The Change of the Act of Succession - 1979 Constitution Change

[JR76]

If Bertil was allowed to marry Lilian and keep his position as of 1937, why didn't they do so?

The previous kings before Carl XVI Gustaf refused to grant their official consent for Bertil to marry Lilian, so he would not have retained his position if they married.

The amendment of 1937 was one made out of a perceived necessity and was never meant to make it possible for Swedish princes to marry foreign non-royals. Instead it was seen as necessary to avoid the risk of constitutional issues (see the questions about the status of Lady Louise Mountbatten) because after World War I a majority of the families that were seen as appropriate marriage material were now private citizens.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

I always thought King Carl Gustaf would always have preferred Carl Philip to be his heir. And these statements by the king confirm what I've always thought.

He has repeated nearly the same statements many times since the 1970s, though he has toned them down slightly over the course of time. Before the recent interviews, the last instance occurred in 2003.

https://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/a/p6Q9RW/kungen-grundlagen-ar-lustig
https://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/a/5VBrvb/du-har-fel-kungen

The King simply told how he thought about the change by which the Crown lost his position. He was honest and did not lie. His opinion, others will have another opinion. But it would be pure fake whe he suddenly would declare never ever have had any objection whatsoever. It is the best to be open and honest about it, and so the King did.

A third option would have been keeping his opinion private. There is no doubt he has the ability, as this is a skill which he and other monarchs in politically neutral monarchies already employ on a regular basis. The public in politically neutral monarchies typically do not expect their monarchs to lie and declare that they have no opinions on political issues, but do expect them to forswear being open and honest about those opinions in public settings.

I know that Victoria had a difficult youth struggling with both dyslexia and an eating disorder. I cannot help but wonder how much extra stress was added by knowing that her father resented her being the Crown Princess and would never support her position except by giving lip service in public when it was required. Every normal little girl wants her father's approval and I fear that for her it was never really forthcoming. King Carl Gustav has been vocal in his views about Victoria and Carl Philip since they were small children, to see him publicly stabbing his daughter in the back even now is shameful and I do not doubt personally hurtful for Victoria.

It always struck me as a bit curious that even as an adult Crown Princess Victoria had ongoing struggles with low self-confidence and insecurity (I base that on her comments in older interviews) even though, as far as I have read, she has enjoyed massive popularity with the public throughout her adult life. I hope this does not venture too far into speculation, but it would not be illogical if her own father's deficit of confidence in her and in crown princesses generally (as discussed previously in this thread, in his public interviews on the subject of female succession he has tended to emphasize his worries about his daughter shouldering the responsibility instead of pride in her for doing so) had psychological consequences.

If your thesis were true, the King would not have stripped Carll Philip's son of the HRH, nor removed them from the Royal House.

But as you know, Parliament formed a committee to investigate (among other matters) the organization of the Royal House in 2018, with the committee's leadership publicly declaring their intent to to limit the working, publicly funded members of the Royal House to children of the monarch and children of the heir. So, as I see it, the King's announcement in 2019 was a case of leaping before being pushed.

https://www.fokus.se/2018/06/krona-for-kronan-vad-far-pojken/

Of course, he could have theoretically have permitted Carl Philip's son to remain a formal member of the Royal House afterwards, but it would have been in name only once the committee determined that Carl Philip's children should live as private citizens. And doing so could have raised questions in the future about the part-time official role and funding of Carl Philip (and Sofia and Madeleine): If the children were expected to live fully private lives and earn their own living in spite of formally belonging to the Royal House, why should Carl Philip not do the same?, some might ask.

I am not sure what will happen though to the Stenhammar estate, which is part of the King's personal finances. I understand that the original testamentary disposition on the estate mentions that the Prince of Sweden who is Duke of Södermanland should be preferred to take over the lease, and that would be currently Prince Alexander. Does anybody know if this matter has been discussed by the Royal Court?

As far as i understand, it is still the plan that Stenhammar will go to Carl Philips family… At least that was what was publicly stated around the birth of Prince Alexander, for the reasons you said (him becoming Duke of Södermanland, and Carl Philip having been trained to manage the agricultute on the estate)

Victoria has probably given her consent to it as she is hardly at Stenhammar anyway

Mbruno was probably referring to the fact that the testament donating Stenhammar to the state includes the phrase "prince of the reigning royal house", and while Alexander was a member of the Royal House at the time of his birth he ostensibly lost that membership in 2019. But I suspect you are correct and nobody will care about that technicality.

