The Change of the Act of Succession - 1979 Constitution Change

[Stefan]

I am not sure if she could, even if she wanted to. The Instrument of Government provides for a voluntary abdication by the King, but AFAIK it says nothing about royal princes renouncing their succession rights. In order to remove Victoria from her current position as heiress to the throne, another law would be required amending the Act of Succession. Since the Act of Succession is however a basic law, I understand that would require the same procedure as in the 1970s, i.e. two separate votes in the Swedish parliament with a general election in between.

Victoria could have stepped down though, with no further legal action required, if she had married Daniel without the consent of the King and the government.

But she could have not asked the King and goverment for permission for her marriage.
As the Act of succession has the clause that anyone on line of succession beeds the permission of the King and goverment for a marriage she would have probably out when not asking.

 

[Lady Nimue]

It wouldn't have been an issue if Carl Gustav and Silvia hadn't made it one.

Have they made it one? I don't think they have. They simply answer questions put to them in interviews about it, and when they answer they are honest. I laud them on their honesty. It's a credit to them, I think.

Carl Philip was a baby when the amendment came into effect and he wouldn't have known about it if his parents hadn't told him

Not so. Carl Philip may be dyslexic but he would surely have come to know about the situation as he learned about the history of his family. Better to hear about it from his parents than read about it in a history book, not so?

and, since resentment of the "injustice" seems to burn deep within them, I am sure they have told him more than once and made a fuss about it.

All supposition, positing the parenting of the King and Queen in the worst possible light. Why do that? Why take this matter that we know nothing about (we know nothing about how it was handled personally within the family) and spin it so darkly, as an excuse to bring hate upon the King and Queen? It makes no sense.

There was nothing for CP to accept. The changes were underway before he was conceived. It was a fait accompli before he was a year old.

But of course he had to accept it once he found out about it. Imagine you were the heir to a great fortune that got changed by the benefactor when you were an infant. At 15 years of age (say) you learn that such took place. I'd say there would be thoughts of 'what if' and 'what might-have-been'. For sure. It would be odd if there were not imo.

 

[Mbruno]

Have they made it one? I don't think they have. They simply answer questions put to them in interviews about it, and when they answer they are honest. I laud them on their honesty. It's a credit to them, I think.



Not so. Carl Philip may be dyslexic but he would surely have come to know about the situation as he learned about the history of his family. Better to hear about it from his parents than read about it in a history book, not so?



All supposition, positing the parenting of the King and Queen in the worst possible light. Why do that? Why take this matter that we know nothing about (we know nothing about how it was handled personally within the family) and spin it so darkly, as an excuse to bring hate upon the King and Queen? It makes no sense.



But of course he had to accept it once he found out about it. Imagine you were the heir to a great fortune that got changed by the benefactor when you were an infant. At 15 years of age (say) you learn that such took place. I'd say there would be thoughts of 'what if' and 'what might-have-been'. For sure. It would be odd if there were not imo.

I'm in agreement with Lady Nimue here. There is no way Carl Philip could not have been told about the change to the Act of Succession and the related circumstances as those are now historical facts he would have learned about anyway.

Second, there is no evidence, as some posters claimed here, that the King or the Queen tried to "subvert the legislative process" (something they lacked the power to do anyway). The government, on the other hand, has a constitutional obligation to keep the King informed about state affairs and I'm pretty sure they consulted with Carl Gustaf about the proposed changes to the law. At that point, it was also the King's obligation to voice his opinion to the government, which I believe he did. After a decision was taken and the law was passed, the King had to comply with it, which he did and has been doing since. As I said, he raised Victoria, and not Carl Philip, as heir to the throne. Victoria has her own household and state funding whereas her siblings do not and she takes up official and diplomatic duties which, again, are not shared with her siblings. The King's behavior in that regard has been strictly constitutional and perfectly appropriate IMHO.

Finally, as Lady Nimue said, the only reason the King and Queen still talk about this 30+ years later is because the press (in Germany, Sweden, Brazil, etc.) keeps asking them about it. They have candidly told the story over and over again from their point of view, but have also repeatedly said that the family has accepted it and have praised Victoria for her qualities indicating that they have full confidence in her. What else do you expect from them ?

