The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #441  
Old 06-21-2015, 04:01 AM
MARG's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posts: 9,549
Quote:
Originally Posted by Furienna View Post
But it seems like they only talk about it when a reporter asks them about it. So I don't see any problem.
Well, they have certainly resisted any attempts to pry information out of them regarding some of the quite lurid past scandals, and there were several. From the distance of 35 years hindsight, this should have been a no-brainer. So no, it was their choice to give what amounts to in-depth exposés.

This wedding may have seen the marriage of a Prince who was once Crown Prince for seven months, but the die was cast when parliament decided to change the Act of Succession and followed through when, in 1977 the first reading of the Act passed with an easy majority. That it would pass its second reading after the next General Election was a given. King Carl Gustaf and Queen Silvia would have done well to accept the will of the people rather than lamenting the past and enjoy the upcoming the wedding instead of indulging themselves publicly in bitterness.

Both the King and the Queen were well aware that the Succession was to be vested in the first issue of Carl Gustaf, regardless of gender. That this should happen made sense since the King has four sisters who were never in line for the throne. He also had an uncle who delayed a marriage that would exclude him from both the Succession itself but, more importantly, the right to act as Regent should his brother die before his heir was of age or, worst case scenario, that he would survive both his brother and nephew.

That Queen Silvia blamed it all on the feminist movement was a canard, after all, Carl Gustaf had to the change the condition that prevented both his Uncle and himself from marrying the women they loved. Silvia's "revisionist" history enables her to vent on her on what she feels her son lost, totally glossing over the self-interest that enabled her own marriage.

But I can't help wondering if their lack of diplomacy, or common sense may have caused hurt and pain to her. It has almost certainly humiliated her. Who wouldn't be with your parents publicly lamenting that their son isn't, who you are?

A while before Victoria's engagement was announced, I joked that the King wouldn't give permission for Victoria and Daniel to marry until Victoria was past child-bearing age. I forgot that she could have just married Daniel without the king's blessing, and in so doing, remove herself from the Succession. Just a little food for thought.

Immediately prior to the announcement of their engagement the King was mired in scandal and there's nothing like a humongous Royal Wedding to take our minds off things. Whatever the reason, their behavior was badly done and brings no credit on the House of Bernadotte.
__________________

__________________
MARG
"Words ought to be a little wild, for they are assaults of thoughts on the unthinking." - JM Keynes
Reply With Quote
  #442  
Old 06-21-2015, 04:12 AM
Duc_et_Pair's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: City, Netherlands
Posts: 10,527
Quote:
Originally Posted by Furienna View Post
[...] So what if their opinion isn't political correct these days? They still have the right to keep it. [...]
Amen to that.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #443  
Old 06-21-2015, 04:23 AM
Duc_et_Pair's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: City, Netherlands
Posts: 10,527
Quote:
Originally Posted by camelot23ca View Post
I don't agree with the King and Queen's opinion regarding the succession changes or with the way they've handled questions about it over the years. That being said, I don't think their attitude regarding this one issue makes them bad parents. On the contrary, from reading things their children have said over the years it sounds like they were loving parents who did the best they could given the huge official demands placed on their time. Certainly the family seems close now, and if her parents' attitude towards the succession change did place added stress on Victoria, it seems to have been balanced out by other things they got right.
The King and Queen love their three children to bits and from all accounts, from all what we read and could see, there is a visibly strong and loving relationship between the parents and their children. Having said that, this does not mean that they may hold different views on the succession and probably feel saddened that the unbroken male agnatic line of the House Bernadotte will be ended after Victoria and that the Bernadotte family is no longer the same as the royal family of Sweden (unless we close our eyes for the cosmetic trick of Westling changing his name in Bernadotte).

In Monaco the spouse of Princess Charlotte, from the illustrious and ancient noble House De Chalencon de Polignac, changed his name too, into Grimaldi. But Charlotte was the last Grimaldi left. That is not the case with Victoria. We may find it absurd etc. but everyone has the right to have a feeling on the matter and apparently the King and Queen find it a pity that the "cut" in the unbroken Bernadotte line was placed while their son, the Crown Prince, was having that birthright. I think that is a legitime feeling and why not.
Reply With Quote
  #444  
Old 06-21-2015, 07:33 AM
SLV's Avatar
SLV SLV is offline
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Amsterdam, Netherlands
Posts: 1,422
Well, in the end they are "just" descendants of a French general (and commoner). Who, during the Napoleonic wars, 200 years ago, was ellected king after the Swedish had deposed their own king. How Royal is that? ;-)
Reply With Quote
  #445  
Old 06-21-2015, 07:49 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 6,356
Quote:
Originally Posted by MARG View Post
.


