The Change of the Act of Succession - 1979 Constitution Change

[Zonk]

My warning was not to cancel any discussion regarding Act of Succession (which is the subject of this thread) but rather to end the discussion on any mental illness which is not the subject of this thread.

 

[Frothy]

Furienna,

The obvious difference between discriminating by age and disciminating by sex is that in the lottery of 'who is the oldest' both sexes have an equal chance; in the lottery of 'boys first' women are totally disadvantaged.

There are no, absolutely zero, differences between men and women when it comes to ruling a country as a constitutional monarch.

In my lifetime I expect to see the changes of Sweden and Norway applied to Great Britain, too. You may be sure that if Prince William's eldest child is a girl, the current climate will not admit of her being disinherited by a younger brother. I cannot wait to see that change and I will be agitating for it.

In the meantime the best of luck to the Crown Princess. As a woman it makes me so glad to see it.

 

[Furienna]

I don't really get what you mean there. If we're going to talk discrimination, Carl Philip is now discriminated in favor of Victoria, instead of the other way around, because he happened to be born after her. And Madeleine has to be the only one left to have a chance, no matter if Victoria or Carl Philip is the heir. We can't talk about equality when it comes to succession, but we have to talk about tradition. If the politicians feel they can change the act of succession only because of their ideas on equality, why not get rid of the monarchy all together in the name of equality? And how will you be able to change the Brittish succession laws from USA?

 

[Frothy]

I'm in the UK, should have updated the profile.

It isn't just "politicians"' ideas about equality, Furienna; your idea that males are inherently more suited to rule than females is the minority one. There is widespread acceptance in Sweden of Victoria as CP, and when you say "politicians", remember that politicians are only in a position to enact changes - as in the case of the change to the Swedish succession, planned before the births of Victoria and CP - because a majority of the people elected them into government.

The people chose the politicians who made the changes, so the people ultimately approve this change.

A constitutional monarch has little power, and women as well as men are equally able to act as a symbol. It is not suprising that the least discriminatory method of succession is chosen - primogeniture discriminates only on age, male primogeniture (your choice) on both age and sex.

As for tradition, there is not a monarchy in the world which hasn't changed ruling house, laws, etc at one point or another.

Speaking as an ardent monarchist, I want the institution to survive, and to do that it needs to be made as relevant as possible. A British stripped-down monarchy with equal succession rights for men and women will be the way forward.

It is working very well in Sweden. And now we see the idea taken up all over the place - Norway and Holland too. We are in an ideal situation to bring in changes, because with either male primogeniture or regular primogeniture, the first three in line to the throne would be Charles, William and Harry. To make the change now before William's daughter or son is born makes every kind of good sense. Nothing practical will change for two generations.

 

[Lox]

Speaking as an ardent monarchist, I want the institution to survive, and to do that it needs to be made as relevant as possible.

You're absolutely right, if the European monarchies wants to survive, then a gender neutral succession is inevitable. There isn't really any good argument against such a succession.

However, Carl Philip is the rightful Crown Prince of Sweden. I hope that Victoria never gets married, so that Carl Philip and his descendants will inherit the throne.

 

[foiegrass]

Well I just don't think its very nice to take a position away from you when you're only a little kid. It would have been nicer to execute this act for carl phillip's descendants, like Norway!

 

[Henri M.]

It is always unfair

Why boys first and not girls?

Why the eldest first and not the youngest?

Why the eldest of the King and not the eldest of one of his sisters?

The whole succession is an invention of man. For centuries it was a firstborn male-preferred system, in almost all monarchies.

 

[Gita]

Even if you feel Lox that Prince Carl Philip is the rightful heir to the throne I don't think it is very nice of you to say you hope that Crown Princess Victoria never marries.

 

[Lox]

Even if you feel Lox that Prince Carl Philip is the rightful heir to the throne I don't think it is very nice of you to say you hope that Crown Princess Victoria never marries.

Let me rephrase that, then. I hope that Victoria never gives birth to an heir.
Nicer or worse?

Long live King Carl XVII Philip!

 

[Stefan]

Well I just don't think its very nice to take a position away from you when you're only a little kid. It would have been nicer to execute this act for carl phillip's descendants, like Norway!