 

[Kavan]

Finally, as Lady Nimue said, the only reason the King and Queen still talk about this 30+ years later is because the press (in Germany, Sweden, Brazil, etc.) keeps asking them about it. They have candidly told the story over and over again from their point of view, but have also repeatedly said that the family has accepted it and have praised Victoria for her qualities indicating that they have full confidence in her. What else do you expect from them ?

The reason the press continues to ask is because both the King and Queen continue to vent their displeasure with the change. As long as the King and Queen continue to discuss their feelings about the change the press will continue to push the story. At this point thirty plus years on a good PR strategy would be to simply say that the act passed long ago and they are now only focused on supporting the Crown Princess. That would presumably meet both the honesty quotient and end any need for Victoria to comment on the stories.
As to what I'd expect I'd think as parents of both CP and Victoria that they'd be more concerned about supporting both of them, and avoiding placing them in the awkward position of having to address these issues rather than venting their feelings about a decision made 30 years ago.

 

[Furienna]

Because it's one thing to have an opinion about something, but when airing that opinion shows you in a very negative light, this is the biggie though IMO, *and* continually hurts your Daughter in a very public and bitter manner w/the airing of that opinion? Speaking for myself, I have a very hard time respecting anyone for actions like that. Royal or not.

To be honest, I don't feel that this puts them in a negative light. So what if their opinion isn't political correct these days? They still have the right to keep it. And I don't see how this has hurt Victoria either. As far as I can see, she has gotten nothing but support from her parents.

 

[Cris M]

To be honest, I don't feel that this puts them in a negative light. So what if their opinion isn't political correct these days? They still have the right to keep it. And I don't see how this has hurt Victoria either. As far as I can see, she has gotten nothing but support from her parents.

Exactly. The King and Queen believe (rightly) that their son was unjustly stripped of his birth rights. But, at the same time, they made sure their daughter received the necessary education, preparation and support for her future role.

If anything, Their Majesties succeeded in raising an outstanding future Queen and a Prince who knows his place in the Royal House and is more than willing to help his older sister.

It's sickening to see people trying to portray the King and Queen as horrible parents just because Their Majesties don't conform with their politically correct ideology.

 

[Kavan]

It's sickening to see people trying to portray the King and Queen as horrible parents just because Their Majesties don't conform with their politically correct ideology.

The issue is not in any way political correctness. It's about diplomacy-which is a job any royal has to be good at in the modern age. To continue to vent about a political act 30 years later is simply not diplomatic. As to the suggestion that the King and Queen are horrible parents-neither are bad parents. At worst I'd argue they are clearly myopic and have allowed their feelings on the issue to slip out more than they should. Again this is diplomacy. Regardless of their feelings about succession they should have accepted the decision and not continued to address it in a way that makes their feelings so clear.

 

[Roslyn]

Have they made it one? I don't think they have. They simply answer questions put to them in interviews about it, and when they answer they are honest. I laud them on their honesty. It's a credit to them, I think.



Not so. Carl Philip may be dyslexic but he would surely have come to know about the situation as he learned about the history of his family. Better to hear about it from his parents than read about it in a history book, not so?



All supposition, positing the parenting of the King and Queen in the worst possible light. Why do that? Why take this matter that we know nothing about (we know nothing about how it was handled personally within the family) and spin it so darkly, as an excuse to bring hate upon the King and Queen? It makes no sense.



But of course he had to accept it once he found out about it. Imagine you were the heir to a great fortune that got changed by the benefactor when you were an infant. At 15 years of age (say) you learn that such took place. I'd say there would be thoughts of 'what if' and 'what might-have-been'. For sure. It would be odd if there were not imo.

Of course Carl Philip would have become aware of what had happened. It is the way his parents responded to his questions at that time that would have made all the difference. And no, I don't necessarily believe it was better to have learned it from his parents than historians.

What his parents said would have informed his opinions, or at least presented him with a greater or lesser degree of conflict. They had the option of acknowledging the change calmly as a fact of life that was underway before he was born, and a consequence of living in a constitutional monarchy in a modern, liberal, society with a strong belief in gender equality, and where it is the people, through their elected representatives, who run the country, or they could have tainted him with their own personal prejudices. The fact they still, after all this time, publicly express opposition to the change, leads me to believe that they emphasised the latter.

