The Change of the Act of Succession - 1979 Constitution Change

[Tatiana Maria]

Astrid and her children were not only included in the line of succession but also placed before Laurent (and any future children he might have had), so, in that respect it could be considered 'retroactively' as Laurent did loose out to his sister while he was previously second in line to the throne.

Yes, but that change was not applied retroactively. Astrid and her children are not considered to have been ahead of Laurent in the line of succession before the law came into effect.

I've written more about the difference between a retroactive and non-retroactive law in the above posts:

https://www.theroyalforums.com/foru...ion-change-10379-post2340042.html#post2340042
https://www.theroyalforums.com/foru...constitution-change-10379-26.html#post2340758

 

[An Ard Ri]

Was Prince Carl Philip granted the Duchy of Värmland from birth?

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Was Prince Carl Philip granted the Duchy of Värmland from birth?

Yes, and it was a break with tradition, as previously no prince who was Crown Prince from birth had been granted a duchy.

 

[Somebody]

Yes, but that change was not applied retroactively. Astrid and her children are not considered to have been ahead of Laurent in the line of succession before the law came into effect.

I see; it depends on what is meant by the concept 'retroactively' - most people seem to use that word for a change that effects those already born - in that someone who was previously not ahead of them now suddenly is. If I understand it correctly, your application of this concept is more strict. So, as CP was Crown prince in 1979; is he to be considered to never have been Crown Prince?

 

[An Ard Ri]

Yes, and it was a break with tradition, as previously no prince who was Crown Prince from birth had been granted a duchy.

Interesting I didn't know that,had Victoria been granted a duchy from birth too ?

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

The changes in Sweden and Belgium definitely were retroactively because it overturned an existing legal situation position of Crown Prince Carl Philip and his sister Princess Victoria. Respectively overturned an existing legal position of Prince Laurent and his sister Princess Astrid (and her offspring).

 

[Tatiana Maria]

I see; it depends on what is meant by the concept 'retroactively' - most people seem to use that word for a change that effects those already born - in that someone who was previously not ahead of them now suddenly is.

The changes in Sweden and Belgium definitely were retroactively because it overturned an existing legal situation position of Crown Prince Carl Philip and his sister Princess Victoria. Respectively overturned an existing legal position of Prince Laurent and his sister Princess Astrid (and her offspring).

The dictionary definition of retroactive, in legal situations, refers to a law that applies to a period of time prior to the entry into force of the law.

As an English speaker, I must say I have never heard the word used with the meaning "a change that affects those already born" or "a change that overturns an existing legal situation" outside of discussions about royal succession. For example, I cannot think of an English-speaking politician who would call a tax cut retroactive simply because it applies to taxpayers who are already born or changes the amount of tax they currently pay.

So, as CP was Crown prince in 1979; is he to be considered to never have been Crown Prince?

The Swedish change of the succession law was not retroactive, so he is still considered to have been Crown Prince from his birth until January 1, 1980.

Interesting I didn't know that,had Victoria been granted a duchy from birth too ?

No, she was only granted her duchy when she became Crown Princess.

 

[Somebody]

The dictionary definition of retroactive, in legal situations, refers to a law that applies to a period of time prior to the entry into force of the law.

As an English speaker, I must say I have never heard the word used with the meaning "a change that affects those already born" or "a change that overturns an existing legal situation" outside of discussions about royal succession. For example, I cannot think of an English-speaking politician who would call a tax cut retroactive simply because it applies to taxpayers who are already born or changes the amount of tax they currently pay.

The difference being that the whole succession is based on order of birth; while paying taxes is not. But I get your point. What word would you use to differentiate between a change in succession laws that apply to those born after it takes effect versus those that change the existing line of succession? Because it is a meaningful difference; so maybe we can start using more accurate language without losing essential distinctions.

The Swedish change of the succession law was not retroactive, so he is still considered to have been Crown Prince from his birth until January 1, 1980.

Thanks, that's what I thought.

No, she was only granted her duchy when she became Crown Princess.

So, the change in tradition was continued... Crown princes/crown princesses will be granted a duchy...

 

[JR76]

TM is right. Even in the Swedish translation of the word retroactive the change in the Order of succession wasn't applied retroactively. If it had been done so Victoria would have been considered crown princess from birth. That said many, even most, Swedes would use the word retroactive to describe what happened.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

The difference being that the whole succession is based on order of birth; while paying taxes is not.

