Titles of the Swedish RF and Changes 2019

[O-H Anglophile]

Originally Posted by wyevale

This makes sense to me.. it always seemed mad that the children of plain Mr O'Neill, [who didn't deign to accept the title offered him], should be Royal Highnesses.

I understand your point, but in another way that's very traditional and more than a little old fashioned and sexist thinking.

I don't have a problem with Madeleine's and Carl Philip's children being treated equally whether their royal parent is a woman or a man.

[Tatiana Maria]

Originally Posted by JR76

With the Press conference over here´s the gist of what was said:
Prince Gabriel, Alexander, Nicolas & Princesses Leonore & Adrienne have ceased to be members of The Royal House of Sweden but remain as members of the Royal Family. Therefore they loose their style of Royal Highnesses but retains their titel of Prince/Princess and their Ducal titles. The title of Prince/Princess are for life only and will not be shared with future spouses or children. They will not be expected to take on public duties. Therefore the strict rule about royals not working for profit will be altered. When questioned about the requirement of them having a Swedish education Fredrik Wersäll said that it would not be enforced as strictly anymore.

Did the Marshal mean that the King has altered his interpretation of the Act of Succession and Princess Leonore might remain in the line of succession even if she begins her schooling in the United States?

Originally Posted by JR76

The title of Prince/Princess are for life only and will not be shared with future spouses or children.

Quite interesting that the press conference gave plans in regard to the future spouses and children of the King's grandchildren, given that it will almost certainly be the reign of Queen Victoria, not the current King, by the time they are of marriageable age. Taken at face value, the Crown Princess has either agreed to the plans or is expected by the King to comply with his wishes.

Originally Posted by JR76

The biggest bombshell to me was that Prince Carl Philip, Princess Sofia and PRince Madeline might see a decrease in their official roles as time goes by.

I also found that interesting, though the court seems to have avoided being explicit on that point.

Originally Posted by JR76

Carl Philip will still stand in as regent if necessary until Princess Estelle reaches her maturity aged 18 and can take over.

It confuses me how the Marshal can pledge that Prince Carl Philip will be regent if Estelle accedes to the throne before age 18. The Constitution is clear that it would be the prerogative of Parliament, not the Royal Court, to appoint the regent in that situation.

Art. 5. Should the Royal House become extinct, the Riksdag elects a Regent to perform the duties of Head of State until further notice. The Riksdag elects a Deputy Regent at the same time.

The same applies if the King or Queen who is Head of State dies or abdicates and the heir to the throne has not yet reached the age of eighteen.

[rominet09]

I really think all that extremely severe, does anyone know why all these changes all of a sudden ?

[O-H Anglophile]

Originally Posted by rominet09

I really think all that extremely severe, does anyone know why all these changes all of a sudden ?

From what was in various articles, it is not "all of a sudden' except to us. Apparently discussions have been ongoing for quite some time.

[Tatiana Maria]

Originally Posted by rominet09

I really think all that extremely severe, does anyone know why all these changes all of a sudden ?

There is reason to suspect that the King intended to get ahead of Parliament. Had he not taken this action to limit the number of grandchildren who could eventually receive financial support from public funds, Parliament would have required it by means of planned legislation (which apparently remains in the offing).

https://www.expressen.se/nyheter/bes...-ens-paborjad/

Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair

Will Carl Philip's sons, the Dukes of Sodermanland and of Dalarna, have plain Mr and Miss Bernadotte as children despite their direct and unbroken male lineage?

Originally Posted by JR76

According to what's been communicated today, yes.

I thought it was simply said that their spouses and children would not be princesses and princes. (I am aware that e.g. countess and count were historically considered titles of nobility, and that titles of nobility are no longer officially recognized in Sweden, but I nonetheless think some room for speculation remains, unless the court has clearly said that they will be plain Mr. and Miss.)

Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair

It is something we see in all monarchies.

The most extreme in Spain where siblings of the King are already out of the Royal House.

Norway, where the brother of the future Queen is no HRH anymore.

The Netherlands, where only children of the present, the former and the future Sovereign are HRH and have the title of Prince (Princess) and where male-lineage grandchildren of the Sovereign, not in direct line, belong to the hereditary nobility.

Sweden, where only children of the present and the future Sovereign are HRH and where grandchildren of the Sovereign, not in direct line, are Prince (Princess) without HRH, eventually with a Dukedom ad personam.

