The Change of the Act of Succession - 1979 Constitution Change

[Prinsara]

I think it's relatively easy to understand why the issue is so triggering for the King if you look at it through his perspective and background. (Furthermore, I'd be willing to doubt Carl Gustav understands it and it's why he keeps seeing the unfairness as done to his son, and not to his own sense of things.)

On the other hand, what the heck was he thinking picking "for Sweden, with the times" if he was so unwilling and unprepared to accept what those times might do?

 

[LadyFinn]

This statement about what happened over 40 years ago - again, is this really the way the King wants to start his great Jubilee Year?

 

[Countessmeout]

It was not retroactive is point.

Like the UK it is simply dated to when process began not ended. It began even before Victoria was born.

Reality is the king knew when Victoria was born she would be heir eventually. Him choosing to give his son a baptism worthy of a crown prince was his choice. Baby had no idea he was heir.

 

[Mbruno]

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.
.

If Carl Philip had remained the Crown Prince, it is possible or even likely that he would have married someone else, as his life, upbringing and what would have been expected of him would have been completely different. His firstborn could then have been a boy or a girl, but that is not relevant to the debate about when the change to the succession law should have come into force in my opinion.

As other members explained before, the Swedish constitution requires that changes to the Act of Succession be adopted by two resolutions of the Swedish Parliament with identical wording. The second resolution, however, cannot be adopted before a general election is held throughout the realm and a new Parliament is sworn in. As far as I understand, the first resolution to introduce equal primogeniture in the succession to the throne was passed before Carl Philip was born in May 1979, but, although there was little doubt that the second resolution would be adopted too, the next regular Swedish general election was scheduled to take place only in September 1979, which is why the new succession rule could not have come into force earlier. So, in a way, one could (controversially) argue that Carl Philip being formally born as the Crown Prince was mostly a technicality.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Please excuse me for being pedantic, but the changes to the royal succession laws in Sweden, Denmark and the UK or the recent changes to royal titles in Denmark were not retroactive.

To be technical, a "retroactive" law is a law that applies to a period of time prior to the entry into force of the law.

An example of a true retroactive law is the section of the British Succession to the Crown Act that recognized certain marriages which were not recognized as valid until the law entered into force. The British law stated that "A void marriage under that Act is to be treated as never having been void if [...]". Should an affected person have contracted an invalid marriage in 2010, not only would their marriage be valid after the law entered into force in 2015, but their marriage would be treated as if it had been valid in the period from 2010 to 2015.

The amendment of the Act of Succession in 1980 would have been an actual retroactive law if, for instance, it stated that Victoria would be treated as if she had been Crown Princess from birth.

But that is not what is stated in the law. It entered into force on January 1, 1980, and Victoria became Crown Princess with effect from January 1, 1980. To this day, Carl Philip is treated as having been the Crown Prince from May 13 through December 31, 1979.

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.

[...] 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

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.

I think you make very good points, HenRach Dominion. If HM, not the interviewer, raised the idea the change precipitating a rift between the siblings, it gives the impression that he is thinking of adult siblings and not - in reality - an infant and a toddler. It leads me to wonder if behind the scenes there have been tensions of some kind between him and any of his sisters.

 

[tommy100]

I always saw the change in law less as Carl Philip loosing the role of Crown Prince but as Victoria being confirmed in the role of Crown Princess as she was the first born. Really it seems that the change was well known and needed to wait so long due to technicalities so really it was silly of the King to allow his son to be seen as Crown Prince in the first place (whilst of course in law he was it was also clear that law was going to change). This is IMO a big issue for the King but seemingly less so for CP (though IMO it explains a lot of the dynamic we see in the family and maybe why CP attends so many events as an "add on" to Victoria and / or the King)

It is sad the King seems more concerned with his 6 month old son loosing a title he was never going to keep (the actions to change the law were in place already) than he is of praising what a wonderful job his daughter does as Crown Princess or taking pride in the fact Sweden was the first to have a Crown Princess in her own right.

Second jubilee to be overshadowed a little by family drama all of the sovereign's own making!