But that is a difference in the topic (order of birth) which people wish to discuss. The definition of the word (retroactive) remains the same.

What word would you use to differentiate between a change in succession laws that apply to those born after it takes effect versus those that change the existing line of succession? Because it is a meaningful difference.

For "change the existing situation", I can't think of a single-word equivalent (perhaps someone else will be able to), but I lean towards believing that using a word which defines a completely different concept isn't the correct solution (even though I have been guilty of misusing it in that way myself). There is the potential for confusion, particularly in light of the fact that there are some changes in royal succession which have been genuinely retroactive.

In my opinion, your suggested wording "change the existing line of succession" is clear and effective.

TM is right. Even in the Swedish translation of the word retroactive the change in the Order of succession wasn't applied retroactively. If it had been done so Victoria would have been considered crown princess from birth. That said many, even most, Swedes would use the word retroactive to describe what happened.

And just for clarity, I am strictly limiting my comments to English, since I am dependent on Swedish speakers such as you to clarify trickier words in Swedish (unless you were referring to Swedes translating into English, which must be a much more complicated issue ...)

 

[An Ard Ri]

No, she was only granted her duchy when she became Crown Princess.

That's also very interesting so Crown Princess Victoria has been styled the following so far

1977-1980 :Her Royal Highness Princess Victoria of Sweden
1980 -Present : Her Royal Highness The Crown Princess of Sweden, Duchess of Västergötland

 

[LadyFinn]

Radio Sweden removed critical wording about the King
Hana Al-Khamri drew a parallel between the Swedish and the Saudi King in her "Sommarprat" (Summer Talk) where she claimed that the King opposed female succession to the throne.
Expressen quotes SvD newspaper, which writes that Radio Sweden cut out the wording. SvD has seen email conversations between the channel and Al-Khamri.
This despite several critical statements from the King himself over the years.
- I demand that SR publishes the version of my "Summer Talk" that contains the deleted wording about the Swedish King, says Al-Khamri.
The sentence deleted said by writer Hana Al-Khamri, who grew up in Saudi Arabia where she worked as a journalist, was:
"How is it that both the Swedish King, Carl XVI Gustaf, and Saudi Arabia's King Salman bin Saud opposed the introduction of female succession to the throne?"
The wording was cut at the last moment.
"Despite my protests and despite a series of source references, the program was broadcast without the question about the Swedish King", writes Hana Al-Khamri on Instagram after SR's decision. She told to SvD that she is very surprised by the journalistic decision and experiences it as an intervention in her program.
Marie Jeanette Löfgren, responsible publisher at Radio Sweden, says:
- It is clearly not a matter of not being able to discuss the King or his views on the succession to the throne. That's how you formulate yourself. The King said in interviews when it was introduced that he preferred a man on the throne but that he had nothing against a woman if there was no man. In Saudi Arabia, they rule the country with almost unlimited power, where female succession to the throne has never been discussed. There, the monarch has basically unlimited power, in contrast to here, where the King has no power.
Hana Al-Khamri says about the explanation, that the reasoning is bizarre.
Sveriges radio tog bort kritisk formulering om kungen _ Nyheter _ Expressen
Translation

Content critical of the King was cut from Sommarprat
At the beginning of August, discussions resulted in the sentence remaining, but on the evening of August 10 – barely two days before the program was to be broadcast – Radio Sweden heard back with a new message, which SvD was the first to report on:
"We will broadcast the version where this sentence is removed", writes an editor at Radio Sweden in an email to Hana Al-Khamri, according to SvD:
"We need to stick to what is correct and it is not correct to say that the King has opposed the introduction of female succession."
On August 12, the cut version was broadcast, against Hana Al-Khamri's wishes. Before that, however, media such as DN, Aftonbladet and SvD had been given a preview of the uncut version, and reviewed it.
SR klippte bort kungakritiskt innehåll ur Sommarprat - DN.SE
Translation

Hana Al-Khamri posted to her Twitter the King's interview at Månadsjournalen in 1996.
Read below an interview with King Carl XVI Gustaf for Månadsjournalen 1996. "There's one thing I don't understand: Why the King is against female succession to the throne?" asks Stefan Mehr. The King replies: "Because I think it's a difficult situation for a woman to be a monarch. It's not easy."

https://twitter.com/x/status/1562453174866169857

Hana Al-Khamri has lived in Sweden since 2011 and works as a freelance writer and lecturer with a focus on politics, culture, women's rights in Saudi Arabia and other parts of the Middle East.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Thank you very much for posting about this story.

