The Change of the Act of Succession - 1979 Constitution Change

[Moonmaiden23]

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 understand and agree if the Rikstag had decided to change the Succession to allow females to succeed going forward, but to strip Carl-Philip of his rights retro-actively was unfair. I do not blame the king for being angry about it.

I wonder if C-P had been groomed as Heir all along would his attitude be different...his approach to his duties, responsibilities and his choice of a future wife?

 

[Al_bina]

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. ...[snipped]

Well ... if Swedes do disapprove of Prince Carl Philip's choice, they can inform their representatives in Riskdag. The Riksdag can take appropriate measures. Prince Carl Phillip is a member of the extended royal family and has a right to lead a life he wants. It is Crown Princess Victoria's responsibility to give a nice impression.
From what I read, manly women in the Riksdag wanted to have the equal primogeniture right away.

I understand and agree if the Rikstag had decided to change the Succession to allow females to succeed going forward, but to strip Carl-Philip of his rights retro-activelywas unfair. I do not blame the king for being angry about it.

I wonder if C-P had been groomed as Heir all along would his attitude be different...his approach to his duties, responsibilities and his choice of a future wife?

That is precisely what I found to be very very unfair.

 

[Princess Xenia]

The fact that the king never got over Carl Philip loosing his crown princely title sounds ridiculous too me. I mean Carl Philip was just seven months old and it wasn't like he lost so much and whenever he thinks about his past, he gets upset. I don't exactly know how much work Carl Philip does for Sweden but I am sure that Victoria is a way much better for the role of a crown princess and a future queen and so she can keep the monarchy popular in Sweden .

 

[Moonmaiden23]

The fact that the king never got over Carl Philip loosing his crown princely title sounds ridiculous too me. I mean Carl Philip was just seven months old and it wasn't like he lost so much and whenever he thinks about his past, he gets upset. I don't exactly know how much work Carl Philip does for Sweden but I am sure that Victoria is a way much better for the role of a crown princess and a future queen and so she can keep the monarchy popular in Sweden .

Even though the boy was only seven months, what was done to him was ridiculous and unjust. Why make the new Succession rules retroactive in the first place?

The result is that the queen and especially the king have probably gone overboard to indulge Carl-Philip's every whim out of a sense of guilt. Did he even complete his education? What does he do other than race cars?

 

[Ish]

Even though the boy was only seven months, what was done to him was ridiculous and unjust. Why make the new Succession rules retroactive in the first place?

The result is that the queen and especially the king have probably gone overboard to indulge Carl-Philip's every whim out of a sense of guilt. Did he even complete his education? What does he do other than race cars?

First of all, this is off topic.

Second of all, it makes no sense to introduce a law that will ensure primogeniture for everyone born after the law, but not for the 7 month old child and his elder sister.

Thirdly, while CG wasn't in favour of the law as it took away his son's position - not because it granted the position to his daughter, just because it took it away from his son - nothing he has done since has shown that he's opposed to Victoria being the heir. Victoria has received the training and education that CG believes necessary for the heir, which CP would have received had he been the heir.

Fourthly, CP has not been indulged because he was wrongly deprived of being the heir. He's been indulged because that's what his parents have done with both their younger children. CP is no more indulged than Madeline is. Victoria is the only one not indulged because she's the heir.

 

[Moonmaiden23]

Ish,

Whether it's off topic or not I STRONGLY disagree with your 2nd statement. It made no sense to retroactively strip Carl-Philip. What would have been the harm of making the law effective going forward after it was introduced??

Your third paragraph is puzzling. I've never insinuated that the king begrudged Victoria's position as Heiress. I've no idea why you felt the need to make the point.

The fact that all three of the Royal children are spoiled is not in dispute. My opinion is that CP is the most spoiled of all of them.

 

[MarNoe]

Even though the boy was only seven months, what was done to him was ridiculous and unjust. Why make the new Succession rules retroactive in the first place?

The result is that the queen and especially the king have probably gone overboard to indulge Carl-Philip's every whim out of a sense of guilt. Did he even complete his education? What does he do other than race cars?

I was under the impression that the law was already in the process before Carl-Philip was born, just didn't get completed til after the birth. Or is that wrong?

 

[Moonmaiden23]

I was under the impression that the law was already in the process before Carl-Philip was born, just didn't get completed til after the birth. Or is that wrong?

