Princess Madeleine, Chris O'Neill and Family, General News 2: June 2015 - Sept 2017


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
This post has become a very interesting commentary on various societies and their customs.
No country develops in a vacuum and there are reasons that Sweden has developed a culture where it is more typical for both spouses to work. There is a very high rate of taxation in Sweden and to maintain a good standard of living it has also required that both spouses work.But the people receive a great deal of benefits because of it , free healthcare, education and very generous parental leave to name but a few things.There is also a very strong belief in gender equality that as one poster mentioned during a divorce process a stay at home wife is not entitled to any alimony payments. This in itself would make many women cautious about leaving the workforce. So I would say that a tradition of gender equality with the possibility of financial ruin during a divorce would spur many women to work outside the home.. The same can't be said for Canada where I live. There is still a requirement for alimony in canadian courts because it has been deemed that a stay at home mom has contributed to the wealth of the family by caring for the children , the house, the garden taking care of the bills etc and that this should be recognized. Hence more women or men are comfortable leaving the workplace for a time because the financial cost will probably be less that for a Swedish parent. Having been to Sweden many times I can say without reservation that they are some of the nicest ,funniest and most reasonable people I have ever met , though maybe not the world's best hockey players Hee hee!
 
This post has become a very interesting commentary on various societies and their customs.
No country develops in a vacuum and there are reasons that Sweden has developed a culture where it is more typical for both spouses to work. There is a very high rate of taxation in Sweden and to maintain a good standard of living it has also required that both spouses work.But the people receive a great deal of benefits because of it , free healthcare, education and very generous parental leave to name but a few things.There is also a very strong belief in gender equality that as one poster mentioned during a divorce process a stay at home wife is not entitled to any alimony payments. This in itself would make many women cautious about leaving the workforce. So I would say that a tradition of gender equality with the possibility of financial ruin during a divorce would spur many women to work outside the home.. The same can't be said for Canada where I live. There is still a requirement for alimony in canadian courts because it has been deemed that a stay at home mom has contributed to the wealth of the family by caring for the children , the house, the garden taking care of the bills etc and that this should be recognized. Hence more women or men are comfortable leaving the workplace for a time because the financial cost will probably be less that for a Swedish parent. Having been to Sweden many times I can say without reservation that they are some of the nicest ,funniest and most reasonable people I have ever met , though maybe not the world's best hockey players Hee hee!
Haha, thank you :D Very well summarized. There are many things that shock be about other countries (like the lack of free health care) but that doesn't mean I think they are stupid. So thank you for realizing that we are not "unreasonable". It's just a little case of culture shock.
 
:previous: Agree, Marlene. This has been a fascinating read.

It's appreciated, but without actually living in the society i'm convinced it's not possible to 100% understand it, maybe 80 or 90% if you're from a similar environment..

In the NL i think the "breadwinner" phrase would have been considered somewhat old-fashioned, but nothing more :flowers:

In DK the expression is also considered somewhat conservative and amusing. But then we are labelled the "latinos of Scandinavia". :p

But back to Chris.

If I am to analyze him, based on this interview and previous info I will maintain that the absolute main reasons why Chris in particular is most reluctant to settle in Sweden are:
A) He is not a monarchist and as such not at all interested in being a working part of a royal family.
B) Sweden and the Swedes are too socialists for his personal taste. (*)
C) The political and tax-climate is too socialist for his political taste.
D) Sweden has a very open system in regards to people's private economy I can very well imagine the horror Chris felt when realizing that! :eek:
It would also, I imagine, be conflicting with the discretion in regards to his business deals, as another poster pointed out.
E) Chris is unfamiliar with the Swedish financial atmosphere, while he is very familiar indeed with the finance businesses in London and New York. And as personal relations in that world matters, he will necessarily have to be physically present in London a lot of the time. - So provided his wife doesn't have, or intend to have, a more or less full-time job in Sweden it does make sense to live where he works.
Also because Chris will IMO find it only natural that his wife will be present to help him in regards to receptions and business dinners, where a partner is expected.