The monarchies cited are all European, however, and not representative of all monarchies (in the Middle East, Asia, etc).

[temhbobo]

I think all of this is so interesting. But let me also point out that I believe they stressed either in the release or in the press conference that none of this is necessarily permanent. Things can be changed and interpreted differently and dealt with accordingly. This is the way things are at this point. I think that a lot of it has to do with money and the lack of details as to who gets what from the appendages. You are all very thorough Royal followers. I know and have read the discussions on here of that. Secondly, I think Madeline was going to cause issues with living abroad. Whether she wanted to leave Sweden or not, she basically hasn’t lived there since she married. And most of the time she seems fine with that. She is doing well with her visits and also seeing her mom in New York for childhood meetings. But, in my opinion, these two things kind of had to be addressed at some point. She isn’t working as much as she used to. And I think the king took it upon himself to address all of these things. They are still kind of vague with the education requirements. So that is interesting. Carl Philip has remained in Sweden and lives and works there. I don’t know that he has demanded any certain thing to happen. He and Sofia seem happy with their lives as they are. Working with their foundation and charities and raising their boys. Carl Philip with his job. I read long ago that he was a part time royal. So any of this for the most part won’t change. He pledged on his Instagram post to continue to support his parents and sister. I feel that he and Sofia both will absolutely do that. I don’t know what his father has said to him. We don’t know what any of them are thinking. But Carl Philip and Madeline seem happy with the arrangement. It said their work may eventually decrease. Doesn’t mean it will. Especially Carl Philip and Sofia who live in Sweden. But it does pave the way for Madeline’s workload to be explained. I think like a lot of people who I have read today that maybe this was done for her and to answer the questions about what she is doing and why. It said it had been in the works for awhile. I think the family had been discussing things with the king for awhile. This is why I was wondering about stenhammer and what that meant as far as Prince Alexander being the Duke of sodermanland. I feel like there was a reason he got that dukedom from the king. I read it somewhere. But anyway those are my thoughts. I feel like everyone is on board with it and happy the grandkids get the freedom to choose their professions and schooling and where their futures may lead. Exciting times. They seem like a close family.

[Somebody]

Originally Posted by O-H Anglophile

From what was in various articles, it is not "all of a sudden' except to us. Apparently discussions have been ongoing for quite some time.

Well, even we have been discussing the issue, especially in relation to the status of Madeleine's children, for quite some time. So, no surprise that the royal family themselves has also been discussing these issues.

[ashelen]

I think Madeleine probably is very happy I do not think she loves to be a princess. Now Carl Philip is another story, though I read somewhere the King at one point wanted him to be the furture King but it did not succeed so Wonder if He would had like it to be a King or not?

[Tatiana Maria]

Originally Posted by Rudolph

Going back to my previous question, what’s the substantive difference between a Prince of Sweden and just a Prince?

Do the titles carry any privileges or benefits?

Yes. In the traditional framework, to carry out public duties, be supported from public funds, or receive royal honors such as being awarded the Order of the Seraphim or given a place at official ceremonies representing the royal house were privileges reserved to Princes and Princesses of Sweden.

Unusually, the King's sister Princess Christina was allowed to carry out public duties after being stripped of the title of Princess of Sweden. I believe the reason was that the Royal House was very small at the time.

Originally Posted by LadyFinn

According to the updated court website they are not prince/princess of Sweden:
Children - Sveriges Kungahus
Oscar's biography

Originally Posted by EssexRoyal

Presumably they will now be Prince/Princess X Bernadotte.

The updated website still does not use a surname for them - which is surprising since traditionally, royals who were stripped of the title Prince/Princess of Sweden, and are therefore "just" Prince/Princess, use a surname with their title:

Prince Oscar Bernadotte
Prince Carl Bernadotte
Princess Margaretha, Mrs. Ambler
Princess Désirée, Baroness Silfverschiöld
Princess Christina, Mrs. Magnuson

[Countessmeout]

Surprise but I really am happy to see the change made.

I have said it before and will say it again, they can't go half kilter when changing sexist laws. How can they allow a woman to inherit over her brother, but then turn around and treat her children and husband differently. Sweden already made steps changing this with how they have treated Victoria and her siblings. Victoria and Madeleine's husbands were both entitled to use their title, and their children all inherited titles as well. The grandchildren of the king by all three of his children were treated equally. I have always wished to see the same change in the UK but keep thinking it won't happen.

