The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #401  
Old 06-18-2015, 06:10 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 15,320
I have no idea how the changes to the constitution as far as succession to the Crown was worded in Sweden but with a little light digging with a spoon back to when the UK instituted equal primogeniture to the British Crown while William and Kate were expecting their first child, I believe that although the changes needed to be ratified by the Commonwealth nations, it was worded with a specific date.

"As it was introduced at the time when the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge were expecting their first child, the Act stipulated that a daughter would succeed her father irrespective of whether later children were male. To allow for the delay in implementing the change to the law, the relevant provision was made retrospective to 28 October 2011(the date of the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting agreement) so that the child would benefit if it was female."

Is it possible that something similar to this was done in Sweden?
__________________

__________________
To be yourself in a world that is constantly trying to make you something else is the greatest accomplishment. ~~ Ralph Waldo Emerson ~~
Reply With Quote
  #402  
Old 06-18-2015, 06:18 PM
Marty91charmed's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Near Verona and Venice, Italy
Posts: 6,068
All I can say about this is that it is time for both the King and Queen to get over this, since, at least it seems so to me, CP doesn't look bothered by it, merely a bit uncertain as what to do with his life... But this, I think, can be attributed to his own character who has yet to find a suited path...
Also, he can considered himself lucky enough, as if he were now the heir, he wouldn't be able to marry Sofia... or many years had still to come before he were allowed to...
__________________

__________________
"Yet, walking free upon her own estate
Still,in her solitude, she is the Queen".
Reply With Quote
  #403  
Old 06-18-2015, 06:33 PM
Lady Nimue's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Pacific Palisades CA, United States
Posts: 4,420
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marty91charmed View Post
Also, he can considered himself lucky enough, as if he were now the heir, he wouldn't be able to marry Sofia... or many years had still to come before he were allowed to...
I think if Carl Philip were the heir he would have long ago married Emma Pernauld. Given that, it's a question if he would ever have met Sofia. But if he did, then maybe there would have been an affair, but no more. JMO.
__________________
Russian National Anthem: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bGoNaLjQrV8
O Magnum Mysterium: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWU7dyey6yo
Reply With Quote
  #404  
Old 06-18-2015, 07:10 PM
Newbie
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Atlanta, United States
Posts: 9
I agree with Mirabel-I think they intended a fait accompli but it didn’t happen & I don’t think they can let go of that. I’d argue it’s not even about Carl Phillip anymore. It’s about them being irked that their wishes got usurped by a Parliamentary action. And if so it’s troubling that they wanted to subvert the legislative process. But in hindsight what they did in 79 is just them being willful and sexist. “Sweden with the times” clearly meant something different to the King than it did to the legislature. But again everyone has different perspectives.

I’d argue it’s their behavior and actions since that has been pretty awful. Thirty plus years later they still comment on the decision and it serves zero purpose other than making them look stubbornly fixated on something that was long ago decided.

And the worst part is every time they make a comment like this Victoria has to address it and say some variation on how she doesn’t take it personally.
Reply With Quote
  #405  
Old 06-18-2015, 07:15 PM
Furienna's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Örnsköldsvik, Sweden
Posts: 1,407
But why is it so hard for you to respect the king's and the queen's opinion, even if you don't agree with them?
Reply With Quote
  #406  
Old 06-18-2015, 09:03 PM
Tiggersk8's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Evansville, Canada
Posts: 2,180
Quote:
Originally Posted by Furienna View Post
But why is it so hard for you to respect the king's and the queen's opinion, even if you don't agree with them?

Because it's one thing to have an opinion about something, but when airing that opinion shows you in a very negative light, this is the biggie though IMO, *and* continually hurts your Daughter in a very public and bitter manner w/the airing of that opinion? Speaking for myself, I have a very hard time respecting anyone for actions like that. Royal or not.


