Titles of the Swedish RF and Changes 2019

[Silverpot]

Do you mean that they should be stripped of their titles because they live in the US for the time being?

If they return to Sweden, should they get them back, or what?


I can't see your problem with this.

 

[Mbruno]

Was Julian's order put on his baptismal gown (as with his brothers and cousins) or was it only presented on a cushion? So far, I haven't seen any pictures of him actually wearing it.

It's interesting (but not surprising) how they seem to kind of ignore the change in status and just state that as a prince of the royal family, he receives the same service (so including a crown and an order). Looks very much like, they keep getting all the benefits but are freed from any obligations; rather self-centered (not by the little prince of course but the king's actions related to his grandchildren).

The problem is that giving Julian the order of Seraphim or granting him a coat of arms based on the grand coat of arms of Sweden is not legally possible unless he is a member of the Royal House.

Constitutionally it might be possible to argue, however, that Prince Julian is in fact a member of the Royal House as long as he remains in the line of succession, even if the Royal Court says otherwise. In any case, I don't see anyone in Sweden bringing that discussion up or questioning the legitimacy of his knighthood.

 

[sophie25]

Do you mean that they should be stripped of their titles because they live in the US for the time being?

If they return to Sweden, should they get them back, or what?


I can't see your problem with this.

My point is that M has clearly went against tradition in order for her children to have titles and I just wonder why she has been so anxious for them to have them. Had they lived in Sweden it still would be a bit perplexing but that they are being raised in America makes it all the more so.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

My point is that M has clearly went against tradition in order for her children to have titles and I just wonder why she has been so anxious for them to have them. Had they lived in Sweden it still would be a bit perplexing but that they are being raised in America makes it all the more so.

Can you substantiate your claims that Princess Madeleine "clearly" went against tradition in order for her children to have titles and that she was anxious for her children to have them?

I absolutely still don't see the reason for those children to have royal titles when they live their everyday lives in America but if it pleases their parents so be it.

Then do you see the reason for Prince Félix of Luxembourg's children to have royal titles when they live their everyday lives in Germany? He does not seem to receive any criticism on those grounds.

I don't know about Benedikte but it's frequently and wrongly reported that Anne turned down royal titles for her children. She turned down a peerage for her husband which would have given her children aristocratic titles but that was all. The children of British princesses have always taken their status from their father

Yes, I was referring to the offer of peerage titles. Actually, British princesses have taken or been offered British peerage or royal titles for their children more often than in most other royal families in modern Europe. If you would like, we could discuss it further in the thread for British titles.

 

[sophie25]

Can you substantiate your claims that Princess Madeleine "clearly" went against tradition in order for her children to have titles and that she was anxious for her children to have them?



Then do you see the reason for Prince Félix of Luxembourg's children to have royal titles when they live their everyday lives in Germany? He does not seem to receive any criticism on those grounds.



Yes, I was referring to the offer of peerage titles. Actually, British princesses have taken or been offered British peerage or royal titles for their children more often than in most other royal families in modern Europe. If you would like, we could discuss it further in the thread for British titles.

Well I actually can substantiate it by the fact that the children of previous Swedish princesses took the status of their fathers when their fathers were not royal.

 

[Silverpot]

My point is that M has clearly went against tradition in order for her children to have titles and I just wonder why she has been so anxious for them to have them. Had they lived in Sweden it still would be a bit perplexing but that they are being raised in America makes it all the more so.

Madeleine hasn't done or wished for anything concerning her children's titles. Her father decided to treat all his grandchildren equally, sensibly enough. He would've been strongly critisized if he hadn't.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Well I actually can substantiate it by the fact that the children of previous Swedish princesses took the status of their fathers when their fathers were not royal.

On the basis of the same idea, Prince Carl Philip clearly went against tradition by not renouncing his titles upon marrying Sofia Hellqvist, as previous Swedish princes lost their royal status when their wives were nonroyal Swedes.