Apart from all that. I do believe that Chris O'Neil is a conservative person - in the Scandinavian definition of the word. I.e. in this context he considers himself as the primary breadwinner. That he considers himself as the one who is ultimately responsible for securing the well-being of his family, including his wife. It is his responsibility to be there for his wife. That she should support him as well is another matter, but first and foremost he should be there for her.
In other words he conforms to the traditional male role as a family man and in Scandinavian, especially Swedish(!), context, where a marriage is strictly an equal 50/50 partnership, that defines him as conservative.

(*) Keep in mind that in European/Scandinavian context the Obama administration would be defined as center-right, but in no way left wing.
So politically Chris O'Neil may perhaps consider himself a Liberal, but in Scandinavia that would most likely make him a Conservative. I.e. a center-right to right on the political scale.
Also, keep in mind that a political Conservative is not necessarily the same thing as being a conservative person.
Confused? Then you may understand Chris O'Neil. :lol:
 
Last edited:
:previous: Agree, Marlene. This has been a fascinating read.



In DK the expression is also considered somewhat conservative and amusing. But then we are labelled the "latinos of Scandinavia". :p

But back to Chris.

If I am to analyze him, based on this interview and previous info I will maintain that the absolute main reasons why Chris in particular is most reluctant to settle in Sweden are:
A) He is not a monarchist and as such not at all interested in being a working part of a royal family.
B) Sweden and the Swedes are too socialists for his personal taste. (*)
C) The political and tax-climate is too socialist for his political taste.
D) Sweden has a very open system in regards to people's private economy I can very well imagine the horror Chris felt when realizing that! :eek:
It would also, I imagine, be conflicting with the discretion in regards to his business deals, as another poster pointed out.
E) Chris is unfamiliar with the Swedish financial atmosphere, while he is very familiar indeed with the finance businesses in London and New York. And as personal relations in that world matters, he will necessarily have to be physically present in London a lot of the time. - So provided his wife doesn't have, or intend to have, a more or less full-time job in Sweden it does make sense to live where he works.
Also because Chris will IMO find it only natural that his wife will be present to help him in regards to receptions and business dinners, where a partner is expected.

Apart from all that. I do believe that Chris O'Neil is a conservative person - in the Scandinavian definition of the word. I.e. in this context he considers himself as the primary breadwinner. That he considers himself as the one who is ultimately responsible for securing the well-being of his family, including his wife. It is his responsibility to be there for his wife. That she should support him as well is another matter, but first and foremost he should be there for her.
In other words he conforms to the traditional male role as a family man and in Scandinavian, especially Swedish(!), context, where a marriage is strictly an equal 50/50 partnership, that defines him as conservative.

(*) Keep in mind that in European/Scandinavian context the Obama administration would be defined as center-right, but in no way left wing.
So politically Chris O'Neil may perhaps consider himself a Liberal, but in Scandinavia that would most likely make him a Conservative. I.e. a center-right to right on the political scale.
Also, keep in mind that a political Conservative is not necessarily the same thing as being a conservative person.
Confused? Then you may understand Chris O'Neil. :lol:


I agree with most of what you wrote and I think it is a fair description of Chris. The only point I'm not entirely sure about is the assumption that he's not a monarchist. From what I understand, Chris is half-British and his sister is married to an Austrian count. The idea of monarchy and nobility therefore shouldn't be entirely foreign to him and his family.

Frankly, I don't know what his personal take on the issue is, but I wouldn't rush to conclude that he's necessarily a republican or anti-monarchist. I think that his decision to decline a royal title and membership of the royal family has more to do with his intention to keep his job in the financial industry and live in the US/UK than with any deep anti-monarchist convictions.
 