A transcript of the segment of the King's 1996 interview with Stefan Mehr of Månadsjournalen which Ms. Al-Khamri quoted in her tweet:

Det är en sak jag inte förstår: Varför är kungen emot kvinnlig tronföljd?

För att jag tror att det är en svår situation för en kvinna att vara monark. Det är inte lätt.

Varför är det svårare än för en man?

Först och främst försvinner den manliga ärftliga familjelinjen. Ätten splittras. I dag kan man visserligen ta vilka namn som helst, men den äkta linjen försvinner.

Skulle prins Carl Philip vara en bättre regent än kronprinsessan Victoria, just för att han är man?

Nej, men jag tror att det är lättare för en man in den ställningen. Kvinnor kan klara det jättebra, det ser vi goda exempel på i Europa, både i Danmark och Holland. Drottning Margrethe, min kära kusin, är ju strålande! Hon har verkligen alla talanger. Men samtidigt är det inte lätt för henne. Det är en svår position.

Så Carl Philip skulle vara en bättre regent än kronprinsessan Victoria?

Jag vill inte uttrycka det som bättre eller sämre...Kronprinsessan blir en utmärkt drottning, hon gör redan ett fantastiskt arbete. Men det är många situationer där man reser och representerar som blir väldigt jobbiga för en kvinna. Dessutom föddes Carl Philip som kronprins, det får vi inte glömma. Successionsordningen var inte ändrad och han var kronprins i åtta månader. Sen ändrade man på det.

Hade kungen önskat att Carl Philip förblivit kronprins?

Ja, han var ju det! Det är konstigt med retroaktiva grundlagar.

Hade kronprinsessan Victoria varit lyckligare om hon sluppit?

[...] Det är en hypotetisk fråga, men ... (sitter tyst)

Ni blev överkörd av regeringen...

Ja. Vi diskuterade frågan från olika utgångspunkter.

Translation:

Interviewer: There's something I don't understand: Why is the King against female succession to the throne?

HM: Because I believe it's a hard situation for a woman to be monarch. It isn't easy.

Interviewer: Why is it harder than for a man?

HM: First and foremost, the male hereditary family line will disappear. The family will be divided. Today you can certainly take whatever name, but the legitimate line will disappear.

Interviewer: Would Prince Carl Philip be a better ruler than Crown Princess Victoria, just because he is a man?

HM: No, but I believe it's easier for a man in the position. Women can do it very well, we see good examples in Europe, both in Denmark and Holland. Queen Margrethe, my dear cousin, is brilliant! She's truly all-talented. But at the same time, it's not easy for her. It's a difficult position.

Interviewer: So Carl Philip would be a better ruler than Crown Princess Victoria?

HM: I don't want to put it as better or worse... the Crown Princess will be an excellent queen, she already does a fantastic job. But there are a lot of situations where you travel and represent which will be very tough on a woman. And Carl Philip was born as crown prince, we shouldn't forget that. The Act of Succession hadn't been changed and he was crown prince for eight months. Then they changed it.

Interviewer: Did the King want Carl Philip to remain crown prince?

HM: Yes, he was! A retroactive constitutional law is strange.

Interviewer: Would Crown Princess Victoria have been happier if she'd escaped it?

HM: [...] It's a hypothetical question, but ... (is quiet)

Interviewer: You were steamrollered by the government...

HM: Yes. We argued the issue from different points of view.

 

[JR76]

Thank you very much for posting about this story.



A transcript of the segment of the King's 1996 interview with Stefan Mehr of Månadsjournalen which Ms. Al-Khamri quoted in her tweet:









Translation:

Just a comment - there are a few instances where King Carl Gustav saying "jag tror" has been translated as "I think". The more correct translation in the context of the segment would be "I believe". It might be semantics, but it does change the meaning a little.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Just a comment - there are a few instances where King Carl Gustav saying "jag tror" has been translated as "I think". The more correct translation in the context of the segment would be "I believe". It might be semantics, but it does change the meaning a little.

