The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #81  
Old 05-17-2006, 10:35 PM
Gutsy's Avatar
Commoner
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NYC, United States
Posts: 39
Rex Sveciae

Quote:
Originally Posted by 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
To rule ( or simply "reign") is NOT a right in itself. It is a right granted by the seeming happenstance of birth AND the law. When Prince Carl Philip was born, under the law and constitution of the Kingdom of Sweden in effect at his birth, he was in fact and in law Crown Prince of Sweden. If the King had suddenly died in 1979 the young boy would have been King.
The 1980 Succession Law did in fact do an injustice. No decent government passes laws with penalties or effects that are retroactive: imposing a penalty for something and upon someone after the fact. The Prince was penalized for being the second-born AND male.
If the Swedish Government saw fit to alter the succession from the point of passage on, it would have been a just enactment. As it is, it was petty and mean and a clear attempt to tarnish the monarchy.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #82  
Old 05-17-2006, 11:14 PM
soCal girl's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Irvine, United States
Posts: 1,683
While I think Victoria will make a great Queen, I don't think the law should have been retroactive either. Carl Philip was born Crown Prince and to be stripped of that, even as a baby, is not a very nice gesture. I think females and males should be equal in succession but the law should have been changed before Carl Philip was born or activated for the next generation.
__________________

__________________
사랑
Reply With Quote
  #83  
Old 05-17-2006, 11:24 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: ., United States
Posts: 244
Well this is the way politicians wanted it, which should be a good lesson for all other royals ... God may want you there, the people may want you there, you may want to be there ... but you better do exactly what you're told and don't rock the boat because the elected representatives can turn any princess into a pumpkin with the wave of a wand
Reply With Quote
  #84  
Old 05-18-2006, 01:00 AM
Jo of Palatine's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Munich, Germany
Posts: 3,322
IIRC, the Swedish Reichstag started negociating the new Act of Succession the moment Princess Victoria was born and it was clear from the beginning that government and people wanted the firstborn child to become the next ruler. It was just a bad coincidence that a prince was born before the new legislation was valid. So yes, in a sense they stripped Prince Carl Philip of his rank but it was clear that this would happen and as he was just a baby then it shouldn't have mattered to much to him. After all, he is a member of a society which is very keen on gender equality and thus he learned his lesson about this topic at an early age.
Reply With Quote
  #85  
Old 05-18-2006, 02:06 AM
Sister Morphine's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: North Carolina, United States
Posts: 2,830
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jo of Palatine
IIRC, the Swedish Reichstag started negociating the new Act of Succession the moment Princess Victoria was born and it was clear from the beginning that government and people wanted the firstborn child to become the next ruler. It was just a bad coincidence that a prince was born before the new legislation was valid. So yes, in a sense they stripped Prince Carl Philip of his rank but it was clear that this would happen and as he was just a baby then it shouldn't have mattered to much to him. After all, he is a member of a society which is very keen on gender equality and thus he learned his lesson about this topic at an early age.
Yeah, I remember reading that as well. It took more than one vote and by the time it finally passed, Carl Philip had already been born. So they were planning on doing it, it just took longer than expected.

I hardly think this was a malicious wrong-doing on the government's part.
Reply With Quote
  #86  
Old 05-18-2006, 02:24 AM
soCal girl's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Irvine, United States
Posts: 1,683
I know that the law change was already underway when Carl Philip was born. But I still think that since he was born with the title Crown Prince, it was still unfair to strip him of that. I'm all for gender equality but in this situation, I would have preferred that Carl Philip remained Crown Prince and the new law affect his children. If Carl Philip was Crown Prince and had a daughter first, than she should be the next heir. [Just to be clear, I love Victoria and she will be a great Queen, wife (if an engagement is ever announced....) and mother.]
__________________
사랑
Reply With Quote
  #87  
Old 05-18-2006, 02:24 AM
GrandDuchess's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Somwhere, Sweden
Posts: 3,403
Clearing things out! Please read this before making any more assumptions...

The Parliament decided upon the change of the Act of Succession long before any of the King and Queen’s children were born.