I agree with most of what you wrote and I think it is a fair description of Chris. The only point I'm not entirely sure about is the assumption that he's not a monarchist. From what I understand, Chris is half-British and his sister is married to an Austrian count. The idea of monarchy and nobility therefore shouldn't be entirely foreign to him and his family.

Frankly, I don't know what his personal take on the issue is, but I wouldn't rush to conclude that he's necessarily a republican or anti-monarchist. I think that his decision to decline a royal title and membership of the royal family has more to do with his intention to keep his job in the financial industry and live in the US/UK than with any deep anti-monarchist convictions.

You may very well be right. :)

But keep in mind that Chris seems reluctant to be involved with any official SRF activities.
He seems hard pressed even to show up for say gala dinners, something he as a businessman could very well attend, without anyone lifting an eyebrow.
However, if he is republican then he might find it hypocritical to show up at such events. I.e. the woman he loves happens to be royal and so be it. But he seems to have realized recently that it doesn't hurt to join the royal roadshow from time to time.
That's why I think he is republican at heart.

- Another thing is that he as a former bachelor has realized that once you marry, the rules change. Like so many new husbands before him he will have to learn that your wife's family and whatever they come up with of weird traditions is part of the package. :p
 
Last edited:
I'm so glad I don't live in Sweden I had no idea what it was like till all this happened I'm so happy I live in a country were women have a choice. My daughter is a full time mum so is one daughter in law they do heaps of work for their childrens schools and kinders my other daughter in law works her choice but she only works 4 days to avoid full time childcare.
I have a very different view on Sweden and the people now. Poor Chris


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

Oh, don't worry. Men are not completely oppressed in Sweden and there not droves of Swedish men seeking asylum in Norway, DK and Finland, so it seems to work. There are just a couple of cultural differences. :p

But the the gender equality (in Sweden very much so) is a natural consequence of necessity.

Partly economically. The Scandinavian countries are expensive to live in, so two incomes are if not a necessity then certainly preferable.
My wife earns about 40 % of the combined income of our family. The economy wouldn't break down if one of us opted to stay home full time, but after a couple of years we would consider selling a child if we wished to keep our house...
But it's also a necessity talent-wise for the countries. (This may be interpreted as provocative by some but it is certainly not meant so.) The Scandinavian countries are simply not rich enough to allow half of our talent-mass to stay at home.

It has also something with women naturally being entitled to pursue their own careers, also after having children. - The downside of that is that the workforce is less mobile, because a move means two career-changes.

Another matter is that the child-care system is so much geared to children being looked after in day-care facilities of some kind, that there is a very great incentive for women to at least work part time. On top of that daycare facilities are advocated as the best way for children to learn to socialize. (We can debate whether that is correct but that's the view here).

I belong to the last generation of Danes who predominantly had mothers who were full time housewives. So I can see it from both sides and there are of course pros and cons. But from a national-economic view the current system is better.

Just like in Sweden we have maternity leave. I.e a year per child, to be held before the child turns nine, at a reduced income paid for by the state.
Mrs. Muhler opted to have these two years, with 2x3 weeks for me, simply because I back then earned considerably more than she did and because she wished for it. That means she has de facto been a housewife for two years total, something that was indeed very much appreciated by our children.

In other words all this equality-thing may seem somewhat alien at first when introduced to it, but there are practical reasons behind it. And in Sweden in particular ideological reasons.
 
Last edited:
Muhler where did I say "poor men" I said poor Chris. You are saying women have choice but if seems to me Chris doesn't. It's he that should fall into line and be like Daniel give up his previous life and attend events etc. Anyway like a previous poster I'm out of here. I have a very different view of the SRF after the last 30 or so posts.
 
Muhler where did I say "poor men" I said poor Chris. You are saying women have choice but if seems to me Chris doesn't. It's he that should fall into line and be like Daniel give up his previous life and attend events etc. Anyway like a previous poster I'm out of here. I have a very different view of the SRF after the last 30 or so posts.