Thank you, the post has been modified according to your suggestion. I appreciate it when fluent speakers give comments on translation issues, as Google Translate and so on are illuminating but have their limitations.

I agree that Radio Sweden's position seems to be full of excuses. As Hana Al-Khamri pointed out, for a journalist who was expelled from Saudi Arabia for critiquing the Saudi monarchy and found refuge in Sweden, it is superfluous to tell her that the Saudi monarchy exercises more political power than the Swedish one. But, as she asked, what exactly is the relevance of that to the Swedish king's statements about female succession to the throne?

As for the executives' argument that "being equated to the Saudi king is not understood as a good thing", it is a natural point of comparison for a Saudi journalist who used to report on the Saudi monarchy. I assume SR's listeners would be intelligent enough to understand the specific point she was making.

The editor's concern about a reaction from the royal court also seems misplaced. The King has never demonstrated any sign of regret for his interviews, so I fail to see why he would be offended at having them mentioned.

Finally, while it's true that the official opinion of the King was to support a male-preference and not male-only succession law, his informal interviews (e.g. the one Ms. Al-Khamri cited) illustrate that he did not mind being labeled as an opponent of female succession. Even if that was the actual concern, I'm not sure why the station couldn't have requested changes in advance instead of removing her entire comment at the last moment.

 

[Prinsara]

I'm not sure it's fair to ask the king a question about his grown daughter's feelings and opinion, even a hypothetical one, simply because they don't have Victoria to ask.

It would be quite overbearing to give an opinion for her even if she were a minor, and as an adult it's just awkward. I don't think CG caught the awkwardness from the same angle, but he obviously recognized it wasn't a good thing to attempt to answer.

Has no one ever asked him to try and figure out why it might be difficult for a man to be a king as well, or does he just not do self-reflection?

And has he not changed his position at all since 1996, given his heir's heir is a girl as well?

 

[Mbruno]

I'm not sure it's fair to ask the king a question about his grown daughter's feelings and opinion, even a hypothetical one, simply because they don't have Victoria to ask.

It would be quite overbearing to give an opinion for her even if she were a minor, and as an adult it's just awkward. I don't think CG caught the awkwardness from the same angle, but he obviously recognized it wasn't a good thing to attempt to answer.

Has no one ever asked him to try and figure out why it might be difficult for a man to be a king as well, or does he just not do self-reflection?

And has he not changed his position at all since 1996, given his heir's heir is a girl as well?

The problem with the King's position on the changes to the Act of Succession applying only to people born after the said changes came into force is that not only would Victoria not be the Crown Princess, but also she would be out of the line of succession completely, whereas her younger sister, Madeleine, would have succession rights. That would have been extremely odd. The status of Victoria's children would be also confusing. In principle, they would fall under Art.1 as male or female descendants of King Carl XVI Gustaf born after the changes came into force, but how could they have succession rights when their mother was not in the line of succession?

The only way to remedy that would be to apply Art.1 retroactively to Victoria, but include a specific exemption in the Act declaring Carl Philip to be Carl Gustaf's successor and Carl Philip's descendants to be ahead of his siblings and their respective descendants in the order of succession notwithstanding anything to the contrary in Art.1. That would be very messy and I can understand why the Swedish Parliament was reluctant to do it.

Here is an English translation of the Act of Succession as currently in force with repealed and spent sections omitted (for example the section related to Prince Bertil's exemption when he was alive).

EDIT: On the King's opinion (in 1996) specifically:

1. He didn't really explain why it would be more difficult for a woman to be Queen than for a man to be King, other than some vague claims. To the extent that women still face greater obstacles when holding positions of power in many different careers, the King may well be correct, but that of course doesn't justify preferring men over women for such positions solely on account of gender.

2. I understand, however, the King's position on "the family becoming divided". When we discussed this issue here before, many forum members insisted on the argument that civil law in Sweden, Belgium, and other countries now allows children to take their mother's name or husbands to take their wives' names (which is what Daniel did BTW). The King, however, while acknowledging the current naming law, could not help saying that, under the traditional patrilineal definition of family, used in Europe for many centuries, equal primogeniture means the possibility of the Crown passing to a different branch of the family. To be fair, that is possible also with male preference cognatic primogeniture (Queen Elizabeth II's descendants for example are the Mountbatten-Windsors while the senior Windsor line will continue with the male descendants of the Duke of Gloucester), but "male preference" attenuates that possibility somewhat. Currently, that may be even more painful for a traditionalist like Carl Gustaf knowing that Carl Philip ironically has 3 sons, which means that the "agnatic" Bernadotte line is likely to continue for quite some time while the "Westling Bernadottes" (and, then, possibly "another" split family descending from Princess Estelle) will inherit the Crown.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Good observations, Prinsara and Mbruno.