As several of the preceding posts explained, the Act of Succession was amended in 1979 (taking effect in 1980) to reform the ingrained sex and class discrimination among other things.

Repeating my earlier answer to this same argument: Before the changes in 1979, there was no differentiation in relation to princess/prince titles between the children of a princess without succession rights and the children of a prince without succession rights. If the King had blocked princesses' children with succession rights from royal titles, but allowed them for princes' children with succession rights, he would have established gender discrimination in a form where there was none before, which he could have done but certainly wouldn't have been faithful to the spirit of the changes.

At the time of her wedding there was a lot of rumours going around about Princess Madeleine wanting to leave the Royal family and modelling her future on that of her aunts, but that she was persuaded by her father to retain her title and status. Although only rumours I'd be more inclined to believe that Madeleine wanted to leave the Royal family than that she insisted on titles for her children.
It's important to stress again that these are only unsubstantiated rumours. Unlike their British cousins the Bernadottes have no habit of "unnamed sources" leaking things to the press.

The princess apparently confirmed in a 2013 interview that she had debated renouncing her title like Norway's Princess Märtha Louise, but came to her decision after discussing it with her family.

 

[Somebody]

Well I actually can substantiate it by the fact that the children of previous Swedish princesses took the status of their fathers when their fathers were not royal.

Those princesses weren't in line to the throne and neither were their children, so there situation is not comparable. If Madeleine had not agreed to allow her children titles (which was most likely the wish of her father - Leonore was born as the spare in her generation!), they would have been the first in Swedish history to be in line to the throne but not be prince(ss).

Imho the alternative of having non-royals in line to the throne would have been option as well (Norway for example chose that route - but Märtha Louise herself had already been demoted, unlike Madeleine) but the situation of her children was a completely new one to Sweden. Children of a princess in line to the throne; the only other person that applied to was: Estelle. Of course, she was in a special position of being also the heir to the heir, so, they could have decided either way but there wasn't a precedent to follow.

Currently, the European monarchies are divided in whether everyone in line to the throne is titled or not.

Only titled:
Sweden (all princes; some HRH and 'of Sweden'; others no (longer) HRH and of Sweden)
Denmark (all princes; some HRH; some HH)
The Netherlands (some princes of the Netherlands (HRH); some counts of Orange-Nassau; previously: some princes of Orange-Nassau (HH))
Belgium (all princes - all HRH)
Luxembourg (all princes - some HRH other HH - some of Luxembourg; some of Nassau)
Liechtenstein (all princes - all HSH)

Both titled and untitled:
Norway (children of ML (a princess but not a RH) are untitled)
Spain (children of infanta's are grandees of Spain - sons go before daughters in line of succession)
United Kingdom (children of princesses are untitled unless their father is titled/received a title; children of non-titled people are also untitled)
Monaco (children of the Sovereign are titled; the others are not)

 

[W.Y.CII]

I don't follow it closely but that "Madeleine insisted that her children should be given royal title" thing is completely new and odd to me. As my understanding it's always family's/king's decision and for equality (all grandchildren of the monarch will be given same level of royal title whether it is via prince or princess).

IMO Madeleine can't be compared with the other princesses whose children have no title as she probably is the first one (spare princess) born after the absolute primogeniture is introduced and there isn't no rules/examples to follow. It would be interesting to see how the other royal houses deal with it in future as well, hopefully they plan it beforehand.

 

[LadyFinn]

The princess apparently confirmed in a 2013 interview that she had debated renouncing her title like Norway's Princess Märtha Louise, but came to her decision after discussing it with her family.