 

[JR76]

The change to the Order of Succession seems given today, but were by all accounts not seen as such by the court and those who supported the old order even after the first vote. A change of the constitution isn't given until it's passed a vote in the parliament two times. Any change to the initial proposal would mean that it had to start all over again. There were attempts to change the initial proposal for a change of the order of succession before the second vote which would have delayed a change for at least three more years which would have meant that Carl Philip stayed on as crown prince because the public had grown used to the idea.
This ties in with what Princess Birgitta has told in an interview - her brother tried to postpone the change for a generation and was told by the prime minister over the phone that it wasn't possible. She was there to witness it. It also ties in with Carl Philip receiving full honours as a crown prince. The Royal family most likely hoped that his position would be so set in public perception that they demanded that the changes would be postponed for a generation. This would theoretically have been possible given that the election took place after his christening.
Carl Philip and Victoria have both said a few times that they haven't talked much about the issue and that there is no problem between them because of it. I do feel that their parents publicly criticising it several times is the biggest risk of creating problems. Like in the Monpezat case going public with worries about the risks about possible harm for the children could result in just that.
I wonder if the knowledge about how the loss of titles and position had affected his uncles (mostly Sigvard) and cousins played into King Carl Gustav's worries about his son's future feelings.
While I do regret the fact that this issue will be rehashed again I think the King should be given credit for answering questions about it. He knows that it's controversial and the court asked for a chance to clarify his opinion instead of trying to have it removed.
A few quotes aside all his actions points towards him accepting Victoria as his heir and there is a long and ongoing process to future proof the royal family, it's possessions and the monarchy.
Me personally, while I love Victoria and know that she'll make a fantastic queen, I believe that Carl Philip was deprived of his birthright and that the change of the Order of Succession should have been applied to the grandchildren of King Carl Gustav.

 

[Furienna]

The change to the Order of Succession seems given today, but were by all accounts not seen as such by the court and those who supported the old order even after the first vote. A change of the constitution isn't given until it's passed a vote in the parliament two times. Any change to the initial proposal would mean that it had to start all over again. There were attempts to change the initial proposal for a change of the order of succession before the second vote which would have delayed a change for at least three more years which would have meant that Carl Philip stayed on as crown prince because the public had grown used to the idea.
This ties in with what Princess Birgitta has told in an interview - her brother tried to postpone the change for a generation and was told by the prime minister over the phone that it wasn't possible. She was there to witness it. It also ties in with Carl Philip receiving full honours as a crown prince. The Royal family most likely hoped that his position would be so set in public perception that they demanded that the changes would be postponed for a generation. This would theoretically have been possible given that the election took place after his christening.
Carl Philip and Victoria have both said a few times that they haven't talked much about the issue and that there is no problem between them because of it. I do feel that their parents publicly criticising it several times is the biggest risk of creating problems. Like in the Monpezat case going public with worries about the risks about possible harm for the children could result in just that.
I wonder if the knowledge about how the loss of titles and position had affected his uncles (mostly Sigvard) and cousins played into King Carl Gustav's worries about his son's future feelings.
While I do regret the fact that this issue will be rehashed again I think the King should be given credit for answering questions about it. He knows that it's controversial and the court asked for a chance to clarify his opinion instead of trying to have it removed.
A few quotes aside all his actions points towards him accepting Victoria as his heir and there is a long and ongoing process to future proof the royal family, it's possessions and the monarchy.
Me personally, while I love Victoria and know that she'll make a fantastic queen, I believe that Carl Philip was deprived of his birthright and that the change of the Order of Succession should have been applied to the grandchildren of King Carl Gustav.

Yes, I don't believe that anybody today doubts that Victoria will make a fantastic queen.
But it was a bit weird that Carl Philip lost his title even though he only was a baby.