Wasn't that implied in your posts?
If not, then I misinterpreted your meaning. :)

Anyway, Daniel is a special case. He married the Crown Princess, so he has no choice.
Chris O'Neil is in a bit of a limbo, because even though he himself has opted out of the royal show, his wife, as a high ranking royal, has not. Or rather her position is unclear and that means Chris O'Neil's position is unclear.

After all, if this is the most extreme view Chris O'Neil has, then Madeleine and Sweden are indeed fortunate. It's just a minor cultural difference that is being attempted to be explained - and understood...
 
Last edited:
IMO I find nothing odd with what Chris said or how he said what he said in the interview, and I think the details provided put a few things in perspective.....I also understand and accept/respect that different cultures have different ways of looking at things ....so I suppose and please swedes correct me if I'm wrong the 'problem' here is in the choice of vocabulary ......

What I would like to ask however, had Madeleine ie a woman , said the same thing, about her being the supporting the family....would it have had the same reaction? Or would there have been some sort of admiration?
 
IMO I find nothing odd with what Chris said or how he said what he said in the interview, and I think the details provided put a few things in perspective.....I also understand and accept/respect that different cultures have different ways of looking at things ....so I suppose and please swedes correct me if I'm wrong the 'problem' here is in the choice of vocabulary ......

What I would like to ask however, had Madeleine ie a woman , said the same thing, about her being the supporting the family....would it have had the same reaction? Or would there have been some sort of admiration?
It would have been odd if Madeleine said it as well. The normal way here is that you have 50/50 responsibility. Sadly women still make less money but the general consensus is that most people do half of the work and half of the housework. Ofc there are different dynamics in different families to allow for preference/talent/time/money etc. And many people (mostly women still..) only work 80% the first years of their kids life to allow for shorter/fewer days at daycare. Plus everyone is allowed those 80% jobtime by law up until the kid is 9 (I think). So there are many things to make it possible to have a parent home. It's just the general culture that women as well work. Can you (not the person cited) explain WHY the man works? There are no clear comment, jsut that the family need money and such. Just as it's very hard for us to explain easily why there is a more 50/50 work-way here :)¨

I appreciate that every country is different, but I am very sad and shocked at the amount of mean comments about our country that has showed up in this thread, showing on great intolerance.. But that have to stand to the commenters, I won't think less of their countrymen!
 
Muhler where did I say "poor men" I said poor Chris. You are saying women have choice but if seems to me Chris doesn't. It's he that should fall into line and be like Daniel give up his previous life and attend events etc. Anyway like a previous poster I'm out of here. I have a very different view of the SRF after the last 30 or so posts.

I don't think it's fair to compare Chris to Daniel. As Muhler said, Daniel married the Crown Princess and may one day become the consort of the reigning queen. Realistically, he can't "opt out" of royal duties under those circumstances.

I guess a more appropriate comparison would be to contrast Chris with, let's say, the Princess Royal's husband, Timothy Laurence, or Princess Margriet's husband, Pieter van Vollenhoven.
 
It would have been odd if Madeleine said it as well. The normal way here is that you have 50/50 responsibility. Sadly women still make less money but the general consensus is that most people do half of the work and half of the housework. Ofc there are different dynamics in different families to allow for preference/talent/time/money etc. And many people (mostly women still..) only work 80% the first years of their kids life to allow for shorter/fewer days at daycare. Plus everyone is allowed those 80% jobtime by law up until the kid is 9 (I think). So there are many things to make it possible to have a parent home. It's just the general culture that women as well work. Can you (not the person cited) explain WHY the man works? There are no clear comment, jsut that the family need money and such. Just as it's very hard for us to explain easily why there is a more 50/50 work-way here :)¨

I appreciate that every country is different, but I am very sad and shocked at the amount of mean comments about our country that has showed up in this thread, showing on great intolerance.. But that have to stand to the commenters, I won't think less of their countrymen!