Sent from my iPad using The Royals Community mobile app
__________________
Recycle Life ~ Be An Organ Donor!!
Recieved my Kidney Transplant on December 10th, 1993 and will be forever grateful to the family of my donor for the greatest earliest Christmas Present I've ever been given
Reply With Quote
  #407  
Old 06-18-2015, 11:07 PM
Newbie
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Atlanta, United States
Posts: 9
Quote:
Originally Posted by Furienna View Post
But why is it so hard for you to respect the king's and the queen's opinion, even if you don't agree with them?
It’s not so much about respecting their opinion as being utterly baffled by their need to voice this opinion at this stage in the game. More than thirty years afterward one would assume they’d have accepted the change or at the very least have a good press ready response. Honestly this seems like an action they need to turn the page on and let go of to use the King's rhetoric.
Reply With Quote
  #408  
Old 06-18-2015, 11:10 PM
GracieGiraffe's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Giraffe Land, United States
Posts: 2,556
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiggersk8 View Post
Because it's one thing to have an opinion about something, but when airing that opinion shows you in a very negative light, this is the biggie though IMO, *and* continually hurts your Daughter in a very public and bitter manner w/the airing of that opinion? Speaking for myself, I have a very hard time respecting anyone for actions like that. Royal or not.


Sent from my iPad using The Royals Community mobile app
This!! This x100! I don't see why people fail to grasp that it must hurt Victoria deeply.
__________________
The future George VII's opinion on infant carriers,
"One is not amused."
Reply With Quote
  #409  
Old 06-18-2015, 11:31 PM
Lady Nimue's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Pacific Palisades CA, United States
Posts: 4,420
Quote:
Originally Posted by Furienna View Post
But why is it so hard for you to respect the king's and the queen's opinion, even if you don't agree with them?
I agree 100%.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GracieGiraffe View Post
This!! This x100! I don't see why people fail to grasp that it must hurt Victoria deeply.
Not necessarily. That's an assumption. Why would you think that? Her views on the matter might surprise you. It's an area that really only that family can understand, and it's obviously deeply personal for them. I say let it be. JMO.
__________________
Russian National Anthem: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bGoNaLjQrV8
O Magnum Mysterium: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWU7dyey6yo
Reply With Quote
  #410  
Old 06-18-2015, 11:32 PM
MARG's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posts: 9,516
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyFinn View Post
We have to remember, that the preliminary work for the change was carried out already in 1977-78. It started even before Victoria was born. And the king and queen knew about the process. Carl Philip was not unjustified stripped anything.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
I think Queen Silvia's position is also very clear. In the interview below to Brazilian TV, she basically says the same thing she said in that most recent 2015 Gernan interview, including the reference to the women's movement of the 1970s. Her attitude, like the King's, is one of resignation, i.e. they both accepted "the will of the people", even though it is clear that she feels that applying the law retroactively was wrong.

I believe it would be unfair though to say that CP Victoria doesn't have her parents' full support now. In fact, in the interview below, the Queen praises Victoria for her preparation and commitment to her role as heiress to the throne. Clearly, Victoria was raised as the heir whereas Carl Philip was not. Victoria's position in the royal house is pretty clear and unambiguous as she is the only child of Carl Gustaf with a household (i.e staff) of her own and takes a full range of state and diplomatic duties that are not shared with her siblings. The family came to terms with the reality imposed by the new law and, as the Queen said again below, Carl Philip also "accepted it" and "everything is fine" now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roslyn View Post
His parents should not have been "puzzled" by it, and CP wasn't stripped of anything. He was born into a Sweden in which the process of changing the male primogeniture system was already underway. It was only a matter of time before the parliamentary process was completed.

As others have carefully and accurately stated already, but ignored by some, the changes to the law were already underway long before CP was conceived, and, apparently, before Victoria was born. It's not as though it was something that was suddenly foisted on an unsuspecting CG and Silvia.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
They chose to welcome and baptize him as Crown Prince because, when he was born and until he was 7 months old, he was legally the Crown Prince of Sweden. A bill doesn't come into force until it is finally passed according to the proper procedure laid out in the constitution. The fact that the succession bill had already cleared its first reading in the Swedish parliament didn't mean the bill was already in force as it could still be voted down at second reading. Especially considering that Carl Philip was born in May] 1979 and the general election was held in September 1979. The new parliament could obviously overturn decisions from the previous one. That is BTW precisely why the Swedish Instrument of Government requires that a general election be held between two votes on a basic law like the Act of Succession.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirabel View Post
They probably hoped everything would work out the way they wished once they presented a fait accompli.