It would have made more sense to let the change start with the next generation, which is what they did in Norway.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

The change to the Order of Succession seems given today, but were by all accounts not seen as such by the court and those who supported the old order even after the first vote. A change of the constitution isn't given until it's passed a vote in the parliament two times. Any change to the initial proposal would mean that it had to start all over again. There were attempts to change the initial proposal for a change of the order of succession before the second vote which would have delayed a change for at least three more years which would have meant that Carl Philip stayed on as crown prince because the public had grown used to the idea.
This ties in with what Princess Birgitta has told in an interview - her brother tried to postpone the change for a generation and was told by the prime minister over the phone that it wasn't possible. She was there to witness it. It also ties in with Carl Philip receiving full honours as a crown prince. The Royal family most likely hoped that his position would be so set in public perception that they demanded that the changes would be postponed for a generation. This would theoretically have been possible given that the election took place after his christening.
Carl Philip and Victoria have both said a few times that they haven't talked much about the issue and that there is no problem between them because of it. I do feel that their parents publicly criticising it several times is the biggest risk of creating problems. Like in the Monpezat case going public with worries about the risks about possible harm for the children could result in just that.
I wonder if the knowledge about how the loss of titles and position had affected his uncles (mostly Sigvard) and cousins played into King Carl Gustav's worries about his son's future feelings.
While I do regret the fact that this issue will be rehashed again I think the King should be given credit for answering questions about it. He knows that it's controversial and the court asked for a chance to clarify his opinion instead of trying to have it removed.
A few quotes aside all his actions points towards him accepting Victoria as his heir and there is a long and ongoing process to future proof the royal family, it's possessions and the monarchy.
Me personally, while I love Victoria and know that she'll make a fantastic queen, I believe that Carl Philip was deprived of his birthright and that the change of the Order of Succession should have been applied to the grandchildren of King Carl Gustav.

I fully agree with you. I am 100% sure Crown Princess Victoria will be a fantastic Queen. But at the same time I have no doubt that Prince Carl Philip would have been a fantastic King as well.

It is the idea that the Prince was the Number 1 in the line of succession and the Crown Prince of Sweden. That Government and Parliament introduced primogeniture in the line of succession is absolutely their free and democratic choice but that it was enforced in a way that current Crown Prince lost the birthright he had on that moment was -fully understandably and without a doubt- a hard act to swallow for a father, a King, a former Crown Prince himself.

There is nothing wrong that King Carl XVI Gustaf did not talk with flour in his mouth but acknowledged he had problems with it. At the same time, he has consistently shown his love and great appreciation for the spotless parcours of his daughter Victoria. In no any way he ever questioned she is the rightful future Queen of Sweden.

 

[Somebody]

Isn't his consistent questioning of the decision (insistence that the decision was wrong and unfair) a way of questioning that she is the rightful future queen of Sweden? The titles he gave his son's children clearly shows that in his eyes prince Alexander should be the heir's heir and future king of Sweden.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

Isn't his consistent questioning of the decision (insistence that the decision was wrong and unfair) a way of questioning that she is the rightful future queen of Sweden? The titles he gave his son's children clearly shows that in his eyes prince Alexander should be the heir's heir and future king of Sweden.

I can imagine that the King was very much not amused at all with the way it was handled back then. Not only did it deprive his son from his position and title by birthright, it was also a gigantic blow to the usual royal prerogative that the King organizes his House. It must have felt as if that the King had zero comma zero to say about his own son, his Heir but also not about his own House.

My idea is that it still is a thorn in his flesh because it felt as a destroying of his royal prerogative, apart from what did happen to his son's birthright. The King can play sunny weather and act as never anything did happen at all back then, which would be untruth.

 

[LadyFinn]

Svensk Damtidning quotes the documentary
The court's panic demand on SVT - summoned to the Palace after the king's outburst
But the court does not seem completely satisfied with the king's answer. In the documentary it appears that after the interview they contacted SVT and demanded a new one at Drottningholm.
"The court now wants us to conduct a new interview as soon as possible. It needs to be clarified what the king thinks about the succession. This time we are invited to the king's home at Drottningholm Palace," says the narrator.
Hovets panikkrav på SVT – inkallade till slottet efter kungens utspel_ _Snarast_ _*Svensk Dam

Svensk Damtidning's editor-in-chief Johan T Lindwall visited TV4's current affairs program Efter fem on Tuesday evening, he was visibly surprised by the king's new outing.
- I thought the king had left this behind. He has brought this up on several occasions since it happened and now he is doing it again. I don't think it's appropriate, says Johan T Lindwall.
Lindwall believes the king should focus on what an amazing job Victoria is doing, rather than worrying about a constitutional amendment that came into force 43 years ago.
- I think this is about the king himself having no insight, power or opportunity to influence this decision. Had he done that it would have been a different matter.
Johan T Lindwalls attack mot kungen_ ”Inte passande” _*Svensk Dam

And now this leads to misinterpretations abroad. Finnish Iltalehti
"Carl Gustaf wants Carl Philip to be King"
Kaarle Kustaa haluaa Carl Philipistä kuninkaan

 

[Marengo]

Is the second interview still to take place or was the extracts as we have seen them the result of this second interview? If the latter is the case it is even more puzzling.

