Opposition to Royal Marriages

[Muhler]

I get the picture. I mainly wondered why you think the decision would turn out differently nowadays (or in the future) as over the last 20 years we've seen that almost anyone will be approved of. Within the SRF I am still surprised thst there was apparently so much oppossition against Daniel and so little against Sofia. Probably she profitted from the king's earlier decision on Daniel?!

That also surprises me, because AFAIK he had a fine background, no problems there. And he has turned out to be fine support for Victoria.
Perhaps he wasn't glamorous enough? Not academic enough? Too ordinary? Too Swedish?

As for Sofia. Okay, some of you will see red now, so be it.
Just as women can be horrible and totally unforgiving towards women/princesses who are otherwise suitable. In the same way women in particular can rally around a woman who is being criticized. The criticism being seen as an attack on the female gender, rather than the individual person and regardless of the validity of that criticism. There is IMO a lot of that these days...
And Sweden is a feminist country, where criticism of a woman cannot and must not be tolerated, - unless it's by the feminists themselves.

Now shoot me. ?

 

[Stefan]

I'm sure that Sofia benefited from the trailblazing Daniel, but they were generally treated the same. Both had to wait a few years to get scrubbed up and improve their public image. What Sofia had working for her was that Carl Philip isn't the heir while, according to Victoria, the doubts her parents had about Daniel was if he would be able to cope with being the husband of the future Head of State.

I think Sofia was much more generously treated then Daniel. She was allowed to attened official Events like the christening of Estelle and the Wedding of Madeleine without beeing engaged. This was certainly not the case for Daniel.

 

[Moonmaiden23]

I completely agree with you.

But not according to Sofia herself...she says she was "bullied" and treated MOST unfairly.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Elisabeth would have lost her title and become a Rosenborg had she married her lifetime partner. She said as much in an interview posted somewhere in the Elisabeth thread.
And since they were determined not to have any children and it was back in 70's and 80's it really didn't matter, so they just lived together.

According to Elisabeth herself she would've lost her title upon marriage so since the couple had no intentions of having children they decided not to marry.

Indeed (though she said that she would have become a Hermansen, rather than a Rosenborg), but my understanding of what Princess Elisabeth meant is that she would have lost her title because her marriage would not have received the Queen's approval in Council of State, just as her brothers lost their titles because their marriages were not given the King's approval in Council of State.

It's worth noting that, according to Prince Christian himself, his uncle had nothing personal against neither him marrying a commoner nor Anne-Dorthe herself, but felt that he had to obey the law.

Perhaps he meant the traditions? The Danish Constitution did not impose a requirement to marry equally, only to obtain the approval of the King.

The two Scandinavian monarchs have generally accepted their predecessors decisions as applicable on the former generations while making their own decisions for their children's generation during their reign. Therefore QMII would've found her father's decision regarding Ingolf and Christian applicable on Elisabeth as well while although CXVIG did allow Bertil to retain his title he did not approve the application of his uncles and cousin to regain their titles.

That makes sense in regard to Queen Margrethe II's decisions, but King Carl XVI Gustaf was willing to treat Bertil's marriage differently from the marriages of Bertil's brothers (and his cousin Lennart).

I think Sopfia was much more generously treated then Daniel. She weas allowed to attened official Events like the christening of Estelle and the Wedding of Madeleine without beeing engaged. This was certainly not the case for Daniel.

Sofia Hellqvist was also treated much more generously by the press in comparison to Daniel Westling.

 

[Muhler]

Indeed (though she said that she would have become a Hermansen, rather than a Rosenborg), but my understanding of what Princess Elisabeth meant is that she would have lost her title because her marriage would not have received the Queen's approval in Council of State, just as her brothers lost their titles because their marriages were not given the King's approval in Council of State.

She would no doubt have been offered the title of countess of Rosenborg, whether she would have chosen Mrs. Elisabeth Hermansen, Countess of Rosenborg or Countess Elisabeth of Rosenborg or simply Mrs. Elisabeth Hermansen is open to speculation.