It's too bad they still sound so bitter about it, I'd have thought they would have adapted by now. But I guess not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hans-Rickard View Post
All political parties except one in the Swedish parliament agreed on this so there was/is no chance in the world that the new constitution would have been dismissed by the parliament before or after elections unless both the government and the opposition would have agreed to do so.

The royal family and the courtiers knew that so they putted themselves in their own situation !

Yet they welcomed Prince Carl Philip as Crown Prince with a 42 gun salute and christened him with the Crown Princely Crown placed beside the baptismal font despite knowing all this very well. Still they choosed to. I don't feel sad at all for them !
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kavan View Post
I agree with Mirabel-I think they intended a fait accompli but it didn’t happen & I don’t think they can let go of that. I’d argue it’s not even about Carl Phillip anymore. It’s about them being irked that their wishes got usurped by a Parliamentary action. And if so it’s troubling that they wanted to subvert the legislative process. But in hindsight what they did in 79 is just them being willful and sexist. “Sweden with the times” clearly meant something different to the King than it did to the legislature. But again everyone has different perspectives.

I’d argue it’s their behavior and actions since that has been pretty awful. Thirty plus years later they still comment on the decision and it serves zero purpose other than making them look stubbornly fixated on something that was long ago decided.

And the worst part is every time they make a comment like this Victoria has to address it and say some variation on how she doesn’t take it personally.
Exactly. The king and queen chose to ignore what was happening and they, more than anyone, were totally aware of the consequences of their actions. Which is interesting when she mentions that Carl Philip has "accepted it" since he was only about seven months old when it was enacted. To say he has accepted it, is to say he was taught by his parents that he has been deprived of his birthright, which in turn gives the lie to the notion that Victoria had or has the full support of her parents. As does the strains of bitterness from both the King and Queen.

Kungen: Grundlagen är lustig | Nyheter | Aftonbladet

https://www.youtube.com/watch?featur...oYjEYe-I#t=881

However, the fact that 35 years after the fact the Queen is lamenting the change in succession publically, shows us that everything is demonstrably not fine now. And as for Victoria being given the rights to the Heir, well that's a crock! The king and queen didn't do it out of the kindness of their own hearts. The law of succession dictated that.

Yes I too believe that the king and queen really did believe that presenting the government and the country with a fait accompli would sway things their way, yet I am persuaded that when the government first decided on this course of change in the succession, all possible consequences were covered because while this was about the succession, it was also just like any other law and required the same preliminary research as any other.

In that light I believe the royal couple were more aware of it's implications, perhaps even more so than the government itself, and that the legalities had been addressed or would be automatically covered by the legislation itself.

So, I don't think Victoria had an easy time of it. She got what the law dictated but if her parents are so public about this now, 35 years later, one has to wonder what they have been like in private.

But sadly, not only have the actions of the King and Queen been indiscreet, they are hurtful and have left Crown Princess Victoria vulnerable to questions about the SRF and her place in it.
__________________
MARG
"Words ought to be a little wild, for they are assaults of thoughts on the unthinking." - JM Keynes
Reply With Quote
  #411  
Old 06-18-2015, 11:39 PM
GracieGiraffe's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Giraffe Land, United States
Posts: 2,556
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lady Nimue View Post



Not necessarily. That's an assumption. Why would you think that? Her views on the matter might surprise you.
Yes, I'd be fairly surprised if she were not bothered in the least by her parents complaining that she was made heir, thereby depriving her brother of HIS birthright.