Another detail I found interesting was the disparity between the King's cited 1996 interview and his official communications to Parliament in 1977. Compare the King's position in 1977 that he would condone equal succession if the only realistic alternative was the continuation of male-only succession, to his tacit agreement in the 1996 interview that he is against female succession. Likewise, his official opinion in 1977 that a princess in the line of succession should transmit her family name to her children, and his request to the government to change the law to that effect, is a contrast to his unofficial opinion in 1996 that the male line is the only one legitimately representing the family.


Edited to reply to Mbruno's edit:

2. I understand, however, the King's position on "the family becoming divided". When we discussed this issue here before, many forum members insisted on the argument that civil law in Sweden, Belgium, and other countries now allows children to take their mother's name or husbands to take their wives' names (which is what Daniel did BTW). The King, however, while acknowledging the current naming law, could not help saying that, under the traditional patrilineal definition of family, used in Europe for many centuries, equal primogeniture means the possibility of the Crown passing to a different branch of the family. To be fair, that is possible also with male preference cognatic primogeniture (Queen Elizabeth II's descendants for example are the Mountbatten-Windsors while the senior Windsor line will continue with the male descendants of the Duke of Gloucester), but "male preference" attenuates that possibility somewhat. Currently, that may be even more painful for a traditionalist like Carl Gustaf knowing that Carl Philip ironically has 3 sons, which means that the "agnatic" Bernadotte line is likely to continue for quite some time while the "Westling Bernadottes" (and, then, possibly "another" split family descending from Princess Estelle) will inherit the Crown.

Just a clarification for readers: The legal family name of the Crown Princess's children is just "Bernadotte".

As for the King's attachment to the traditional patrilineal definition of family - despite readily jettisoning other traditions, such as the traditional ban on marriage to commoners - I wonder if he realizes that under a matrilineal definition of family, male-only primogeniture means that the family will be divided with every generation. Had Carl Philip succeeded Carl Gustaf, the "Saxe-Coburg-Gotha Bernadottes" would be supplanted by the "Sommerlath Bernadottes", who would lose the throne in the next generation to the "Hellqvist Bernadottes".

 

[Prinsara]

Interviewer: Would Crown Princess Victoria have been happier if she'd escaped it?

Really, the only good answer to this one is "You must ask the Crown Princess." Adding 'Especially since I didn't decide' is optional.

I have a reasonably good conjecture as to why CG defended his opinions this way, but it involves a bit of looking into the king's upbringing and background and probably belongs in a different thread.

To be fair to the king again, his opinions on all this are quite literally outdated at this point. We have no idea what he currently thinks or supports.

 

[Somebody]

I wonder whether we need to take into account that in 1996 Victoria was struggling. Her anorexia nervosa became public knowledge not that long afterwards (if I am not mistaken in the timeline). So, as a father it makes some sense that he is worried about the burden that was placed on his eldest daughter.

 

[Prinsara]

I wonder whether we need to take into account that in 1996 Victoria was struggling. Her anorexia nervosa became public knowledge not that long afterwards (if I am not mistaken in the timeline). So, as a father it makes some sense that he is worried about the burden that was placed on his eldest daughter.

Which still means either the interviewer didn't know, or the question becomes even more inappropriate. Victoria was unwell, but I don't think there's a good answer to this from CG, even if she had been perfectly healthy, even taken as a hypothetical like he initially tried to clarify.

More questions CG should have been asked at the time (and maybe still): is Carl Philip happier that he "escaped"?

(There is not a good answer to this, either, necessarily, but the original questions were rather limited, it seems.)

 

[Tatiana Maria]

I wonder whether we need to take into account that in 1996 Victoria was struggling. Her anorexia nervosa became public knowledge not that long afterwards (if I am not mistaken in the timeline). So, as a father it makes some sense that he is worried about the burden that was placed on his eldest daughter.