A while before Victoria's engagement was announced, I joked that the King wouldn't give permission for Victoria and Daniel to marry until Victoria was past child-bearing age. I forgot that she could have just married Daniel without the king's blessing, and in so doing, remove herself from the Succession. Just a little food for thought.

In both scenarios, the King's "evil" plan to restore Carl Philip and/or his line to the throne woud have worked, wouldn't it? Except that there was no evil plan ! Carl Gustaf never conspired to remove Victoria from the succession even though random circumstances like her falling in love with Daniel theoretically could have given him a credible chance to do just that. More significantly, there is no evidence that Carl Gustaf ever failed to acknowledge her daughter as the heir. In terms of the education and training she received, the state funding/staff available to her and the public duties she undertakes, it appears to me that her position in the royal house vis-a-vis her younger siblings is pretty clear and unambiguous.

Quite frankly, I feel that many posters in this thread, based on selective quoting of some interviews by Carl Gustaf and Silvia, are imagining a family conflict or tension that simply doesn't exist. The only fact I am willing to acknowledge is that the King and Queen (and many Swedish legal scholars BTW) believe that the retroactive application of the 1980 amended Act of Succession was unfair, but got over it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SLV View Post
Well, in the end they are "just" descendants of a French general (and commoner). Who, during the Napoleonic wars, 200 years ago, was ellected king after the Swedish had deposed their own king. How Royal is that? ;-)
Yes, but their family subsequently married princesses from many different very blue-blooded sovereign families of Europe. King Carl Gustaf for example descends from Queen Victoria of the UK both on his father's and his mother's side and, matrilenially, he also descends from the previous Swedish Vasa dynasty.
Reply With Quote
  #446  
Old 06-21-2015, 07:58 AM
Duc_et_Pair's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: City, Netherlands
Posts: 10,527
Quote:
Originally Posted by SLV View Post
Well, in the end they are "just" descendants of a French general (and commoner). Who, during the Napoleonic wars, 200 years ago, was ellected king after the Swedish had deposed their own king. How Royal is that? ;-)
Exactly for that reason the Bernadottes adapted a strict and shrewd marriage policy to "uplift" the "parvenu" dynasty... And with success: they managed to marry into all Royal Houses, even the Catholic ones. So this proves that the Bernadottes were painfully aware that every marriage should add new prestige to the young royal family. When Crown Prince Gustav of Sweden and Norway (himself a son of a Nassau) married Princess Viktoria von Baden in 1881 it became widely promoted that as a result their son, (the later) King Gustaf VI Adolf of Sweden could therefore claim to be the direct heir to the House of Holstein-Gottorp (Swedish line) and the House of Vasa as well as the Bernadotte kings of Sweden... the blame of "upstarts" or "parvenus" occupying the Swedish throne disappeared.

Reply With Quote
  #447  
Old 06-21-2015, 08:36 AM
SLV's Avatar
SLV SLV is offline
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Amsterdam, Netherlands
Posts: 1,422
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair View Post
Exactly for that reason the Bernadottes adapted a strict and shrewd marriage policy to "uplift" the "parvenu" dynasty... And with success: they managed to marry into all Royal Houses, even the Catholic ones. So this proves that the Bernadottes were painfully aware that every marriage should add new prestige to the young royal family. When Crown Prince Gustav of Sweden and Norway (himself a son of a Nassau) married Princess Viktoria von Baden in 1881 it became widely promoted that as a result their son, (the later) King Gustaf VI Adolf of Sweden could therefore claim to be the direct heir to the House of Holstein-Gottorp (Swedish line) and the House of Vasa as well as the Bernadotte kings of Sweden... the blame of "upstarts" or "parvenus" occupying the Swedish throne disappeared.