The preliminary work for the change war carried out already in 1977-78. Since changing the Act of Succession means a change of the Constitution, the Parliament needed to vote on the matter two times, with an election in between those two votes.

The first vote was carried out in the Parliament in 1978, and the second one in 1979, after the general elections. The change of the Act of Succession came into force in January 1980.

In Norway it was a different case, because Crown Prince Haakon was 17 and Princess Märtha Louise was 19 at the time they changed their succession laws. It was deemed inappropriate to take away the Crown Prince title from Haakon, making Märtha Louise heir, after he had been raised his whole life to one day succeed to the throne and become King of Norway.


For me personally, it's impossible to defend equal rights for men and women, at the same time as trying to defend why Prince Carl Philip shouldn't have been stripped of being the heir. For me it just doesn't make sense - either we want equal situations for both sexes, with the first born being heir, or then we don't. I do, so even if I also find it strange that a part of the Constitution was changed retroatively, I do agree with the law change.

And since neither Victoria or Carl Philip was born when the law was planned, I don't think it's fair to blame this on anyone, there are strict obligations for the Parliament when changing the Constitution, they couldn't "do anything" about the fact that the Queen had her first child (Victoria, born in July 1977) before they could carry out the second vote in the fall of 1979 (Carl Philip was born in May 1979).

If Carl Philip would've been born just a few months later, say February 1980, this dicussion wouldn't even be happening.
__________________
Sofia's Blog (my blog)
Reply With Quote
  #88  
Old 05-18-2006, 05:52 AM
Jo of Palatine's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Munich, Germany
Posts: 3,322
Quote:
Originally Posted by GrandDuchess
The Parliament decided upon the change of the Act of Succession long before any of the King and Queen’s children were born.
Thank you, Grand Duchess, for explaining the facts in particular. :)
Reply With Quote
  #89  
Old 05-18-2006, 07:52 PM
Furienna's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Örnsköldsvik, Sweden
Posts: 1,407
So really, you would have prefered, that princess Margareta Mrs Ambler was queen because she was the oldest child in that generation?

And really, not even primogeniture is "fair". As long as there are younger siblings in a royal family, they will be less important than their older sibling the heir, whether that's a girl or a boy, and whether a boy or a girl is oldest. No matter if Victoria or Carl Philip is the heir, Madeleine is stuck behind them both. Succession is based on tradition, and to change them just because of some hippy ideas of there not being any differences between male and female is just ridiculous.
Reply With Quote
  #90  
Old 05-22-2006, 12:27 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Philadelphia, United States
Posts: 164
I am not from Sweden but I would like to say that I don't see why women can't rule even if there is a male in her immediate family. Women are the ones that do all the hard work as it is in the first place concerning the birthing and caring for children. The woman goes through the hours of labor necessary that would produce heirs to the throne. It the woman who has to has to keep a level headed when dealing with a husband, children, home and all in between. To use the woman's womb as a birthing chamber and then tell her that she can't or none of her females can ascend to the throne (if they are eldest of the bunch) just because she has some boys in the mix is horrifying to me and it scares me that people still think this way.

If the woman is of sound mind, intelligent, charming, elegant, gracious, generous, firm when she needs to be and soft when she needs to be, what is wrong with her becoming ruler as first born? What makes the male so entitled to something more than a female? There were plenty of not so good Kings of all ERFs who trashed their country and perhaps if their older sister had been allowed to rule, things could have gone differently. The male may drop his seed off and go about his business, but it is the woman who toils and suffers, but the male has the right to just automatically become king because why? Men have been ruling this world for years and we are no closer to: world peace, ending poverty, hunger, pollution, war, racism, classicm, sexism, under their ruling thumb. Many of the great changes in societies have been institued by us lowly women in the first place.

As the new Chileans President Michelle Bachelet said in the May article of Vogue, "There are studies about how women solve problems. They have a different kind of ethics than men. Usually the woman tries to find a win-win solution. They are more interested in the process than men, who are interested mainly in the results...Woman can be firm, but they can also be caring, nurturing-you can do both things, depending on what's needed." Sounds the like the kind of person who I would want as my ruler if it were me. But to each it's own.