The major complaint seems to be the size, having too many titles. This new rule seems to solve that issue. Only the children of the crown princess will be members of the royal house, and only grandchildren of the monarch will have a royal title. It seems likely Oscar when he has kids, his kids will be Prince or Princess X, with no of Sweden and posibly no dukedom either. That the of Sweden will be reserved for Estelle's children.

Its a good choice that it was done when they were this young. The kids will all have a more normal life from the start. Not waiting until they are teens or older and saying 'well no royal life for you'.

he nobility is an ancient institution going back to the end of the first millennium. In almost all countries is chosen not to change these rules. Yes, Prince Carl Philip belongs to the royal family, not to the nobility. But now we reach a situation that the only son of the country's first family can not pass the ancestral title while all eldest sons of all titled noble families can. Prince Carl Philip is a legal and direct male agnate of a prestigious family.

Daniel Westling has added the surname Bernadotte to his own name. His children are the procreation of the Royal House of Sweden, which has been formed by various families in it's long history. Carl Philip Bernadotte is in the centuries old tradition the procreation of the Bernadotte dynasty. It would be weird that exactly this line would lose all historic honorifics. I guess in due time a prudent and courteous solution will be found as I am sure also his sister, Princess Victoria, is aware and proud of her ancestral House, it's history and tradition and of her brother, Sweden's last Crown Prince.

I am sorry but last crown prince??? Are we prophetic and forseeing the end of the monarchy during Victoria's reign? Or did Sweden adopt female only inheritance laws and I missed it???

Carl is the Latest Crown prince, not the last. Estelle could have a son first, her daughter could have a son first and so on. He is certainly not the last.


As for pro-creation........Victoria is just as much a Bernadotte as her brother. Her children are just as much Bernadottes as her nephews are. This isnt the time of Henry VIII. We understand DNA. You get half your genes from your dad and half from your mother. Victoria and CP have equal amounts of royal blood. And their children have equal amounts of royal blood. The only way CP's kids would be more Bernadotte then Victoria's would be if he had married a cousin, another member of the family. I am not aware Sofia is a Bernadotte.

The family history, blood and tradition continue on in Victoria and her children. And will continue hopefully for generations to come.

I'm certainly not an expert on this but is there even anything CG or Victoria could do in regards to titles for CP's children/grandchildren if they wanted to?

The monarch can no longer create nobility and from my cursory googling no one has been ennobled in Sweden since 1902. Seeing as the only way to be ennobled was by the Monarch it is not like there is precedent in the Government awarding noble titles. It would seem extraordinary for parliament to reopen the Nobility after nearly 120 years and begin ennobling citizens, much less that CG or Victoria would ask for that to be done.

I always saw the issue as only having two resolutions: All of CP's male-line descendants remain in the Royal House and are styled HRH with a Princely and Ducal Title (which is untenable) or that they eventually become commoners.

It doesn't seem like a question of does CG or Victoria value history or recognition of the agnatic Bernadotte line, it is does the government?

The titles are bestowed by the king, not parliament. He was the one who gave his grandchildren titles. And now has acted to minimize their titles as well.

If Victoria suddenly wanted to have CP's grandchildren be royal, she could. But its highly unlikely she would turn around and over rule what her father decided. It seems evident that the decission was made with her input as well.

The days of the agnatic line having recognition are OVER. They ended when Victoria became crown princess.

[Archduchess Zelia]

Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair

The nobility is an ancient institution going back to the end of the first millennium. In almost all countries is chosen not to change these rules. Yes, Prince Carl Philip belongs to the royal family, not to the nobility. But now we reach a situation that the only son of the country's first family can not pass the ancestral title while all eldest sons of all titled noble families can. Prince Carl Philip is a legal and direct male agnate of a prestigious family.

Daniel Westling has added the surname Bernadotte to his own name. His children are the procreation of the Royal House of Sweden, which has been formed by various families in it's long history. Carl Philip Bernadotte is in the centuries old tradition the procreation of the Bernadotte dynasty. It would be weird that exactly this line would lose all historic honorifics. I guess in due time a prudent and courteous solution will be found as I am sure also his sister, Princess Victoria, is aware and proud of her ancestral House, it's history and tradition and of her brother, Sweden's last Crown Prince.