The discussions began directly after the birth of Victoria. The law was not passed in the Rikstag until Carl-Philip was already seven months old. He already had the position of Crown Prince automatically at his birth.

Luxembourg and Belgium both passed similar legislation regarding Succession laws but did not pass the law retroactively.Only in Sweden was the extraordinary gesture of stripping the existing Heir of his title and giving it to his sister done.

 

[MARG]

Even though the boy was only seven months, what was done to him was ridiculous and unjust. Why make the new Succession rules retroactive in the first place?

The result is that the queen and especially the king have probably gone overboard to indulge Carl-Philip's every whim out of a sense of guilt. Did he even complete his education? What does he do other than race cars?

It was neither ridiculous nor unjust. Legislation takes time and the coalescing of like minded people. There is discussion, they "take the temperature of the Nation" so to speak, then the legislation wends it way through to becoming an Act of Parliament. I have no reason to think that the lawmakers of Sweden woke up one day when Carl Philip was 7 months old and decided "today we change the history of the country". The King and the country knew it was coming and what it meant.

Seriously, I think the legislation was well in the works before his conception let alone his birth. Making it applicable from that moment was right and fair. If he had 10 or 14 I think they would have said "next generation", but he wasn't and they didn't. Either way, that is no excuse to overindulge a child to the degree that CP has been. That his younger sister Madeleine was also overindulged gives the lie to that reasoning. That his father was against the change is history. But it happened 30 years ago and if CG and CP are still angst driven I would very surprised and not a little shocked.

 

[MarNoe]

The discussions began directly after the birth of Victoria. The law was not passed in the Rikstag until Carl-Philip was already seven months old. He already had the position of Crown Prince automatically at his birth.

Luxembourg and Belgium both passed similar legislation regarding Succession laws but did not pass the law retroactively.Only in Sweden was the extraordinary gesture of stripping the existing Heir of his title and giving it to his sister done.

Ouch! There was obviously some serious foot dragging by the law makers!

 

[Moonmaiden23]

Another poster in this thread made the comment that the law was made retroactive to appease aggressive feminist politicians in the Swedish Parliament.

My opinion-which is meaningless since I am not a Swede-is that it was pointless. What would have been harmful about applying the new law to the existing Heir and his children going forward?

 

[Mbruno]

The discussions began directly after the birth of Victoria. The law was not passed in the Rikstag until Carl-Philip was already seven months old. He already had the position of Crown Prince automatically at his birth.

Luxembourg and Belgium both passed similar legislation regarding Succession laws but did not pass the law retroactively.Only in Sweden was the extraordinary gesture of stripping the existing Heir of his title and giving it to his sister done.

The changes to the law of succession in Denmark were also retroactive, effectively depriving Hereditary Prince Knud, a 53-year-old man (not a seven-month boy !) of his position as heir to the throne. In Belgium, on the other hand, the change in the law retroactively put Princess Astrid and her children ahead of Prince Laurent.

 

[Stefan]

I was under the impression that the law was already in the process before Carl-Philip was born, just didn't get completed til after the birth. Or is that wrong?

Yes it was already in the Process but had to be voted again by a new elected Riksdag. Abnd elections to the Riksdag took place in autumn 1979. So it could also have not been done before the birth of Carl Philip.

 

[Icea]

Ouch! There was obviously some serious foot dragging by the law makers!

Not really, they actually passed the new succession law as quickly as they could!

The Swedish succession law (which dictates who inherits the throne) is apart of the Swedish constitution. In order to change anything in the constitution there has to be a vote in two separate parliaments before that law can take effect.

The discussion about letting women inherit the throne started in 1975 and intensified when Victoria was born. The parliament proposed changing the law and in 1978 they had the first vote in which the majority wanted women to be able to inherit the throne. The next election in Sweden wasn't held until September 1979 and so they had to wait until that time in order to hold the second vote on the matter. Carl Philip was born in May 1979 and since the law hadn't been changed at that point, he became crown prince. After the election in September parliament once again voted on the issue and a majority wanted the first born to be heir. That law came in effect January 1st 1980.

I'm not sure whether parliament intended for the law to work retroactively when they held the first vote (it's possible they had already proposed that Victoria would become crown princess no matter if she had any siblings) or if this question came up as they were about to vote for the second time in 1979. However since they had started to change the law when Victoria was born and hadn't had siblings yet, I think it's possible that parliament wanted to change the law with the intent of making Victoria crown princess and that's why it came in effect retroactively.

