Titles of the Swedish RF and Changes 2019

[Tatiana Maria]

Originally Posted by JR76

Frederick is so far the only man to have ever been married to a Swedish queen but he never carried the title of Prince Consort. Instead he was created a Prince of Sweden with the style of HRH by his wife in December 1718 which was approved by Parliament in March 1719.

Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria

Are you sure that he was created a Prince of Sweden? I only read that he was created HRH by his wife and Parliament, and the title Prince of Sweden was not officially in use by the royal family at the time (princes in the line of succession were strictly Sveriges Arvfurste up to 1982, when the present King altered it to Prins av Sverige).

Originally Posted by JR76

From where I've read (only secondary sources) he was created Prince of Sweden. I did find two mentions of him on page 26 of the SOU* 1977:5:
1 - "Added to that (Princess) Ulrika Eleonora's husband, the Hereditary Prince Frederik of Hesse was a member of the Reformed Church"
2 - "the following year the Queen abdicated in favour of her husband Prince Frederik" implying (atleast that's how I interpret it) that there had been a change of title when his wife was elected queen (though the SOU doesn't style him as Prince of Sweden).
Regarding arvfurste he could never have carried the title without being included in the line of succession which he never was.

*For those of you who don't know an SOU is the name of an official series of reports of committees appointed and convened by the*Government of Sweden for the analysis of issues in anticipation of a proposed legislation before the*Riksdag or the issuance of*ordinances.

Thank you for this.

I also read mainly from secondary sources, including his article in the Svenskt Bibliografiskt Lexikon, which mention that he was created HRH by his wife and approved by Parliament but do not mention him being created Prince of Sweden. There is also the Regeringsform from his accession which includes a mention styling him as Queen Ulrica Eleonora's husband, citing him as "Hennes Kongl. Maj:ts högtälskelige gemål, den durchleuchtigste furste Friedrich, arfprins till Hessen, furste till Hirschfeldt, grefve till Catzen-Ellenbogen, Dietz, Ziegenheim, Nidda och Schaumburg &c." including his titles from the house of Hesse but without a Swedish title.

I'm aware he was not included in the line of succession and therefore did not carry the title of Sveriges arvfurste; my point was that if he was created a Prince of Sweden he would be only male member of the royal family to carry that title in an official capacity as the others up to that point had been Sveriges arvfurste.

[JR76]

Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria

Thank you for this.

I also read mainly from secondary sources, including his article in the Svenskt Bibliografiskt Lexikon, which mention that he was created HRH by his wife and approved by Parliament but do not mention him being created Prince of Sweden. There is also the Regeringsform from his accession which includes a mention styling him as Queen Ulrica Eleonora's husband, citing him as "Hennes Kongl. Maj:ts högtälskelige gemål, den durchleuchtigste furste Friedrich, arfprins till Hessen, furste till Hirschfeldt, grefve till Catzen-Ellenbogen, Dietz, Ziegenheim, Nidda och Schaumburg &c." including his titles from the house of Hesse but without a Swedish title.

I'm aware he was not included in the line of succession and therefore did not carry the title of Sveriges arvfurste; my point was that if he was created a Prince of Sweden he would be only male member of the royal family to carry that title in an official capacity as the others up to that point had been Sveriges arvfurste.

I've been trying to find both Ulrika Eleonora's and Frederick's Acts of election (Valakter) to see what they say but can't find them online. Also there must be some documentation of the parliamentary approval of his change of status.

[Tatiana Maria]

As this thread was designated to discuss changes to the Royal House in 2019, I hope it is acceptable to continue a discussion about membership of the Swedish Royal House here.

Originally Posted by JR76

King Carl Gustav felt that he couldn't undo the decisions made by his grandfather and great-grandfather, but that he was free to make decisions of his own. This, it was communicated, was one of the main reasons behind him not allowing his uncles Sigvard, Carl-Johan and his cousin Lennart to regain the use of their titles after the wedding of Bertil and Lilian in 1986 and later when Sigvard after the British State visit to Sweden in 1983 decided to start using that title and later sued to have it legally validified.

I wonder why Princess Christina was an exception to his approach. She married in the reign of King Carl XVI Gustaf who had the freedom to permit her to remain a member of the Royal House just as he decided for Prince Bertil, but the King formally demoted her though she kept her patronages and public duties. It is especially confusing given her many years of duty and loyal support of her brother.