There took a second boting of the new law place after the birth of Prince Carl Philip. Could they not made this voting earlier and then let the law came in force lets say at the beginning of May, short before the expected birth. So Prince Carl Philip would have not become Crown Prince at all and n ot removed the Title after 6 monts.
Or had there elections to take place ??

 

[kwanfan]

Well I just don't think its very nice to take a position away from you when you're only a little kid. It would have been nicer to execute this act for carl phillip's descendants, like Norway!

I think it makes far more sense to change the succession when the heirs are young. Therefore, you don't have someone being raised their entire life as the heir, and have their position change when they are in their adulthood.

 

[Sancia]

Why the eldest first and not the youngest?

Most logical: when the first child is born, you never know if there will be a youngest one. And you have to wait to know which one will be the youngest...

 

[ZandraRae]

I think it makes far more sense to change the succession when the heirs are young. Therefore, you don't have someone being raised their entire life as the heir, and have their position change when they are in their adulthood.

Very much agreed on this one. Carl Phillip was very small when the law was changed, as was Victoria. At that age, neither knew what was happening. It would have been very cruel to take CP's title when he was let's say in his teen years or older, b/c then he would have understood the situation. I don't live in Sweden, but if I did, I would be very proud to have a queen such as Victoria one day.

 

[Stefan]

Very much agreed on this one. Carl Phillip was very small when the law was changed, as was Victoria. At that age, neither knew what was happening. It would have been very cruel to take CP's title when he was let's say in his teen years or older, b/c then he would have understood the situation. I don't live in Sweden, but if I did, I would be very proud to have a queen such as Victoria one day.

True. And that's the problem Spain will face if Felipe and Letizia will have a son as third or even fourth child.

 

[RoyalKnottie]

I'm not a big fan of hypothetical questions, because what is done is done, however this got me thinking. I wonder if Victoria would have had an eating disorder if she wasn't CP? From what I have read her disorder developed after she was officially invested as heir and 1995 and started to gain more media attention.

 

[ZandraRae]

RoyalKnottie, I do not think her status as an heir caused Victoria to have an eating disorder. Plus, she has been the heir since she was very young and she didn't have the eating disorder then. More than likely, she would still have had a eating disorder.

 

[Zonk]

Let's stay on topic..this thread is NOT about Victoria's eating disorder.

 

[Lox]

True. And that's the problem Spain will face if Felipe and Letizia will have a son as third or even fourth child.

It amazes me that they are just as stupid about this in Spain. Exactly the same situation will occur in Spain, a boy will be born and then robbed of his birthright.

Changes in the succession should be done at a time when no potential heirs are being born. They could have changed the succession in Sweden a lot earlier, but they didn't. The same holds true for Spain. Great Britain will have the same problem when William gets married, so why not change the succession right now?

 

[Gita]

Just as bad Lox! If it affects her happiness then I think it is unfair but you know you are entitled to your opinion like anyone else.

 

[The O.C. Fanatic]

Why don't people move on?! The choice been made get over it!

 

[maidmarion]

Why don't people move on?! The choice been made get over it!

Thank You!! Everyone has a right to state their opinion surely, buy this is now the 21 st century. Let's get on with it. Women have been proven to do the job with much distinction regardless of succession order. Sorry Lox! Ruling by birthorder is not a bad thing whatsoever. I believe that their own subjects and citizens should decide this in their respective countries. The monarchial society is trying to manage it's own place in todays world. Truly you have to see this. Shall we face the fact that we are presently in 2006. Please read the last posts in the last two pages and hopefully you will see that we, the world in general have moved on. With all due respect of course. Let's hope that the same can done for Prince William and Ms. Kate, the wonderful Windsors of England prior to their nuptials and potential succession issues and for Felipe and Letizia. I truly hope they end this old way of governance. Either male or female in birthright order would be welcome no matter what under this change in succession.

MM

 

[Lox]

maidmarion: Have you read my previous posts? I do support a gender neutral succession!

Such a succession should not, however, rob a person born as a crown prince of his birthright. Can't we all agree on that?

 

[maidmarion]

maidmarion: Have you read my previous posts? I do support a gender neutral succession!

Such a succession should not, however, rob a person born as a crown prince of his birthright. Can't we all agree on that? [/


Yes.
To everyone on this forum, have yourselves a fabulous holiday season no matter what you celebrate. We shall see you all in the new year and I look forward to seeing and hearing about our world monarchs.

