The Change of the Act of Succession - 1979 Constitution Change

[Lox]

By the way, I think it's more correct to say that the Act of Succession (Successionsordningen) was changed in 1980, and not 1979.

1980 was the year that the change went into effect, and 1980 is the year that is used in the media when the change is mentioned.

 

[GrandDuchess]

By the way, I think it's more correct to say that the Act of Succession (Successionsordningen) was changed in 1980, and not 1979.

1980 was the year that the change went into effect, and 1980 is the year that is used in the media when the change is mentioned.

No.

The Act of Succession was changed finally in 1979 when the second and obligatory vote took place after general elections. It came into effect on 1 January 1980.

So I would say you're wrong there, because the media usually just say when the effect took place, not when it was actually changed.

 

[ZandraRae]

I also believe it was 1979, but it really doesn't matter what year, whether '79 or '80, the most important matter here is that the firstborn is always the rightful heir IMO. They changed it when both Carl Phillip & Victoria were young, so it affected neither of them as little kids.

 

[Lox]

No.

The Act of Succession was changed finally in 1979 when the second and obligatory vote took place after general elections. It came into effect on 1 January 1980.

So I would say you're wrong there, because the media usually just say when the effect took place, not when it was actually changed.

Ok, 1 January 1980. But you have to agree that 1980 is the year that is most commonly used when the change is mentioned:
http://www.royalcourt.se

And let's not forget the commemorative coin:
http://www.riksbank.se/upload/Bilder_riksbank/Kat_sedlar_mynt1/20b_lag.jpg

I still think it's correct to say that the law was changed in 1980. On December 31 1979 the old succession law was still in place, right? Or didn't Sweden have a succession law during the last months of 1979?

 

[GrandDuchess]

Ok, 1 January 1980. But you have to agree that 1980 is the year that is most commonly used when the change is mentioned:
http://www.royalcourt.se

And let's not forget the commemorative coin:
http://www.riksbank.se/upload/Bilder_riksbank/Kat_sedlar_mynt1/20b_lag.jpg

I still think it's correct to say that the law was changed in 1980. On December 31 1979 the old succession law was still in place, right? Or didn't Sweden have a succession law during the last months of 1979?

The media usually writes 1980, because that's the year it came into effect. Much easier for them to just say that, instead of getting mixed into the details.

But it's not correct to say it was changed in 1980 however, because it was not.

Sweden's Act of Succession was changed in 1979, nothing else. The change was made when the Parliament voted on it, and the paperwork (laws and protocolls) was re-printed immediately in 1979. On 31 December 1979 the new law was written and in place, but had yet not come into effect. When laws are made, there are always addendum protocolls which specifies when they will come into force, and this is always later that the actual desicion date.

Since you referred to the Royal Court's website, you can look at Crown Princess Victoria's biography which most accurately says the following:

"Kronprinsessan är, i enlighet med 1979 års successionsordning, som trädde i kraft den 1 januari 1980, Sveriges tronföljare."

or the English version

"In accordance with the 1979 Act of Succession, which entered into force on January 1, 1980, The Crown Princess Victoria is heir to the Swedish throne"

To make a coin is a longer process though (designing, approving, then making them), so since the Parliament's desicion was taken so late that year, the Bank of Sweden obviously waited until it came into effect.

 

[Lox]

OK. But I still don't think that it's wrong to say 1980. The changes went into effect then, and for me, that's what matters.

 

[Next Star]

Okay let's keep cool and just know that Victoria is the heir to the throne and not her brother Carl-Philp regardless of what year the laws of succession were changed. Putting the eldest child first instead of going by the sex of the child making Victoria the future queen while Carl-Philp will still be in line of the throne as well as Madeliene who too will continue to be in the line to the throne unless she gives up her rigths to the throne or marries a prince at is the heir to another royal throne.