As Kavan has said immediately above this post, it is a matter of diplomacy, something that a hereditary Head of State in a modern constitutional monarchy should be very careful about.

 

[GracieGiraffe]

I have to compare CG and Silvia's responses (and perhaps I'm getting old but 1979 still strikes me as "contemporary") to Felipe's at the birth of Leonor in 2005. As I recall, Felipe remarked, champagne glass in hand, that the "logic of the times" dictated that Leonor, the first born, take precedence over her younger siblings, whatever gender they may be. I doubt his opinion would have changed two years later had little Sofia been little Juan Carlos.

You'd think that most modern couples would applaud the change in the laws favoring equal primogeniture. But I shockingly stand corrected.

 

[Furienna]

The issue is not in any way political correctness. It's about diplomacy-which is a job any royal has to be good at in the modern age. To continue to vent about a political act 30 years later is simply not diplomatic.

But it seems like they only talk about it when a reporter asks them about it. So I don't see any problem.

You'd think that most modern couples would applaud the change in the laws favoring equal primogeniture. But I shockingly stand corrected.

People will have different opinions, no matter if they're "modern" or not.

 

[Mbruno]

I have to compare CG and Silvia's responses (and perhaps I'm getting old but 1979 still strikes me as "contemporary") to Felipe's at the birth of Leonor in 2005. As I recall, Felipe remarked, champagne glass in hand, that the "logic of the times" dictated that Leonor, the first born, take precedence over her younger siblings, whatever gender they may be. I doubt his opinion would have changed two years later had little Sofia been little Juan Carlos.

You'd think that most modern couples would applaud the change in the laws favoring equal primogeniture. But I shockingly stand corrected.

That is an odd comparison as Spain ironically still has male-preference primogeniture. If Felipe has a legitimate son in the future, Leonor will actually cease to be the heir.

It is also important to note that King Carl Gustaf and Queen Silvia never spoke against or contested equal primogeniture. Their grievance is in fact with the application of an ex post facto law, something which BTW would be unconstitutional for example in the United States.

 

[grevinnan]

That is an odd comparsion as Spain ironically still has male-preference primogeniture. If Felipe has a legitimate son in the future, Leeonor will actually cease to be the heir.

It is also important to note that King Carl Gustaf and Queen Silvia never spoke against or contested equal primogeniture. Their grievance is in fact with the application of an ex post facto law, something which BTW would be unconstitutional for example in the United States.

If one reads the documents available online from all the discussions regarding the change one will see that the Swedish Justicedepartment objected to the retroactive implementation of the change in succession. The reason was that changes to the "grundlagen" (constitution) is not done retroactively and neither should this change. The King at the time of the change agreed with the legal community that a change to the constitution should not be done retroactively. Unfortunately the timing of the births of Victoria and Carl Philip were such that Prince Carl Philip was born Crown Prince under the constitution in place at the time but with the retro date of the change Princess Victoria became the Crown Princess. Considering that the issue of succession rights for women has been discussed off and on since 1952 it is just a shame it took so long for it to be finally done.

 

[Furienna]

Considering that the issue of succession rights for women has been discussed off and on since 1952 it is just a shame it took so long for it to be finally done.

Denmark managed to give their princesses succession rights in 1953, even if they always would come behind their brothers until 2009. I wonder if we shouldn't have done something similar here in Sweden, that we should have taken an intermediate step. That would have given our king's sisters a right to inherit the throne, even if Carl Gustaf would have been the heir appearant.

 

[grevinnan]

Denmark managed to give their princesses succession rights in 1953, even if they always would come behind their brothers until 2009. I wonder if we shouldn't have done something similar here in Sweden, that we should have taken an intermediate step. That would have given our king's sisters a right to inherit the throne, even if Carl Gustaf would have been the heir appearant.

The discussions may have happened simultaneously in Sweden and Denmark. Good for Denmark that they did something about it at the time. But they only had what they considered suitable options in the daughters of King Frederik. Sweden had Prince Bertil and I am sure no-one imagined that he would remain childless and single for so long. If for some reason Carl Gustaf had not been able to ascend the throne, Prince Bertil would next in line.

But if they had made the change in early 50's the same issue would be there. If it was retroactive then the King's sisters would have been in line as heirs (at least Birgitta) and Carl Gustaf who became Crown Prince on the death of this father would have lost his place.

 

[Stefan]

Denmark managed to give their princesses succession rights in 1953, even if they always would come behind their brothers until 2009. I wonder if we shouldn't have done something similar here in Sweden, that we should have taken an intermediate step. That would have given our king's sisters a right to inherit the throne, even if Carl Gustaf would have been the heir appearant.

Perhaps it woiuld have been done in Sweden in the 1950's if Carl Gustasf would not have been born. I don't think Denmark would have changed the succession law in 1953 if King Frederik IX., and Queen Ingrid would have had a son in 1946 insteed of a third daughter.

 

[Lady Nimue]

But it seems like they only talk about it when a reporter asks them about it. So I don't see any problem.

I agree.

People will have different opinions, no matter if they're "modern" or not.

It's also very possible that they saw in the two children that Carl Philip was the one with the better temperament to be heir and then monarch. We will never know the cost to Victoria of having to constrain herself into that role. We really don't know anything at all about what the King and Queen were seeing in their children.

It is also important to note that King Carl Gustaf and Queen Silvia never spoke against or contested equal primogeniture. Their grievance is in fact with the application of an ex post facto law, something which BTW would be unconstitutional for example in the United States.

Correct.

If one reads the documents available online from all the discussions regarding the change one will see that the Swedish Justice department objected to the retroactive implementation of the change in succession. The reason was that changes to the "grundlagen" (constitution) is not done retroactively and neither should this change. The King at the time of the change agreed with the legal community that a change to the constitution should not be done retroactively. Unfortunately the timing of the births of Victoria and Carl Philip were such that Prince Carl Philip was born Crown Prince under the constitution in place at the time but with the retro date of the change Princess Victoria became the Crown Princess. Considering that the issue of succession rights for women has been discussed off and on since 1952 it is just a shame it took so long for it to be finally done.

A good summation. It's the way I have always understood it as well but am never able to articulate.

Also, by indicating such, the King and Queen are supporting both their children, both Victoria, and Carl Philip. It's a pretty big matter for that family because it was something that was 'taken away'. Had to have been disruptive and a difficult adjustment. As Queen Silvia has said: thankfully Carl Philip is okay with what transpired with his destiny (as he must have learned about later). That's a credit to him, and also an indication of what a mellow and relaxed Kingly presence he would have been. (Can you imagine refusing Carl Philip the woman he loved, forcing him into a non-royal union, or to side-step his 'place in line' - on top of all that? Pretty unsettling - maybe - for Carl Philip all round were that to have happened).

It could be reasonably argued that had Victoria been free to follow her own ambitions, she may have been a less stressed teenager. Possible. But it is what it is, and I for one think the King and Queen handled it well, both Victoria and Carl Philip themselves being the evidence for that, and the obvious closeness of the whole family.

 

[Ish]

People in this thread are acting like Sweden is the only monarchy to change it's succession laws retroactively like this. It's not. It's the only European monarchy in the modern era to do so and have a male heir apparent lose his place to an elder sister, but it's not the only one to retroactively change it's succession.

When Denmark changed it's succession laws in the 1950s from agnatic primogeniture to make preference primogeniture it displaced the heir presumptive, Knut, Hereditary Prince of Denmark, in favour of his niece, the then Princess Margrethe. When Denmark later introduced absolute primogeniture there was no need for retroactivity as there were no females who were being displaced by younger brothers at the time.

When Norway went from agnatic primogeniture to absolute primogeniture in the early 90s there was a degree of retroactivity - Märtha Louise wasn't in the succession at all previously, but was after the law passed, which said that women born in the 20 years before the law passed were granted succession rights under male preference primogeniture, while women born after it were granted succession rights after absolute primogeniture. You could argue that this is what Sweden should have done, except doing so fails to consider that in Sweden the individuals affected by the law hadn't been born when the process of passing it started, and weren't out of diapers when it was passed, while in Norway Haakon and Märtha Louise were almost adults.

When Luxembourg, Belgium, and the Commonwealth each introduced absolute primogeniture they also did so with retroactivity to their laws, the heirs not being changed only because the eldest born was male. When William and Kate were expecting their first child as the Connonwealth succession was being changed it was made clear that the child, regardless of gender, would be the heir. And let's be honest, that's the kind of attitude that Carl Gustav and Silvia should have taken when Sweden's succession was being changed - rather than ignore the changes being made and make it clear that they didn't support them, they should have treated Victoria as the heir and Carl Philip as the second in line from the get-go. Having done otherwise simply makes them look like they didn't support their government - when the government is supposed to be the representative of the people, and the monarch is supposed to reign at the will of the people.

 

[Daffodil]

The former Mr Westling is the great-grandson of Brita Westling and Anders Andersson.

Can you fill me in on the relevance of the people quoted?

It's what makes it amusing when people claim that Estelle will be the first queen of the Westling line, rather than a queen of the Bernadotte line. If that were the case, she'd be carrying on the surname of her great-great-grandmother, not a patrilineal surname.

 

[Lady Nimue]

People in this thread are acting like Sweden is the only monarchy to change it's succession laws retroactively like this. It's not.

That's not what I have been reading, and responding to. It's the suggestion that the King and Queen are somehow purveying on a topic that must cause Victoria great distress and discomfort. Plus the suggestion that they have said things privately to their children that must be painful to them. Such statements have no basis in any credible evidence imo. The suggestion that the parenting of the King and Queen is in question is what I am pushing back against.

In fact, this family, that I have watched with great interest all my life, have always manifested the utmost love for all their children imo. It would be hard to imagine Silvia, for example, dealing in any way but with understanding and sensitivity with Victoria and Carl Philip on this matter'

It's the only European monarchy in the modern era to do so and have a male heir apparent lose his place to an elder sister, but it's not the only one to retroactively change it's succession.

Then that's all sorted.

 

[camelot23ca]

I don't agree with the King and Queen's opinion regarding the succession changes or with the way they've handled questions about it over the years. That being said, I don't think their attitude regarding this one issue makes them bad parents. On the contrary, from reading things their children have said over the years it sounds like they were loving parents who did the best they could given the huge official demands placed on their time. Certainly the family seems close now, and if her parents' attitude towards the succession change did place added stress on Victoria, it seems to have been balanced out by other things they got right.

 

[MARG]

But it seems like they only talk about it when a reporter asks them about it. So I don't see any problem.

Well, they have certainly resisted any attempts to pry information out of them regarding some of the quite lurid past scandals, and there were several. From the distance of 35 years hindsight, this should have been a no-brainer. So no, it was their choice to give what amounts to in-depth exposés.

This wedding may have seen the marriage of a Prince who was once Crown Prince for seven months, but the die was cast when parliament decided to change the Act of Succession and followed through when, in 1977 the first reading of the Act passed with an easy majority. That it would pass its second reading after the next General Election was a given. King Carl Gustaf and Queen Silvia would have done well to accept the will of the people rather than lamenting the past and enjoy the upcoming the wedding instead of indulging themselves publicly in bitterness.

Both the King and the Queen were well aware that the Succession was to be vested in the first issue of Carl Gustaf, regardless of gender. That this should happen made sense since the King has four sisters who were never in line for the throne. He also had an uncle who delayed a marriage that would exclude him from both the Succession itself but, more importantly, the right to act as Regent should his brother die before his heir was of age or, worst case scenario, that he would survive both his brother and nephew.

That Queen Silvia blamed it all on the feminist movement was a canard, after all, Carl Gustaf had to the change the condition that prevented both his Uncle and himself from marrying the women they loved. Silvia's "revisionist" history enables her to vent on her on what she feels her son lost, totally glossing over the self-interest that enabled her own marriage.

But I can't help wondering if their lack of diplomacy, or common sense may have caused hurt and pain to her. It has almost certainly humiliated her. Who wouldn't be with your parents publicly lamenting that their son isn't, who you are?

A while before Victoria's engagement was announced, I joked that the King wouldn't give permission for Victoria and Daniel to marry until Victoria was past child-bearing age. I forgot that she could have just married Daniel without the king's blessing, and in so doing, remove herself from the Succession. Just a little food for thought.

Immediately prior to the announcement of their engagement the King was mired in scandal and there's nothing like a humongous Royal Wedding to take our minds off things. Whatever the reason, their behavior was badly done and brings no credit on the House of Bernadotte.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

[...] So what if their opinion isn't political correct these days? They still have the right to keep it. [...]

