The Change of the Act of Succession - 1979 Constitution Change

[ysbel]

I can see your point about not wanting the crown to skip generations but would Bertil have been prepared for the crown?

I thought that the women always had the advantage even with the old laws because their reign was always so much longer than the men. Under the old laws the Dutch house had three queens in a row and the two British queens, Victoria and Elizabeth are close to reigning longer than all the Kings that came between them. So the 19th and 20th century are in my opinion, the centuries of the Queens even with the old laws.

[betina]

Originally Posted by Furienna

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.

Yes but Prince Knud had sons

[ysbel]

Women couldn't inherit the throne at all under the old Danish law even if the monarch had no sons. A succession law like that could cause the crown to skip to someone outside of the immediate family who was not prepared to take the throne. I don't know what the Swedish laws were but Sweden did have a Queen Christina so it looks like Sweden allowed women to take the throne.

At the expense of boring you there are four types of succession:

Pure Salic: women can't inherit the throne and men descended from the female line can't inherit the throne

Semi-Salic: women can't inherit the throne but men descended from the female line can inherit the throne

Male Primogeniture: women can inherit the throne but sons in the same immediate family take precedence

Primogeniture: the eldest child regardless of sex inherits the throne

Does anyone know what type of succession the Swedes had before the law was changed in the 70s?

[Lyle]

Originally Posted by Little_star

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

That's an interesting take on the situation. I once commented to a Swede that CP Victoria is very beautiful. They then proceded to tell me that it is a good thing she is the Crown Princess, because Princess Madeleine is so beautiful that if Victoria weren't the Crown Princess no one would even notice her.

[Paula**]

Primogeniture is the only fare

[Oppie]

Does anyone know what type of succession the Swedes had before the law was changed in the 70s

I think it was a form of Pure Salic. If there were no male heirs then one would be elected and it could be a female in the case of Queen Eleonora (I think that was her name). I think a few countries had this. I think Luxembourg has the same case. Female are only able to become monarchs if there is no male heirs, (Lichtenstein still has Pure Salic I think)

[Furienna]

Whoops! See how little I know about Denmark's royal family! I didn't think Knud had children or was married! Well, then, one of Knud's sons should have been king after their uncle... But they must have prefered Margarethe. Maybe because she was more well-known than her male cousins. Can someone answer that?

And I don't think we had pure salic. We had male primogeniture. We had both Christina and Ulrika Eleonora as reigning queens when there was no male heir around.

And really, not even primogeniture is "fair". What about the younger siblings in any royal family?

[GrandDuchess]

A tip for those of you whom want to know about the succession rules in the Swedish history, read this thread at the SRMB before it disappears! http://members3.boardhost.com/scandi...147112730.html

[ysbel]

Thanks GrandDuchess! That's a great link!

Originally Posted by furienna

Whoops! See how little I know about Denmark's royal family! I didn't think Knud had children or was married! Well, then, one of Knud's sons should have been king after their uncle... But they must have prefered Margarethe. Maybe because she was more well-known than her male cousins. Can someone answer that?

I've heard various things. Knud's mother-in-law supported the Nazis and that didn't make the couple very popular in Denmark during the German occupation. I've also heard that Knud's children were less 'photogenic' but that idea seems pretty farfetched.

[GrandDuchess]

Well I'm not an expert on the Rosenborgs, but as far as I've understood it, Prince Knud was considered to be a bit "slow" (not fully developed, a bit behind the curtains, or however to express it), and that was a major reason for the Danish Parliament deciding to introduce agnatic-cognatic primogeniture in 1953, making Princess Margrethe new heir to the throne (and her two sisters, Benedikte and Anne-Marie placed just behind her), and securing new blood in the line, as they didn't want Prince Knud's children (which he had together with his cousin Caroline Mathilde) to be close to the throne either.

[betina]

Originally Posted by Furienna

Whoops! See how little I know about Denmark's royal family! I didn't think Knud had children or was married! Well, then, one of Knud's sons should have been king after their uncle... But they must have prefered Margarethe. Maybe because she was more well-known than her male cousins. Can someone answer that?

And I don't think we had pure salic. We had male primogeniture. We had both Christina and Ulrika Eleonora as reigning queens when there was no male heir around.

And really, not even primogeniture is "fair". What about the younger siblings in any royal family?

Prince Knud was Married to Princess Caroline-Mathilde of Denmark (they were cousins). They had 3 children: Princess Elisabeth (b.1935) Prince Ingolf (b.1940) and Prince Christian. The sons are now titled as Counts of Rosenborg. Only Christian have children. Twins Camilla and Josephine and a younger daughter Feodora.

[Karisma]

Originally Posted by Lyle

That's an interesting take on the situation. I once commented to a Swede that CP Victoria is very beautiful. They then proceded to tell me that it is a good thing she is the Crown Princess, because Princess Madeleine is so beautiful that if Victoria weren't the Crown Princess no one would even notice her.

I don´t agree about that. Swedes seem to be very satisfied with Victoria and people in common think she i much more "Majesty" than Madeleine. She is more "a sweet face" while Victoria have " dignity".

[soCal girl]

Originally Posted by Karisma

I don´t agree about that. Swedes seem to be very satisfied with Victoria and people in common think she i much more "Majesty" than Madeleine. She is more "a sweet face" while Victoria have " dignity".

Yes, but perhaps it's because Victoria is Crown Princess. Don't get me wrong, I love Victoria but I'm just playing devil's advocate here. If she weren't the Crown Princess I don't think there would be as much of an interest in her. I think she would have been able to live a much more normal life and Carl Philip would be all dolled up for the tabloids. Also, I don't think Victoria would have had an eating disorder either if she weren't Crown Princess. And there would have been a lot of tabloid match-making for Carl Philip if he were Crown Prince.