 

[Gutsy]

Bright idea of the day: She could adopt her brother. In order to please the infinitily small minority who thinks he's the ''rightful'' heir he will always be older than the children Victoria will have with her future husband.

In fact the law did rob C-P of his rightful inheritance. To pass an "ex post facto" law depriving an infant of his legal inheritance ( be it crown or a pair of shoes) is repugnant in jurisprudence and simple justice. Especially if that deprivation is done in the name of some abstract "good". It is one thing to alter the law of succession for the future, but what occurred in 1980 was despicable.

 

[Sister Morphine]

In fact the law did rob C-P of his rightful inheritance. To pass an "ex post facto" law depriving an infant of his legal inheritance ( be it crown or a pair of shoes) is repugnant in jurisprudence and simple justice. Especially if that deprivation is done in the name of some abstract "good". It is one thing to alter the law of succession for the future, but what occurred in 1980 was despicable.

It would be despicable if Carl Philip was in his teens or young adulthood, had been groomed from birth to be King and then suddenly had the succession changed and made retroactive. Then I could see you saying it was "despicable" as literally the life he had been living for close to 20 years was suddenly wiped out in favor of someone who now had to go all through that, but at a much later age.

He was an infant at the time of the succession change, and therefore wasn't even cognizant of what was going on. I think to call it despicable is a bit of an overexaggeration.

 

[Gutsy]

A question of "right" does not depend upon whether or not your rights are altered or removed at age 20 or 20 days. What kind of society would it be if families and the rights of infants were at the whim of politicians? Carl-Philip was Crown Prince of Sweden at his birth by the law and the constitution in force at the time of his birth. Maybe it's just my "Anglo-Saxon" legal culture but the thought of parliaments passing "ex post facto" laws to take effect on individuals who cannot speak for themselves is, pardon me, despicable. Even the normally reticent King Carl Gustaf was displeased and let it be known. In those days it was more the fashion for the Socialist International elites to look down on him and so he was ignored in way much less likely today.

 

[Sister Morphine]

A question of "right" does not depend upon whether or not your rights are altered or removed at age 20 or 20 days. What kind of society would it be if families and the rights of infants were at the whim of politicians? Carl-Philip was Crown Prince of Sweden at his birth by the law and the constitution in force at the time of his birth. Maybe it's just my "Anglo-Saxon" legal culture but the thought of parliaments passing "ex post facto" laws to take effect on individuals who cannot speak for themselves is, pardon me, despicable. Even the normally reticent King Carl Gustaf was displeased and let it be known. In those days it was more the fashion for the Socialist International elites to look down on him and so he was ignored in way much less likely today.

Swedish Parliament was already working on changing the line of succession BEFORE Carl Philip was born. In fact, I believe they finished the law up shortly after the Queen gave birth. Because Carl Philip was born in mid-to-late 1979, they waited until January 1 of the new calendar year to make it official. So whether he was a boy or a girl, the line of succession was going to change, and it was going to be retroactive. I don't know if TM knew the gender of the child, but everything I've read told me that shortly after Victoria was born, they set about to alter it. So it really didn't matter one bit what sex the next-born child was. Victoria was to be heiress.

 

[ZandraRae]

We have a thread especially to disucss who the rightful heir should be. But since we are on this topic, I have voiced my opinion many times before, and I still stand by it. Victoria IMO is the rightful heir, since she is the oldest. Anyways, Carl Phillip does not seem bothered by it, and if he isn't, we shouldn't be either.

 

[Gutsy]

We have a thread especially to disucss who the rightful heir should be. But since we are on this topic, I have voiced my opinion many times before, and I still stand by it. Victoria IMO is the rightful heir, since she is the oldest. Anyways, Carl Phillip does not seem bothered by it, and if he isn't, we shouldn't be either.

Where is that thread? Thanks.
Btw: I'm not saying Victoria is not the "rightful heir" in the sense that she is not the legitimate heir to the Crown under current Swedish law. What I AM saying was that parliamentary actions that made her heir are dubious in terms of common justice and legal practice.