 

[Hans-Rickard]

Why do i feel he was triggered into this topic by the broadcasting company SVT, just to create headlines, as they knew perfectly well how his reaction would be ?

Much like how they were once again bringing up his almost 19 year old controversial topic about how incredibly close he felt The Sultan of Brunei is to his people…

Most people here in Sweden will just give a deep ”sigh” and just say ”not again King - not again” ??

 

[Mbruno]

Isn't his consistent questioning of the decision (insistence that the decision was wrong and unfair) a way of questioning that she is the rightful future queen of Sweden? The titles he gave his son's children clearly shows that in his eyes prince Alexander should be the heir's heir and future king of Sweden.

If your thesis were true, the King would not have stripped Carll Philip's son of the HRH, nor removed them from the Royal House.

I am not sure what will happen though to the Stenhammar estate, which is part of the King's personal finances. I understand that the original testamentary disposition on the estate mentions that the Prince of Sweden who is Duke of Södermanland should be preferred to take over the lease, and that would be currently Prince Alexander. Does anybody know if this matter has been discussed by the Royal Court?

I can imagine that the King was very much not amused at all with the way it was handled back then. Not only did it deprive his son from his position and title by birthright, it was also a gigantic blow to the usual royal prerogative that the King organizes his House. It must have felt as if that the King had zero comma zero to say about his own son, his Heir but also not about his own House.

My idea is that it still is a thorn in his flesh because it felt as a destroying of his royal prerogative, apart from what did happen to his son's birthright. The King can play sunny weather and act as never anything did happen at all back then, which would be untruth.

I am afraid I disagree. The King's prerogative to organize his household does not extent to determining the law of succession to the throne, which is regulated by Parliament. According to JR76, the King did what was appropriate for a constitutional monarch to do, which was to make his views on the matter known to the prime minister. Once the prime minister said that what the King wanted would not be possible, the matter was closed. It would have been the same in the UK or in the Netherlands for that matter, I suppose.

One mght say that the King even exceeded his constitutional position when he tried to put pressure on Parliament by publicly acknowledging Carl Philip as Crown Prince at his christening. On the other hand, Carl Philip was still technically Crown Prince at that time, so it can't be argued that the King did not have the right to do it.

 

[Hans-Rickard]

If your thesis were true, the King would not have stripped Carll Philip's son of the HRH, nor removed them from the Royal House.

I am not sure what will happen though to the Stenhammar estate, which is part of the King's personal finances. I understand that the original testamentary disposition on the estate mentions that the Prince of Sweden who is Duke of Södermanland should be preferred to take over the lease, and that would be currently Prince Alexander. Does anybody know if this matter has been discussed by the Royal Court?

As far as i understand, it is still the plan that Stenhammar will go to Carl Philips family… At least that was what was publicly stated around the birth of Prince Alexander, for the reasons you said (him becoming Duke of Södermanland, and Carl Philip having been trained to manage the agricultute on the estate)

Victoria has probably given her consent to it as she is hardly at Stenhammar anyway

 

[LadyFinn]

Why do i feel he was triggered into this topic by the broadcasting company SVT, just to create headlines, as they knew perfectly well how his reaction would be ?

Much like how they were once again bringing up his almost 19 year old controversial topic about how incredibly close he felt The Sultan of Brunei is to his people…

Most people here in Sweden will just give a deep ”sigh” and just say ”not again King - not again” ??

At least SVT got topic to its own talk shows and to the media.