[Prinsara]

Possibly twofold: what Bertil did for his nephew and the Crown was quite exceptional, over many decades, and actually involved sacrifice on his part. Christina was very loyal and hardworking as part of the royal house, but she didn't give anything up to do it.

Then if CG had not demoted her, he would have shown special treatment to one of his own sisters, not just his uncles, and probably caused a rift in his even more immediate family. Perhaps he preferred not to cause trouble there.

[Somebody]

My guess is also that he didn't want to treat one sister differently than the others - and probably Christina didn't want him to either. She wasn't in line to the throne and it didn't change her ability to support her brother in his royal duties.

[JR76]

I wonder if the fact that Christina had received permission to marry from her grandfather played a small part in this. I can't remember where I read it, but she told in one interview about how she drove out to Drottningholm to ask him permission to marry and that he gave her his blessing, but asked her to wait because her brother would need her support when he ascended the throne.

[LadyFinn]

Originally Posted by JR76

I wonder if the fact that Christina had received permission to marry from her grandfather played a small part in this. I can't remember where I read it, but she told in one interview about how she drove out to Drottningholm to ask him permission to marry and that he gave her his blessing, but asked her to wait because her brother would need her support when he ascended the throne.

Christina writes this at the book "Dagar på Drottningholm/Days at Drottningholm", here Expressen writes about that. Christina had gone to see her grandfather in "vårvintern" 1973 and asked permission to marry Tord.
Kungen fick prinsessan Christina att skjuta på bröllopet

[JR76]

Originally Posted by LadyFinn

Christina writes this at the book "Dagar på Drottningholm", here Expressen writes about that. Christina had gone to see her grandfather in "vårvintern" 1973 and asked permission to marry Tord.
Kungen fick prinsessan Christina att skjuta på bröllopet

Thank you LF, for finding the source.
Vårvintern translates as the time of year when winter and spring seems to fight each other so her grandfather probably only had about six months left to live.

[Somebody]

Originally Posted by Heavs

Yes it may be a legal issue but that didn't stop a lot of people including me from thinking that CG would find a way to "grandfather" Julian is as it were but so far he hasn't.

His brothers and cousins got their orders of the Seraphim on the day of their baptism, so as he isn't baptized yet, he would have received the order yet even if he had been born a member of the royal house and prince of Sweden.

After his baptism we'll know for sure whether the king found a way to 'grandfather' him in.

[maria-olivia]

It is Grand Duke Adolphe de Luxembourg who gave to Prince Oscar of Sweden the Tittle of Bernadotte of Wisbourg , luxembourger nobility tittle for his morganatic Wedding.

[Tatiana Maria]

Originally Posted by maria-olivia

It is Grand Duke Adolphe de Luxembourg who gave to Prince Oscar of Sweden the Tittle of Bernadotte of Wisbourg , luxembourger nobility tittle for his morganatic Wedding.

I assume he only accorded Prince Oscar (who had lost the titles "of Sweden and Norway" and HRH upon marriage) that favor due to Oscar being his nephew?

Nonetheless, it must have set a precedent, as King Gustaf VI Adolf requested the same favor from Grand Duchess Charlotte of Luxembourg in 1952 even though as far as I know they were not closely related. It will be interesting to see whether King Carl XVI Gustaf or Queen Victoria likewise ask a favor from Grand Duke Guillaume V of Luxembourg for the next generation, assuming they keep their promise that Prince Carl Philip and Princess Madeleine's grandchildren will not be princes.

Originally Posted by Somebody

His brothers and cousins got their orders of the Seraphim on the day of their baptism, so as he isn't baptized yet, he would have received the order yet even if he had been born a member of the royal house and prince of Sweden.

After his baptism we'll know for sure whether the king found a way to 'grandfather' him in.

And about whether he receives a royal coat of arms, which is also restricted by law to members of the royal house.

[An Ard Ri]

Can the king create a member of his family Prince/Count of Bernadotte or has that privilege been abolished?

Personally I think it was a mistake to have made all of his grandchildren HRH Prince/Princess of Sweden ,Duke/Duchess only to remove the HRH and of Sweden a few years later.
That style/rank should only have been granted to the children of the Crown Princess and Prince Daniel.