I completely agree with Marg - if this is what they are saying in public, one can only imagine what they have said in private.
__________________
The future George VII's opinion on infant carriers,
"One is not amused."
Reply With Quote
  #412  
Old 06-18-2015, 11:50 PM
Lady Nimue's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Pacific Palisades CA, United States
Posts: 4,420
Quote:
Originally Posted by GracieGiraffe View Post
Yes, I'd be fairly surprised if she were not bothered in the least by her parents complaining that she was made heir, thereby depriving her brother of HIS birthright.
Maybe that would be so for you in such a situation. Just saying. It may not be for her. Your assumption is that this is talked about in personal terms. It may not be. Royalty is a kind of 'family business'. Who is the heir is not minor. Being the heir has deeply impacted Victoria's life. One just never knows.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GracieGiraffe View Post
I completely agree with Marg - if this is what they are saying in public, one can only imagine what they have said in private.
You can imagine anything, that is certain. It's possible she may agree with her parents. We don't know. Why assume the worst, that gets the hackles up against people you do not know? That I find puzzling. Just saying.
__________________
Russian National Anthem: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bGoNaLjQrV8
O Magnum Mysterium: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWU7dyey6yo
Reply With Quote
  #413  
Old 06-19-2015, 08:02 AM
Marty91charmed's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Near Verona and Venice, Italy
Posts: 6,068
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lady Nimue View Post
I think if Carl Philip were the heir he would have long ago married Emma Pernauld. Given that, it's a question if he would ever have met Sofia. But if he did, then maybe there would have been an affair, but no more. JMO.
But I amnot even 100% sure about it... it seems CG makes differences between daughters and son, and to put it blandly, his son (even more if he had been the heir) would have indulged every whim...
__________________
"Yet, walking free upon her own estate
Still,in her solitude, she is the Queen".
Reply With Quote
  #414  
Old 06-19-2015, 08:26 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 6,262
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post
I have no idea how the changes to the constitution as far as succession to the Crown was worded in Sweden but with a little light digging with a spoon back to when the UK instituted equal primogeniture to the British Crown while William and Kate were expecting their first child, I believe that although the changes needed to be ratified by the Commonwealth nations, it was worded with a specific date.

"As it was introduced at the time when the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge were expecting their first child, the Act stipulated that a daughter would succeed her father irrespective of whether later children were male. To allow for the delay in implementing the change to the law, the relevant provision was made retrospective to 28 October 2011(the date of the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting agreement) so that the child would benefit if it was female."

Is it possible that something similar to this was done in Sweden?

The amended Act of Succession simply says that equal primogeniture applies to all descendants of King Carl XVI Gustaf. There was no specific date. If they wanted to make an exemption for Carl Philip, it would have sufficed to change the text and say that equal primogeniture would apply only to descendants of King Carl XVI Gustaf born after June 1979 for example.

BTW, as you correctly pointed out, the British Succession to the Crown Act 2013 is also retroactive for people born after October 2011. As a result, Tane Lewis and Rufus Gilman (both born in 2012) were moved down in the line of succession after the law came into effect in 2014. None of them, however, was the heir to the throne (Tane is now #30 and Rufus is #33).
Reply With Quote
  #415  
Old 06-19-2015, 08:45 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 6,262
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marty91charmed View Post
All I can say about this is that it is time for both the King and Queen to get over this, since, at least it seems so to me, CP doesn't look bothered by it, merely a bit uncertain as what to do with his life... But this, I think, can be attributed to his own character who has yet to find a suited path...

In the Portuguese-language interview I posted, Queen Silvia used the expression: "Graças a Deus, o príncipe Carl-Philip aceitou essa decisão do povo" ("Thank God Prince Carl Philip accepted that decision of the people"). The emphatic way she said it suggests she was afraid he might not have taken it so well, even though he was just a baby at the time.

In another part of the interview, correcting a wrong statement by the interviewer, the Queen also emphatically says: "Depois houve a eleição, depois houve o segundo parlamento e aí ele tinha nascido. Ele tinha sete meses, quer dizer, ele nasceu como o príncipe herdeiro ! Mas é uma decisão do povo que nós aceitamos" ("Then there was the election, then the second parliament and, at that time, he had already been born. He was seven months old, that is, he was born as the Crown Prince ! But it is a decision of the people which we accepted"). There is no doubt in my mind then that is exactly how she and King Carl Gustaf felt at the time and that is why they baptized Carl Philip with the Crown Prince crown by his side.
Reply With Quote
  #416  
Old 06-19-2015, 08:49 AM
Marty91charmed's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Near Verona and Venice, Italy
Posts: 6,068
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
In the Portuguese-language interview I posted, Queen Silvia used the expression: "Graças a Deus, o príncipe Carl-Philip aceitou essa decisão do povo" ("Thank God Prince Carl Philip accepted that decision of the people"). The emphatic way she said it suggests she was afraid he might not have taken it so well, even though he was just a baby at the time.