Göran Ellung, the producer of the documentary Sveriges sista kungar, was interviewed at SVT's "Aktuellt" yesterday
The producer on the king's statement: "Was very surprised"
The producer behind reacted to the King's statement when it was said during the interview.
- It is strange that he questions the decision, says Göran Ellung.
- I was surprised when he took such a strong stand. When it happened, you can understand that he had some thoughts. Now 40 years later, and with all the changes that have taken place in society, I think it is very remarkable.
The interview was the first of two with Sweden's monarch.
- When the interview was finished, the king was satisfied and I was satisfied. The next day the court called and wanted a new interview, they said they wanted to clarify what the king thought about the order of succession. So it was a new interview, but it was basically the same answer. No big difference, says Göran Ellung in SVT's Aktuellt.
Producenten om kungens uttalande_ ”Blev mycket förvånad” _ SVT Nyheter

 

[JR76]

Isn't his consistent questioning of the decision (insistence that the decision was wrong and unfair) a way of questioning that she is the rightful future queen of Sweden?

I saw a republican tweet about just this yesterday. He could understand that the King wanted to voice his opinion, but he wondered if he couldn't see how doing so could destabilise his daughter's future reign and undermine the monarchy. I agree with him in that. If asked, as I assume he was, the King can't lie about his previous statements, but there are good ways to say that he feels the retroactive (I know what you're thinking, TM) change was wrong and at the same time give his full support to his daughter. Unfortunately, because of his dyslexia I believe, he has never been good with words. Especially not in interviews.

The titles he gave his son's children clearly shows that in his eyes prince Alexander should be the heir's heir and future king of Sweden.

Since there's been a discussion about the ranking of different duchies before I assume that's what you're referring to. I don't agree with those who say that the duchies show the King's feelings about the Order of Succession. It's true that Södermanland, an ancient duchy and also the only duchy that has any possibility of a financial gain for the holder, has gone to Prince Alexander, but neither of his two brother's duchies, Halland nor Dalarna, are historically that important. It's not unlikely that the King wanted to set his son and grandson up with Stenhammar, but at the same time he set in motion a reform of the Galliera foundation that has stripped the two of an inheritance of a massive fortune in both cash and artwork. He also made sure that Crown Princess Victoria's children were given the two available duchies that had been held by the most recent monarchs. One of them, that of Prince Oscar, is the only duchy to have been held by more than one Bernadotte King.
If the King has in fact wanted to make a point about his feelings about Alexander loosing the throne by giving him Södermanland I hope it doesn't give the latter any ideas given that two of the duchies previous holders assumed the throne after a revolt. Watch your back, Estelle.

 

[Mbruno]

I saw a republican tweet about just this yesterday. He could understand that the King wanted to voice his opinion, but he wondered if he couldn't see how doing so could destabilise his daughter's future reign and undermine the monarchy. I agree with him in that. If asked, as I assume he was, the King can't lie about his previous statements, but there are good ways to say that he feels the retroactive (I know what you're thinking, TM) change was wrong and at the same time give his full support to his daughter. Unfortunately, because of his dyslexia I believe, he has never been good with words. Especially not in interviews.


Since there's been a discussion about the ranking of different duchies before I assume that's what you're referring to. I don't agree with those who say that the duchies show the King's feelings about the Order of Succession. It's true that Södermanland, an ancient duchy and also the only duchy that has any possibility of a financial gain for the holder, has gone to Prince Alexander, but neither of his two brother's duchies, Halland nor Dalarna, are historically that important. It's not unlikely that the King wanted to set his son and grandson up with Stenhammar, but at the same time he set in motion a reform of the Galliera foundation that has stripped the two of an inheritance of a massive fortune in both cash and artwork. He also made sure that Crown Princess Victoria's children were given the two available duchies that had been held by the most recent monarchs. One of them, that of Prince Oscar, is the only duchy to have been held by more than one Bernadotte King.
If the King has in fact wanted to make a point about his feelings about Alexander loosing the throne by giving him Södermanland I hope it doesn't give the latter any ideas given that two of the duchies previous holders assumed the throne after a revolt. Watch your back, Estelle.

The whole thing is very unfortunate as republicans will likely seize on the King's statement to attack the monarchy.