See the discussion here: https://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f226/stenhammar-castle-flen-18884-2.html

 

[chuck34]

I also think that the daughter should sit on the throne

 

[JR76]

I also think that the daughter should sit on the throne

She will sit on the throne and, God willing, so will her daughter after her.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Yes, I don't believe that anybody today doubts that Victoria will make a fantastic queen.
But it was a bit weird that Carl Philip lost his title even though he only was a baby.

It would have made more sense to let the change start with the next generation, which is what they did in Norway.

If Prince Carl Philip had been 16 years old like Prince Haakon in Norway I am sure it would have at least been considered. Hearing about a legal modification that occurred in one's infancy is quite different from having one's life plans upturned when one is preparing for university.

That said, it was not a given in Norway for Prince Haakon and Princess Märtha Louise. Members of the family have disclosed that the royal family was consulted and expressed their preference for Prince Haakon to remain the heir of his generation.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Margareta Thorgren, the director of the information department, says to Svensk Damtidning that the entire royal family is behind the order of succession. [...]
- This is not a big deal in the family. It's an issue in the media that has become very, very magnified. The King and the Crown Princess have been working side by side for many years now and the King thinks that the Crown Princess as his successor will be an excellent head of state for Sweden.
Hovet bekräftar_ Så har kungens utspel påverkat relationen med Victoria _*Svensk Dam

A few quotes aside all his actions points towards him accepting Victoria as his heir and there is a long and ongoing process to future proof the royal family, it's possessions and the monarchy.

Second, there is no doubt that the King accepts and endorses Victoria's constitutional position. As the press officer said, the King and the CP have been working together now for more than two decades in an official capacity. Victoria takes part in meetings of the Council of State, makes official visits overseas representing Sweden, gets briefings from the Swedish government, has her own household, and she and her family are accorded a status and precedence in the Court that her siblings and their respective families do not have (that is now reflected even in the titles of Carl Philip's and Madeleine's children).

Realistically, would the public or the government have noticed or reacted if, over the past two decades, King Carl XVI Gustaf had refused to work together with Victoria in an official capacity, excluded her from meetings of the Council of State and briefings with the government, not sent her on official visits overseas, not given her a household of her own, and/or accorded Carl Philip precedence ahead of Victoria at court? (The King did accord Carl Philip precedence ahead of Victoria's husband when the latter is not accompanying Victoria.)

This is a genuine question, since I feel uncertain whether all the listed examples of "acceptance and endorsement" were matters the king truly had a choice in once the public opinion, as well as the need for the next head of state to have some preparation so that the monarchy is not destroyed through incompetence after Carl Gustaf's death (which he clearly does not want regardless of his opinion on the succession), are factored in.

 

[JR76]

Realistically, would the public or the government have noticed or reacted if, over the past two decades, King Carl XVI Gustaf had refused to work together with Victoria in an official capacity, excluded her from meetings of the Council of State and briefings with the government, not sent her on official visits overseas, not given her a household of her own, and/or accorded Carl Philip precedence ahead of Victoria at court? (The King did accord Carl Philip precedence ahead of Victoria's husband when the latter is not accompanying Victoria.)



This is a genuine question, since I feel uncertain whether all the listed examples of "acceptance and endorsement" were matters the king truly had a choice in once the public opinion, as well as the need for the next head of state to have some preparation so that the monarchy is not destroyed through incompetence after Carl Gustaf's death (which he clearly does not want regardless of his opinion on the succession), are factored in.

Of course it would have been noticed by the public, the media and the authorities if the Crown Princess had been shut out in the cold. The fact that the King's comments about the change to the OoS hasn't caused more controversy than it did for a day or two is in my opinion because it's by his what you call "acceptance and endorsement" of his daughter and her position as his heir.

I saw the program "De sista kungarna" today and as I suspected the quote was taken out of context to make it sound worse than it was meant. Those who know my views on the matter might call me biased, but watching the program there's no doubt that the King fully supports his daughter in spite of the fact that he feels that how she became crown princess was wrong.

 

[LadyFinn]

Expressen met the King today in Sälen at the National Conference.

When Expressen reaches the king on his way to a seminar during the national conference in Sälen, he is tight-lipped about the situation that has arisen.
Your majesty, there was quite a commotion following the king's statements about the order of succession.
— Yes, but we don't have time for that now.
Does the king regret that there was such a discussion?
- No.
Expressen has asked for the opportunity to ask the king further questions but the court has declined to provide further comment.
Kungens tvärsäkra svar – ångrar inte diskussionen

 

[Prinsara]

Apparently it would have been too hard for him to say "yes", even meaning "yes, I regret how much fuss people made".