 

[Next Star]

I don't see now Carl-Philip was even rob of something he knew nothing about? The law was changed before he was born but did not come into affect until the early part of 1980. This has been mention numerous times about this law change. This is good that Carl-Philip is not the heir to the throne he seems very shy. His older sister Victoria does not come off as someone shy and she has good head on her shoulders like they say everything happens for a reason being Carl-Philip was not meant to be heir and Victoria was meant to be the heir to the throne.

 

[Gutsy]

I don't see now Carl-Philip was even rob of something he knew nothing about? The law was changed before he was born but did not come into affect until the early part of 1980. This has been mention numerous times about this law change. This is good that Carl-Philip is not the heir to the throne he seems very shy. His older sister Victoria does not come off as someone shy and she has good head on her shoulders like they say everything happens for a reason being Carl-Philip was not meant to be heir and Victoria was meant to be the heir to the throne.

Let us assume that at your birth you were the heir-in-law to your father's fortune and would inherit both his wealth and position. As you lay in your cradle other men decide it really would be "fairer" that your sister get everything instead; ignoring your parents' wishes. Of course, as an infant you would have no knowledge of this until later. So your sister grows up being groomed for your father's position and fortune instead of you. Might one not then seem a bit shy' and one's sister more confident?
Would it all 'be for a reason"; other than the fact that other people decided you shouldn't inherit what was rightfully yours from birth?
As for C-P's shyness, of course could it not have been different if he were still Crown Prince at his father's side?
Btw: anything I say in this thread in no way is meant to disrespect the Crown Princess.

 

[Henri M.]

Prince Carl Philip of Sweden, Duke of Värmland and his father, The King are totally outshadowed by the Queen and the two glamorous Princesses.

Please do not make the mistake to label that as 'shy'.

The Prince (and The King) simply are on second stage for media. But they are not shy. Both the King and Prince Carl-Philip do their public appearances with great charm and often with jolly good cheer.

 

[Jo of Palatine]

Let us assume that at your birth you were the heir-in-law to your father's fortune and would inherit both his wealth and position. As you lay in your cradle other men decide it really would be "fairer" that your sister get everything instead; ignoring your parents' wishes.

One can view this situation from the other side. There is this nice little girl - when she was born it was clear that she can't inherit, because she was "only" a girl. So some "other man" decided that they changed the law meaning that, while all children get their share (titles, money etc.) the oldest child should inherit the position and the "work" - no matter if the child be a girl or a boy. On changing the law, a boy is born who by law becomes the main heir, even though he is only the second child and has an older sister. This unfair situation is reversed when the law is finally changed - now the first child is the heir, no matter what the gender. Sounds much more fair to me!

 

[Henri M.]

One can view this situation from the other side. There is this nice little girl - when she was born it was clear that she can't inherit, because she was "only" a girl. So some "other man" decided that they changed the law meaning that, while all children get their share (titles, money etc.) the oldest child should inherit the position and the "work" - no matter if the child be a girl or a boy. On changing the law, a boy is born who by law becomes the main heir, even though he is only the second child and has an older sister. This unfair situation is reversed when the law is finally changed - now the first child is the heir, no matter what the gender. Sounds much more fair to me!

Isn't this unfair that a younger, possibly more talented, sibling will always come behind because he/she has an elder brother/sister?

Isn't that an unfairness as well?

The problem is that modern emancipatory thought and political correctness are glued on an old and ancient institution with old and ancient rules. But no matter what you do, any other sibling but the eldest still is discriminated.

 

[Furienna]

That's true. I find the change of the succession in 1980 more and more ridiculous. You can't make an old institution like the monarchy into a completely equal. The monarchy should follow its traditions, not the ideas of the time.

