The Change of the Act of Succession - 1979 Constitution Change

[Iva]

The reason was that there was already a male heir born when the succession changed and also the King did think that the job was too heavy for a girl.

I think he stated lately that Victoria is more ready to become a Queen than he ever was.

 

[IloveCP]

"Too heavy for a girl"?Did he state that?If he did that would make him look a little sexist,even though there were three women who ruled sweden before.

 

[mattep74]

From what i understand he mainly objected to the law beeing inforced in retrospect instead of doing like in Norway where they changed the law and the one beeing cronwprince stayed it.

 

[KittyAtlanta]

Heck, even I object to the way equal primo was introduced into Sweden. I know I'd be mad as hockey sticks if I knew that I had been born a CP, but the government changed the rules. Perhaps this will explain why the dear boy seems to exhibit his devil-may-care attitude toward his life.

 

[NotHRH]

Heck, even I object to the way equal primo was introduced into Sweden. I know I'd be mad as hockey sticks if I knew that I had been born a CP, but the government changed the rules. Perhaps this will explain why the dear boy seems to exhibit his devil-may-care attitude toward his life.

MsKitty in Atlanta,
I believe actually that HRH Prince CP of Sweden, with his devil-may-care attitude, is simply reaping the benefits of royal life. As he seems to not have ambitions for his life, he probably thanks GOD above that he is not Sweden's crown prince. Many in Sweden look forward to HRH Crown Princess Victoria assuming her destined fate as the Queen of Sweden. If CP was the CP of Sweden, many would not look forward to his future as the monarch of Sweden! Everything happens for a reason - it was just not meant to be. There is a lot to be said for Devine intervention!

 

[KittyAtlanta]

He might have been a different man were he still CPCP.

I'm a big fan of V, tho.

 

[maria-olivia]

When Princess Victoria was born perhaps at that moment HM thought she would not have more children ?

 

[NotHRH]

When Princess Victoria was born perhaps at that moment HM thought she would not have more children ?

I am not sure if I correctly understand your question. Actually, the law of equal primogeniture in Sweden was made after HM's second child, HRH (Crown) Prince Carl-Philip was a few months old. This law was retrospective to allow the then 2 year-old HRH Victoria to have the style she still has until this day.

 

[NotHRH]

He might have been a different man were he still CPCP.

I'm a big fan of V, tho.

Even though I do not agree, I do respect your what-coulda-been position! :-D

 

[Mia_mae]

Prince Carl Phillip isn't feeling sorry for his 2nd place. It sure doesn't look like it! He gets the advantages and none of the bigger responsibilities.
They could not have asked for a better heir than Victoria. Well I'll let the current status of the Royal House'issues talk for themselves.

 

[HRHofNothing]

I think deep down Carl-Philip does harbor some resentment towards Victoria for the change. His recent behavior indicates that he does not care much if the Monarchy in Sweden was abolished. While he may not be actively working towards this, deep down he may feel "serves right" if this were to happen

 

[Mia_mae]

I think deep down Carl-Philip does harbor some resentment towards Victoria for the change. His recent behavior indicates that he does not care much if the Monarchy in Sweden was abolished. While he may not be actively working towards this, deep down he may feel "serves right" if this were to happen

If true, not saying it is, but if true that would just prove even more that Sweden is better off with Victoria.

 

[Iva]

I think deep down Carl-Philip does harbor some resentment towards Victoria for the change. His recent behavior indicates that he does not care much if the Monarchy in Sweden was abolished. While he may not be actively working towards this, deep down he may feel "serves right" if this were to happen

Sorry, I don't agree. I don't think Carl Philip would ever want to be a Crown Prince in first place. He just resembles his father way too much. He is enjoying what his father never could have, relativly bigger freedom in his choices, but he is still being well taken care for. You see it in his choices, he does not hurry anywhere, taking time with his studies, racing, partying, choice of his girlfriend, simply doing what he pleases without really having any point where he's heading. On the other hand Victoria's life, as a Crown Princess, is more prescribed and more influenced by other peoples choices, the only choice which she in the end made freely was her husband. I don't think CP would be able to lead a life like that, from the three siblings it's Victoria who IMO inherited their mothers strong work ethics and ability to put your work/mission in front of your own needs. (Before anyone jumps on my back, I do think that also the King serves his country well.)
Without really being able to tell at that age, I think the decision of the law beeing inforced in retrospect was a right one. And I don't think that Victoria or Carl Philip are unhappy with that.