 

[Tatiana Maria]

The change to the Order of Succession seems given today, but were by all accounts not seen as such by the court and those who supported the old order even after the first vote. A change of the constitution isn't given until it's passed a vote in the parliament two times. Any change to the initial proposal would mean that it had to start all over again. There were attempts to change the initial proposal for a change of the order of succession before the second vote which would have delayed a change for at least three more years which would have meant that Carl Philip stayed on as crown prince because the public had grown used to the idea.
This ties in with what Princess Birgitta has told in an interview - her brother tried to postpone the change for a generation and was told by the prime minister over the phone that it wasn't possible. She was there to witness it. It also ties in with Carl Philip receiving full honours as a crown prince. The Royal family most likely hoped that his position would be so set in public perception that they demanded that the changes would be postponed for a generation. This would theoretically have been possible given that the election took place after his christening.

You can despise the King all you want, but the passing of the change of the Order of Succession was not a done deal. To say so is to disqualify a parliamentary process that is not automatic and put in place to protect the constitutional rights of the Swedish people. Like all parliamentary processes things can change while it's ongoing and any change would have meant that parliament would have had to start over again. Close to half the parliament laid down their votes on both occasions. Had the Social Democrats not decided to do so and instead voted like many of them wanted too the result could have been the total opposite.

Depending on the situation, it isn't necessarily dismissive of the democratic process to describe the passage of a law as a done deal - after all, it's a common occurrence in political reportage that the outcome of a particular vote or bill is treated as a certainty before the final vote is taken, based solely on the understanding of the political situation.

I think most of us have been under the impression that, by the time the first vote occurred, it was unlikely that the next general election would produce a Parliament which would vote against the amendment. Is that wrong? You wrote that the royal court and the old order held out hope that the Victoria as Crown Princess proposal would fall before the second vote, but was it a realistic hope or wishful thinking? I would love to learn more regarding the machinations in Parliament or at the Palace, if you have the time.

Of course it would have been noticed by the public, the media and the authorities if the Crown Princess had been shut out in the cold. The fact that the King's comments about the change to the OoS hasn't caused more controversy than it did for a day or two is in my opinion because it's by his what you call "acceptance and endorsement" of his daughter and her position as his heir.

Thank you for answering my question. However, I remain confused since, if the King realized that the public, media and authorities would cause a storm if he shut the Crown Princess out in the cold, then I would not necessarily consider his choice to not shut her out to be a sign of "acceptance and endorsement" of her position (the phrase in quotes is from the previous posts) - because in that scenario, he might have acted as he did solely to avoid trouble with the public etc.

Or is it that they would have noticed but not caused a furor, so that the King remained free to decide how the crown princess was treated, as the second part of your comment implies?

I saw the program "De sista kungarna" today and as I suspected the quote was taken out of context to make it sound worse than it was meant. Those who know my views on the matter might call me biased, but watching the program there's no doubt that the King fully supports his daughter in spite of the fact that he feels that how she became crown princess was wrong.

I think all of us are biased , but if you are able to remember a specific example of how his words were taken out of context, that might shed some light on the reactions from both the king and the public.

 

[LadyFinn]

Expressen met Carl Philip at Leos Lekland. Leos Lekland is the largest and most visited playland chain in the Nordics.
- I support both father in his statement, and my older sister, says Carl Philip - who thus "got rid" of his future throne - when Expressen meets him at Leos Lekland.
But beyond that, Carl Philip is tight-lipped, and refers to the official channels.
Prins Carl Philips stöd efter pappas uttalande

 

[JR76]

Expressen met Carl Philip at Leos Lekland. Leos Lekland is the largest and most visited playland chain in the Nordics.

- I support both father in his statement, and my older sister, says Carl Philip - who thus "got rid" of his future throne - when Expressen meets him at Leos Lekland.

But beyond that, Carl Philip is tight-lipped, and refers to the official channels.

Prins Carl Philips stöd efter pappas uttalande

Expressen seems hellbent on keeping last weeks "controversy" alive in people's memory and have probably something big planned for Thursday and Friday given that the documentary will air on TV on Thursday evening.
If not arranged with Prince Carl-Philip in advance I find it quite noteworthy that they look him up for a comment at an indoor children's playground.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Expressen met Carl Philip at Leos Lekland. Leos Lekland is the largest and most visited playland chain in the Nordics.
- I support both father in his statement, and my older sister, says Carl Philip - who thus "got rid" of his future throne - when Expressen meets him at Leos Lekland.
But beyond that, Carl Philip is tight-lipped, and refers to the official channels.
Prins Carl Philips stöd efter pappas uttalande

I know that Prince Carl Philip has been asked in the past about the change of the Act of Succession, but is this the first time he has directly commented on his father's opinion of it?