And I think it was at some point made clear to her that if she married she would lose her title. Which IMO was to be expected. There is a limit to how many princes and princesses we can have running around. - It's also the big question in regards to Joachim's children, if or when they marry.

 

[Somebody]

I think Sofia was much more generously treated then Daniel. She was allowed to attened official Events like the christening of Estelle and the Wedding of Madeleine without beeing engaged. This was certainly not the case for Daniel.

Daniel, Emma and Jonas attended the king's 60th birthday party. I don't really know what other family events they should have attended before getting engaged as there weren't that many.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

She would no doubt have been offered the title of countess of Rosenborg, whether she would have chosen Mrs. Elisabeth Hermansen, Countess of Rosenborg or Countess Elisabeth of Rosenborg or simply Mrs. Elisabeth Hermansen is open to speculation.

Are you certain that she would have been offered a Countess title if and when she lost her title of Princess of Denmark? BB was told by the Princess in 2015 that she would have become Mrs. Hermansen. (Thank you for your translation. )

Q: You (informal you) were very fond of Claus. Why didn't you marry?
E: "Then I'd become Mrs. Hermansen and that we both thought was a bit silly considering that we were not to have any children. That was a decision we both agreed on".​

And I think it was at some point made clear to her that if she married she would lose her title. Which IMO was to be expected. There is a limit to how many princes and princesses we can have running around. - It's also the big question in regards to Joachim's children, if or when they marry.

I agree. What I meant is that the Queen would presumably have treated Princess Elisabeth and her hypothetical husband much as her brothers and their wives were treated, that is to say, the marriage would not have been given approval in Council of State (as opposed to giving approval and yet stripping her of her title, for which I don't think there is any precedent).

 

[xenobia]

But not according to Sofia herself...she says she was "bullied" and treated MOST unfairly.

She was, by the press and on social media. But she has always said that the king and queen treated her with warmth from early on, so no bullying there.

 

[Muhler]

Are you certain that she would have been offered a Countess title if and when she lost her title of Princess of Denmark? BB was told by the Princess in 2015 that she would have become Mrs. Hermansen. (Thank you for your translation. )

Q: You (informal you) were very fond of Claus. Why didn't you marry?
E: "Then I'd become Mrs. Hermansen and that we both thought was a bit silly considering that we were not to have any children. That was a decision we both agreed on".​

I agree. What I meant is that the Queen would presumably have treated Princess Elisabeth and her hypothetical husband much as her brothers and their wives were treated, that is to say, the marriage would not have been given approval in Council of State (as opposed to giving approval and yet stripping her of her title, for which I don't think there is any precedent).

You are welcome. ?
I am actually.
I think the Mrs. Hemansen bit was said with a glimmer in her eye.

It's akin to Sofia saying that upon her marriage to Carl-Phillip she would become Mrs. Bernadotte.
She sort of did, but she is also Princess Sofia.

 

[PrincessElena]

cutting off the heads of fifteen budgies with a pair of scissors, putting the heads on lollypop sticks and planting them in the ground in front of the local kindergarten when she was 22.

Wha...What??? What was she thinking


I love Mary but...That's horrible

 

[Muhler]

Wha...What??? What was she thinking


I love Mary but...That's horrible

Don't worry. ?
It was only an outrageous example I made up to illustrate a point.
That's why I ended it with this: ?

I doubt Mary has ever cut off the heads of budgies - with scissors.

 

[tommy100]

I wonder if Princess Anne faced opposition to her marrying Tim Lawrence, who was when they met, a member of the Queen's staff who was writing romantic letters to her whilst she was still married.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

You are welcome. ?
I am actually.
I think the Mrs. Hemansen bit was said with a glimmer in her eye.

It's akin to Sofia saying that upon her marriage to Carl-Phillip she would become Mrs. Bernadotte.
She sort of did, but she is also Princess Sofia.