Hippy indeed. Equality doesn't mean disregarding the differences between men and women, it means that despite those difference everyone should automatically have right to be on the same level in the situation they are born in. Being a male doesn't make you more prone to being a better leader nor does it make you entitled just because you are male. C-P did not come from anywhere differen than CPV. They came from the same parents, the same way. The only difference is that CPV came first, in which that should be the only thing that matters. And even then, if for some reason CPV was not mentally capable of handling the job, then I would why people would want to skip her and go to the next person. But I would feel that way even if CP had been the first born. As it stands, if you're healthy and able there is no reason why first born be they male or female should not be second in line for crown.
__________________
"I had this garden party for my father's birthday, I said to RSVP cause it was a sit-down dinner, but people came who did not RSVP and so I was totally buggin'...but, by the end of the day, it was like, the more the merrier...So, if the government could just get in the kitchen, rearrange some things, we could certainly party with the Ha-ti-ans." Cher--Clueless
Reply With Quote
  #91  
Old 05-23-2006, 03:31 PM
Furienna's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Örnsköldsvik, Sweden
Posts: 1,407
But do you really think, that a female leader can't make mistakes or be a bad leader? Do you think, that everything a woman does it good, just because a woman does it? That's just as wrong as thinking that everything a man does is right just because a man does it. And also, you might wonder, if the oldest one always is "the best" to make a monarch.
Reply With Quote
  #92  
Old 05-25-2006, 04:28 AM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Philadelphia, United States
Posts: 164
I don't think I ever said that a woman should just be ruler because she is woman. I said that a woman should be allowed to rule despite her having brothers. And that she should be ruler if she is first born just like a man, just like it has been between the men for centuries upon centuries. That is only fair and right. Men and women are different, but men get first pick all the time at being leader and no one ever asks the question should male leader be picked just because he is male. That thought never crosses most minds. People assume and accept that this is the way things are and what difference does it make? Well, it makes a difference to me. Because that's not how it should be.

In terms of the oldest being the one to rule, I see nothing wrong with that. If you are 25 and your youngest siblings are years younger, are subjects and Parliament supposed to wait until they are all of age to decide who should rule? The oldest succeeds for a reason and it is up to them to take the training and studies they have been given to do the best possible job as Crown. I do, however, and I mentioned this, think that should the oldest not be able to rule for whatever reason, of course it should go to whomever is next in line. Why shouldn't it? The first isn't always the best-we know this from history-but the male isn't always the best either, so if we're going to apply the theory to one, we must apply to all in my personal opinion.
__________________
"I had this garden party for my father's birthday, I said to RSVP cause it was a sit-down dinner, but people came who did not RSVP and so I was totally buggin'...but, by the end of the day, it was like, the more the merrier...So, if the government could just get in the kitchen, rearrange some things, we could certainly party with the Ha-ti-ans." Cher--Clueless
Reply With Quote
  #93  
Old 11-29-2006, 08:55 AM
Lox's Avatar
Lox Lox is offline
Commoner
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: -, Sweden
Posts: 36
A lot of people here in Sweden will, if asked, tell you that they prefer Carl Philip as heir to the throne. He was born as a crown prince, and it was wrong to take that away from him. However, I think that everyone supports a gender-neutral succession, but that should only concern Carl Philips children.

I'm a Carlist. Are you?
Reply With Quote
  #94  
Old 11-29-2006, 10:45 AM
Yennie's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Skåne, Sweden
Posts: 2,579
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lox
A lot of people here in Sweden will, if asked, tell you that they prefer Carl Philip as heir to the throne. He was born as a crown prince, and it was wrong to take that away from him. However, I think that everyone supports a gender-neutral succession, but that should only concern Carl Philips children.