So by your reasoning, the name 'Bernadotte' is not what matters, but the names(blood) of the women they married. So if it is not the name Bernadotte what makes Estelle royal, what does it matter that 'technically' she should be called Westling?
Reply With Quote
  #448  
Old 06-21-2015, 08:49 AM
Duc_et_Pair's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: City, Netherlands
Posts: 10,527
Quote:
Originally Posted by SLV View Post
So by your reasoning, the name 'Bernadotte' is not what matters, but the names(blood) of the women they married. So if it is not the name Bernadotte what makes Estelle royal, what does it matter that 'technically' she should be called Westling?
The Bernadottes before Carl XVI Gustaf understood why it was important that they had to be linked with the families or the dynasties which do matter. The fact that -so far- a fitness trainer named Daniel Westling is a great Prince of Sweden, is at the same time the best advertorial for ending the whole circus.

Go the Italian or the German way and choose a meritorious lady or gentleman to be the democratically elected head of state. The only justification for a monarchy, for delivering the head of state purely by natural succession is because they are what they are, often for centuries and because of the great prestige they (once) had (or hopefully still have). Really, I am in favour of a monarchy but when Dylan Jansen from Eindhoven becomes His Royal Highness Prince Dylan of the Netherlands, Prince of Orange-Nassau, then the whole shaky house of cards tumbles down. There is no logic in having a monarchy. It is purely an appeal on the underbelly. But it is an extremely thin line and I am sure anyone of you understands what I mean but tja... show that you are oh so polictically correct and oh no... "it does not matter at all, or course not"... "we are modern, you see"...

No. When you are "modern", please call for a republic. I prefer a republic above a half-baked monarchy. Either they stick to the rules or they can better end the whole puppet theatre.

Reply With Quote
  #449  
Old 06-21-2015, 07:00 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,643
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair View Post
The King and Queen love their three children to bits and from all accounts, from all what we read and could see, there is a visibly strong and loving relationship between the parents and their children. Having said that, this does not mean that they may hold different views on the succession and probably feel saddened that the unbroken male agnatic line of the House Bernadotte will be ended after Victoria and that the Bernadotte family is no longer the same as the royal family of Sweden (unless we close our eyes for the cosmetic trick of Westling changing his name in Bernadotte).

In Monaco the spouse of Princess Charlotte, from the illustrious and ancient noble House De Chalencon de Polignac, changed his name too, into Grimaldi. But Charlotte was the last Grimaldi left. That is not the case with Victoria. We may find it absurd etc. but everyone has the right to have a feeling on the matter and apparently the King and Queen find it a pity that the "cut" in the unbroken Bernadotte line was placed while their son, the Crown Prince, was having that birthright. I think that is a legitime feeling and why not.
Is it the name that's important or the bloodline?

If it's the name - Estelle is just as much a Bernadotte as Carl Philip and his future children, full stop. There's no trickery in Daniel taking the surname Bernadotte, just as there's no special magic in males traditionally keeping their own family name.

If it's the bloodline, well, unlike prior heirs born to kings or princes, we know beyond a shadow of a doubt that Estelle is the biological child of the next monarch. Descent through the female line is the only way to ensure continuity of the bloodline. Who knows how many sons of grooms or footmen or courtiers have reigned as kings, (and you thought a fitness trainer was bad)!
Reply With Quote
  #450  
Old 06-21-2015, 07:03 PM
Lady Nimue's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Pacific Palisades CA, United States
Posts: 4,420
Quote:
Originally Posted by camelot23ca View Post
Is it the name that's important or the bloodline?

If it's the name - Estelle is just as much a Bernadotte as Carl Philip and his future children, full stop. There's no trickery in Daniel taking the surname Bernadotte, just as there's no special magic in males traditionally keeping their own family name.

If it's the bloodline, well, unlike prior heirs born to kings or princes, we know beyond a shadow of a doubt that Estelle is the biological child of the next monarch. Descent through the female line is the only way to ensure continuity of the bloodline. Who knows how many sons of grooms or footmen or courtiers have reigned as kings, (and you thought a fitness trainer was bad)!
Well said.
__________________
Russian National Anthem: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bGoNaLjQrV8
O Magnum Mysterium: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWU7dyey6yo
Reply With Quote
  #451  
Old 06-21-2015, 08:27 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: New Orleans, United States
Posts: 1,449
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair View Post
The Bernadottes before Carl XVI Gustaf understood why it was important that they had to be linked with the families or the dynasties which do matter. The fact that -so far- a fitness trainer named Daniel Westling is a great Prince of Sweden, is at the same time the best advertorial for ending the whole circus.

Go the Italian or the German way and choose a meritorious lady or gentleman to be the democratically elected head of state. The only justification for a monarchy, for delivering the head of state purely by natural succession is because they are what they are, often for centuries and because of the great prestige they (once) had (or hopefully still have). Really, I am in favour of a monarchy but when Dylan Jansen from Eindhoven becomes His Royal Highness Prince Dylan of the Netherlands, Prince of Orange-Nassau, then the whole shaky house of cards tumbles down. There is no logic in having a monarchy. It is purely an appeal on the underbelly. But it is an extremely thin line and I am sure anyone of you understands what I mean but tja... show that you are oh so polictically correct and oh no... "it does not matter at all, or course not"... "we are modern, you see"...

No. When you are "modern", please call for a republic. I prefer a republic above a half-baked monarchy. Either they stick to the rules or they can better end the whole puppet theatre.


I am about to vomit. What monarchy on the face of this planet is pure and unbroken, and what bloodline in this earth is "untainted" by "common blood"??

As a matter of fact, it's monarchy that has been the theater for so long--sham marriages for political gain, marital infidelity that could make cockroaches blush, murder, intrigue, treason, treachery, and backstabbing to fill any number of telenovelas on Telemundo. And you think modern monarchies are a farce and theater??

The Bernadottes could have just as easily been marrying into other families to raise their prestige and fill their coffers with foreign money, and they certainly did a good job of filling their jewel vault as just one example.

So who on this green earth should care who they marry now? Monarchies change, dynasties change, and those revolutions are a lot less dainty than what everyone sees today - when a perfectly-nice guy gets to marry his sweetheart and turns out to be massively popular, industrious, a good speaker, and handsome in tails to boot.
Reply With Quote
  #452  
Old 06-21-2015, 09:10 PM
Lady Nimue's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Pacific Palisades CA, United States
Posts: 4,420
Two very powerful to-the-point posts said with honesty. You speak the truth. 'Pure (royal) bloodlines' are a fallacy. They never existed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by casualfan View Post
I am about to vomit. What monarchy on the face of this planet is pure and unbroken, and what bloodline in this earth is "untainted" by "common blood"??

As a matter of fact, it's monarchy that has been the theater for so long--sham marriages for political gain, marital infidelity that could make cockroaches blush, murder, intrigue, treason, treachery, and backstabbing to fill any number of telenovelas on Telemundo. And you think modern monarchies are a farce and theater??
Exactly so.
__________________
Russian National Anthem: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bGoNaLjQrV8
O Magnum Mysterium: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWU7dyey6yo
Reply With Quote
  #453  
Old 06-21-2015, 09:29 PM
JessRulz's Avatar
Administrator
Blog Editor
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 8,522
This thread has now been reopened after a few days to allow cooler heads to prevail.