 

[XeniaCasaraghi]

As soon as I read about the change in Sweden I had to shake my head in wonderment. Why the heck would you just take a way a prince's titles and role like that? It has always rubbed me the wrong way how they switched out the heir's position. And then I later came across what they did in Norway with Haakon and his older sister and I have to wonder why the heck Sweden didn't do that as well! Keep the heir being the heir but make sure to do it equally from then on. This is why I wish England would hurry up and deal with their situation instead of playing the waiting game.

 

[mattep74]

To be fair to our goverment it wasnt that they suddenly woke up with Carl-Philip beeing born and changed the constitution. After Victoria was born the Moderate party was affraid that she would be the only child and since the constitution didnt allow women to be heirs it had to be changed. The first vote to change the constitution happened in May 1978, but to change the constitution you need to have a election in between. The next election was in September 1979, after Carl-Philip had been born.

 

[LadyFinn]

Proposition 1977/78:71 om kvinnlig tronföljd - Riksdagen
Swedish goverment proposed the female line of succession on December 1977 to the swedish parliament/Riksdagen.

As I wrote before, the swedish government proposed the female line of succession already on 8th December 1977. And just like Mattep74 writes, there had to be an election before the proposion could be accepted.

 

[Palmerston]

Laughable that the rules of succession were changed – some of the main arguments posted here approbating the change seem beyond parody: an invocation of ‘fairness’, ‘equality’ & ‘egalitarianism’ – how can these be applied objectively to the most unfair, unegalitarian & hierarchical institution on the planet? They have no substance whatsoever.

The sovereign isn’t a public servant – he isn’t there to satisfy the fancies and whims of the popular zeitgeist; if that’s what you want, then cease the charade and abolish the monarchy and instigate a full blown republic. If the monarchy isn’t rooted in the past then it loses any legitimacy it has. Quite frankly it’s disgusting that a bunch of control freaks in the Swedish parliament (well, they are leftists I suppose, that’s what leftists love: control) forced these measures on the reluctant King. These are fundamental changes that affect his family – and for what? Just so a bunch of miscreants in the Swedish parliament can feel edified at having made an intrinsically unfair institution slightly more, errrm, ‘fair’?

 

[Meraude]

The sovereign isn’t a public servant – he isn’t there to satisfy the fancies and whims of the popular zeitgeist; if that’s what you want, then cease the charade and abolish the monarchy and instigate a full blown republic. If the monarchy isn’t rooted in the past then it loses any legitimacy it has. Quite frankly it’s disgusting that a bunch of control freaks in the Swedish parliament (well, they are leftists I suppose, that’s what leftists love: control) forced these measures on the reluctant King. These are fundamental changes that affect his family – and for what? Just so a bunch of miscreants in the Swedish parliament can feel edified at having made an intrinsically unfair institution slightly more, errrm, ‘fair’?

No, it wasn't the leftists in the parliament who wanted a change in the order of succession, it was the conservative and center-right parties that lead the government at the time of both votes in the parliament. Many in the left-wing block was against the change, as they hoped that there wouldn't be any male heir born and that the monarchy would be abolished due to lack of a male heir. Social democrats: Gender equality a pretext to save the monarcy: S: "Jämställdhet svepskäl för att rädda monarkin" - Ekot

Voting 1977: 159 for a change, 18 against, 130 abstain
Voting 1979: 165 for a change, 21 against, 147 abstain
(Members of the social democratic party abstained from voting as they considered it a non-important matter.)

 

[Palmerston]

No, it wasn't the leftists in the parliament who wanted a change in the order of succession, it was the conservative and center-right parties that lead the government at the time of both votes in the parliament. Many in the left-wing block was against the change, as they hoped that there wouldn't be any male heir born and that the monarchy would be abolished due to lack of a male heir. Social democrats: Gender equality a pretext to save the monarcy: S: "Jämställdhet svepskäl för att rädda monarkin" - Ekot

Doesn't sound like there are any conservatives in Sweden to be blunt. Whilst 'conservatives' in Sweden were besmirching their monarchy, conservatives in the UK were safeguarding the hereditary peers in House of Lords. What a difference in calibre.

I don't buy this hollow argument that 'equality' legitimises the most unfair and unequal institution on the planet. The monarchy is either legitimate by precedent and tradition or it isn't at all; if you tweak and nudge it to fit the zeitgeist you're doing nothing but delegitimatising it. It becomes a plaything for ideologues and the fancies of those in control.