 

[Sister Morphine]

That's true. I find the change of the succession in 1980 more and more ridiculous. You can't make an old institution like the monarchy into a completely equal. The monarchy should follow its traditions, not the ideas of the time.

The Monarchy represents the people, and is for the people.....the same as an elected government. If the people change, if the times change....shouldn't those who serve the people, no matter what the capacity, change too? I mean, should we go back to the days of Absolute Monarchies with the King upon the throne by divine rule? Female royals are now subserviant to men, have no rights and are merely marriage chattle?

 

[Henri M.]

The Monarchy represents the people, and is for the people.....the same as an elected government. If the people change, if the times change....shouldn't those who serve the people, no matter what the capacity, change too? I mean, should we go back to the days of Absolute Monarchies with the King upon the throne by divine rule? Female royals are now subserviant to men, have no rights and are merely marriage chattle?

When you look at many countries like Britain, since 1666 a parliamentary democracy or the Netherlands, even a republic (!) since 1579 with a remarkable symbiosis with the premier family delivering the person in the highest office (the Stadtholder) or when you look to Belgium which became an independent country in 1830 with a very liberal constitution: most monarchies never experienced absolutism. The days of Louis XIV (l'État: c'est moi!) really are far behind us.

Monarchy is no more than a form of state in which the head of state is 'delivered' by a certain family. That certain family often followed written and unwritten rules which were common in almost all other monarchies (male preferred succession).

It were the progressive governments in the 1970's and 1980's who protested against the 'gender discrimination' in the monarchal system. But this is on itself nonsense because the simple fact that a baby born in a certain family becomes the nation's head of state and not any other citizen, already is a discrimination on itself.

So you either abolish the monarchy, or leave it alone with all their rules.

 

[Lena]

I´m agreeing with you HenriM. And I´m torn between feminism and tradition in the case of someone representing a society, that is known as progressive and an institution, that is a few centuries old and based on tradition.
The final point is though always, that we don´t need to bother as long as the ppl are accepting it. Personally I´m wondering about many things...about the floods of commoners, that are suddenly dignified elegant and noble princesses. About a gym trainer possibly becoming the father of Sweden´s next king or queen. About the programmes, that are called education, about the fields some Royals have chosen or not chosen...the more one is thinking about, the more one is seeing the farce.
But what does that matter, if a majority in a Monarchy is for it...and powerful enough to keep it. Today I´ve read with astonishment, that still 4 of 10 Danes are for an apanage being payed to Alexandra. Not a majority, but still many, who don´t mind to pay to the Ex of the brother of the man, who is first in line to the throne.
Each modern Monarchy is getting the Monarchy, that it´s deserving and wanting. So what should one complain about it. If one is part of a Monarchy with equal primogeniture and doesn´t support it, but a majority is supporting it...one can´t do anything about it. Well, one can let off steam...but this still doesn´t help

Prince Carl Philip of Sweden, Duke of Värmland and his father, The King are totally outshadowed by the Queen and the two glamorous Princesses.

Please do not make the mistake to label that as 'shy'.

The Prince (and The King) simply are on second stage for media. But they are not shy. Both the King and Prince Carl-Philip do their public appearances with great charm and often with jolly good cheer.

Well, I think too, that the king isn´t shy either. But Carl Philip is really coming across a bit nervous, insecure and does avoid the limelight. It would be easy for him to get some attention...playing the BIG bloke wouldn´t be hard in his position. A serie of floozies, heavy parties with champagne, extravagant clothes for duties etc. and he would attract more attention. Or he could also attract attention with words...or if he would search for more positive attention, he could dedicate himself to popular topics. In other words, he could act like his younger sister Madeleine...a little bit of eroticism here, a little bit of fight against child abuse there. He isn´t such a person and doesn´t search the limelight. And I would label this is as form of shyness. Some kind of shyness, I´m adoring him for.

 

[Henri M.]