The issue with your agnatic insistence here is that Sweden left that belief behind in 1980. So however impressive CP's patrilineality is (as impressive as Arthur Chatto being the seventh in an unbroken line of second-born children over in the UK), it holds no substantial value to anyone but those who think that gender plays a part in one's suitability to inherit and as such, it doesn't merit preferential treatment in a modern society such as Sweden's. Therefore your argument is moot.

Victoria is no less of a descendant of Jean-Baptiste Bernadotte than CP is. As siblings with the same set of parents, they have the exact same ancestors and if everything goes accordingly, Estelle will carry on your "centuries old tradition of the procreation of the Bernadotte dynasty." Her mother being the Bernadotte – as opposed to her father – will have no say in that matter. Frankly I think it's staggering that in 2019, a handful of people still operate with the outrageously outdated delusion that you have to be male to fully pass on your lineage. Staggering and somewhat laughable.

[Moonmaiden23]

Originally Posted by ashelen

I think Madeleine probably is very happy I do not think she loves to be a princess. Now Carl Philip is another story, though I read somewhere the King at one point wanted him to be the furture King but it did not succeed so Wonder if He would had like it to be a King or not?

I have always had the impression that it is quite the other way around. I don't think Madeleine is at all adverse to being a princess, except for when it cramps her style to have to appear where she doesn't want to be.

It is Carl-Philip who I suspect yearns to be free of the restrictions his rank has placed on him and his family.

[loonytick]

Part of me has to wonder if the timing of this is an indication that Madeline and C-P have both decided with their spouses that they are done having children. As others have pointed out, when Leonore was born it would have been premature to take this step, so she was given HRH and all the honors that will remain hers even after this announcement. If they are all done having kids, then the king has been able to give all of his grandchildren the order of the seraphim and titles in equal measure before taking this inevitable step to narrow the number who are destined for royal paychecks and responsibilities.

[Tatiana Maria]

In response to the announcement, Svensk Damtidning published an article on the results of a poll conducted in February by Kantor Sifo. The percentage of respondents who agreed that the royal children ought to have the right to princely or princessly titles was about 70% for the Crown Princess's children, 34% for Prince Carl Philip's children, and 32% for Princess Madeleine's children.

https://www.svenskdam.se/kungligt/sv...ungens-beslut/

Originally Posted by ashelen

I think Madeleine probably is very happy I do not think she loves to be a princess. Now Carl Philip is another story, though I read somewhere the King at one point wanted him to be the furture King but it did not succeed so Wonder if He would had like it to be a King or not?

Originally Posted by Moonmaiden23

I have always had the impression that it is quite the other way around. I don't think Madeleine is at all adverse to being a princess, except for when it cramps her style to have to appear where she doesn't want to be.

It is Carl-Philip who I suspect yearns to be free of the restrictions his rank has placed on him and his family.

Neither possibility is implausible, but someone noticed in an earlier comment that the statement issued by Prince Carl Philip and Princess Sofia emphasized that the couple would continue to carry out public duties and that their sons would continue to be princes and dukes, whereas the statement issued by Princess Madeleine simply expressed happiness at her children being private persons.

On the other hand, the Expressen story on the changes asserts that it was allegedly Princess Madeleine who originally requested that her children be members of the Royal House.

Originally Posted by Countessmeout

I have said it before and will say it again, they can't go half kilter when changing sexist laws. How can they allow a woman to inherit over her brother, but then turn around and treat her children and husband differently. Sweden already made steps changing this with how they have treated Victoria and her siblings. Victoria and Madeleine's husbands were both entitled to use their title, and their children all inherited titles as well.

I agree that when sexism has been eliminated from inheritance of the throne itself it is only logical and necessary to eliminate it from titles, finances, etc. But the King's decision was to treat Victoria's husband differently than the wives of Sweden's Crown Princes, who used the titles of their husbands and were thus known as Crown Princesses.

[Mari-Anne]

Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria

Neither possibility is implausible, but someone noticed in an earlier comment that the statement issued by Prince Carl Philip and Princess Sofia emphasized that the couple would continue to carry out public duties and that their sons would continue to be princes and dukes, whereas the statement issued by Princess Madeleine simply expressed happiness at her children being private persons.