 

[LadyFinn]

The King has made Åsa Beckman, deputy head of culture at Dagens Nyheter newspaper, very angry. She writes among other things:

The clip from the new SVT documentary has rightly sparked a storm of criticism. But what the King said about Crown Princess Victoria was actually worse.
Did the king question the Riksdag's constitutional amendment? And has he been so upset by the decision that he hasn't been able to let this go for forty years? Good questions. But I personally think that what the king said about Victoria was just as bad:
"She is very committed, of course. I have understood that.”
Listen to the distance in the last sentence! Here we have a magnificent example of a father who identifies with his son, who feels sorry for him and is relieved that the boy's self-esteem has not been damaged too much, but who does not see his daughter. A crown princess who is a marvel of conscientiousness, whom even angry republicans respect and who has already meant more than her stubborn father the king because an outdated institution still has the support of the majority of the Swedish people.
Hello court, can you protect this man from himself?
Åsa Beckman_ Hallå hovet kan ni skydda kungen från sig själv - DN.SE

 

[Blog Real]

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

I always thought King Carl Gustaf would always have preferred Carl Philip to be his heir. And these statements by the king confirm what I've always thought.
But Carl Philip never seemed hurt by losing his place in the line of succession to Victoria.
Victoria does a good job as Crown Princess and is very popular.
King Carl Gustaf should not make such statements in public. Although I understand that the King may feel that Carl Philip may have been wronged.

 

[Archduchess Zelia]

Good lord. What a way to kick off one's jubilee year

His argument about CP "suddenly" having the title removed doesn't even make sense. Already on 20 April 1978, a majority in the Riksdag voted in favour of a change of the primogeniture. CP was born over a year later.

CG argues that the government should've "taken it easy". Maybe he and Silvia should've taken it easy and postponed child #2 when they were perfectly aware that a change of the primogeniture had already been already set in motion.

Poor Victoria.

 

[doro]

The whole thing is very unfortunate as republicans will likely seize on the King's statement to attack the monarchy.

Taking off the context and distorting the words of the King

 

[Prinsara]

For all the sympathy for Victoria, I don't think she's going to lose sleep over this. She knows what her father believes and it's no surprise to her. She has a loving, supportive husband, beautiful kids, the adoration of the public, and she doesn't have to repeat the mistakes she grew up with.

I do believe the King loves his family. He's just...permanently horrible at words, kinda tactless, and hasn't always been the best father or husband due to a lot of circumstances. And he is definitely going to regret opening his mouth this year. Maybe this will make him keep still on the issue from now on.

CG may never be past this wound. Victoria surely is.

 

[tommy100]

So unless I am mistaken - the Court allowed the first interview to go ahead but then called them back for the second interview after seeing what was said first time round and yet the King said basically the same thing again?

My question is then - did the Court see the first interview and realise the storm it would create? I can only assume so. But then why did they allow CG to go out and make the same statement again, if they knew what he said was bad why did they not make him learn some more acceptable lines to trot out for the interview? Seems very odd to me. Recognising a problem, asking essentially for a "redo" but then doing nothing about it so the same comments are repeated. Crazy!

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

The King simply told how he thought about the change by which the Crown lost his position. He was honest and did not lie. His opinion, others will have another opinion. But it would be pure fake whe he suddenly would declare never ever have had any objection whatsoever. It is the best to be open and honest about it, and so the King did.

 

[HenRach Dominion]

Forgive me for my ignorance about the Swedish Royal Family/Royal House for any mistakes I make.

To me, it doesn't seem like anyone is begrudging HM The King his opinion about the change. Many, including myself, sympathize with his reasoning of not want to strip his son of the higher title he had at birth for a lower one.

The fact remains, however, that the decision happened 43 years ago, and I presume that many are confused about why he would bring it up now. No one is asking him to be dishonest about his feelings about the whole situation, but there are a variety of responses between the blunt truth and a blatant lie. He could have not responded to it. He could have deflected to something else. He could have couch his disappointment in pride for both his heiress and his son for how well they've handled their royal duties (I've only seen the parts of the interviews shown in this tread, so please tell me if he did do so in the interview).

From what I've seen of HM The King, he comes across as a warm father and grandfather, and I'm sure he values the strength of the Swedish Royal House. Although he has every right to his opinion, even 43 years later, stating it publicly undermines the position of HRH The Crown Princess, the future head of the Swedish Royal House sooner rather than later.