That would make sense, but I also wonder about the inverse. The King implied similar sentiments in this 1981 interview, so the Crown Princess may have been brought up with the burden of her father's lack of confidence that she as a woman had the capability to perform the duties of the position.

Recently he faced another sort of problem that perhaps more acutely illustrates the emotional intricacies that can arise when public and private sectors meet. Under the Swedish Act of Succession of 1810, for example, his only son, Crown Prince Carl Philip, was first in line to the throne. Carl Gustaf wanted to keep it that way. But two years ago the Swedish Parliament decreed that his first-born child, Princess Victoria, must succeed him.

''It was an emotional issue,'' he said. ''If my heir was – that is – it's only natural that a father should –'' ''You shouldn't say that,'' said the Queen. ''We are convinced that our daughter will have the strength and intelligence to do the job. But looking at my own situation I must say I find it tough for a young woman with a family. It is something one must prepare for.''

Are they prepared for their daughter to marry a commoner, as the King has done? ''Yes,'' said the King. ''The times have changed. You can see a living example of that right here.'' ''He is always making jokes,'' said the Queen.

https://www.nytimes.com/1981/11/23/style/royal-couple-private-lives-in-public-eye.html

I have a reasonably good conjecture as to why CG defended his opinions this way, but it involves a bit of looking into the king's upbringing and background and probably belongs in a different thread.

I would be interested in your conjecture, in whichever thread you prefer (though the thread "The King's Opinion on the Succession Laws" was merged with this one, so I think it is considered suitable).

To be fair to the king again, his opinions on all this are quite literally outdated at this point. We have no idea what he currently thinks or supports.

It is true that the King hasn't discussed the Act of Succession in public since 2003 (to the best of my knowledge). That being said, I think his actions in more recent years offer some insight into his continuing frame of mind. It has been fewer than 10 years since the King participated more actively in the engagement festivities of Prince Carl Philip than those of his sisters, bestowed more historic dukedoms and/or coronets on the wife and sons of Prince Carl Philip than those he assigned to the husband of the Crown Princess and the children of Princess Madeleine, and ordered an extra battery of cannon salutes at the christening of Prince Alexander, which had not been added to the earlier christenings of his daughters' children.

And it was only last year that HM made known that he would be willing to adapt his vacation plans to accommodate the birth of his son's son, whereas three years prior, he went ahead with his planned vacation to Switzerland just before the birth of his daughter's daughter.

 

[Prinsara]

Okay, if this needs to be moved somewhere, feel free. That said, "Amateur Psychological Hour With Carl Gustav (not Jung)".

I just get a very strong sense that with his fatherless childhood, bevy of older sisters, detached mother, and upbringing by nannies, the young prince may have gotten the notion that the only function or value women had in his life was to serve him. Some of his chauvinistic notions and behavior towards women might have come from that (aside from later choosing friends who reinforce such things).

It's more recently occurred to me that CG is as well keenly aware that he's only king because of gender (his only worth and special distinction comes from being male, also reinforced his whole life long), and that there are others who would perhaps do a more "brilliant" job. (Otherwise he'd be a construction worker, or whatever else he chose.) So watching Carl Philip lose his place and status to an older sister is not really about Carl Philip, and not necessarily about sexism or favoritism.

It's about CG's own insecurities. I think this is why he ostensibly supports Victoria while still needing to show support for his son. (CP is also outnumbered by girls, like he was. If he feels he needs to dote on his son more, perhaps he just thinks it's what boys also need.)

 

[LadyFinn]

I wonder whether we need to take into account that in 1996 Victoria was struggling. Her anorexia nervosa became public knowledge not that long afterwards (if I am not mistaken in the timeline). So, as a father it makes some sense that he is worried about the burden that was placed on his eldest daughter.

Or maybe Victoria felt pressured because of the King's interview at Månadsjournalen and it, with other things, caused that she started struggling with anorexia nervosa? The interview was published in connection of the King's 50th birthday in April 1996. And the court announced Victoria's anorexia in November 1997.
Victoria at the King's birthday in 1996:
https://media.gettyimages.com/photo...en-in-stockholm-sweden-on-picture-id115116367
Victoria at the Ball of the Order of the Innocence, 22nd November 1997. After this the court gave a press release about Victoria suffering of eating disorders.
Image Upper.com - Free Image Hosting - View Image

 

[LadyFinn]

A new documentary "Sveriges sista kungar" (Sweden's last kings) is published on SVT Play Sunday 8 January at 02.00 and broadcast on SVT1 Thursday 12 January at 20.00.