It would only be fair to offer Princess Elisabeth the same title conferred on her brothers, but I suspect Queen Margrethe II would have followed the precedent set by Mrs. Dagmar Castenskiold (who was born as Princess Dagmar of Denmark), for whom there were no further titles after she married an untitled nobleman. Queen Margrethe II created the Danish title of Count(ess) of Monpezat with a remainder restricted to descendants in male line, which suggests that she is willing to treat men differently from women regarding titles of nobility.

She was, by the press and on social media. But she has always said that the king and queen treated her with warmth from early on, so no bullying there.

From the articles from prior to their marriages which I have read through, I must agree with those who conclude that Daniel Westling received noticeably less generous treatment by the press.

 

[Muhler]

OMII is/was pretty conservative, so we can only speculate.

 

[ROYAL NORWAY]

This is extremely interesting. It's difficult to imagine a reason why the word "King" would take on a different meaning in Article 36 in comparison to every other article in the Constitution, and I suspect the reality was that King Harald wished to avert any potential debate and the government thought there was no advantage to challenging the king's plan of action, given that the government probably would have approved the marriage in any case.

Well, as Jens Stoltenberg said in his autobiography:
''Kongen og jeg var skjønt enige om at kronprinsen kom til å gifte seg med den han var glad i, og hvis noen prøvde å nekte ham det, enten det var kongen eller regjeringen, så måtte vi regne med at landet ikke lenger hadde en kronprins.''
(''The King and I agreed that the Crown Prince was getting married to the one he loved, and if anyone tried to deny him that, whether it was the King or the government, then we had to assume that the country no longer had a Crown Prince.'')

 

[Moonmaiden23]

She was, by the press and on social media. But she has always said that the king and queen treated her with warmth from early on, so no bullying there.

There were some in the Swedish press that bent over backward to promote this young woman....one in particular was so rabidly pro Sofia I occasionally wondered if he was on the payroll.

As for social media...well yeah. What did she expect?

She still got fields of roses compared to poor Daniel.

 

[Somebody]

Well, as Jens Stoltenberg said in his autobiography:
''Kongen og jeg var skjønt enige om at kronprinsen kom til å gifte seg med den han var glad i, og hvis noen prøvde å nekte ham det, enten det var kongen eller regjeringen, så måtte vi regne med at landet ikke lenger hadde en kronprins.''
(''The King and I agreed that the Crown Prince was getting married to the one he loved, and if anyone tried to deny him that, whether it was the King or the government, then we had to assume that the country no longer had a Crown Prince.'')

I assume the king was extremely lenient given his own struggle to get his choice of bride approved. He knew how stubborn he was, so expected that his son would be the same.

 

[KMD]

I wonder how many were relieved to lose their place in succession, and have more privacy and personal freedom? Or do they also lose much more than a title such as privilege, allowances, residence etc? I heard that Princess Margaret of GB
was not prepared to relinquish her title and lifestyle for Peter Townsend, although there were other considerations.

 

[jacqui24]

I wonder how many were relieved to lose their place in succession, and have more privacy and personal freedom? Or do they also lose much more than a title such as privilege, allowances, residence etc? I heard that Princess Margaret of GB
was not prepared to relinquish her title and lifestyle for Peter Townsend, although there were other considerations.

In today's society, I think most of them would. Especially the younger generation. I think it's been a lot more obvious in the recent decades the sacrifice involved in being a royal. Margaret was from a different time. Monarchy was viewed differently in general back then, and the royals viewed their position and roles differently back then as well. Of course, with the BRF there was also the trauma of Edward VIII's abdication.

 

[Denville]

In today's society, I think most of them would. Especially the younger generation. I think it's been a lot more obvious in the recent decades the sacrifice involved in being a royal. Margaret was from a different time. Monarchy was viewed differently in general back then, and the royals viewed their position and roles differently back then as well. Of course, with the BRF there was also the trauma of Edward VIII's abdication.