Luckily, HRH The Crown Princess has the grace and class to weather the storm.

 

[CrownPrincessJava]

Oh boy! He really cannot let it go, can he? The King is very much entitled to his opinion, however to start the Jubliee year off with the "it's not fair, I wanted my son as Crown Prince" is a slap to Victoria, Carl Phillip and honestly the democratic process in Sweden. Both he and Queen Silvia knew what the changes would entail - that any son born between during that transitional period would have the title of Crown Prince revoked and GIVEN BACK to Victoria. Yes - given back as she was Crown Princess at birth and the Swedish parliament, thus population wanted that to continue.

The Change of Succession wasn't a surprise to them at all, instead that rather they hoped that the Swedish parliament would make an exception to the then baby Crown Prince and are resentful that they didn't.

 

[LadyFinn]

So unless I am mistaken - the Court allowed the first interview to go ahead but then called them back for the second interview after seeing what was said first time round and yet the King said basically the same thing again?

My question is then - did the Court see the first interview and realise the storm it would create? I can only assume so. But then why did they allow CG to go out and make the same statement again, if they knew what he said was bad why did they not make him learn some more acceptable lines to trot out for the interview? Seems very odd to me. Recognising a problem, asking essentially for a "redo" but then doing nothing about it so the same comments are repeated. Crazy!

Usually, when the King gives an interview, Margareta Thorgren, the director of the information department, is present to follow the interview and to prevent improper questions. Also the Head of the King's Household, his Marshal of the Court is there. And because the King was interviewed, probably also the First Marshal of the Court. But of course they can't say in the presence of the TV-people to the King that he can't say so and stop the interview. And the King is stubborn and has a right to say how he feels, so he said the same things again at the second interview. But he could have said that he is very proud of his daughter and her work for Sweden, that would have helped a little.
When Victoria has been interviewed for TV, Margareta Thorgren has been present or an information officer from the court, and Victoria's Marshal of the Court.

Dagens Nyheter's Leader column (paywall article) "Leader: Doesn't the king understand that Victoria is the monarchy's strongest card?"
Förstår inte kungen att Victoria är monarkins starkaste kort_ - DN.SE

PR expert Paul Ronge thinks that the king should avoid answering certain types of questions.
- I say common sense, so you keep quiet, if only for the sake of the family, says Paul Ronge.
Isn't that disloyal to Victoria?
- Well, it is, but that's what he tried to correct now, with her being a distinguished young woman. That he brought it up at all is unpleasant, unnecessary and inept.
- In that situation, as a crisis manager, I would rather have urged him to "if you feel the same way, then let it be. Say; I have nothing more to add”. It won't be as much fun for journalists, but you don't lose yourself. For better or for worse, he has no advisors and that means that he does away with himself in a different way than those who have good communicators as advisors.
PR-experten sågar kungens utspel_ Mer en kung ur tiden än i tiden

It's hard not to feel for Crown Princess Victoria, when the king once again vents his dissatisfaction with the "new" order. Whether she's wearing boots, trainers or pumps - she has, I swear, not put a foot wrong during the strange queen school that is her life since she was two years old. I am a principled republican, but I would think that the crown princess makes the Republican Association's work much more difficult than the king has done. Maybe she, like her aunt Birgitta, had also wanted to move to Mallorca, play golf and drink gin & tonic, but does she do it? No, she spends Christmas Eve at SL Greater Stockholm Local Traffic Company and her birthdays in front of a stage with "the Swedish artist elite".
The king, like everyone else, is entitled to his opinions, but it seems insensitive and ungrateful that he cannot publicly keep his mouth shut on this matter.
Anna Andersson om kungen och successionsordningen

 

[Saragli]

I understand the King has voiced his opinion on this in the past but I am still dumbfounded HM would continue to voice the same exact opinion. The King is allowed to believe what he wants to believe, but as a politically neutral head of state, it is very unwise to question a democratic decision by the government of Sweden on who gets to be its head of state. Not to mention the awkwardness these comments make for the family. A better response would be that in Sweden we live in a democracy and the people get to decide how the crown is inherited.