There's been several 'mean' intolerant comments about Chris in this thread as well...some by Swedes. So the 'shock' goes both ways.


LaRae
 
There's been several 'mean' intolerant comments about Chris in this thread as well...some by Swedes. So the 'shock' goes both ways.


LaRae
I agree. I hope you don't mean me personally, I tried to explain more the generaal culture he will find himself in than on him. But I got a little stingy when people started saying that they lost respect for Sweden and stuff like that... Felt like going a bit to far. But if I said something that seemed mean to Chris, could you please quote it so I can try to explain better. Because I honestly respect their choice, just see some friction in the future due to culture crocks (as is VERY usual when two cultures are getting used to each other)
 
I can very well imagine Chris and Madeleine having this discussion.
 
I don't think it's fair to compare Chris to Daniel. As Muhler said, Daniel married the Crown Princess and may one day become the consort of the reigning queen. Realistically, he can't "opt out" of royal duties under those circumstances.

I guess a more appropriate comparison would be to contrast Chris with, let's say, the Princess Royal's husband, Timothy Laurence, or Princess Margriet's husband, Pieter van Vollenhoven.

Just a note. Imagine that prince Harry falls in love with (and marries) a famous french-canadian lawyer. Then imagine that she gives an interview (in french, since she hasn't learned english) where she explains that the family has decided to move to Quebec. She is making more money than Harry, who just has his charity work and can fly home now and then, and her business is based there. Since she provides for their family, it's more practical for them to live in Quebec.

I think that situation gives a little glimpse of what Chris' interview is stirring up in Sweden.
 
Just a note. Imagine that prince Harry falls in love with (and marries) a famous french-canadian lawyer. Then imagine that she gives an interview (in french, since she hasn't learned english) where she explains that the family has decided to move to Quebec. She is making more money than Harry, who just has his charity work and can fly home now and then, and her business is based there. Since she provides for their family, it's more practical for them to live in Quebec.

I think that situation gives a little glimpse of what Chris' interview is stirring up in Sweden.
I don't see problem with such Harry's decision.
 
Maddy lived in NY befor and after her marriage - even Leonor is born there. So their move to London is bringen them nearer to Sweden - so the Swedes should be glad instead of complaining. They have now wonderfull Sophia who more than willingly will take an active part in in making the swedish people happy with her apperances :)
Maddy doesn't seam to like the spotlight to much and Chris is a privat foreign man with his business, who never lived in Sweden. For him it never was an option to become a member of the royal family - which he made very clear from the start. Like Sophia made it very clear, that there was nothing she liked better ....
 
I don't see problem with such Harry's decision.

Good for you. And no, it's not the same. I just tried to make a comparison. I know a few brits who wouldn't like the idea of Harry moving away permanently. Well, I tried...
 
Just a note. Imagine that prince Harry falls in love with (and marries) a famous french-canadian lawyer. Then imagine that she gives an interview (in french, since she hasn't learned english) where she explains that the family has decided to move to Quebec. She is making more money than Harry, who just has his charity work and can fly home now and then, and her business is based there. Since she provides for their family, it's more practical for them to live in Quebec.

I think that situation gives a little glimpse of what Chris' interview is stirring up in Sweden.

As you are describing it, it would more be (IMO) a matter of loyalty to the country whose royal family he is a member of than a man-woman equality matter. And I could understand the upstirring.
 
As you are describing it, it would more be (IMO) a matter of loyalty to the country whose royal family he is a member of than a man-woman equality matter. And I could understand the upstirring.

That wasn't my point. And yes, I realized I failed to make this comparison too. Reading how people bash my country here just makes me sad and upset, so I'll back out of here again.
 
