the Swedish constitution to give then baby Victoria the Swedish crown had begun in 1977 with the government report SOU 1977:5 Kvinnlig tronföljd, following the princess’ birth in 1977. The decision to review the adoption of female succession was taken even earlier, already in 1975, with a vote in Parliament of 151 in favor and 149 against. The final proposal (Proposition 1977/78:71) was brought before the Parliament in 1978 and 1979. Because changing the Act of Succession meant amending the Swedish Constitution, it had to be voted on twice by Parliament, with a general election in between. (8 kap. 14 § Regeringsformen (RF) [Instrument of Government] [Constitution].) A general election was held on September 16, 1979. The final vote in favor of gender neutral royal succession was cast on November 7, 1979. The law entered into force on January 1, 1980.

BTW that happend in Denmark too and in an even more dramatic fashion as Knud, who had been the Hereditary Prince for a significant part of his life, was suddenly replaced by Margrethe. It may not be "retroactive" in the strict sense, but it certainly changes an expectation of right and is questionable.

This one was imho the most impactful one; much more so than CG's baby son being set back one place in favor of his first-born sister as was already the plan (apparently from) before both his and his sister's birth.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

However, the law was not changed until 2013 - 2015 (depending on the realm); so, it was applied retroactively but the initial decision had been made in October 2011; just like the initial decision had already been made before CP was born (it was just waiting for a second approval for constitutional reason - if I understand it correctly); just like it took several years to get it all arranged for the line of succession in the UK and the other realms.

Like the Swedish change of law in 1980 (which I discussed here), the repeal of male preference in Britain and its realms (the law entered into force across all British realms on March 26, 2015) was not truly applied retroactively. For example, Tane Lewis is still treated as having been placed ahead of his sister from 2012-2015.

In contrast, the repeal of the British Royal Marriages Act was applied retroactively to some marriages. These marriages are treated as if they had never been void, even though they in fact had been void before the law's entry into force.

 

[Mbruno]

Like the Swedish change of law in 1980 (which I discussed here), the repeal of male preference in Britain and its realms (the law entered into force across all British realms on March 26, 2015) was not truly applied retroactively. For example, Tane Lewis is still treated as having been placed ahead of his sister from 2012-2015.

That is actually an interesting question. The Succession to the Crown Act came into force in 2015, but it applies to all persons born after October 2011(the date of the Perth agreement). So, I think that, technically, Tane Lewis was placed ahead of his sister from 2012-2015 and, from March 26, 2015 onwards, he was pushed down in the order of succession. The same as Carl Philip then.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

That is actually an interesting question. The Succession to the Crown Act came into force in 2015, but it applies to all persons born after October 2011(the date of the Perth agreement). So, I think that, technically, Tane Lewis was placed ahead of his sister from 2012-2015 and, from March 26, 2015 onwards, he was pushed down in the order of succession. The same as Carl Philip then.

That is my understanding of it too.

Hypothetically, if the UK Parliament had decided that the British Succession to the Crown Act would apply retroactively to Tane Lewis, then, once the Act came into force on March 26, 2015, Tane Lewis would be treated as if he had been behind his sister both before and after March 26, 2015. (Thus, in the extremely unlikely event that Tane had succeeded to the British crown before March 26, 2015, his reign as king would have been void and treated as if it never happened.)

But in reality, the UK Parliament decided that the British Succession to the Crown Act applies to Tane Lewis but not retroactively, so that he is only treated as being placed behind his sister since March 26, 2015. (Thus, in the very unlikely event that Tane had succeeded to the British crown before March 26, 2015, his accession would not be voided by the Act and he would continue to be treated as the rightful king.)

The same happened to Crown Prince Carl Philip on January 1, 1980.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Sweden didn't make the changes retroactively (like Belgium did). [...] Victoria became Crown Princess as it was dated to when the process started, not when it finished.

The changes to equal primogeniture in Sweden and Belgium weren't applied retroactively. The legislative process was completed in 1979 in Sweden and 1991 in Belgium, and their reformed succession laws came into effect in 1980 and 1991 respectively. Victoria's position as Crown Princess is only dated to January 1, 1980.

The decision was Made before Silvia was pregnant. There was no debate.

The process began before Silvia was pregnant, or even engaged, but the government did not present a bill until December 8, 1977, four months after Victoria was born. The matter was debated at length, and the King was consulted on his opinion.

https://www.riksdagen.se/sv/dokument-lagar/dokument/proposition/om-kvinnlig-tronfoljd_G10371/html

 

[Somebody]

The changes to equal primogeniture in Sweden and Belgium weren't applied retroactively. The legislative process was completed in 1979 in Sweden and 1991 in Belgium, and their reformed succession laws came into effect in 1980 and 1991 respectively. Victoria's position as Crown Princess is only dated to January 1, 1980.

Astrid and her children were not only included in the line of succession but also placed before Laurent (and any future children he might have had), so, in that respect it could be considered 'retroactively' as Laurent did loose out to his sister while he was previously second in line to the throne.