[Stefan]

Originally Posted by An Ard Ri

Can the king create a member of his family Prince/Count of Bernadotte or has that privilege been abolished?

Personally I think it was a mistake to have made all of his grandchildren HRH Prince/Princess of Sweden ,Duke/Duchess only to remove the HRH and of Sweden a few years later.
That style/rank should only have been granted to the children of the Crown Princess and Prince Daniel.

the swedish King can't create new titles also not for members of the RF

[Tatiana Maria]

Originally Posted by An Ard Ri

Can the king create a member of his family Prince/Count of Bernadotte or has that privilege been abolished?

Bernadotte: When Crown Princess Victoria married Daniel Westling, the Tax Agency found that the family had the surname Bernadotte notwithstanding that they did not use it. There is no law that says Alexander et al could not resume its use.

Prince: While Julian was never a member of the Royal House and thus did not have an HRH or of Sweden, he was created Prince Julian and Duke of Halland by the King, so we can be sure the King at least has the authority to create members of his family Prince/Princess and Duke/Duchess as personal honorary titles. However, the Marshal of the Court claimed at the press conference in 2019 that the grandchildren who were removed from the Royal House were not to share their titles with future spouses and children.

Count: The paragraph stating that the King could ennoble counts (as well as barons and untitled nobility) was removed from the new Constitution in 1975, but the new Constitution did not explicitly disallow the King from creating counts and barons. By way of comparison, the paragraph stating that the King could create dukedoms for royal princes was removed in 1975 as well, but it is clear many more ducal creations have followed after 1975.

[An Ard Ri]

Thanks for the update and further information from my understanding the king could have easily made the children of Carl Philip and Madeleine Count/Countess rather than Duke/Duchess and kept the duchies for the children of Victoria and Daniel.

[Mbruno]

Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria

Bernadotte: When Crown Princess Victoria married Daniel Westling, the Tax Agency found that the family had the surname Bernadotte notwithstanding that they did not use it. There is no law that says Alexander et al could not resume its use.

The author of the article is actually unsure about that.

I have followed his blog for some time, and read with interest his article on 26 May 2010, where he asked how Daniel Westling's surname was going to disappear when he got married. The legal challenge was that the current name law did not allow a surname to be taken away. Traditionally the members of the royal family don't have a surname and are listed in Folkbokföringen, the National Register, with an asterisk.



[....]



It is interesting to note that while the king's lawyer, Axel Calissendorf, insists that the royal family has no surname, the Tax Agency, which is responsible for the National Register, is of the opinion that they have, but just don't use it. I find the agency's view to be somewhat self-contradictory, as it has allowed the royals to be registered with an asterisk instead of a surname.

My understanding is that Daniel and Sofia have a surname in the National Register (to which Bernadotte was added) . The King, his children and Victoria's children have an asterisk instead.


The interesting part is that, as far as I have been able to tell, none of the princes/princesses have HRH listed with their names in the National Register or in documents like passports. In contrast to what happens in the UK then, I understand HRH is not part of their legal name in Sweden. That seems to be consistent with the King being able to add or remove that prefix from members of his family at his discretion as it is not an official or legal style in Sweden.

[LadyFinn]

Originally Posted by Mbruno

The interesting part is that, as far as I have been able to tell, none of the princes/princesses have HRH listed with their names in the National Register or in documents like passports. In contrast to what happens in the UK then, I understand HRH is not part of their legal name in Sweden. That seems to be consistent with the King being able to add or remove that prefix from members of his family at his discretion as it is not an official or legal style in Sweden.

Carl Philip's driver's license
"HKH Prins Carl Philip" = HRH Prince Carl Philip
Image Upper.com - Free Image Hosting - View Image

[Mbruno]

Originally Posted by LadyFinn

Carl Philip's driver's license
"HKH Prins Carl Philip" = HRH Prince Carl Philip
Image Upper.com - Free Image Hosting - View Image

Interesting. Is HRH Prince also included in his passport?

[JR76]

https://www.theroyalforums.com/forum....php?p=2419828
Hopefully this works. I don't think I've ever linked between threads before.