I'm a Carlist. Are you?
I´m not. Mainly because I think Victoria is much better for the role than Carl Philip. But also due to the fact that the change of the act of succession happend when they were to small to understand what happend.
If´they had been older, like the case in Norway with Haakon and Märta Louise, I think it would have been wrong to change titles though...
__________________
Life is like a box of chocolates... you'll never know what you're gonna get
Reply With Quote
  #95  
Old 11-29-2006, 11:04 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: San Francisco, United States
Posts: 2,383
Victoria is our Crown Princess. What do you base your statement on that most Swedes would prefer Carl Philip? I agree that the completely illogical way the change happened could only be created by a bunch of politicians. However, Victoria is in line to be our Queen and I believe most Swedes are very happy about that.
Reply With Quote
  #96  
Old 11-29-2006, 12:33 PM
Lox's Avatar
Lox Lox is offline
Commoner
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: -, Sweden
Posts: 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yennie
I´m not. Mainly because I think Victoria is much better for the role than Carl Philip.
Carl Philip would be just as good, if not better. Remember that Victoria used to have an eating disorder. What does that say about her mental health?

Quote:
Originally Posted by grevinnan
What do you base your statement on that most Swedes would prefer Carl Philip?
My personal experience from discussions about this with friends, co-workers etc. But everyone thinks that Victoria will do a good job anyway.
Reply With Quote
  #97  
Old 11-29-2006, 06:15 PM
Gita's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: ., United Kingdom
Posts: 773
Crown Princess Victoria had a mental health problem, so what? It's estimated in Britain that 1 in 5 adults will at some point have a mental health problem some point during their life. Just because she had an eating disorder does not make her unfit to be queen. If anything she has become stronger and her struggles have made her compassionate to others struggles and problems which she ha clearly shown on many official public engagments.

I think Crown Princess Victoria will do an excellent job if she inherits the throne one day.
__________________
Where does ones childhood go? Gita.
Reply With Quote
  #98  
Old 11-29-2006, 07:09 PM
ZandraRae's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Nashville, United States
Posts: 570
I think when the time comes for Crown Princess Victoria to take the throne, she will be ready. After all, she has been preparing to be queen basically her whole life. Unlike Carl Phillip.

I agree with Vita on the fact that women are, if not more (in some cases) capable to rule a country than a man. Carl Phillip is a very shy person, and I don't see him interacting alot with people, whereas Victoria does. In Carl Phillip's defense I will say that he wasn't brought up to be a future ruler.

As for her bout with an eating disorder: she has been over that for a long time now, and she has "whipped it" as we say in the US. She seems to be in good health now and that is all that counts.
Reply With Quote
  #99  
Old 11-30-2006, 07:56 AM
Gita's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: ., United Kingdom
Posts: 773
Excellent point ZandraRae!
__________________
Where does ones childhood go? Gita.
Reply With Quote
  #100  
Old 11-30-2006, 09:25 AM
Yennie's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Skåne, Sweden
Posts: 2,579
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lox
Carl Philip would be just as good, if not better. Remember that Victoria used to have an eating disorder. What does that say about her mental health?
thats your opinion. But I dont agree. Carl Philip is very shy, dyslexic and so on. wouldnt that disqualify him then?

I belive Victorias mental health is just fine, she just went through a time in her life where she, like many people do, questioned who she was and who she wanted to be. She is after all human I think thats her strenght!
__________________

__________________
Life is like a box of chocolates... you'll never know what you're gonna get
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 anastasia anastasia once upon a time bridal gown british chittagong cht clarence house danish royalty diana princess of wales dubai dutch dutch royal family earl of snowdon facts general news thread heraldry hereditary grand duchess stéphanie hereditary grand duke guillaume hill historical drama house of glucksburg imperial household intro italian royal family jacobite japan jewellery jumma king salman languages list of rulers mail mary: crown princess of denmark monaco history nepalese royal jewels nobel 2019 northern ireland norway norwegian royal family palestine popularity prince charles of luxembourg prince daniel prince dimitri princess chulabhorn walailak princess laurentien princess of orange princess ribha queen mathilde random facts royal dress-ups royal jewels royal marriage royal re-enactments. royal wedding royal wedding gown saudi arabia serbian royal family settings snowdon spencer family swedish royal family thailand tracts uae customs united states of america wittelsbach working royals; full-time royals; part-time royals;


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:08 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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