Which statement is he implicitly referring to when he says that "I support [my] father in his statement"? His father has given two interviews, a press release, and a curt response to Expressen's questioning over the past week, and made various statements in those exchanges. Should we infer that he agrees with everything his father has said (including that he should have remained Crown Prince)?

Expressen seems hellbent on keeping last weeks "controversy" alive in people's memory and have probably something big planned for Thursday and Friday given that the documentary will air on TV on Thursday evening.
If not arranged with Prince Carl-Philip in advance I find it quite noteworthy that they look him up for a comment at an indoor children's playground.

Interesting. It seems to be drawing more a bit more interest, at least in the press, compared to the last repetition in 2003, judging from the 2003 Aftonbladet articles I posted. I wonder if it is because of the jubilee, or perhaps because Victoria has earned so much respect and affection in the last two decades.

 

[JR76]

I know that Prince Carl Philip has been asked in the past about the change of the Act of Succession, but is this the first time he has directly commented on his father's opinion of it?



Which statement is he implicitly referring to when he says that "I support [my] father in his statement"? His father has given two interviews, a press release, and a curt response to Expressen's questioning over the past week, and made various statements in those exchanges. Should we infer that supports everything his father has said (including that he should have remained Crown Prince)?

Prince Carl Philip didn't say "interview" or "curt response", but "statement". The only statement made by the King recently regarding the issue is the one he had released on January 5. Not accepting that this is the one he's referring to is only making things more complicated than they are.
While the Prince has said little about the issue what he has said has been in support of the change to the Order of Succession.

I


Interesting. It seems to be drawing more a bit more interest, at least in the press, compared to the last repetition in 2003, judging from the 2003 Aftonbladet articles I posted. I wonder if it is because of the jubilee, or perhaps because Victoria has earned so much respect and affection in the last two decades.

I could be wrong, but I don't remember the issue having received more attention now than last time. If it has the reason is most likely because it's in an interview given on national TV and because both the teaser and the documentary itself were released online while a large part of the country were still on their Christmas holiday during what we in Sweden would call a period of "news drought".
Given that from what I've seen it's more republican and/or left-wing leaning commentators that have weighed in on the issue I hardly think that they're acting in support of the Crown Princess, but sees this as another possibility to chip a little away from the legitimacy of the monarchy. In addition to this and the time of the release mentioned above I also think that one must consider the fact that Sweden has taken a conservative turn in the last 20 years and matters like official ceremonies, national identity and the role of the Royal family are viewed differently today. So differently that the Speaker of Parliament managed to sneak in a small, but significant change during the Change of Government on October 18. Instead of the Speaker appointing the new Prime Minister before the Council of State & notifying the King in Council he waited to do so and then asked the King's permission before performing the formal appointment in Council. Because of this conservative turn those opposed to it takes every chance to rally against anything perceived to represent the conservative narrative (and the other way around).
Something that reflects the pick-and-chose narrative of the media is that what has made the news is this issue which they know will generate clicks and not the Brunei controversy, also mentioned in the documentary, with it's political implications which the media knows that Mr & Mrs Svensson couldn't give a flying fig about.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Prince Carl Philip didn't say "interview" or "curt response", but "statement". The only statement made by the King recently regarding the issue is the one he had released on January 5. Not accepting that this is the one he's referring to is only making things more complicated than they are.
While the Prince has said little about the issue what he has said has been in support of the change to the Order of Succession.

In English, a "statement" could refer to any of the above, thus the request for clarification. It is not a matter of "not accepting", but not knowing because we are not all fortunate enough to be fluent in Swedish.

Thank you for the clarification and the additional information about the reasons for the amount of commentary. (Perhaps the overlooking of the Brunei comment is a silver lining for the King...)

Edited to add:

Given that from what I've seen it's more republican and/or left-wing leaning commentators that have weighed in on the issue I hardly think that they're acting in support of the Crown Princess, but sees this as another possibility to chip a little away from the legitimacy of the monarchy. In addition to this and the time of the release mentioned above I also think that one must consider the fact that Sweden has taken a conservative turn in the last 20 years and matters like official ceremonies, national identity and the role of the Royal family are viewed differently today. So differently that the Speaker of Parliament managed to sneak in a small, but significant change during the Change of Government on October 18. Instead of the Speaker appointing the new Prime Minister before the Council of State & notifying the King in Council he waited to do so and then asked the King's permission before performing the formal appointment in Council. Because of this conservative turn those opposed to it takes every chance to rally against anything perceived to represent the conservative narrative (and the other way around).