That wasn't my point. And yes, I realized I failed to make this comparison too. Reading how people bash my country here just makes me sad and upset, so I'll back out of here again.
Please don't leave. I am a new member and I love learning cultures. The first thing I noticed is the lack of posters from Sweden. We need you to help us understand.Of course some people will be negative but mostly not I hope. Looking forward to learning more about Sweden from you.
:)
 
Maddy lived in NY befor and after her marriage - even Leonor is born there. So their move to London is bringen them nearer to Sweden - so the Swedes should be glad instead of complaining. They have now wonderfull Sophia who more than willingly will take an active part in in making the swedish people happy with her apperances :)
Maddy doesn't seam to like the spotlight to much and Chris is a privat foreign man with his business, who never lived in Sweden. For him it never was an option to become a member of the royal family - which he made very clear from the start. Like Sophia made it very clear, that there was nothing she liked better ....

Madeleine is not very popular in Sweden and never took many royal engagements anyway. I agree with you then that, if she left Sweden for good, her absence probably wouldn't be greatly missed and with Victoria/Daniel and C-P/Sofia around, the royal family could easily manage without her. In a way, Maddie is then "expendable".

The point, however, is , as it is the case for all princesses of the blood, that being royal is not a personal choice for Madeleine. She was born royal and grew up in a family backed by generous state funding and with several perks/privileges made available to them. As an adult, my view is that she is expected to "give back" performing public service to her people and any duties she may be requested to do by the king as head of the royal household. That is in essence not different from what happens to other siblings of heir apparents in other European monarchies where those siblings retain legal membership of the royal house.

If Madeleine wants to leave Sweden for good and opt out of royal duties, she should give up her HRH title and her succession rights. The problem is I don't think that's what she wants. My impression is that she is moving to London just to comply with Chris' will, even though she'd rather stay in Sweden, and will try to show up in the home country for occasional royal duties sporadically. For her, that is actually the worst PR outcome possible since it reinforces a public perception that she lives outside Sweden, disconnected from Swedish life, but shows up as a princess of Sweden when it is convenient for her to do so, for example in grand events and on major dates. That hurts her already low popularity.

And, then, there is the issue of Madeleine's children, who are still required by law to be raised in Sweden. How will she reconcile that requirement with Chris' inflexibility about refusing to get a job in Sweden and claiming instead in his interview that moving to London is the only option available to him to prevent his family from starving ?

I personally blame Chris for not understanding that marrying a princess is different from marrying an ordinary person. That is because a royal family is not an ordinary private family. On the contrary, in the way modern monarchies have used the image of family to legitimize themselves in the public's eyes , royal families have become in a way "the nation's family". It is actually a public office that comes with the perks, but also the responsibilities of any office.
 
Last edited:
Yes, I see Madde in fault, but Chris also. It probably was cool to date a blond Swedish Princess, but huh, it's not like in Disney? Both screwed it up royally.
 
Last edited:
Please don't leave. I am a new member and I love learning cultures. The first thing I noticed is the lack of posters from Sweden. We need you to help us understand.Of course some people will be negative but mostly not I hope. Looking forward to learning more about Sweden from you.
:)
I'd like to comment more... but it left a REAL sour taste when people started saying they lost respect for our people....
 
Madeleine is not very popular in Sweden and never took many royal engagements anyway. I agree with you then that, if she left Sweden for good, her absence probably wouldn't be greatly missed and with Victoria/Daniel and C-P/Sofia around, the royal family could easily manage without her. In a way, Maddie is then "expendable".

The point, however, is , as it is the case for all princesses of the blood, that being royal is not a personal choice for Madeleine. She was born royal and grew up in a family backed by generous state funding and with several perks/privileges made available to them. As an adult, my view is that she is expected to "give back" performing public service to her people and any duties she may be requested to do by the king as head of the royal household. That is in essence not different from what happens to other siblings of heir apparents in other European monarchies where those siblings retain legal membership of the royal house.