On the other hand, the Expressen story on the changes asserts that it was allegedly Princess Madeleine who originally requested that her children be members of the Royal House.

Madeleine also said "I will continue with my royal responsibilities by supporting my parents and my sister." So I really hope this means she won't dissapear alltogether.

RE Madeleine requesting that her children be members of the RH: lets not forget that its Expressen and their allegations. There's no way to proove it unless we get it confirmed by the original source.

However, I find it highly unlikely that first Madeleine wants her children to be members of the Royal House, now 6 years later she just changes her mind and is happy for them to choose their own way.
And IF she really wanted it, then why would she say: "We have always believed in giving our children the freedom to choose their future, that’s why we welcome this decision wholeheartedly.". Unless she's making good face in this situation, I think this message totally contradicts what Expressen allege.

Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria

I agree that when sexism has been eliminated from inheritance of the throne itself it is only logical and necessary to eliminate it from titles, finances, etc. But the King's decision was to treat Victoria's husband differently than the wives of Sweden's Crown Princes, who used the titles of their husbands and were thus known as Crown Princesses.

Upon his marriage Daniel became Prince of Sweden, Duke of Västergötland. So how the King treated Victoria's husband differently? If so then other royal houses are also to blame because, e.g. Queen Elizabeth's husband is Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh (not King Philip!). Queen Beatrix of the Neatherlands husband was Prince Claus of the Netherlands (HRH The Prince Consort of the Netherlands). Margrethe II of Denmark husband HRH Prince Henrik of Denmark. Non of them The Crown Princes nor the Kings. Why Daniel should have been the Crown Prince of Sweden? He's married-in to the royal family.

It appears that wives are treated a little differently than males who marry the female heir apparent. Perhaps someone else know more as to why married in male won't become the king but married in woman become the queen?

[Duc_et_Pair]

Originally Posted by Archduchess Zelia

The issue with your agnatic insistence here is that Sweden left that belief behind in 1980. So however impressive CP's patrilineality is (as impressive as Arthur Chatto being the seventh in an unbroken line of second-born children over in the UK), it holds no substantial value to anyone but those who think that gender plays a part in one's suitability to inherit and as such, it doesn't merit preferential treatment in a modern society such as Sweden's. Therefore your argument is moot.

Victoria is no less of a descendant of Jean-Baptiste Bernadotte than CP is. As siblings with the same set of parents, they have the exact same ancestors and if everything goes accordingly, Estelle will carry on your "centuries old tradition of the procreation of the Bernadotte dynasty." Her mother being the Bernadotte – as opposed to her father – will have no say in that matter. Frankly I think it's staggering that in 2019, a handful of people still operate with the outrageously outdated delusion that you have to be male to fully pass on your lineage. Staggering and somewhat laughable.

You are willingly ignoring that Sweden has a system of hereditary succession which is intrinsicially discriminatory because it excludes any other Swede from the position of the head of State in a modern and democratic society.

You are willingly ignoring that Sweden has a system of Nobility which is regulated via traditional arrangements. It is what it is. The sons of a Greve or a Friherre continue the line, not the daughters (in the past they would marry into another noble family).

Note that in the equally egalitarian Netherlands the Government was once asked to change the Nobility so that not only sons but also daughters could procreate. This was refused on two grounds: an instututional one and a practical one.

The institutional ground: the nobility is an ancient instutution which played a major role in the nation's history and is worth to be preserved as a tradition of history but then "frozen in time" and not in a re-thought modernized version

The practical ground: a modernization of the nobility would only revive (!) and extend it's existence rather than slowly fade away into extinction, as procreation in the female lineage will never cause a noble family to become extinct, which is the hidden purpose of "frozen in time".

I can imagine very well that the same reasons are in play in Sweden. Imagine that the children of Princess Brigitta are not only Princes and Princesses von Hohenzollern but also Counts and Countesses Bernadotte in eternal perpeuity, imagine that the children of Princess Désirée are not only Barons and Baronesses Silfverschiöld but also Counts and Countesses Bernadotte in eternal perpetuity...

You can not start arguing about outdated or unequal arrangements without avoiding the big pink elephant walking in the porcelain cabinet: the monarchy itself. Nobility is unequal, outdated, weird, whatever? Which argument of this does not apply on the monarchy? So better scrap it all if you continue this way of thinking.