[Gutsy]

I think a fundamental point not to be missed here is the fact that Prince Carl Philip was robbed of his birth-right by the Swedish politcal establishment and elite that desired not only to end the Salic Law but made the 1980 Law retroactive. The infant Prince was already officially proclaimed Crown Prince at his birth and was demoted in favor of his slightly older sister by the socialists and feminists in the Riksdag. Of course, Crown Princess Victoria had no part in any of this, but I wonder if the young man has even a subconscious sense of grievance ?

[Toledo]

What if the Act of Succession wouldn't have been changed?

Victoria will be happily married and with kids and Carl, as the Heir, will be waiting for his Miss Right to get the approval from the King.

I have the impression that the fact that the heir is Victoria puts more public pressure on her that if it was Carl the heir to the throne. Royal women seem to be more scrutinized and criticized than their male counterparts.

[UserDane]

Originally Posted by Furienna

....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.

What? Why wouldn't it be the same thing to have the name of Bernadotte carried on by Victoria's children instead of her brother's?
Sorry, you are of course entitled to your own opinion I'm just so surprised about the complete 'outdatedness' of this.

[Jo of Palatine]

Originally Posted by UserDane

What? Why wouldn't it be the same thing to have the name of Bernadotte carried on by Victoria's children instead of her brother's?
Sorry, you are of course entitled to your own opinion I'm just so surprised about the complete 'outdatedness' of this.

It is especially interesting as relations via the DNA can only be proven via the female line. Thus it would make more sense from a "dynastic" point of view to follow the bloodlines through the females of a family.

Of course, there was a sense in having a male head of the state for centuries. Just look at Sweden and why they selected Jean-Baptiste Bernadotte as their Crown Prince in their time of need when Napoleon threatened to conquer Sweden as well as the rest of Continental Europe (he already had Swedish Pommern). Of course a woman never would have been able in these times to lead the country out of its trouble.

During these times male characteristics were needed and thus men reigned.
Today we have a completely different situation in the countries that decided to change their Acts of Succession. And maybe we'll see that happen in the UK as well if Prince William fathers a daughter first.

Today the souverain is a symbol for the state and the positive characteristics the state stands for: compassion, patience, stability, strength to name but a few. These are all things that can be represented by a woman as well as by a man. Thus, there is no sense anymore in making a distinction between the two genders.

And I think it's a logical thing: you are born into a position and fortunately or undfortunately it's you as the firstborn child of the souverain who has to pay in duties to your country for the privileges of the rest of the family. Well, one has to do the job in the end. As the Netherlands or Belgium or the UK showed, there is always the possibility to abdictate if for whatever reasons you don't feel like doing the job any longer. Others, like king Albert II. only show when it's their turn what kind of personality they are - I remember the discussions if Albert shouldn't renounce his rights for the sake of Philippe and see how well it turned out with Albert as king.

As for CP Victoria: I guess there are reasons why her mother (Who probably knows her as nobody else does) states that there are reasons why the king and queen would have prefered their son to become king...Maybe Victoria really would be better off if she wasn't the CP. But the same was said so often about Queen Elizabeth - wouldn't she live a better life if she could have stayed Princess Elizabeth of York. But - you never know that for sure. Victoria was born into a family who earns their keep with a kind of rare occupation and the duty to follow in her father's footsteps fell to her. Now she has to cope with it. And, as I said before: there is always a way out. Noone can force a Royal head of the state to stay on his or her throne if the person does not want it. But there's a price to pay... But don't we all pay our dues?

[betina]

Hmm I can count several women in history that ruled the contry and gained more territory. Margrete 1. of Denmark, Elizabeth 1. of England, Christina of Sweden and i think there will be more.

[Jo of Palatine]

Originally Posted by betina

Hmm I can count several women in history that ruled the contry and gained more territory. Margrete 1. of Denmark, Elizabeth 1. of England, Christina of Sweden and i think there will be more.

What I meant was that at the time directly after the French Revolution which changed the way people looked at their monarchs (it was the beginning of the end of the absolutism) a female ruler would not have been able to get elected in Sweden as they needed not only a ruler but a military leader as well. Don't forget that it needed the combined efforts of Jean-Baptiste Bernadotte (then already Crown prince Carl Johan of Sweden) at Leipzig and the duke of Wellington at Waterloo to finish Napoleon off. I simply doubt that in 1812-1815 a queen would have been able to do what Carl Johan did - he finally got Norway in the bargain, don't forget that.

While his son Oscar made the dynastic effort in putting the Bernadottes firmly within the relations of most European houses: his wife Josephine was not interesting because of her Napoleonic relations (her father was the stepson of Napoleon) but much more because through her mother she was the direct cousin of Emperor Franz Joseph of Austria, his wife Elisabeth ("Sisi"), and of the crown princes of Prussia, Saxonia and Bavaria because they all were grandchildren of the then king of Bavaria who had negociated quite important marriages for his daughters. Plus Josephine brought quite the dowry as her father was very good when it came to business and inherited quite a lump sum from his mother, the empress Josephine.

I hadn't realized that till I visited Drottningholm palace and saw the portraits of Queen Josephine's cousins in the ballroom there. Quite impressing!

[Sister Morphine]

I think primogeniture is the only way to go, really. Women are just as capable of being Regent as a man. Was it fair that Carl Philip was stripped of his birthright? You could say that no, it wasn't fair......but is it fair that Victoria would have been denied the right to rule simply because she's female?

With primogeniture, first born wins out regardless of gender and you don't have these silly [no offense] arguments about whether or not women are fit to rule a country. Victoria seems like a very smart women and I'm sure that she will balance all that is required of her as Queen with what is required of her as a mother.