 

[MarNoe]

Not really, they actually passed the new succession law as quickly as they could!

The Swedish succession law (which dictates who inherits the throne) is apart of the Swedish constitution. In order to change anything in the constitution there has to be a vote in two separate parliaments before that law can take effect.

Thank you. That explains quite well why it took so long.

 

[tommy100]

Even though the boy was only seven months, what was done to him was ridiculous and unjust. Why make the new Succession rules retroactive in the first place?

The result is that the queen and especially the king have probably gone overboard to indulge Carl-Philip's every whim out of a sense of guilt. Did he even complete his education? What does he do other than race cars?

I imagine in the eyes of the Swedish parliament it would have been just as unfair for Victoria to stop being heir to the throne and replaced with her brother just because she was born a girl and he a boy.

 

[Avicenna]

The changes to the law of succession in Denmark were also retroactive, effectively depriving Hereditary Prince Knud, a 53-year-old man (not a seven-month boy !) of his position as heir to the throne. In Belgium, on the other hand, the change in the law retroactively put Princess Astrid and her children ahead of Prince Laurent.

Denmark:

There were two changes in Denmark. You are mentioning the 1953 Change (following the 1953 Referendum) which was about the succession rights of females. Prior to it women were not allowed at all thus making the kings brother (Knud) the heir to the throne. This change gave women only in the case of no male heir the possibility to succeed.

The second change took place in 2009 after the 2009 Referendum. This time it granted equal rights to both male and female descendant. So no matter what the gender is, the first born will take over.

The situation you mention is therefor a bit different. After all it's normal that siblings loose their place in the line once children are born to a couple.

 

[Lady Nimue]

Not really, they actually passed the new succession law as quickly as they could!

The Swedish succession law (which dictates who inherits the throne) is apart of the Swedish constitution. In order to change anything in the constitution there has to be a vote in two separate parliaments before that law can take effect.

The discussion about letting women inherit the throne started in 1975 and intensified when Victoria was born. The parliament proposed changing the law and in 1978 they had the first vote in which the majority wanted women to be able to inherit the throne. The next election in Sweden wasn't held until September 1979 and so they had to wait until that time in order to hold the second vote on the matter. Carl Philip was born in May 1979 and since the law hadn't been changed at that point, he became crown prince. After the election in September parliament once again voted on the issue and a majority wanted the first born to be heir. That law came in effect January 1st 1980.

I'm not sure whether parliament intended for the law to work retroactively when they held the first vote (it's possible they had already proposed that Victoria would become crown princess no matter if she had any siblings) or if this question came up as they were about to vote for the second time in 1979. However since they had started to change the law when Victoria was born and hadn't had siblings yet, I think it's possible that parliament wanted to change the law with the intent of making Victoria crown princess and that's why it came in effect retroactively.

Thank you for this clarification. Makes perfect sense that they went with Victoria since the intent was there when they started, it was just the timing of the change.

I imagine in the eyes of the Swedish parliament it would have been just as unfair for Victoria to stop being heir to the throne and replaced with her brother just because she was born a girl and he a boy.

Quite so.

 

[tea-n-tiaras]

I understand and agree if the Rikstag had decided to change the Succession to allow females to succeed going forward, but to strip Carl-Philip of his rights retro-actively was unfair. I do not blame the king for being angry about it.

I wonder if C-P had been groomed as Heir all along would his attitude be different...his approach to his duties, responsibilities and his choice of a future wife?

I completely agree. The Rikstag should not have gone against the King's wishes and taken the Crown Prince title away from C-P and given it to Victoria. I think C-P would be an entirely different person today had that not happened and his choice of spouse completely different. And, as much as I love Victoria, I think she would have been happier. The strain on her in the job she has with her dyslexia, prosopagnosia, and past anorexia issues must be immense. Perhaps her father actually knew what was best for her personally and what was best for his family and the Rikstag disregarded his opinion. He has reason to be upset. I am not criticizing Victoria at all. She is wonderful. I think it is an amazing tribute to her as an individual that she has excelled in the face of these difficulties, but it must be a great stress. The Rikstag should have left things as Providence arranged them and changed the law moving forward.