MM

 

[ZandraRae]

It amazes me that they are just as stupid about this in Spain. Exactly the same situation will occur in Spain, a boy will be born and then robbed of his birthright.

Changes in the succession should be done at a time when no potential heirs are being born. They could have changed the succession in Sweden a lot earlier, but they didn't. The same holds true for Spain. Great Britain will have the same problem when William gets married, so why not change the succession right now?

In Great Britain, there can only be a boy heir?? I didn't know that. All countries must change this in the coming year. Spain, and GB too.

 

[Gita]

Hi ZandraRae, no in the UK women are allowed to inherit the throne but only in the absence of a male heir or if the male heir abdicates then a female can inherit the throne.

For example our current Queen Elizabeth II was the eldest of two girls, her youger sister being Margaret Rose but they did not have a brother so that is why she became Queen.

 

[Stefan]

It amazes me that they are just as stupid about this in Spain. Exactly the same situation will occur in Spain, a boy will be born and then robbed of his birthright.

Changes in the succession should be done at a time when no potential heirs are being born. They could have changed the succession in Sweden a lot earlier, but they didn't. The same holds true for Spain. Great Britain will have the same problem when William gets married, so why not change the succession right now?

Especialla when it is so complicated to change the law. The could vote before the next elections which will be i believe in Spring 2008 then the next Vote after the election and then the referendum. But the problem is that the political Parties only agree about the change of the succession law and not of other changes of the succession who have also be done. And there is the fear that when a referedum is held only about the change of the succession law it will turn in a referedmum about the Monarchy.

 

[Furienna]

Well, I still don't see the point of having a female heir, if there would be a male avaible. When it comes to royal houses, tradition is much more important than equality.

 

[Yennie]

Well, I still don't see the point of having a female heir, if there would be a male avaible. When it comes to royal houses, tradition is much more important than equality.

what do you mean by "tradititon"? Why cant a female heir pass on the royal house/name just like a male one?
I dont see why the royal houses shouldnt be modernized just like other parts of our society

 

[ZandraRae]

Well, I still don't see the point of having a female heir, if there would be a male avaible. When it comes to royal houses, tradition is much more important than equality.

So you are saying that you wish Carl Phillip would take the throne one day, Furienna. Victoria is the oldest, therefore the rightful heir IMO. Victoria will make an excellent queen one day I'm sure of it. I hope you will be proud to call her your queen when the time comes. If I lived in Sweden I know I would.

 

[Lena]

Well, I get Furienna´s point (I think)

I don´t know, what Furienna´s general attitude towards feminism is, but I think, one indeed can see "ordinary" women working in top jobs (like men) and female princesses (with brothers) becoming heirs as two very different things.
You always come up with "modern society" etc. pp. but if you draw really logical conclusions nothing about a person becoming first man or woman of the state just through birth is MODERN. It is a statement against equality as well. And it´s up to a certain point quite undemocratic. In fact the only thing, that keeps these ppl in this office is tradition. Humans don´t like to throw all old things over board (even though it sometimes seems so in the light of globalism, world of consumption etc. pp.) and so actually anachronistic things like Monarchies are kept. I´m truly believing, that a good working accepted monarchy needs to keep "old traditions"...of course one can´t expect them to go always by carriage (Carl Gustaf would cry out loud ) and to get dressed in the morning by their court ladies, but a few things surely should be kept. I don´t say, that one of these things should be the males-first law, but I wouldn´t mind, if this would be a thing, that would be kept in some monarchies. And I´ve understanding and respect for ppl, who feel, that such a change could contribute (together with other changes) to the end of Monarchy.

BTW I think reigning Queens in office are more grand and exciting...and I think Victoria is doing a better job, than CP could ever do (I think he is lacking of the outgoing personality, one needs for the job. And when I watched some old videos of late, I noted that Carl Philip seemed to have this more shy personality up from an young age)
But as I wrote earlier in this thread...the ones, who criticise ppl, who are against equal succession should explain, how they see the role of the prince consort...and should tell how often they wrote things on the style of princesses and how often on the work of the guys...and esp. the work of the 2 remaining prince consorts