The king on the succession to the throne: "Wrong to amend a constitution retroactively"
The Riksdag decision that changed the Swedish line of succession, from Prince Carl Philip to Crown Princess Victoria, was unjust. King Carl Gustaf says so in a new documentary.
The constitutional amendment that made Sweden receive full cognatic succession to the throne, that the eldest child inherits the throne regardless of gender, was initiated at the birth of Crown Princess Victoria. But the change did not take effect until a couple of years later, after Prince Carl Philip was born into the role of Crown Prince.
It meant in practice that the succession to the throne was moved from one sibling to another.
In the documentary Sweden's last kings, King Carl Gustaf describes the decision as "tricky".
- Having laws that work retroactively is not wise, I still think so.
- My son Prince Carl Philip was born and then suddenly they change so he gets rid of it all. It is rather strange, I think.
When asked if he thinks it was unfair, he replies:
- Yes, I think so. As a parent, I think it's terrible.
However, the king believes that the change has been strengthening for the monarchy, but believes that it should possibly have taken place before the next generational change.
The documentary also reveals that the court asked for one more interview to clarify what the king thinks about the succession, that interview was made at Drottningholm Palace. Then the king says that the change has not led to any rifts between the siblings and that Carl Philip has taken it well and Victoria is very engaged to her work. Victoria feels the responsibility already now.
Kungen om tronföljden_ ”Fel att ändra i en grundlag retroaktivt” _ SVT Nyheter

 

[GraceOMalleysGhost]

How horrible for Crown Princess Victoria that her father feels resentment towards the decision to make her heiress to the point he broadcasts it to the public quite literally.

 

[Marengo]

After 40+ years one would have hoped that the king would have gotten used to it, but apparently it still bothers him. I suppose we can salute him for giving an honest answer over a more PR-friendly one. But still, some things are best left unsaid. And a pity that the king did not extend his warm words for his son to his eldest daughter as well, who has never set a foot wrong. If he says this in public one can only guess how he talks about it in private, with his family.

 

[Prinsara]

As I said, I really don't think the King can help it. It's not about his children; it's about him, and he is not confident enough to stop talking about it.

 

[HenRach Dominion]

After 40+ years one would have hoped that the king would have gotten used to it, but apparently it still bothers him. I suppose we can salute him for giving an honest answer over a more PR-friendly one. But still, some things are best left unsaid. And a pity that the king did not extend his warm words for his son to his eldest daughter as well, who has never set a foot wrong. If he says this in public one can only guess how he talks about it in private, with his family.

If not even HRH Prince Carl Philip minds (at least publicly) being being replaced as Crown Prince by his elder sister, and HM The King is the only one who continues to bring it up after over 40 years, then perhaps HM The King has an issue with the ruling beyond it just being retroactive. If it wasn't, the next two generations of Swedish rulers after him would have been male if nothing else changed.

I understand not wanted it changed when it happened, but to complain about it now only undermines HRH The Crown Princess in the Swedish press publicly.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

If not even HRH Prince Carl Philip minds (at least publicly) being being replaced as Crown Prince by his elder sister, and HM The King is the only one who continues to bring it up after over 40 years, then perhaps HM The King has an issue with the ruling beyond it just being retroactive. If it wasn't, the next two generations of Swedish rulers after him would have been male if nothing else changed.

I understand not wanted it changed when it happened, but to complain about it now only undermines HRH The Crown Princess in the Swedish press publicly.

We have to understand where the King comes from. He was the youngest in a daughter-studded family when his father died prematurely. As only son of the late Crown Prince and only heir besides his uncle Prince Bertil, and during the Reign of his almost 19th C style grandfather, he was -for life- imprinted with how the procreation of the royal dynasty works.

His son, the Crown Prince, was "demoted" retroactively. Of course the King fully accepts the fait accompli, but having been a Crown Prince himself, a father to a Crown Prince, with the norms he was brought up, I can see his issue with the retroactive nature of that decision.

Only recently, in Denmark, we have seen that retroactive actions can indeed hurt people, how wise or rightful the actions itself may be. And maybe that hurt will last almost 40 years as well, as it does with the King now.