 

[SElizabeth]

No one on this earth can change the past, and yet some feel he has a right to be angry and this happened how many years ago, over 30, I really don't know how old Prince Carl is yet to still hold a grudge for that long says something about King Carl. The past is just that, *The Past* and none of us in this world can change that nor predict the future. It's really moot to say how PC would or won't be now. If he wanted to be more then he is besides a playboy prince then he should do more to help the people of Sweden yet he is know for car racing, stealing other people's designs in pottery and vacations, that is all his own doing, not anybody else. He should take a look at some other princes and try to follow their example even though he isn't a crown prince, even another prince in England does way more then he does and this one even served in the military and he isn't a crown prince. It's called *work* and that is something he is shy about.

 

[tea-n-tiaras]

No one on this earth can change the past, and yet some feel he has a right to be angry and this happened how many years ago, over 30, I really don't know how old Prince Carl is yet to still hold a grudge for that long says something about King Carl. The past is just that, *The Past* and none of us in this world can change that nor predict the future. It's really moot to say how PC would or won't be now. If he wanted to be more then he is besides a playboy prince then he should do more to help the people of Sweden yet he is know for car racing, stealing other people's designs in pottery and vacations, that is all his own doing, not anybody else. He should take a look at some other princes and try to follow their example even though he isn't a crown prince, even another prince in England does way more then he does and this one even served in the military and he isn't a crown prince. It's called *work* and that is something he is shy about.

You are right in that we can't change the past. I too would prefer to see a more serious and focused C-P. It is never impressive to watch anyone, much less a member of the Head of State's family, act like a pampered, self centered, unserious, aimless, party prince/princess. Character reveals itself in actions.

I hope C-P and Sofia are starting a new chapter and that they are serious about making their marriage a long, successful, and committed one. It's not a game.

 

[Pranter]

I think he was done a wrong turn when they changed the line of succession after he was born.

LaRae

 

[Cris M]

Regarding his place in the line of succession: am I against absolute primogeniture? Certainly not. I'm not against any form of hereditary succession, I accept all of them and like to read about their peculiarities. But I do think the way it was done in Sweden was wrong, stripping Prince Carl Philip of his birth right. They could have given succession rights to Princess Victoria, but wait until de next generation to implement absolute primogeniture. Only God knows how Prince Carl Philip would have turn out as heir apparent.

 

[HRHHermione]

I agree with this post. But I also agree with Pranter that stripping him of his title of Heir was unjust. Maybe as Heir his upbringing would have instilled more discipline, and his character would be different, if that had not occurred.

I think it would have been far more unjust for his older sister to be denied her rightful place as oldest child because of ancient sexism.

Victoria is the heir and that is right and positive. Carl-Phillip seems to enjoy his life as it is.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community mobile app

 

[Cris M]

I think it would have been far more unjust for his older sister to be denied her rightful place as oldest child because of ancient sexism.

Victoria is the heir and that is right and positive. Carl-Phillip seems to enjoy his life as it is.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community mobile app

But Crown Princess Victoria was not born heir apparent, Prince Carl Philip did. The very concept of Monarchy is not really fair, but it was unjust to strip Prince Carl Philip of his birthright.

Sweden could have done like Norway, introducing absolute primogeniture, but not taking away Crown Prince Haakon's birthright and favoring his older sister.

 

[Al_bina]

You are correct. Prince Carl Philip was stripped off the rightful title by overzealous politicians.

 

[Pranter]

It should of started with his heirs instead of stripping the title from him.


LaRae

 

[Princess of Durham]

I have to agree, the new rules should have started with the next generation. It was not fair to strip him of his right.

 

[Cris M]

Exactly.

Norway, Denmark and others have done the right thing. Sweden was wrong stripping Prince Carl Philip of his birthright. Belgium also stripped Prince Laurent of birthright, favouring Princess Astrid, but he was not the direct heir, so it didn't make a big difference.

 

[Ish]

Are you serious? CP was less than a year old when he was "stripped" of his position as heir apparent. Given as legislature tends to take more than 7 months to come into affect, I would guess that the legislation was probably in the process of being passed before CP was even born.

If CP had actually been of an age where he was old enough to understand what was being "taken" from him I might see the point, but given as he wasn't even old enough to understand the point of a toilet I think people might be exaggerating what he was deprived of.