If Madeleine wants to leave Sweden for good and opt out of royal duties, she should give up her HRH title and her succession rights. The problem is I don't think that's what she wants. My impression is that she is moving to London just to comply with Chris' will, even though she'd rather stay in Sweden, and will try to show up in the home country for occasional royal duties sporadically. For her, that is actually the worst PR outcome possible since it reinforces a public perception that she lives outside Sweden, disconnected from Swedish life, but shows up as a princess of Sweden when it is convenient for her to do so, for example in grand events and on major dates. That hurts her already low popularity.

And, then, there is the issue of Madeleine's children, who are still required by law to be raised in Sweden. How will she reconcile that requirement with Chris' inflexibility about refusing to get a job in Sweden and claiming instead in his interview that moving to London is the only option available to him to prevent his family from starving ?

I personally blame Chris for not understanding that marrying a princess is different from marrying an ordinary person. That is because a royal family is not an ordinary private family. On the contrary, in the way modern monarchies have used the image of family to legitimize themselves in the public's eyes , royal families have become in a way "the nation's family". It is actually a public office that comes with the perks, but also the responsibilities of any office.
I wonder if his view of royalty was scewed by his sister being married to.. I think it's a count? So maybe he thought it was a hollow thing like that... Everything went so faast for them so maybe it didn't sink in enough? A bit of me thinks that she just makes a perfect "trophy wife" with a golden title attached, and that she might have lived like that in NY. But there is alot more to her title...
 
That wasn't my point. And yes, I realized I failed to make this comparison too. Reading how people bash my country here just makes me sad and upset, so I'll back out of here again.

Please don't.
I am sorry there have been posters to dish on Sweden and swedish people. We should be able to disagree and to express our mutual lacks of understanding without bashing each other. There are things in swedish culture I don't understand or disagree with, some others I quite like, and I appreciate very much your efforts to explain how is currently swedish society.
 
I wonder if his view of royalty was scewed by his sister being married to.. I think it's a count? So maybe he thought it was a hollow thing like that... Everything went so faast for them so maybe it didn't sink in enough? A bit of me thinks that she just makes a perfect "trophy wife" with a golden title attached, and that she might have lived like that in NY. But there is alot more to her title...

Yes, Chris's sister Natascha is married to an austrian count. And his sister Tatjana is married to John Henry d'Abo, whose mother is lady Ursula d'Abo, born Manners, daughter of the 9th Duke of Rutland. She was a train-bearer to Queen Elizabeth at the coronation of George VI.
 
There is always so much talk about Prince Carl Philip or Princess Madeleine (and his spouse) renouncing their rights and live as "plain, old" Mr./Mrs.... Now, is this even possible under Swedish law? Can they even give up their titles and succession rights if they want to? Or has the only "chance" gone by by marrying with consent?

(Disclaimer: I do not support the idea that they should renounce their titles, I am just curious. And it definitely is something to consider before demanding a renunciation.)

best wishes Michiru
 
There is always so much talk about Prince Carl Philip or Princess Madeleine (and his spouse) renouncing their rights and live as "plain, old" Mr./Mrs.... Now, is this even possible under Swedish law? Can they even give up their titles and succession rights if they want to? Or has the only "chance" gone by by marrying with consent?

(Disclaimer: I do not support the idea that they should renounce their titles, I am just curious. And it definitely is something to consider before demanding a renunciation.)

best wishes Michiru
I honestly have no clue :p And have never (to my memory) suggested it :p But I have no idea!
 
Just a note. Imagine that prince Harry falls in love with (and marries) a famous french-canadian lawyer. Then imagine that she gives an interview (in french, since she hasn't learned english) where she explains that the family has decided to move to Quebec. She is making more money than Harry, who just has his charity work and can fly home now and then, and her business is based there. Since she provides for their family, it's more practical for them to live in Quebec.

I think that situation gives a little glimpse of what Chris' interview is stirring up in Sweden.

I guess that even if they would have marrried without Consent they would have keept their titles. But in Carl Philip's case Sofia would not have become Princess neither would any children they possible have. And Madeleine's children would not have been titlted.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom