The Change of the Act of Succession - 1979 Constitution Change

[casualfan]

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.

I am about to vomit. What monarchy on the face of this planet is pure and unbroken, and what bloodline in this earth is "untainted" by "common blood"??

As a matter of fact, it's monarchy that has been the theater for so long--sham marriages for political gain, marital infidelity that could make cockroaches blush, murder, intrigue, treason, treachery, and backstabbing to fill any number of telenovelas on Telemundo. And you think modern monarchies are a farce and theater??

The Bernadottes could have just as easily been marrying into other families to raise their prestige and fill their coffers with foreign money, and they certainly did a good job of filling their jewel vault as just one example.

So who on this green earth should care who they marry now? Monarchies change, dynasties change, and those revolutions are a lot less dainty than what everyone sees today - when a perfectly-nice guy gets to marry his sweetheart and turns out to be massively popular, industrious, a good speaker, and handsome in tails to boot.

 

[Lady Nimue]

Two very powerful to-the-point posts said with honesty. You speak the truth. 'Pure (royal) bloodlines' are a fallacy. They never existed.

I am about to vomit. What monarchy on the face of this planet is pure and unbroken, and what bloodline in this earth is "untainted" by "common blood"??

As a matter of fact, it's monarchy that has been the theater for so long--sham marriages for political gain, marital infidelity that could make cockroaches blush, murder, intrigue, treason, treachery, and backstabbing to fill any number of telenovelas on Telemundo. And you think modern monarchies are a farce and theater??

Exactly so.

 

[JessRulz]

This thread has now been reopened after a few days to allow cooler heads to prevail.

Please remember the forum rule which requires that fellow posters be treated with respect.

 

[Madame Verseau]

One change that would have taken place if Carl Philip were crown prince: Sofia would not be a Bernadotte now. It's one thing to marry the third in line to the throne; it's another when the new royal bride is the future queen. The standards would be higher for the wife of a sovereign; and with Sofia's past it would be difficult for Carl Gustaf and the Riksdag to approve of the marriage. Of course there's the case of Mette-Marit of Norway; but the Norwegian Royal Family dealt with her past head on. Before their wedding MM spoke before Norwegians, addressed her past, admitted regret, and asked the people to give her a chance. From what I've seen, it worked, unless things drastically changed over the years. (I don't follow the NRF). The SRF didn't take that approach with Sofia, but I believe the game plan would have been different if Carl Philip were heir apparent.

 

[Lee-Z]

^^^^^^^ well lucky for P.C-P and P.Sofia then, because they seem a well-matched couple, very happy and at-ease with eachother

 

[Marty91charmed]

I am not so sure CP would have not married Sofia: maybe it would have taken longer for him to marry her but as he is a man and not a woman I am sure CG would have given him a pass, frankly...

 

[Mirabel]

One change that would have taken place if Carl Philip were crown prince: Sofia would not be a Bernadotte now. It's one thing to marry the third in line to the throne; it's another when the new royal bride is the future queen. The standards would be higher for the wife of a sovereign; and with Sofia's past it would be difficult for Carl Gustaf and the Riksdag to approve of the marriage. Of course there's the case of Mette-Marit of Norway; but the Norwegian Royal Family dealt with her past head on. Before their wedding MM spoke before Norwegians, addressed her past, admitted regret, and asked the people to give her a chance. From what I've seen, it worked, unless things drastically changed over the years. (I don't follow the NRF). The SRF didn't take that approach with Sofia, but I believe the game plan would have been different if Carl Philip were heir apparent.

I really doubt that would be the case.

If Haakon could marry Mette-Mait, and Felipe could marry Letizia, I see no reason why Carl Philip could not marry Sofia, even if he was still the heir.

 

[Mbruno]

I really doubt that would be the case.

If Haakon could marry Mette-Mait, and Felipe could marry Letizia, I see no reason why Carl Philip could not marry Sofia, even if he was still the heir.

Besides, Victoria, who is the heir to the throne, was allowed to marry Daniel, who might not have a "a past" in Mette-Marit's or Sofia's sense, but was nonetheless an unsuitable consort for a future queen.

Having said that, we should not forget that getting the King's consent to get married was not an easy task either for Victoria or for CP, and that it actually took a long time before they could get engaged respectively to Daniel and Sofia.

 

[Meraude]

One change that would have taken place if Carl Philip were crown prince: Sofia would not be a Bernadotte now.

If Carl Philip had been the crown prince it's not likely that he would have had met Sofia when he did, as his upbringing and education would have been totally different. (Unless you believe that some people are destined to meet and marry.)

 

[Hans-Rickard]

Don't think there would have been any difference. The King was Crown Prince from the age of 4 and until he became King, his private life (with the exception of the heavier workload and more prominent representation duties) did not differ alot from how Carl Philip is living today. So yes i do belive that we would have had a Crown Princess Sofia today had that been the case.

That change in 1980 was in my opinion an extremly lucky change for the survival of the swedish monarchy, no matter what the King and Queen thinks about it.

 

[Archduchess Zelia]

I'd agree with Meraude and say that there's a great chance they wouldn't have met had Carl Philip been the Crown Prince. However, had they met, I don't think it's at all unlikely that they would have ended up marrying – especially not with the King's alleged favouritism of CP. And that's fine, I think (that he could have married her, that is, favouritism is never fine). Royal or not, you should be allowed to spend your life with who you want to spend your life with.

 

[Pranter]

I think if CP had remained THE CP then no it's unlikely he would of ever met or even considered marrying Sofia. His life would of had a very different trajectory.


LaRae

 

[Queen Claude]

One change that would have taken place if Carl Philip were crown prince: Sofia would not be a Bernadotte now. It's one thing to marry the third in line to the throne; it's another when the new royal bride is the future queen. The standards would be higher for the wife of a sovereign; and with Sofia's past it would be difficult for Carl Gustaf and the Riksdag to approve of the marriage. Of course there's the case of Mette-Marit of Norway; but the Norwegian Royal Family dealt with her past head on. Before their wedding MM spoke before Norwegians, addressed her past, admitted regret, and asked the people to give her a chance. From what I've seen, it worked, unless things drastically changed over the years. (I don't follow the NRF). The SRF didn't take that approach with Sofia, but I believe the game plan would have been different if Carl Philip were heir apparent.

I am not 100% sure but I don't think that the Norwegian Royal Family confronted Mette-Marit's past head on, or at least not preemptively. Mette-Marit, with Haakon by her side, gave an emotional interview a few days before her wedding where she said she regretted her past. The majority of Norwegians either supported the relationship/marriage or were indifferent but those who did not were apparently very vocal, many of whom raised security concerns. It seemed like Crown Prince Haakon was going to marry her even if it meant removing himself from the line of succession but it did seem like they they were going to make an effort to address to opposition and not incur the upheaval that would undoubtedly have happened if Haakon removed himself from the line of succession. While there were people who oppose Sofia, the opposition was not as intense as it was with Mette-Marit and therefore there was no need for her to don a hair shirt over her past.

I think it boils down to the will of the people, what one nation approves does not necessarily mean that another nation will approve those same circumstances/conditions. Having said that, side by side, IMO Mette-Marit was a harder sell than Sofia. Mette-Marit's ex, and more importantly the father of her child, had been convicted of possession of a significant amount of cocaine during the same timeframe that Mette-Marit's relationship with the Crown Prince was getting serious and she was seen as a potential Crown Princess and ultimately Queen.

 

[Mbruno]

Don't think there would have been any difference. The King was Crown Prince from the age of 4 and until he became King, his private life (with the exception of the heavier workload and more prominent representation duties) did not differ alot from how Carl Philip is living today. So yes i do belive that we would have had a Crown Princess Sofia today had that been the case.

That change in 1980 was in my opinion an extremly lucky change for the survival of the swedish monarchy, no matter what the King and Queen thinks about it.

Which begs the question: is primogeniture the best way to decide who the heir is , or is it better to do as in many Islamic monarchies where the King picks his successor or some lkind of election is held within the family ? I started a thread about that in the Royalty Present, Past, and Future Forums.

 

[Meraude]

Don't think there would have been any difference. The King was Crown Prince from the age of 4 and until he became King, his private life (with the exception of the heavier workload and more prominent representation duties) did not differ alot from how Carl Philip is living today. So yes i do belive that we would have had a Crown Princess Sofia today had that been the case.

So you think that if Carl Philip had been crown prince he would have chosen to study design and drive race cars as he does today? I doubt that would been a part of his life as a crown prince. His education would have been similar to Victoria's and there would have been other women for him to date, maybe there's a "Silvia" somewhere he never met for not being the crown prince?

 

[Roslyn]

Which begs the question: is primogeniture the best way to decide who the heir is , or is it better to do as in many Islamic monarchies where the King picks his successor or some kind of election is held within the family ? I started a thread about that in the Royalty Present, Past, and Future Forums.

But if you're going to move away from primogeniture for selection of your Head of State, and move to a system where the current Head of State picks his successor, or where there is some kind of election within the ruling family, why not go the whole hog and have the Head of State selected by election by the whole adult population? Why should the Head of State only be able to be selected from the members of one privileged family?

That was a rhetorical question. I am not seeking to start a discussion about whether Sweden should republic, merely to point out that if you are going to move from primogeniture to some form of election process, wider-reaching questions of election arise.

 

[Archduchess Zelia]

So you think that if Carl Philip had been crown prince he would have chosen to study design and drive race cars as he does today? I doubt that would been a part of his life as a crown prince. His education would have been similar to Victoria's and there would have been other women for him to date, maybe there's a "Silvia" somewhere he never met for not being the crown prince?

He could, and probably would, still be driving race cars. It's not impossible per se for heirs to abandon their hobbies completely – our Frederik still sails and is a keen sportsman. I actually reckon that CP would be much like Frederik had he been Crown Prince. As for other women to date – sure, there have been other women regardless – only he met and fell in love with Sofia and chose her. I don't see why that shouldn't have been possible had he been the Crown Prince?

 

[LadyFinn]

So you think that if Carl Philip had been crown prince he would have chosen to study design and drive race cars as he does today? I doubt that would been a part of his life as a crown prince. His education would have been similar to Victoria's and there would have been other women for him to date, maybe there's a "Silvia" somewhere he never met for not being the crown prince?

I agree. If Carl Philip would have been the crown prince, would he have had time to compete in racing, and on the other hand, car racing is seen as a rather dangerous sport, so it may well have been that it would have been forbidden for a crown prince to race.

 

[Meraude]

As for other women to date – sure, there have been other women regardless – only he met and fell in love with Sofia and chose her. I don't see why that shouldn't have been possible had he been the Crown Prince?

And if he was already engaged or married if he happened to met Sofia? Even if being single then, it's not certain he would have considered a marriage with her, as I think that a person's personality is to a degree shaped by their upbringing. He would not have been exactly the same person as he is today if he had been a crown prince.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

I would be very interested to hear, more relevant thread or not, what CG was planning on doing if he never had a son. ?

If the King never had a son, he would have favored his oldest daughter to be queen, and in the same vein I suppose that if he never had children he would have favored one of his sisters to be queen.

The Office of the Marshal of the Realm, i.e. the Royal Court, formally recommended to Parliament in 1977 that it change the Act of Succession to the same system used in Denmark, the Netherlands, and Great Britain. At the time, these three countries allowed a woman to be queen if and only if she had no brothers.

I think it is safe to say that the recommendation of the Royal Court is the recommendation of the King.

Note that in its recommendation, the Office supports introducing equal primogeniture if introducing the Danish/Dutch/British system is unfeasible, but it strongly recommends implementing it for future descendants only and allowing the King's potential future oldest son if born before the change to become king, bypassing Victoria.

Refer to the Riksmarskalksämbetet's comments on page 29 and 15.

om kvinnlig tronföljd Proposition 1977/78:71 - Riksdagen

Agreed. Mistress of the robes, Countess Alice Trolle-Wachtmeister told in an interview around the time of Estelles birth how she and other courtiers was hoping for a boy when the Queen was pregnant for the first time because the Court and the Royal family was aware that a change of law of succession was coming and that the first born child would be the heir to the throne. She also told how gutted and disappointed she felt when it turned out to be a girl but also how she had changed her mind and that Victoria would be a great monarch when it was her turn.
That said, Princess Birgitta in an interview a few months ago told about how she was with the King when he got the message of how the government had decided regarding the succession and his heir and how sad and disappointed he was. Apparently he had still harboured hopes that the changes wouldn't affect his children.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community mobile app

Would you happen to have a link to these interviews?

Besides, Victoria, who is the heir to the throne, was allowed to marry Daniel, who might not have a "a past" in Mette-Marit's or Sofia's sense, but was nonetheless an unsuitable consort for a future queen.

Having said that, we should not forget that getting the King's consent to get married was not an easy task either for Victoria or for CP, and that it actually took a long time before they could get engaged respectively to Daniel and Sofia.

That was reportedly the case for the Crown Princess, if the rumors are to be believed, but not for Prince Carl Philip. Sofia Hellqvist was permitted to participate in family and even official events at a much earlier stage than Daniel Westling.

Personally, I have trouble understanding why Mr. Westling should have been considered unsuitable. The King himself married a commoner, and Princess Lilian, who was fully accepted by the King and the public, was of a working-class family background.

 

[Prinsara]

If the King never had a son, he would have favored his oldest daughter to be queen, and in the same vein I suppose that if he never had children he would have favored one of his sisters to be queen.

The Office of the Marshal of the Realm, i.e. the Royal Court, formally recommended to Parliament in 1977 that it change the Act of Succession to the same system used in Denmark, the Netherlands, and Great Britain. At the time, these three countries allowed a woman to be queen if and only if she had no brothers.

I think it is safe to say that the recommendation of the Royal Court is the recommendation of the King.

Note that in its recommendation, the Office supports introducing equal primogeniture if introducing the Danish/Dutch/British system is unfeasible, but it strongly recommends implementing it for future descendants only and allowing the King's potential future oldest son if born before the change to become king, bypassing Victoria.

Refer to the Riksmarskalksämbetet's comments on page 29 and 15.

om kvinnlig tronföljd Proposition 1977/78:71 - Riksdagen

That's actually vastly less entertaining than I was hoping for, alas. The king is still conservative and sexist, but perhaps it illustrates why one should not pick "For Sweden, with the times" if one is not prepared to agree with Sweden what those times are.

That was reportedly the case for the Crown Princess, if the rumors are to be believed, but not for Prince Carl Philip. Sofia Hellqvist was permitted to participate in family and even official events at a much earlier stage than Daniel Westling.

Personally, I have trouble understanding why Mr. Westling should have been considered unsuitable. The King himself married a commoner, and Princess Lilian, who was fully accepted by the King and the public, was of a working-class family background.

Well, Lilian had to wait thirty years. I think she was then considered acceptable, at that point.

General sexism (not just CG's) dictates that because men are more important, future-queen's consort must be more impressive than "prince's wife" (which is a transformative honor in itself). They wanted Victoria to get what they thought she needed; Carl Philip to have what he wanted. Hoping for a more educated/wealthier man then backfired with Madeleine; unfaithful first fiancé, and husband wanting nothing to do with being royal.

 

[REAL COUNTESS]

Hello everyone,It is really sad that after 7years of being married and 2 beautiful children,some people still pick on her, Sofia. Since she became a Pss of Sweden, she had done nothing wrong. Only non Swedes,have bashed her and CP. Not much has changed has it. If someone is not liked let them have it. I would like some of you to read the post's before their marriage,seven years later lot of the comments would be called,dare I say it racist. Look deep into yourself and let everyone know if this behavior of the posters on this or any Forum would have been tolerated by you, if it would have been your daughter? or yourself?. It took me 12 years to join,but some of the comments are still the same. Time change but it seems some people do not.

 

[Mbruno]

That's actually vastly less entertaining than I was hoping for, alas. The king is still conservative and sexist, but perhaps it illustrates why one should not pick "For Sweden, with the times" if one is not prepared to agree with Sweden what those times are.



Well, Lilian had to wait thirty years. I think she was then considered acceptable, at that point.

General sexism (not just CG's) dictates that because men are more important, future-queen's consort must be more impressive than "prince's wife" (which is a tranformative honor in itself). They wanted Victoria to get what they thought she needed; Carl Philip to have what he wanted. Hoping for a more educated/wealthier man then backfired with Madeleine; unfaithful first fiancé, and husband wanting nothing to do with being royal.

I don’t think your argument makes sense. If they wanted Victoria to have a “ more impressive husband” , they would have forced her to marry a foreign prince from an old sovereign family ( either reigning or non-reigning ),. Several years of courtship didn’t make Daniel “ more impressive” on paper IMHO.

I also think that, if Carl Philip were the Crown Prince, he might not have married someone like Sofia. His marriage was “ easier” to consent to, if that is what you are arguing, not so much because he is a man who should always get what he wants , but precisely because his marriage was less consenquential to the State as neither he nor his future children would probably ascend the throne.

I also think you should be more respectful of other cultures. Many people support male-preference primogeniture not because they are sexist , but rather because they are traditionalists who would rather see the Crown kept in the same ( patrilineal ) family rather than starting a new dynasty.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

I didn't find any valid quotes among those answers. There's one poster asserting that the King said something in an interview with Swedish television, but I can't find that.

Besides, the press would have had a field day with this if he'd actually said anything like this. And why do I not remember it?

The press did have "a field day" at the time. I will emphasize the valid quotes in bold facing so that they are easier to find:

Swedish king says his son, not daughter, should take over throne
Mon Nov 24

STOCKHOLM (AFP) - Twenty-three years have passed since Sweden adopted a new Succession Act, but King Carl Gustaf XVI is still upset that his eldest child, Princess Victoria, and not his only son will become Sweden's next monarch.

[...]

Asked by Swedish television whether he still believed the change was wrong, he said:

"Of course. It's simple. A constitutional law that works retroactively, that's odd," he said.

A spokesman for the royal family, Elisabeth Tarras-Wahlberg, stressed that the king was however very pleased with the way Victoria was carrying out her duties as crown princess.

http://pub.tv2.no/nettavisen/english/article158322.ece

NEWS IN ENGLISH
SWEDEN:
Victoria's father does not want her as queen
Tilrettelagt av Carin Pettersson 25.11.03 10:59

It is 23 years since the constitution was changed, but Carl XVI Gustav of Sweden is still not comfortable with the law change that makes his oldest daughter the next regent of Sweden.

“It’s strange,” said Carl Gustav in an interview on Swedish television Sunday.

[...]

“I think it’s simple, a constitution that works in retroactive force is strange.”

The King of Sweden has always been against the law change. In 1980 Carl Gustav said the following, according to the paper Vestmanland:

“I would prefer that my son Carl Philip is my successor, and I’m sure that the majority of the Swedish people would prefer to have a king on the throne.”

The Swedish court was Monday very specific when it stressed that the Kings comments do not mean that he is displeased with Crown Princess Victoria or the job she does.

The statements from the King were not at all appreciated by Swedish politicians. Gudrun Schyman, the Liberal Parties former leader, said the King’s statements is another argument to why Sweden should abolish the monarchy, and she said that she thinks it is horrible if the King questions a democratic decision.

Note that these articles were not written by TRF posters, but are from AFP (Agence France-Presse) and TV2, both of which are established press organizations.

Below are links to Aftonbladet articles on the 2003 interview, if you prefer to search for the quotes in Swedish.

Kungen: Grundlagen är lustig | Aftonbladet
Du har fel, kungen! | Aftonbladet

 

[Gawin]

I also think you should be more respectful of other cultures. Many people support male-preference primogeniture not because they are sexist , but rather because they are traditionalists who would rather see the Crown kept in the same ( patrilineal ) family rather than starting a new dynasty.

But the belief that daughters and their children are not part of the same family or dynasty is sexist.

 

[Prinsara]

CG literally speaking for himself in 1975 (at 1:59). While it's obviously not on the succession change, I feel it's illustrative of the way he ended up reacting.

 

[Prinsara]

Not quite sure exactly which culture I'm disrespecting... Sweden had female succession before they decided to get rid of it, and allowing women at all means the chance of a woman succeeding, and thus those seemingly-dreaded dynastic issues.

 

[Mbruno]

But the belief that daughters and their children are not part of the same family or dynasty is sexist.

Families have to be defined somehow so that we can distinguish who belongs to each of them or not. The simplest and most straightforward definition is that one is a member of a given family when he or she uses the family's name. And the traditional naming convention, which had been observed in Europe for centuries, was that family names were transmitted in paternal line. So it was perfectly reasonable at the time when male preference primogeniture was instituted to assume that it was also a way to keep the Crown, as far as possible, within the same family, but without the risk of the Crown falling into the hands of very distant relatives of the last King as was common in countries that used strict agnatic succession.


It was only relatively recently that some European countries like Belgium, Sweden, or maybe the Netherlands began to allow parents to "choose" which family their children will belong to by adopting either their paternal or maternal family name. And, of course, some royal houses like the Orange-Nassau have simply ignored naming conventions altogether and kept their dynastic name even in maternal line. But all that has led to quite a lot of confusion and instability, not so much in the succession to the Crown, but in the succession in the nobility, especially in countries like Belgium, the Netherlands or Sweden where nobility is intrinsically attached to a patrilineal family name. In other coutries with a peerage-like system like the UK or Spain, where nobility is personally attached only to the holder of a title and not to a family name, the impact of children taking their maternal family name would be presumably less consequential.



In Sweden, Daniel changed his last name to Bernadotte so that, whereas Estelle and Oscar themselves (and probably Estelle's children after them) do not use a family name, Oscar's children will probably be Bernadottes too and, in any case, the Royal House will continue to be called Bernadotte. It remains to be seen what will happen in Belgium and especially in Spain.

 

[Kataryn]

If the King never had a son, he would have favored his oldest daughter to be queen, and in the same vein I suppose that if he never had children he would have favored one of his sisters to be queen.

The Office of the Marshal of the Realm, i.e. the Royal Court, formally recommended to Parliament in 1977 that it change the Act of Succession to the same system used in Denmark, the Netherlands, and Great Britain. At the time, these three countries allowed a woman to be queen if and only if she had no brothers.

I think it is safe to say that the recommendation of the Royal Court is the recommendation of the King.

Note that in its recommendation, the Office supports introducing equal primogeniture if introducing the Danish/Dutch/British system is unfeasible, but it strongly recommends implementing it for future descendants only and allowing the King's potential future oldest son if born before the change to become king, bypassing Victoria.

Refer to the Riksmarskalksämbetet's comments on page 29 and 15.

om kvinnlig tronföljd Proposition 1977/78:71 - Riksdagen




Would you happen to have a link to these interviews?




That was reportedly the case for the Crown Princess, if the rumors are to be believed, but not for Prince Carl Philip. Sofia Hellqvist was permitted to participate in family and even official events at a much earlier stage than Daniel Westling.

Personally, I have trouble understanding why Mr. Westling should have been considered unsuitable. The King himself married a commoner, and Princess Lilian, who was fully accepted by the King and the public, was of a working-class family background.

Jean-Baptiste Bernadotte's background was not noble, either. A bourgeoise family, while educated (his father and brother were lawyers), didn't mean much in the France of the Ancien Regime. Queen Desirée's father and brother sold cloth.. But bernadotte himself was a gifted commander and great on dealing with foreign nations and the Swedish people were sick of their aristocracy and Royal family (the Wasa) fighting. So they accepted when their aristocracy killed king Gustav III. and later send his son, the new king Gustav IV. and his family away, making Gustav III.'s brother Karl their new king. Who adopted Bernadotte (after a Danish prince, who was his adoptee before Bernadotte, died childless through an accident).

 

[Gawin]

Families have to be defined somehow so that we can distinguish who belongs to each of them or not. The simplest and most straightforward definition is that one is a member of a given family when he or she uses the family's name. And the traditional naming convention, which had been observed in Europe for centuries, was that family names were transmitted in paternal line.

You completely miss the point.

Traditional naming conventions were sexist. Women "belonged" to their husbands and therefore did not transmit their own surnames or dynastic membership to their children. It's an artificial, man-made convention.

And the idea that a name is "the simplest and most straightforward definition" of membership in family is absurd. Names are artificial labels that can be changed.

Biology defines membership in a family not names. I am a member of my mother's family just as much as my father's.

Engage in mental gymnastics if you wish, but male-preference primogeniture is based on sexist rules and conventions.