I think it is a risky tactic for the republican and/or leftwing commentators you mentioned. The sharper the criticism of the King, the more focus is drawn to how much the beloved Crown Princess deserves her position in the eyes of the majority of the public, the democratic legitimacy of the process which installed her in that position, and the inability of Swedish monarchs to interfere in politics. And whenever the events of 1975-1979 are rehashed, it will be recalled that it was mostly the leftwing parties in parliament which wanted to maintain the ban on women serving as Sweden's head of state.

 

[victor1319]

I think it is a risky tactic for the republican and/or leftwing commentators you mentioned. The sharper the criticism of the King...

I always wonder in such cases, what the motivation for these 'opinions' is.

Of course, news about the Royals sell - always! And selling is the base case for the press, to make a profit.

But these stories have a certain spin: Sure, the Royals are supposed to keep out of day-to-day politics, but that does not mean, they are reduced to handshaking with the elderly and making Boo-boo to little kids! They can have an opinion too, especially and if they think, it is wise to talk to the press about personal issues...

So, the King of Sweden has brought up an issue, that is long solved and done and he added nothing new to his already well known position.

But the press and its commentators are trying to silence him. Why?

It might be caused by a resentment: The Royals have haressed the people for centuries with censorship and outright violence. And now the progressive democrats feel, it is time for revenge.

Yes, they personally never experienced such acts, but their ancestors, which were in the most cases not noble, but peasants, craftsmen or even pig herders. And now, that the democratic commentators belong to the opinion elite, they feel, that their humble background is "undeserved" and that their ancestors could have done so much better and they could have lived like the democratic commentators themselves, if it were not for the Royals - Payback time!

Well, yeah, this is kitchen psychology, but I really wonder, what drives these 'noble pens'...

 

[LadyFinn]

When Victoria and Daniel arrived today to their visit at Berättarministeriet, Expressen asked if Victoria wanted to comment on the King's statement and the order of succession, Victoria declined.
- Thank you, it's good, we've moved on from that... says a Victoria with a smile and goes in.
Kronprinsessan Victoria svarar på kritiken mot kungen

Magdalena Andersson, the former Prime Minister and Leader of the Opposition and Leader of the Swedish Social Democratic Party, was interviewed by Expressen at the National Conference in Sälen. She didn't want to comment on the King's statement, but says that she is proud of the Swedish royal house.
- I actually have no comment about it. But I think it is important and good that we have a royal house in Sweden. The King is an important unifying force, not least in these times of crisis. We also have a fantastic representative who will take over from him in Crown Princess Victoria.
Are you a royalist?
- Well now we have a royal house. I think the royal family is doing a good job and am very proud of the Swedish royal family. As a matter of principle, one can question whether one should have a royal house. We have in our party program that we do not think we should have a monarchy. But it is not a proposal that we have pursued during all the years that we have been in government. And nothing that I see ahead of me to pursue as party leader either.
When asked if it is important for Magdalena Andersson not to call herself a royalist, she answers hesitantly that it is difficult to... What characterizes a royalist?
That you are proud of the royal house, perhaps?
Andersson is proud of the royal family and thinks they work hard for the good of Sweden and the Swedish people and they do a good job.
Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson also does not want to answer the question of whether it is appropriate for the King to question a constitutional amendment that took place long ago.
- No, I'm not going to get involved in those things, I'm not going to review individual statements either.
Anderssons hyllning_ ”Jag är stolt över kungahuset”

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Princess Christina has given an interview to Icakuriren, a weekly family magazine. The interview was done at the Royal Palace. Christina reveals that she is writing a new book.

[...]

Christina has probably always pushed for changes. When her brother became king, it was also important to her that they would be sensitive to the new and not always stick to old traditions. The king abolished the curtsies. Many of the employees were older and they found it embarrassing when they curtsied them.
Christina spoke out in favor of a female succession to the throne already in her 20s.
- Yes absolutely. It was completely obvious to me and still is.

[...]

More here:
Prinsessan Christina_ ”Kvinnlig tronföljd är fullständigt självklart”
Translation

Did Princess Christina speak out in favor of gender-equal succession to the throne when she was in her 20s, or only male-preference female succession as her brother wanted?

Aside from Princess Christina, Princess Sibylla, King Carl XVI Gustaf and Queen Silvia, have any other members of the family made their opinion known?