Amen to that.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

I don't agree with the King and Queen's opinion regarding the succession changes or with the way they've handled questions about it over the years. That being said, I don't think their attitude regarding this one issue makes them bad parents. On the contrary, from reading things their children have said over the years it sounds like they were loving parents who did the best they could given the huge official demands placed on their time. Certainly the family seems close now, and if her parents' attitude towards the succession change did place added stress on Victoria, it seems to have been balanced out by other things they got right.

The King and Queen love their three children to bits and from all accounts, from all what we read and could see, there is a visibly strong and loving relationship between the parents and their children. Having said that, this does not mean that they may hold different views on the succession and probably feel saddened that the unbroken male agnatic line of the House Bernadotte will be ended after Victoria and that the Bernadotte family is no longer the same as the royal family of Sweden (unless we close our eyes for the cosmetic trick of Westling changing his name in Bernadotte).

In Monaco the spouse of Princess Charlotte, from the illustrious and ancient noble House De Chalencon de Polignac, changed his name too, into Grimaldi. But Charlotte was the last Grimaldi left. That is not the case with Victoria. We may find it absurd etc. but everyone has the right to have a feeling on the matter and apparently the King and Queen find it a pity that the "cut" in the unbroken Bernadotte line was placed while their son, the Crown Prince, was having that birthright. I think that is a legitime feeling and why not.

 

[SLV]

Well, in the end they are "just" descendants of a French general (and commoner). Who, during the Napoleonic wars, 200 years ago, was ellected king after the Swedish had deposed their own king. How Royal is that? ;-)

 

[Mbruno]

.


A while before Victoria's engagement was announced, I joked that the King wouldn't give permission for Victoria and Daniel to marry until Victoria was past child-bearing age. I forgot that she could have just married Daniel without the king's blessing, and in so doing, remove herself from the Succession. Just a little food for thought.

In both scenarios, the King's "evil" plan to restore Carl Philip and/or his line to the throne woud have worked, wouldn't it? Except that there was no evil plan ! Carl Gustaf never conspired to remove Victoria from the succession even though random circumstances like her falling in love with Daniel theoretically could have given him a credible chance to do just that. More significantly, there is no evidence that Carl Gustaf ever failed to acknowledge her daughter as the heir. In terms of the education and training she received, the state funding/staff available to her and the public duties she undertakes, it appears to me that her position in the royal house vis-a-vis her younger siblings is pretty clear and unambiguous.

Quite frankly, I feel that many posters in this thread, based on selective quoting of some interviews by Carl Gustaf and Silvia, are imagining a family conflict or tension that simply doesn't exist. The only fact I am willing to acknowledge is that the King and Queen (and many Swedish legal scholars BTW) believe that the retroactive application of the 1980 amended Act of Succession was unfair, but got over it.

Well, in the end they are "just" descendants of a French general (and commoner). Who, during the Napoleonic wars, 200 years ago, was ellected king after the Swedish had deposed their own king. How Royal is that? ;-)

Yes, but their family subsequently married princesses from many different very blue-blooded sovereign families of Europe. King Carl Gustaf for example descends from Queen Victoria of the UK both on his father's and his mother's side and, matrilenially, he also descends from the previous Swedish Vasa dynasty.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

Well, in the end they are "just" descendants of a French general (and commoner). Who, during the Napoleonic wars, 200 years ago, was ellected king after the Swedish had deposed their own king. How Royal is that? ;-)

Exactly for that reason the Bernadottes adapted a strict and shrewd marriage policy to "uplift" the "parvenu" dynasty... And with success: they managed to marry into all Royal Houses, even the Catholic ones. So this proves that the Bernadottes were painfully aware that every marriage should add new prestige to the young royal family. When Crown Prince Gustav of Sweden and Norway (himself a son of a Nassau) married Princess Viktoria von Baden in 1881 it became widely promoted that as a result their son, (the later) King Gustaf VI Adolf of Sweden could therefore claim to be the direct heir to the House of Holstein-Gottorp (Swedish line) and the House of Vasa as well as the Bernadotte kings of Sweden... the blame of "upstarts" or "parvenus" occupying the Swedish throne disappeared.