In another part of the interview, correcting a wrong statement by the interviewer, the Queen also emphatically says: "Depois houve a eleição, depois houve o segundo parlamento e aí ele tinha nascido. Ele tinha sete meses, quer dizer, ele nasceu como o príncipe herdeiro ! Mas é uma decisão do povo que nós aceitamos" ("Then there was the election, then the second parliament and, at that time, he had already been born. He was seven months old, that is, he was born as the Crown Prince ! But it is a decision of the people which we accepted"). There is no doubt in my mind then that is exactly how she and King Carl Gustaf felt at the time and that is why they baptized Carl Philip with the Crown Prince crown by his side
I see, thank you. IMO, I still think CP as "rather modern" and I think that now he is happy not to be the crown prince... It is all speculation on my part, but I really believe he would se the role as too much of a burden. He looks like he wants to stay out of the light as much as possible... Again, I guess it was more a concern fo hi parents...
__________________
"Yet, walking free upon her own estate
Still,in her solitude, she is the Queen".
Reply With Quote
  #417  
Old 06-19-2015, 10:10 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Philadelphia, United States
Posts: 5,155
Quote:
Originally Posted by GracieGiraffe View Post
Yes, I'd be fairly surprised if she were not bothered in the least by her parents complaining that she was made heir, thereby depriving her brother of HIS birthright.

I completely agree with Marg - if this is what they are saying in public, one can only imagine what they have said in private.

I wonder if Victoria was ever pressured to step aside, in favor of her brother?
Reply With Quote
  #418  
Old 06-19-2015, 10:24 AM
Roslyn's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Tintenbar, Australia
Posts: 3,971
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
In the Portuguese-language interview I posted, Queen Silvia used the expression: "Graças a Deus, o príncipe Carl-Philip aceitou essa decisão do povo" ("Thank God Prince Carl Philip accepted that decision of the people"). The emphatic way she said it suggests she was afraid he might not have taken it so well, even though he was just a baby at the time.
It wouldn't have been an issue if Carl Gustav and Silvia hadn't made it one. Carl Philip was a baby when the amendment came into effect and he wouldn't have known about it if his parents hadn't told him, and, since resentment of the "injustice" seems to burn deep within them, I am sure they have told him more than once and made a fuss about it.

There was nothing for CP to accept. The changes were underway before he was conceived. It was a fait accompli before he was a year old.
__________________
"That's it then. Cancel the kitchen scraps for lepers and orphans, no more merciful beheadings, -- and call off Christmas!!!"
Reply With Quote
  #419  
Old 06-19-2015, 10:26 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 6,262
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirabel View Post
I wonder if Victoria was ever pressured to step aside, in favor of her brother?

I am not sure if she could, even if she wanted to. The Instrument of Government provides for a voluntary abdication by the King, but AFAIK it says nothing about royal princes renouncing their succession rights. In order to remove Victoria from her current position as heiress to the throne, another law would be required amending the Act of Succession. Since the Act of Succession is however a basic law, I understand that would require the same procedure as in the 1970s, i.e. two separate votes in the Swedish parliament with a general election in between.

Victoria could have stepped down though, with no further legal action required, if she had married Daniel without the consent of the King and the government.
Reply With Quote
  #420  
Old 06-19-2015, 11:02 AM
Duc_et_Pair's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: City, Netherlands
Posts: 10,455
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
The amended Act of Succession simply says that equal primogeniture applies to all descendants of King Carl XVI Gustaf. There was no specific date. If they wanted to make an exemption for Carl Philip, it would have sufficed to change the text and say that equal primogeniture would apply only to descendants of King Carl XVI Gustaf born after June 1979 for example.

[....]
Or simply state in the Act that the new rules will be enforced from the date on which the new Act will be published and will affect any successor born after that date. They did so in Norway. They also did so in the Netherlands with the change of the Royal House Act. In both cases the rules of the game were not changed retro-actively, affecting royals whom already had a position on base of the existing Act of that moment.
__________________

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 11:56 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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