The Change of the Act of Succession - 1979 Constitution Change - Page 3

christinacg · #41 04-15-2006, 07:38 PM

Although I love Victoria, I think it would be cool if Carl-Philip was crown prince. He'd get so much more media attention. Its a shame he doesnt now b/c I think he's so handsome. He'd be like the Swedish Prince William.
Victoria's life would obviously be different. She's probably be married to Daniel by now. But Madeleine's life wouldnt be different I dont think.

soCal girl · #42 04-15-2006, 08:50 PM

I think Madeleine's life would be different. Her close relationship to Carl Philip is obvious but I think it would have been different if he was the Crown Prince. He would be gone more and would be preparing for a life as King. I think Victoria and Madeleine would be closer if Carl Philip was the Crown Prince.

kaydura0717 · #43 04-15-2006, 11:05 PM

True but I also got the impression that they were all sort of close. But I agree that compared to other royals the swedish royals do get alittle more privacy and respect.

contessa · #44 05-13-2006, 07:52 AM

Why was the succession changed after they were all born? You would think it would be changed in the next generation not when a son was already born. If anyone could clear it up I would very much interested in knowing.

soCal girl · #45 05-13-2006, 04:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by contessa

Why was the succession changed after they were all born? You would think it would be changed in the next generation not when a son was already born. If anyone could clear it up I would very much interested in knowing.

Carl Philip was born the Crown Prince but then Parliament decided it was unfair that eligibility for the crown be gender-based. They decided whoever was the eldest would be the next heir. This all happened when Victoria and Carl Philip were babies so they decided to activate the change this generation. In Norway, the change was made when Haakon and Martha-Louise were grown-up so it was deemed unfair to have it apply to that generation. So Haakon is still Crown Prince and then his firstborn, Ingrid Alexandra, became the next heir. (I'm pretty sure that's what happened in Norway)

margotantoinette · #46 05-13-2006, 04:31 PM

yes, that's exactly what happened in Norway. The change was made when Haakon and Martha-Louise were old enough to be aware of it, and so it was decided to "grandfather clause" them so to speak, and to only activate the changes for the next generation, so that Ingrid is the heir and not her younger brother Sverre Magnus.

Oppie · #47 05-13-2006, 04:43 PM

I wonder not only what effect it would have had on them but on the rest of the European Houses, since I believe this one was the first to allow the eldest to succeded regardless of gender. I wonder what would have happened in the other countries.

Solange · #48 05-14-2006, 09:57 AM

Is it true that the King opposed to this change and would've prefered for Carl Philip to be his heir?

Yennie · #49 05-14-2006, 11:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solange

Is it true that the King opposed to this change and would've prefered for Carl Philip to be his heir?

Yes he did say saomething like that at the time, but if you ask him now he is more "politically correct" :)

Also Queen Silvia said she thought it could be hard for a woman to have the "top job" because of her role as a mother....

Karisma · #50 05-14-2006, 04:46 PM

Of course we can put forward a hypothesis. But I doubt it´s anything we ever shall think about in reality.

The change of succession was decided before both Victoria and Carl Philip was born. But Swedish law and democracy requires that two Parliaments take constitutional amendments. And there have to be an general election between them. The first Parliament had alredy decided in direction to change the succession when Victoria was born.

Victoria conducted an interview in 2005 when she had a question about the difficult choice between love and The Swedish crown. "I would take The Crown" - she answerd.

Furienna · #51 05-14-2006, 06:46 PM

Actually, I would have prefered, that the law hadn't been changed. Thinking that girls/women and boys/men are just alike is crazy. There is a difference between the sexes, or there wouldn't have been two sexes. It sounds so nice with equality between the sexes, but even though men and women are just as much worth, it doesn't mean, that they're the same. So yes, I would have prefered, that Carl Philip would have remained the heir because he's a boy, and if there is a male heir, he should be chosen before a female heir. If it wasn't for anything else, I would have liked it to be that way because the name of Bernadotte could have been carried on. Sure, Victoria's children might be called "Bernadotte" too, but it wouldn't be the same thing.