[CrownPrincessJava]

Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair

You are willingly ignoring that Sweden has a system of hereditary succession which is intrinsicially discriminatory because it excludes any other Swede from the position of the head of State in a modern and democratic society.

You are willingly ignoring that Sweden has a system of Nobility which is regulated via traditional arrangements. It is what it is. The sons of a Greve or a Friherre continue the line, not the daughters (in the past they would marry into another noble family).

Note that in the equally egalitarian Netherlands the Government was once asked to change the Nobility so that not only sons but also daughters could procreate. This was refused on two grounds: an instututional one and a practical one.

The institutional ground: the nobility is an ancient instutution which played a major role in the nation's history and is worth to be preserved as a tradition of history but then "frozen in time" and not in a re-thought modernized version

The practical ground: a modernization of the nobility would only revive (!) and extend it's existence rather than slowly fade away into extinction, as procreation in the female lineage will never cause a noble family to become extinct, which is the hidden purpose of "frozen in time".

I can imagine very well that the same reasons are in play in Sweden. Imagine that the children of Princess Brigitta are not only Princes and Princesses von Hohenzollern but also Counts and Countesses Bernadotte in eternal perpeuity, imagine that the children of Princess Désirée are not only Barons and Baronesses Silfverschiöld but also Counts and Countesses Bernadotte in eternal perpetuity...

You can not start arguing about outdated or unequal arrangements without avoiding the big pink elephant walking in the porcelain cabinet: the monarchy itself. Nobility is unequal, outdated, weird, whatever? Which argument of this does not apply on the monarchy? So better scrap it all if you continue this way of thinking.

You're absolutely incorrect. Firstly, the Act of Succession stipulates who can inherit the Swedish Throne. If you recall, in 1810, the Swedish Parliament ELECTED Jean Bernadotte. Therefore, if the Swedish parliament believe that all descendants of King Carl Gustav be omitted from the Swedish throne, it can. Who do the Swedish Parliament represent? The Swedish people. It's not discriminatory at all. This is why there is an Act of Succession, in most Constitutional monarchies. If majority of the Swedish people want to elect a new Swedish Head of State, it can happen.

From what I've read, nobility in Sweden is NOT recognised as of 2003. Therefore, there is technically no act of parliament that govern nobility since it is now a private institution and through membership. If the House of Nobility, which is the private institution that acts on behalf the Swedish nobility, wishes to favour agnatic or absolute primogeniture, they do so on their own accord. It's only recognised in their circle. Quite clearly, the Swedish parliament do not have appetite to reinvoke a modernized nobility.

The Swedish parliament had already stated that wanted to reduce the number of future taxpayer funded royals. It was very wise of the King to do this now, before he, or Victoria were forced too. And I believe the changes show that the Swedish parliament and people are completely done with the antiquated concept of agnatic primogeniture, in all forms, in terms of succession to the Swedish throne.

[Princess]

Originally Posted by Mari-Anne

It appears that wives are treated a little differently than males who marry the female heir apparent. Perhaps someone else know more as to why married in male won't become the king but married in woman become the queen?

As far as I know, the rank of a king is by protocol always higher, so the spouse of a reigning queen can never be king.

[Mari-Anne]

Originally Posted by Princess

As far as I know, the rank of a king is by protocol always higher, so the spouse of a reigning queen can never be king.

Princess, thanks for this explanation

[Gawin]

Originally Posted by Countessmeout

I am sorry but last crown prince??? Are we prophetic and forseeing the end of the monarchy during Victoria's reign? Or did Sweden adopt female only inheritance laws and I missed it???

Carl is the Latest Crown prince, not the last. Estelle could have a son first, her daughter could have a son first and so on. He is certainly not the last.

That's what Duc_et-Pair meant by last - Carl Philip is the most recent crown prince. If someone refers to his "last meal" it doesn't mean he plans on fasting for the rest of his life. And "last girlfriend" doesn't mean he's taken a vow of celibacy. As you can see from these examples, "last" means the most recent in an ongoing succession.

The titles are bestowed by the king, not parliament. He was the one who gave his grandchildren titles. And now has acted to minimize their titles as well.

Duc_et_Pair referred to noble titles. The monarch lost the right to confer noble titles in 1975. The titles Carl Gustaf gave his children are non-noble and non-hereditary honorary titles. He didn't make them members of the Swedish nobility.