In other words, he could act like his younger sister Madeleine...a little bit of eroticism here, a little bit of fight against child abuse there. He isn´t such a guy and doesn´t search the limelight. And I would label this is as form of shyness. Some kind of shyness, I´m adoring him for.

The fact that he does not act like his youngest sister Princess Madeleine, does make him raise in my esteem 100x more !

Your theory does not work because Crown Princess Victoria also is not that celebrity-loving 'sexy' type as Madeleine and she is also not labelled 'shy'.

It really has to do with the Prince, a man in a suit between three glamorous ladies, keeping his mouth shut and standing in the shadow of the King, the Queen and the Crown Princess. It has not so much to do with shyness. Also in other countries we see that the Prince of Orange, or the Prince of Asturias or the Prince of Wales are totally neglected in favour of their spouses Máxima, Letizia and Camilla.

 

[Furienna]

Of course, there have to be some changes over the centuries. But the monarchies are so much based on traditions and so much based on certain families, that it's just ridiculous to change the succession laws in the name of gender equality.

 

[Lena]

The fact that he does not act like his youngest sister Princess Madeleine, does make him raise in my esteem 100x more !

Your theory does not work because Crown Princess Victoria also is not that celebrity-loving 'sexy' type as Madeleine and she is also not labelled 'shy'.

It really has to do with the Prince, a man in a suit between three glamorous ladies, keeping his mouth shut and standing in the shadow of the King, the Queen and the Crown Princess. It has not so much to do with shyness. Also in other countries we see that the Prince of Orange, or the Prince of Asturias or the Prince of Wales are totally neglected in favour of their spouses Máxima, Letizia and Camilla.

Well, I´m partly agreeing. One can´t deny, that the Royal women have a certain status and popularity, that Royal men can never reach. And I might be wrong, but I guess for an new unknown gigantic glittering Tiara on Crown Princess Maxima´s well arranged hairdo, you would always turn your attention from the Prince of Orange to the Princess of Orange

But there are differences! There are many ppl, who see the Prince of Asturias as grand well-groomed man, or the Prince of Orange as an exuberant personality and who doesn´t know the Prince of Wales with his old-fashioned manners and strong opinions? Of course one would need to take also second row examples...and then we could take Prince Laurent or Prince Joachim. They are older, longer in the business and have caused attention through things Carl Philip hadn´t experienced yet or would never experience. This might be a reason, why they are getting more space in mags or the ppl´s talks. But also 10 years ago they got more attention. They made themselves noticeable. There are many ppl, who are thinking, that the king of Sweden has only 2 children...Victoria and Madeleine. Surely not in Sweden, but abroad. And I´m blaming it at least partly to Carl Philip´s personality. He is a prince in a medium-sized Monarchy, he is handsome and would be a very good catch (if one is thinking about it even better than a Crown Prince)...but he is withdrawing himself from this cliché and is leading a "low key" life. And this is making him different and "shyer" to me.

And about his elder sister...she is indeed (thanks god!) not like their younger sister. But she surely knows, how to get attention. One can also use the "girl-next-door show" in this position and for her it´s working. She is giving many interviews (without stuttering...some smart PR-advisors did their work), is a little camera bug and even though her style is mostly boring, she is sometimes breaking out (e.g. Gala in Versailles last december)

 

[Lena]

Of course, there have to be some changes over the centuries. But the monarchies are so much based on traditions and so much based on certain families, that it's just ridiculous to change the succession laws in the name of gender equality.