"Madeleine and Chris gave an interview to Svenska Dagbladet on July. In the interview Madeleine was asked: Did you ever discuss about the choice that even you could get off in the same way as Princess Märtha Louise made ​​in Norway? Madeleine answered: We thought about it too. But my family and I found this was the best route for us. It is important for me to represent Sweden and I am also proud to do it in the U.S."
https://www.theroyalforums.com/foru...ine-and-chris-oneill-35125-8.html#post1615509

 

[Tatiana Maria]

"Madeleine and Chris gave an interview to Svenska Dagbladet on July. In the interview Madeleine was asked: Did you ever discuss about the choice that even you could get off in the same way as Princess Märtha Louise made ​​in Norway? Madeleine answered: We thought about it too. But my family and I found this was the best route for us. It is important for me to represent Sweden and I am also proud to do it in the U.S."
https://www.theroyalforums.com/foru...ine-and-chris-oneill-35125-8.html#post1615509

Thank you! Interesting that the King permitted Princess Madeleine the freedom to choose between representing Sweden and a private career.

Currently, the European monarchies are divided in whether everyone in line to the throne is titled or not.

Only titled:
Sweden (all princes; some HRH and 'of Sweden'; others no (longer) HRH and of Sweden)
Denmark (all princes; some HRH; some HH)
The Netherlands (some princes of the Netherlands (HRH); some counts of Orange-Nassau; previously: some princes of Orange-Nassau (HH))
Belgium (all princes - all HRH)
Luxembourg (all princes - some HRH other HH - some of Luxembourg; some of Nassau)
Liechtenstein (all princes - all HSH)

Both titled and untitled:
Norway (children of ML (a princess but not a RH) are untitled)
Spain (children of the infantas are grandees of Spain - sons go before daughters in line of succession)
United Kingdom (children of princesses are untitled unless their father is titled/received a title; children of non-titled people are also untitled)
Monaco (children of the Sovereign are titled; the others are not)

Thank you for this outline! It illustrates that even as European monarchies begin to slim down, it continues to be typical (for now) for all persons in line to the throne to be titled. Just a few minor additions and corrections:

Only titled:
Sweden (all princes/ses; some HRH and 'of Sweden'; others no (longer) HRH and of Sweden)
Denmark (all princes/ses to Denmark; some HRH; some HH)
The Netherlands (some princes/ses of the Netherlands (HRH); some counts of Orange-Nassau; previously: some princes of Orange-Nassau (HH))
Belgium (all princes/ses; some HRH and "of Belgium"; others not)
Liechtenstein (all princes of Liechtenstein - all HSH)

Unclear:
Luxembourg (all princes/ses are HRH - some of Luxembourg; some of Nassau; it is unclear whether any untitled persons are in line to the throne as the succession laws are ambiguous)

Both titled and untitled:
Norway (children of ML (a princess but not a RH) are untitled)
Spain (children of the infantas are grandees of Spain - sons go before daughters in line of succession)
United Kingdom (children of princesses are untitled unless their father is titled/received a title; children of non-titled people are also untitled)
Monaco (children of the Sovereign are titled; the others are not - sons go before daughters in line of succession)

 

[Mbruno]

I don't follow it closely but that "Madeleine insisted that her children should be given royal title" thing is completely new and odd to me. As my understanding it's always family's/king's decision and for equality (all grandchildren of the monarch will be given same level of royal title whether it is via prince or princess).

IMO Madeleine can't be compared with the other princesses whose children have no title as she probably is the first one (spare princess) born after the absolute primogeniture is introduced and there isn't no rules/examples to follow. It would be interesting to see how the other royal houses deal with it in future as well, hopefully they plan it beforehand.

Exactly. There is no precedent to be observed here because Swedish princesses before 1980 were not in the line of succession, and neither were their chidren who, accordingly, were untitled, or rather derived titles only from their fathers when applicable.


As I said before, the introduction of equal primogeniture in the succession to the throne makes it difficult to justify the use of different royal styles based on gender. Mutatis mutandis, I believe other countries that now have equal primogeniture too, but still cling to gender-based title rules, will also have to revise them eventually. For example, I don't see how to justify Princess Cbarlotte's children being untitled in the UK when Prince Louis' children, who will be behind them in the line of succession, will be HRHs. Either they will have to be all titled or, conversely, none of them will get titles and only Prince George's children will be princes/princesses, which is probably the fairest solution.

 

[LadyFinn]

Herman Lindqvist, author and popular historian, wrote at his column in Svensk Damtidning some weeks ago, that every prince and now also princess has got a duchy, this was first introduced by Gustav III. But king Carl Gustaf has decided that even women can be duchesses and their spouses dukes. That's why Daniel became the duke of Västergötland. He is the first swedish commoner man without royal background who got the duke title.
The king alone decides which duchy a newborn royal gets. No one knows, how he thinks, this is one of his last privileges and he obviously enjoys it.
There are provinces which have never had a duke or duchess. Some historical provinces have had dukes, but not for a long time.
Lindqvist writes that in the 16th and 17th centuries, the dukes had jurisdiction and they could mint coins in their duchies and they received income from mines and ironworks. Since the 19th century the duke always got a castle-like building in his duchy and he became a colonel in the provincial regiment. Today, the duke or duchess visits his or her duchy some times in a year at best to attend some event. Or do as Madeleine, Duchess of Hälsingland and Gästrikland, absolutely nothing. Show zero interest. But she still has the title. The title of duke does not mean much in Sweden today, but abroad it can sound impressive with a "Duke", "Duc" or "Duchesse" on business cards. Perhaps it sounds most impressive in German: "Herzogin zu Gotland", Lindqvist writes.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Since the 19th century the duke always got a castle-like building in his duchy and he became a colonel in the provincial regiment.

Interesting. How were those ducal residences funded and when were the traditions ended?

Today, the duke or duchess visits his or her duchy some times in a year at best to attend some event. Or do as Madeleine, Duchess of Hälsingland and Gästrikland, absolutely nothing. Show zero interest. But she still has the title.

Didn't the princess recently meet with representatives of her duchy? Do her siblings truly visit their duchies multiple times every years?

 

[Mbruno]

The title of duke does not mean much in Sweden today, but abroad it can sound impressive with a "Duke", "Duc" or "Duchesse" on business cards. Perhaps it sounds most impressive in German: "Herzogin zu Gotland", Lindqvist writes.

Well, I think it would sound a bit ridiculous if Princess Leonore called herself the Duchess of Gotland in her Florida elementary school for example. I'm pretty sure she goes by Leonore O'Neill or Leonore Bernadotte O'Neill.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

I'm pretty sure she goes by Leonore O'Neill or Leonore Bernadotte O'Neill.

I agree, especially following the news that even Princess Madeleine, who uses the name Madeleine Bernadotte professionally, is addressed by her friends in Florida as Madeleine O'Neill.

Nevertheless it is strange, not least because Bernadotte was used as the surname in the legal registration of Prince Nicolas's birth.

I would like to see clarification regarding the family name of Princess Madeleine's children (whether or not it is actively used), but when the United States permits titles to be used in lieu of surnames on identity papers, I suppose the family sees no need to confirm a family name unless and until Prince Nicolas marries and/or has children. (Most Americans keep to the patrilineal naming convention, so any husbands or children of Princesses Leonore or Adrienne will probably bear the names of their fathers only.)

 

[LadyFinn]

At his interview in Dagens Juridik newspaper on 10th September the Marshal of the Realm Fredrik Wersäll speaks also about the King's decision in October 2019.
Wersäll says that the King had thought about who should who should have the royal duties and this was one of the first questions he raised with Wersäll when he had taken office (on 1st September 2018).
Justitieministern var oändligt tacksam över kungens beslut_ _ Dagens Juridik
Translation

 

[Tatiana Maria]

At his interview in Dagens Juridik newspaper on 10th September the Marshal of the Realm Fredrik Wersäll speaks also about the King's decision in October 2019.
Wersäll says that the King had thought about who should who should have the royal duties and this was one of the first questions he raised with Wersäll when he had taken office (on 1st September 2018).
Justitieministern var oändligt tacksam över kungens beslut_ _ Dagens Juridik
Translation

The Marshal makes it clear he believes it is the right way that the King chooses who belongs to his royal house. Are there politicians or members of the public who would prefer Parliament to become involved in regulating the membership of the royal house? (The announcement of the parliamentary commission in 2018 addressed only the royal house's finances and not its membership.)

 

[Silverpot]

The Marshal makes it clear he believes it is the right way that the King chooses who belongs to his royal house. Are there politicians or members of the public who would prefer Parliament to become involved in regulating the membership of the royal house? (The announcement of the parliamentary commission in 2018 addressed only the royal house's finances and not its membership.)

I think everybody agrees with The Marshal of the Realm.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

I think that the King's actions during his reform of the Royal house/family in 2019 show that to him the next head of the House of Bernadotte is the future Queen Victoria and not her brother who has, at least to my knowledge, relinquished all his rights to the different family entails and foundations. It's quite telling that there has been no provisions made to retain titles or status for the agnatic line of the House of Bernadotte whose last royal member will be Prince Carl Philip. A son or grandson of Prince Alexander will be like a future Duke of Gloucester; both might be the most senior agnatic member of their respective houses, but both will have been sidelined by history while a cognatic descendant wears the crown.

Wouldn't that simply be because the provisions are not the present King's to make? All of his children and children-in-law waited until their thirties to have children of their own. If the sons of Prince Carl Philip do the same, then (unless authority over the Royal House has been shifted to the Government by then) it would almost surely be Queen Victoria who has the authority to make provisions when her brother's grandchildren are born.

 

[JR76]

Wouldn't that simply be because the provisions are not the present King's to make? All of his children and children-in-law waited until their thirties to have children of their own. If the sons of Prince Carl Philip do the same, then (unless authority over the Royal House has been shifted to the Government by then) it would almost surely be Queen Victoria who has the authority to make provisions when her brother's grandchildren are born.

I'd say that the King had more leeway to act upon the issue as part of his reform than his daughter will have when she ascends the throne in the future. If the King felt it important to continue the agnatic line of the House of Bernadotte he would have found a way to do so. Since he didn't I interpret it as him seeing his daughter as both the monarch and the future head of the house and not his son.
The Bernadottes in general have proven to be quite unsentimental when it comes to cutting off branches of the family tree either because of need, convenience or for misbehaving.

 

[Mbruno]

The report thoroughly investigates the different point of discussions on the forums since 2019 such as the the king's right to rule over his house, what differentiates Konungahuset - Kungliga huset - Kungafamiljen and finds that he was clearly within his rights to do so.

Konungahuset - everyone in the line of succession
Kungliga huset - The monarch, those closest to the throne in the line of succession and their spouses
Kungliga familjen - those in the line of succession, their spouses and some members of the House of Bernadotte without succession rights

The monarch are as master/mistress of their house free to regulate titles, styles, orders and conditions for those within the line of succession in this new interpretation of the Royal house as long as it doesn't clearly contradict the constitution. Regarding the orders there are apparently also a few regulations in the Order chapter that allows for example Prince Julian to receive the Order of the Seraphim.

So, if I understand it correctly, Prince Julian and his brothers, as well as Princess Madeleine's children, are considered members of Konungahuset , but not of the Kungliga Huset, which includes only those that are "closer to the throne".

The interpretation above is consistent with Prince Julian being able to receive the Order of the Seraphim as the order proclamation actually uses the word Konungahuset. The Act of Succession, on the other hand, uses Det Kungl. Huset, which would exempt Princess Madeline's children under the interpretation above from being raised in Sweden for example to retain their succession rights.


On titles and styles, no big surprise as it was already a consensus here on TRF that they are up to the King's own discretion. I wonder, however, if this is the first time a distinction between Konungahuset and Det Kungliga Huset has been actually made.

EDIT: I see some inconsistency, however, in the definitions in the report. Prince Carl Philip's children are closer to the throne than Princess Madeleine, but they are not members of Det Kungl. Huset whereas their aunt is. Maybe what the report should have said is that Det Kungl. Huset includes those who were closer to the throne in the line of succession when they were born? It would make more sense.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

On titles and styles, no big surprise as it was already a consensus here on TRF that they are up to the King's own discretion.

I have obviously not read the hundreds of pages in the report and the annexed legal study, but the interpretation that decisions regarding the titles of prince/ss and HRH are the king's prerogative as the head of the royal house, not as the head of state (page 138 of the report), are a surprise to me. I have difficulty with it because in my eyes the titles are associated with the state, not the house/family.

I egenskap av kungahusets överhuvud har Kung Carl XVI Gustaf vidare makt att bestämma i vissa frågor som rör kungahuset (s.k. husmakt). När husmakten utövas är det inte i form av ett agerande som statschef utan som kungahusets överhuvud. Husmakten omfattar bl.a. beslut om användande av prins- och prinsesstitlar liksom titeln Kunglig höghet.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

For clarification, the study annexed to the report which is cited in the above posts can be found here:

https://regeringen.se/4a718f/conten...-av-anslaget-till-hovet-sou-202174-bilaga.pdf

The report itself:

https://regeringen.se/4a6941/conten...sningen-av-anslaget-till-hovet-sou-202174.pdf



The section of the English-language summary in the annex which covers the definitions of the royal house, titles and styles:

The concepts ‘royal house’ and ‘royal family’, and their other counterparts in Swedish (konungahuset, konungaätten, kungl. huset, kungl. familjen and kungahuset) have been used in legislation and other official documents in a way that can hardly be considered consistent. The concepts cannot be given a uniform interpretation but must be assessed based on their context in each individual case. However, some guidelines can be identified.

In line with ch. 5 of the Instrument of Government, the term ‘royal house’ (konungahuset) is interpreted as covering all those entitled to the succession, but not others. Kungl. huset includes those closest to the succession and those closest to a reigning monarch, and their spouses. Those who belong to Kungl. huset are given the title royal highness. Kungl. familjen includes all those entitled to the succession and their spouses as well as certain members of the Bernadotte family who have no right of succession.
​

 

[Mbruno]

For clarification, the study annexed to the report which is cited in the above posts can be found here:

https://regeringen.se/4a718f/conten...-av-anslaget-till-hovet-sou-202174-bilaga.pdf

The report itself:

https://regeringen.se/4a6941/conten...sningen-av-anslaget-till-hovet-sou-202174.pdf



The section of the English-language summary in the annex which covers the definitions of the royal house, titles and styles:

The concepts ‘royal house’ and ‘royal family’, and their other counterparts in Swedish (konungahuset, konungaätten, kungl. huset, kungl. familjen and kungahuset) have been used in legislation and other official documents in a way that can hardly be considered consistent. The concepts cannot be given a uniform interpretation but must be assessed based on their context in each individual case. However, some guidelines can be identified.

In line with ch. 5 of the Instrument of Government, the term ‘royal house’ (konungahuset) is interpreted as covering all those entitled to the succession, but not others. Kungl. huset includes those closest to the succession and those closest to a reigning monarch, and their spouses. Those who belong to Kungl. huset are given the title royal highness. Kungl. familjen includes all those entitled to the succession and their spouses as well as certain members of the Bernadotte family who have no right of succession.
​

That is actually clearer, thank you. So Kungl. huset includes "those closest to the succession and those closest to a reigning monarch, and their spouses", which justifies the inclusion of the King's younger children even if they are further down in the line of succession.


The interpretation of Konungahuset as covering all those entitled to the succession is also consistent, as the Report says, with Chapter 5 of the Instrument of Government. For example, when dealing with the extinction of the line of succession, the aforementioned Chapter says:

Om konungahuset utslocknar väljer riksdagen en riksföreståndare som ska fullgöra statschefens uppgifter tills vidare. Riksdagen väljer samtidigt en vice riksföreståndare.

The real tricky issue to me is the Act of Succession because it imposes a series of obligations and restrictions on a "prince and princess of the Royal House", which, in the original text, reads as "Prins och prinsessa av det kungl. huset".


It follows from the Report then that most constitutional restrictions and obligations in the Act of Succession apply only to people in the line to the Throne who are "closest to the succession and/or closest to a reigning monarch" and, as long as the King can choose who those people are (for example, decide who has the title of Prince and the style of HRH or not), the King in practice has the discretionary power to determine unilaterally to whom important constitutional rules apply, which is remarkable.


EDIT: Looking further into the report, it looks like that the Committee actually disagrees with the interpretation above and says that the Act of Succession rules apply to everyone with succession rights and that, in the said Act, Det Kungl. Huset means all persons in the line of succession. Am I missing something in translation?

Både ”kungl. huset” och ”kungl. familjen” förekommer som begrepp
i successionsordningen.
Enligt successionsordningen innebär det kungliga huset de successionsberättigade
och deras gemåler (barn, deras gemåler och barnbarn
till Kung Carl XVI Gustaf, även Drottning Silvia ingår därmed i det
kungliga huset). Det kungliga huset har som begrepp också använts
av konungen när han preciserat den krets inom den kungliga familjen
som kan förväntas tas i anspråk för sådana uppdrag som åligger statschefen
eller anknyter till statschefsämbetet. Genom ett beslut av
konungen den 7 oktober 2019 gäller att Prins Carl Philips barn eller Prinsessan Madeleines barn, i det här avseendet, inte längre ingår av det kungliga huset. De omfattas emellertid fortfarande av successionsrätten.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

For clarification, the study annexed to the report which is cited in the above posts can be found here:

https://regeringen.se/4a718f/conten...-av-anslaget-till-hovet-sou-202174-bilaga.pdf

The report itself:

https://regeringen.se/4a6941/conten...sningen-av-anslaget-till-hovet-sou-202174.pdf



The section of the English-language summary in the annex which covers the definitions of the royal house, titles and styles:

The concepts ‘royal house’ and ‘royal family’, and their other counterparts in Swedish (konungahuset, konungaätten, kungl. huset, kungl. familjen and kungahuset) have been used in legislation and other official documents in a way that can hardly be considered consistent. The concepts cannot be given a uniform interpretation but must be assessed based on their context in each individual case. However, some guidelines can be identified.

In line with ch. 5 of the Instrument of Government, the term ‘royal house’ (konungahuset) is interpreted as covering all those entitled to the succession, but not others. Kungl. huset includes those closest to the succession and those closest to a reigning monarch, and their spouses. Those who belong to Kungl. huset are given the title royal highness. Kungl. familjen includes all those entitled to the succession and their spouses as well as certain members of the Bernadotte family who have no right of succession.
​

The above definition of royal family and Royal House looks similar to monarchies which know this for decades:

Spanish Royal House:

the King and consort Felipe and Letizia
the future King and consort princess Leonor
the former King and consort Juan Carlos and Sofía
child of the (future) King and consort infanta Sofía

Dutch Royal House:

the King and consort Willem-Alexander and Máxima
the future King and consort princess Catharina-Amalia
the former King and consort princess Beatrix
child of a (future) King, with succession rights, and consort princess Alexia, princess Ariane, prince Constantijn, princess Laurentien, princess Margriet and Pieter

I have the idea the Swedish concept of Royal House comes close to the Dutch idea:

the King and consort Carl XVI Gustaf and Silvia
the future King and consort crown princess Victoria and prince Daniel
the former King and consort ---
child of a (future) King, with succession rights, and consort prince Oscar, prince Carl Philip and princess Sofia, princess Madeleine and Christopher

 

[Stefan]

The above definition of royal family and Royal House looks similar to monarchies which know this for decades:

Spanish Royal House:

the King and consort Felipe and Letizia
the future King and consort princess Leonor
the former King and consort Juan Carlos and Sofía
child of the (future) King and consort infanta Sofía

Dutch Royal House:

the King and consort Willem-Alexander and Máxima
the future King and consort princess Catharina-Amalia
the former King and consort princess Beatrix
child of a (future) King, with succession rights, and consort princess Alexia, princess Ariane, princess Margriet and Pieter

I have the idea the Swedish concept of Royal House comes close to the Dutch idea:

the King and consort Carl XVI Gustaf and Silvia
the future King and consort crown princess Victoria and prince Daniel
the former King and consort ---
child of a (future) King, with succession rights, and consort prince Oscar, prince Carl Philip and princess Sofia, princess Madeleine and Christopher

Aren't in the the Netherlands also the children of a former King members of the Royal House like Prince Constantijn and Princess Laurentien?. This is again different as to how it is in Spain and the confusing thing is that in Spain it is the Royal Family and not the Royal House like in other countries.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

Aren't in the the Netherlands also the children of a former King members of the Royal House like Prince Constantijn and Princess Laurentien?. This is again different as to how it is in Spain and the confusing thing is that in Spain it is the Royal Family and not the Royal House like in other countries.

Oh yes, of course, how could I forget Constantijn. By the way in Spain it is familia real (royal family) and Casa Real (Royal House). So they have the same concept. The Spanish website is also called The Royal House (casareal.es) like the Dutch one (koninklijkhuis.nl). The Swedish one is still called The King's House (kungahuset.se).

The proposed Swedish Royal House looks less strict than the Spanish one and more alike the Dutch, as it also includes siblings of a King, with succession rights.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

EDIT: Looking further into the report, it looks like that the Committee actually disagrees with the interpretation above and says that the Act of Succession rules apply to everyone with succession rights and that, in the said Act, Det Kungl. Huset means all persons in the line of succession. Am I missing something in translation?

I still have not read through the report and the appended analysis, but on the basis of the summary, it seems the position is that terms such as Kungliga Huset / Royal House are flexibly interpreted, and their definitions will differ case-by-case depending on which law or scenario is under consideration.

"The concepts ‘royal house’ and ‘royal family’, and their other counterparts in Swedish (konungahuset, konungaätten, kungl. huset, kungl. familjen and kungahuset) have been used in legislation and other official documents in a way that can hardly be considered consistent. The concepts cannot be given a uniform interpretation but must be assessed based on their context in each individual case."​

By the way in Spain it is familia real (royal family) and Casa Real (Royal House). So they have the same concept. The Spanish website is also called The Royal House (casareal.es) like the Dutch one (koninklijkhuis.nl).

Casa Real (Royal House) denotes the royal household. The Spanish king and queen, their children, and the king emeritus and queen emerita constitute the Familia Real (Royal Family).

https://www.boe.es/buscar/doc.php?id=BOE-A-1981-28756

child of a (future) King, with succession rights, and consort prince Oscar, prince Carl Philip and princess Sofia, princess Madeleine and Christopher

The King ruled that Christopher O'Neill would not be a member of the Royal House (or the Royal Family) and would remain a private citizen because Mr. O'Neill did not renounce his outside commercial interests or take up Swedish citizenship.

https://www.kungahuset.se/royalcour...eroneillstitle.5.4ea495e313c19c119aa5da0.html

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Different use than in Sweden. There they use terms like The Crown Princess Couple (Victoria & Daniel), The Prince Couple (Carl Philip & Sofia) and The Princess Couple (Madeleine & Chris). And Estelle is just 'Princess Estelle' and not 'The Princess'.

In Sweden, The Princess (Prinsessan) is used for all princesses, but the distinction between Prinsessan (The Princess) and Prinsessa (Princess) in Swedish is not carried through to the English translation.

https://www.kungahuset.se/kungafamiljen.4.1c3432a100d8991c5b80002606.html

For some reason, the usage is different for the Swedish princes, who are Prins (Prince) rather than Prinsen (The Prince).