My issue is that since most of the regulations that have been set aside for the children of Carl Philip and Madeleine are part of the Constitution was it really legally possible for the King to unilaterally change them? Changes to the Constitution requires the approval of two sitting parliaments with one general election in between them. There were quite a few voices in 2019 that argued that he can't do so. The Court says that by tradition the King is the "master of his house" but I can't see that holding up against the laws of the land.
I'm also puzzles by, and something that I think has to be clarified legally, that constitutionally there doesn't seem to be any difference between the Royal House and the Royal family. The two terms are used interchangeably in the Order of Succession to describe what after the changes of 2019 are called the Royal House. This is also how it's used by the media and the general population. From what I find the distinction between the two first appeared in Statskalendern and Hovkalendern during the 70s after King Carl Gustav ascended the throne as a way to include those members of the King's family that weren't constitutionally members of the Royal House anymore.

[Tatiana Maria]

Originally Posted by JR76

My issue is that since most of the regulations that have been set aside for the children of Carl Philip and Madeleine are part of the Constitution was it really legally possible for the King to unilaterally change them? Changes to the Constitution requires the approval of two sitting parliaments with one general election in between them. There were quite a few voices in 2019 that argued that he can't do so. The Court says that by tradition the King is the "master of his house" but I can't see that holding up against the laws of the land.

I agree with you. The King and Court could argue that the Constitution is silent on who is a member of the Royal House/Royal Family and hence an in-house issue reserved to HM, but when the terms are used in the Constitution they become part of the law of the land. I would argue that even if the King is allowed to regulate membership of the Royal House/Royal Family in the context of appanages or court precedence, it should not be left to him to set the official interpretation of the Constitution.

However, in fairness to the King and Court, I would also put forth that the Government and Parliament, by refusing to take responsibility for clarifying the Constitution, willingly left the constitutional interpretation open to the King.

Originally Posted by JR76

I'm also puzzles by, and something that I think has to be clarified legally, that constitutionally there doesn't seem to be any difference between the Royal House and the Royal family. The two terms are used interchangeably in the Order of Succession to describe what after the changes of 2019 are called the Royal House. This is also how it's used by the media and the general population. From what I find the distinction between the two first appeared in Statskalendern and Hovkalendern during the 70s after King Carl Gustav ascended the throne as a way to include those members of the King's family that weren't constitutionally members of the Royal House anymore.

That is certainly enlightening! Thank you very much for posting your finding. In view of that information, the King and Court's argument that the constitutional regulations differentiate between the Royal House and the Royal Family become even less tenable.

Returning to the above discussion of Bertil and Christina, it now seems to me that there was a pattern of the King attempting to have it both ways during the 1970s transition between the old rules and the new rules.

Originally Posted by Silverpot

I dont' know, of course, but I have a feeling that 99% of the population have no knowledge or interest in these matters. But, if Julian is NOT given the order and arms and whatnot, and the papers are writig about it, there will be a small uproar that he is treated differently than the other kids.

Most people (of those who follow the royals) will think it unfair.

So my guess is that The King had better find a way, because it would be too bothersome to try and explain the difference between the royal family and the Royal House. I mean, who cares about that anyway?

Originally Posted by JR76

The general Swede doesn't care, but there seems to be a general support for the changes to limit the Royal House. Small details like this would probably seem ridiculous to the man on the street. One thing I've noticed in the different royal Facebook groups and Instagram accounts is that while people say that they support the changes they don't approve of its consequences regarding titles, orders, not showing christenings on TV etc...

That is interesting because at the same time, the number of Members of Parliament who cared about the difference between the Royal House members entitled to an allowance and the Royal Family members responsible for their own keep was substantial enough to compel the King to demote his son and younger daughter's children from the first to the second class in 2019.

Originally Posted by JR76

I can't wait for the uproar when the first of the boys marry and people realise that his wife and kids won't get a title. If Svensk Damtidning is still around they'll have a field day.

I wonder if we could read into the fact that the promise that the demoted children's royal titles will not be shared with their future spouses and children was only announced during the press conference and not included in the written communiqué. Perhaps it is not a final decision?

I still hold to my prediction that even if that promise is fulfilled, any legal wife or marital son that Alexander, Gabriel, or Julian may have will still be known as Countess or Count, at least in the eyes of the Royal Court and the royal media. But time will tell.