 

[SLV]

Exactly for that reason the Bernadottes adapted a strict and shrewd marriage policy to "uplift" the "parvenu" dynasty... And with success: they managed to marry into all Royal Houses, even the Catholic ones. So this proves that the Bernadottes were painfully aware that every marriage should add new prestige to the young royal family. When Crown Prince Gustav of Sweden and Norway (himself a son of a Nassau) married Princess Viktoria von Baden in 1881 it became widely promoted that as a result their son, (the later) King Gustaf VI Adolf of Sweden could therefore claim to be the direct heir to the House of Holstein-Gottorp (Swedish line) and the House of Vasa as well as the Bernadotte kings of Sweden... the blame of "upstarts" or "parvenus" occupying the Swedish throne disappeared.

So by your reasoning, the name 'Bernadotte' is not what matters, but the names(blood) of the women they married. So if it is not the name Bernadotte what makes Estelle royal, what does it matter that 'technically' she should be called Westling?

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

So by your reasoning, the name 'Bernadotte' is not what matters, but the names(blood) of the women they married. So if it is not the name Bernadotte what makes Estelle royal, what does it matter that 'technically' she should be called Westling?

The Bernadottes before Carl XVI Gustaf understood why it was important that they had to be linked with the families or the dynasties which do matter. The fact that -so far- a fitness trainer named Daniel Westling is a great Prince of Sweden, is at the same time the best advertorial for ending the whole circus.

Go the Italian or the German way and choose a meritorious lady or gentleman to be the democratically elected head of state. The only justification for a monarchy, for delivering the head of state purely by natural succession is because they are what they are, often for centuries and because of the great prestige they (once) had (or hopefully still have). Really, I am in favour of a monarchy but when Dylan Jansen from Eindhoven becomes His Royal Highness Prince Dylan of the Netherlands, Prince of Orange-Nassau, then the whole shaky house of cards tumbles down. There is no logic in having a monarchy. It is purely an appeal on the underbelly. But it is an extremely thin line and I am sure anyone of you understands what I mean but tja... show that you are oh so polictically correct and oh no... "it does not matter at all, or course not"... "we are modern, you see"...

No. When you are "modern", please call for a republic. I prefer a republic above a half-baked monarchy. Either they stick to the rules or they can better end the whole puppet theatre.

 

[camelot23ca]

The King and Queen love their three children to bits and from all accounts, from all what we read and could see, there is a visibly strong and loving relationship between the parents and their children. Having said that, this does not mean that they may hold different views on the succession and probably feel saddened that the unbroken male agnatic line of the House Bernadotte will be ended after Victoria and that the Bernadotte family is no longer the same as the royal family of Sweden (unless we close our eyes for the cosmetic trick of Westling changing his name in Bernadotte).

In Monaco the spouse of Princess Charlotte, from the illustrious and ancient noble House De Chalencon de Polignac, changed his name too, into Grimaldi. But Charlotte was the last Grimaldi left. That is not the case with Victoria. We may find it absurd etc. but everyone has the right to have a feeling on the matter and apparently the King and Queen find it a pity that the "cut" in the unbroken Bernadotte line was placed while their son, the Crown Prince, was having that birthright. I think that is a legitime feeling and why not.

Is it the name that's important or the bloodline?

If it's the name - Estelle is just as much a Bernadotte as Carl Philip and his future children, full stop. There's no trickery in Daniel taking the surname Bernadotte, just as there's no special magic in males traditionally keeping their own family name.

If it's the bloodline, well, unlike prior heirs born to kings or princes, we know beyond a shadow of a doubt that Estelle is the biological child of the next monarch. Descent through the female line is the only way to ensure continuity of the bloodline. Who knows how many sons of grooms or footmen or courtiers have reigned as kings, (and you thought a fitness trainer was bad)!

 

[Lady Nimue]

Is it the name that's important or the bloodline?

If it's the name - Estelle is just as much a Bernadotte as Carl Philip and his future children, full stop. There's no trickery in Daniel taking the surname Bernadotte, just as there's no special magic in males traditionally keeping their own family name.

If it's the bloodline, well, unlike prior heirs born to kings or princes, we know beyond a shadow of a doubt that Estelle is the biological child of the next monarch. Descent through the female line is the only way to ensure continuity of the bloodline. Who knows how many sons of grooms or footmen or courtiers have reigned as kings, (and you thought a fitness trainer was bad)!

Well said.