Yennie · #52 05-15-2006, 06:03 AM

But how could a man be more suitable for the job, simply because he is a man? Yes, I agree on the name part and I understand that perhaps it can be a bit hard for a woman when she have children, like the first time when you breastfeed and so on...

But in this case, I prefer Victoria over Carl Philip. Sure, if he had been rasied as crown prince, perhaps he would have been different. But imo he is to shy and not head-of-state material at all (sorry Carl Philip, but I like you anyway :) )

PreDoc · #53 05-15-2006, 06:22 AM

The change was a good one. It provides the longest training period for an extraordinarily restrictive job (since the oldest child will spend the most time being groomed for king/queen).

It also eliminates the ridiculous notion that one must continue procreating until a male child is born.

Ideally, an elected monarchy would create competition to be the best (be that the most cunning, most intelligent, most beautiful, most whatever). Of course the pool of candidates would have to be a bit large because many family members would presumably not want to be saddled with this lifelong obligation.

GrandDuchess · #54 05-15-2006, 12:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yennie

Also Queen Silvia said she thought it could be hard for a woman to have the "top job" because of her role as a mother....

Yes, but hopefully Crown Princess Victoria's children will all be adults by the time she becomes Queen, so the there won't be the same problems as there would be if she was the monarch, having to raise children at the same time, combining the jobs as Head of State and mother.

I hope, and believe, King Carl XVI Gustaf will live a long life, so Victoria will have more possibilities to raise her family in the way that she and her future husband wishes.

Paula** · #55 05-15-2006, 01:55 PM

The fact of the law's change makes me VERY happy, as a woman I see for the first time in a monarchy something fare for a woman
We are in 2006 HELLO men aren't better than women nodoby is better than nobody

Sexist people for me is the same as stupid people
just my opinion I don't want to offend anyone with this ;]

Furienna · #56 05-16-2006, 07:24 AM

How would a man be more suitable as a regent than a woman just because of their sexes? Well, maybe he wouldn't be. And in Denmark, it made sense to change the law to let Margarethe be the heir instead of her uncle Knut. But I still think women only should be regents if they have no suitable close male relatives. It might sound sexist, but I can't help it. That's what I think. And if a royal family only have daughters, like Fredrik and Ingrid in Denmark, I see no problem with making the oldest daughter heir. But if there is a son, he should have more right to the thrown than his female relatives.

betina · #57 05-16-2006, 07:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Furienna

Actually, I would have prefered, that the law hadn't been changed. Thinking that girls/women and boys/men are just alike is crazy. There is a difference between the sexes, or there wouldn't have been two sexes. It sounds so nice with equality between the sexes, but even though men and women are just as much worth, it doesn't mean, that they're the same. So yes, I would have prefered, that Carl Philip would have remained the heir because he's a boy, and if there is a male heir, he should be chosen before a female heir. If it wasn't for anything else, I would have liked it to be that way because the name of Bernadotte could have been carried on. Sure, Victoria's children might be called "Bernadotte" too, but it wouldn't be the same thing.

OMG sorry to say this but what century are you living in. I think there is a point in the women to be head of the state. then you can be 100% sure that the child is from the queen. You never know if the male regents decendants really is his children.
And by the way. Why did it make sence that Queen Margrethe got prefered above her uncle Knud??

Furienna · #58 05-16-2006, 09:06 AM

Because her uncle only was two years younger than his father and only died some years after his brother. It was time for a new generation.

Gita · #59 05-16-2006, 09:11 AM

I would prefer Crown Princess Victoriua be herself - which she always is, she never puts a show on than doll herslf up all the time if that is what she is comfortable doing.

Little_star · #60 05-16-2006, 09:50 AM

I think if the change had never taken place, then the most obvious difference would be that C-P would have the duties V has and she would be able to live a relatively carefree lifestyle.

I also think the press would play up a rivalry between the 2 sisters, more they already do.