 

[Furienna]

I don't think it really was Conservatives either, who wanted the change, but it rather was Liberals.

 

[Kataryn]

The monarchy is either legitimate by precedent and tradition or it isn't at all; if you tweak and nudge it to fit the zeitgeist you're doing nothing but delegitimatising it. It becomes a plaything for ideologues and the fancies of those in control.

Monarchy is legitimised by the fact that the voters want to keep it. The fact that Sweden needed an election in between passing new legislation about the succession to the throne and putting the new law in use shows that the voters (the "people") of Sweden could have voted against that change but didn't. They can abolish the monarchy anytime once they vote an anti-monarchical party to power and do so again after this party used their majority in parliament to pass legislation for a change of the system. So it is perfectly legit as it shows the wish of the people of Sweden to have Victoria (aka first-born child) to be next souverain.

 

[MARG]

. . . . . After Victoria was born the Moderate party was affraid that she would be the only child and since the constitution didn't allow women to be heirs it had to be changed . . . . .

So,are you saying that unlike the UK where Victoria and Elizabeth, both being the only child, took their place in the succession, Victoria and Madeline were not even "in line" and without CP the throne would have devolved to the nearest male relative?

 

[Meraude]

So,are you saying that unlike the UK where Victoria and Elizabeth, both being the only child, took their place in the succession, Victoria and Madeline were not even "in line" and without CP the throne would have devolved to the nearest male relative?

Yes, Sweden had adopted agnatic primogeniture (Salic law) in 1810 when the first Bernadotte, Karl Johan, became crown prince of Sweden. If the order of succession hadn't been changed in 1980 and the king and queen hadn't had any sons, the only one who was in line to the throne after king Carl Gustaf would have been his uncle prince Bertil, born in 1912. The fact that Bertil had been the only male in his generation in the order of succession after the death of prince Gustav Adolf, the father of king Carl Gustav, in 1947, was why prince Bertil couldn't marry Lilian Craig until 1977, after having been together with her for 33 years. You can find a list of the Swedish order of succession from 1809 and forward here: Svenska tronföljden - Wikipedia

 

[Meraude]

I don't think it really was Conservatives either, who wanted the change, but it rather was Liberals.

Conservative with a C = moderaterna, conservative with a c = borgerliga partier, and the Liberal party (Folkpartiet) is a part of the borgerliga partier.

 

[Furienna]

Moderaterna haven't been conservative for many years.

 

[grevinnan]

Conservative with a C = moderaterna, conservative with a c = borgerliga partier, and the Liberal party (Folkpartiet) is a part of the borgerliga partier.

At one point moderaterna was called Högerpartiet. At the same time we also had Bondepartiet. I kind of like those old names.

 

[Kataryn]

So,are you saying that unlike the UK where Victoria and Elizabeth, both being the only child, took their place in the succession, Victoria and Madeline were not even "in line" and without CP the throne would have devolved to the nearest male relative?

Problem was - there was no nearer male relative anymore with Sucession rights and a son of his own.

 

[Meraude]

Moderaterna haven't been conservative for many years.

This is not a political forum, and regardless what anyone thinks of the political views of the Swedish Moderata Samlingspartiet today, they do belong in the conservative spectrum of the political field (and they are a part of the center-right group in European parliament). To classify the Moderaterna as Conservatives makes it easier for those members who don't understand and/or are not interested in Swedish politics, and for whom Conservative/Liberal/Socialist parties are a understandable division when it comes to political parties and opinions.

 

[Al_bina]

I can't believe my eyes, the king and queen come to the group photo with them. Why? They made the awkward video with Victoria and Daniel, and nothing with Madeleine and Chris.
And now the king and queen are talking and babbling with the press and praising Sofia? Why they are treating Carl Philip and Sofia so differently than Victoria and Daniel? Because the king wanted Carl Philip to be the heir...

my boding
There was no reason to strip the "Crown Prince" title of Prince Carl Philip. So King Carl Gustav has a right to be upset about it.

 

[LFNikita]

my boding
There was no reason to strip the "Crown Prince" title of Prince Carl Philip. So King Carl Gustav has a right to be upset about it.

I'm not getting into the discussion on why the decision was made (there is probably a thread about it somewhere on here) but I will say this; it was a decision made by the Riksdag and it's one of the best decisions they ever made in my opinion. The king's very negative reaction to the decision was undignified and low of him. I don't know a single Swede who wants Carl-Philip to rule instead of Victoria. None.