But for you as Swede...wouldn´t you think, that the gym trainer as Prince is a bigger change to you?
As I´ve said I´m agreeing, that the change of succession in favour of a first born female does feel like a major cut.
But to me middle class in the most upper upper class is feeling even more strange. There have been Queens before. Their status was based on the lack of brothers or cousins...but they have been there, have fulfilled their job and left quite an impression in History. There have been also things like morgantic marriages (though not in Sweden)...but hardly ever or even not at all for reigning Queens...something, that is actually equal to morgantic marriage for producing the heir and a future Queen by birth does feel like stabbing the Monarchy. At least to me...but it´s none of my business. I´m just watching things with a bucket of popcorn...and what I see is at least truly entertaining

 

[Next Star]

Let us assume that at your birth you were the heir-in-law to your father's fortune and would inherit both his wealth and position. As you lay in your cradle other men decide it really would be "fairer" that your sister get everything instead; ignoring your parents' wishes. Of course, as an infant you would have no knowledge of this until later. So your sister grows up being groomed for your father's position and fortune instead of you. Might one not then seem a bit shy' and one's sister more confident?
Would it all 'be for a reason"; other than the fact that other people decided you shouldn't inherit what was rightfully yours from birth?
As for C-P's shyness, of course could it not have been different if he were still Crown Prince at his father's side?
Btw: anything I say in this thread in no way is meant to disrespect the Crown Princess.

I always felt the eldest child should be the heir to the throne regardless of sex so I not be mad if Victoria were my older sister she is the first born so she should be heir not me Iwas born second if I were Carl-Philip. I think the king would not give his entire fortune just to Victoria being he has two other children I think he would split the fortune three ways for all three of his children. The law had decided I am not the heir anymore and my older sister Victoria is there is nothing I can do about I would just live with it.

 

[ZandraRae]

But for you as Swede...wouldn´t you think, that the gym trainer as Prince is a bigger change to you?
As I´ve said I´m agreeing, that the change of succession in favour of a first born female does feel like a major cut.
But to me middle class in the most upper upper class is feeling even more strange. There have been Queens before. Their status was based on the lack of brothers or cousins...but they have been there, have fulfilled their job and left quite an impression in History. There have been also things like morgantic marriages (though not in Sweden)...but hardly ever or even not at all for reigning Queens...something, that is actually equal to morgantic marriage for producing the heir and a future Queen by birth does feel like stabbing the Monarchy. At least to me...but it´s none of my business. I´m just watching things with a bucket of popcorn...and what I see is at least truly entertaining

I totally agree Lena. There have been many queens who have and are still, doing an excellent job! Why, oh why can't people accept the fact and give Victoria a chance? I personally am more worried with what Lena said, about a gym trainer being the father of Sweden's future heir. But, we have to give him a chance, too, if that will be the case. People keep surprising us...

 

[Zonk]

Let's try to stay on topic. I understand the Daniel W. reference but this thread is not about him.

 

[Thomas Parkman]

Love is always a mess

Particularly, dear members, when you are royal. It is a fact of life that most but not all men like and want to know-in the biblical sense-women and vice versa for women. As a result until very recent times most women but by no means all had children. Ditto for those members of royalty.

Given the nature of society until recent centuries, it was deemed a necessity that the person occupying the throne be male. After all life was a violent, ruthless and bloody affair with warfare a constant fact of life. And the male of the species seemed to be most of the time somewhat better at picking up axes, broadswords etc and hacking up all and sundry. In the meantime, in the unfairness of nature, while the gentlemen had gotten over and probably forgotten that marvelous and indeed lubricious incident at three 0clock in the morning some months back the dear wife was aware that where there were two now three or more were on the way. So she had to stay home and rather, than fight three battles as the poet Euripides noted, give birth to one child. Now much has changed.

But for the royals living a normal life and meeting someone and falling in love and getting married and all the rest is under the relentless and ruthless glare of the paparazzi and the newspapers with their insatiable appetite for something to fill their pages. What better thingie than the latest royal behaving or misbehaving no better and no worse than the rest of us. But it makes relationships even more fiendishly difficult. Witness the Kate/William blow up. I suspect that something along these lines explains the current situation with regard to the three heirs to the Swedish throne.

I also much regret that after Carl Philipp was born he was stripped of his position as crown prince. If the consitution were going to be changed in the matter it should have been done right after the birth of CP Victoria. Cheers.