Please remember the forum rule which requires that fellow posters be treated with respect.
__________________
**TRF Rules and FAQ**
Reply With Quote
  #454  
Old 07-15-2015, 09:18 PM
Madame Verseau's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: Louisville, United States
Posts: 1,742
One change that would have taken place if Carl Philip were crown prince: Sofia would not be a Bernadotte now. It's one thing to marry the third in line to the throne; it's another when the new royal bride is the future queen. The standards would be higher for the wife of a sovereign; and with Sofia's past it would be difficult for Carl Gustaf and the Riksdag to approve of the marriage. Of course there's the case of Mette-Marit of Norway; but the Norwegian Royal Family dealt with her past head on. Before their wedding MM spoke before Norwegians, addressed her past, admitted regret, and asked the people to give her a chance. From what I've seen, it worked, unless things drastically changed over the years. (I don't follow the NRF). The SRF didn't take that approach with Sofia, but I believe the game plan would have been different if Carl Philip were heir apparent.
Reply With Quote
  #455  
Old 07-16-2015, 01:22 AM
Lee-Z's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Heerlen, Netherlands
Posts: 3,050
^^^^^^^ well lucky for P.C-P and P.Sofia then, because they seem a well-matched couple, very happy and at-ease with eachother
__________________
Wisdom begins in wonder - Socrates
Reply With Quote
  #456  
Old 07-16-2015, 07:22 AM
Marty91charmed's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Near Verona and Venice, Italy
Posts: 6,068
I am not so sure CP would have not married Sofia: maybe it would have taken longer for him to marry her but as he is a man and not a woman I am sure CG would have given him a pass, frankly...
__________________
"Yet, walking free upon her own estate
Still,in her solitude, she is the Queen".
Reply With Quote
  #457  
Old 07-16-2015, 07:31 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Philadelphia, United States
Posts: 5,182
Quote:
Originally Posted by Madame Verseau View Post
One change that would have taken place if Carl Philip were crown prince: Sofia would not be a Bernadotte now. It's one thing to marry the third in line to the throne; it's another when the new royal bride is the future queen. The standards would be higher for the wife of a sovereign; and with Sofia's past it would be difficult for Carl Gustaf and the Riksdag to approve of the marriage. Of course there's the case of Mette-Marit of Norway; but the Norwegian Royal Family dealt with her past head on. Before their wedding MM spoke before Norwegians, addressed her past, admitted regret, and asked the people to give her a chance. From what I've seen, it worked, unless things drastically changed over the years. (I don't follow the NRF). The SRF didn't take that approach with Sofia, but I believe the game plan would have been different if Carl Philip were heir apparent.

I really doubt that would be the case.

If Haakon could marry Mette-Mait, and Felipe could marry Letizia, I see no reason why Carl Philip could not marry Sofia, even if he was still the heir.
Reply With Quote
  #458  
Old 07-16-2015, 08:36 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 6,356
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirabel View Post
I really doubt that would be the case.

If Haakon could marry Mette-Mait, and Felipe could marry Letizia, I see no reason why Carl Philip could not marry Sofia, even if he was still the heir.

Besides, Victoria, who is the heir to the throne, was allowed to marry Daniel, who might not have a "a past" in Mette-Marit's or Sofia's sense, but was nonetheless an unsuitable consort for a future queen.

Having said that, we should not forget that getting the King's consent to get married was not an easy task either for Victoria or for CP, and that it actually took a long time before they could get engaged respectively to Daniel and Sofia.
Reply With Quote
  #459  
Old 07-16-2015, 09:06 AM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: -, Antarctica
Posts: 1,290
Quote:
Originally Posted by Madame Verseau View Post
One change that would have taken place if Carl Philip were crown prince: Sofia would not be a Bernadotte now.
If Carl Philip had been the crown prince it's not likely that he would have had met Sofia when he did, as his upbringing and education would have been totally different. (Unless you believe that some people are destined to meet and marry.)
Reply With Quote
  #460  
Old 07-18-2015, 05:33 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Posts: 1,349
The Change of the Act of Succession - 1979 Constitution Change

Don't think there would have been any difference. The King was Crown Prince from the age of 4 and until he became King, his private life (with the exception of the heavier workload and more prominent representation duties) did not differ alot from how Carl Philip is living today. So yes i do belive that we would have had a Crown Princess Sofia today had that been the case.

That change in 1980 was in my opinion an extremly lucky change for the survival of the swedish monarchy, no matter what the King and Queen thinks about it.
__________________

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 american history anastasia anastasia once upon a time ancestry baby names bangladesh british royals chittagong cht clarence house diana princess of wales dragons dubai duke of cambridge dutch earl of snowdon facts family life future games hereditary grand duchess stéphanie hereditary grand duke guillaume hill historical drama history house of glucksburg imperial household intro italian royal family jacobite japan jewellery jumma kids movie list of rulers mail mountbatten nepalese royal jewels norway palestine pless prince charles of luxembourg prince dimitri princess ariane princess chulabhorn walailak princess eugenie princess laurentien princess of orange princess ribha queen louise queen mathilde random facts royal dress-ups royal jewels royal marriage royal re-enactments. royal wedding royal wedding gown serbian royal family snowdon spencer family thailand thai royal family tracts uae customs unsubscribe wittelsbach working royals; full-time royals; part-time royals;


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:43 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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