Precisely. I think that the other RF's have had less trouble with the idea of someone being dropped from the succession, because of a marriage. So a lot of Danish and other royals married commoners and were left out of the line, and it was considered OK.

 

[MARG]

There were some in the Swedish press that bent over backward to promote this young woman....one in particular was so rabidly pro Sofia I occasionally wondered if he was on the payroll.[emoji38]

As for social media...well yeah. What did she expect?

She still got fields of roses compared to poor Daniel.

I think there was more going on with the years Victoria had to wait for permission to marry a sweet, loving, educated and self-made man. And, I also believe that if he wasn't a CP in his own right he would have been as unacceptable as Daniel.

 

[AdmirerUS]

I wonder how many were relieved to lose their place in succession, and have more privacy and personal freedom? Or do they also lose much more than a title such as privilege, allowances, residence etc? I heard that Princess Margaret of GB
was not prepared to relinquish her title and lifestyle for Peter Townsend, although there were other considerations.

I think Margaret thought things would go on as they had for years - very old school life of a royal without a lot of hard work required of the non-monarch. Just hang out and look cute. She lacked the imagination to see that things always do change and not usually in one's favor, unless one strives for things that matter to the public. I've always thought her interpersonally crafty, but not the brightest bulb in the bunch.

 

[jacqui24]

I think Margaret thought things would go on as they had for years - very old school life of a royal without a lot of hard work required of the non-monarch. Just hang out and look cute. She lacked the imagination to see that things always do change and not usually in one's favor, unless one strives for things that matter to the public. I've always thought her interpersonally crafty, but not the brightest bulb in the bunch.

The Queen was front and center and felt the profound change in the way people viewed monarchy. Her hand was forced a bit on some of the changes she's had to make as society changed. Margaret was far more out of touch, which isn't surprising. Margaret has always seemed to me quite spoiled and sheltered from real life and consequences. As for the Peter Townsend situation, I don't know how much of it was duty versus she realized the reality of her life if she marries him, and decided that wasn't for her. Hurting the monarchy did not stop her from doing a number of things after that.

 

[Skippy]

There were some in the Swedish press that bent over backward to promote this young woman....one in particular was so rabidly pro Sofia I occasionally wondered if he was on the payroll.

As for social media...well yeah. What did she expect?

She still got fields of roses compared to poor Daniel.

Well, what would you expect?

It really goes beyond normal or even polite what some have accused her of or slung at her. Even some people here.

And I don't think Daniel was that "poor" at all, Victoria's position is starkly different from Carl Philip's, so her spouse had much more boxes to tick and prove that he was suitable material in the long run.
On paper he looks like a dream guy, but he had to prove that the paperwork also translated into practical work. That is what a lot of people seem to forget here. He proved that his paperwork was practical as well, so he and Victoria were allowed to marry.

Vice versa for Sofia - her paperwork was, depending how you look at it, less than stellar and apparently she proved that her practical work was better. Or at least had gotten better over the years. I suppose she's always been a free spirit.

 

[PrincessElena]

Don't worry. ?
It was only an outrageous example I made up to illustrate a point.
That's why I ended it with this: ?

I doubt Mary has ever cut off the heads of budgies - with scissors.

Oh thank heavens! My bad I took your words literally!

 

[Moonmaiden23]

Well, what would you expect?

It really goes beyond normal or even polite what some have accused her of or slung at her. Even some people here.

And I don't think Daniel was that "poor" at all, Victoria's position is starkly different from Carl Philip's, so her spouse had much more boxes to tick and prove that he was suitable material in the long run.
On paper he looks like a dream guy, but he had to prove that the paperwork also translated into practical work. That is what a lot of people seem to forget here. He proved that his paperwork was practical as well, so he and Victoria were allowed to marry.

Vice versa for Sofia - her paperwork was, depending how you look at it, less than stellar and apparently she proved that her practical work was better. Or at least had gotten better over the years. I suppose she's always been a free spirit.

Well, for starters Skippy I would probably not have ever shared the dicey details of my personal life on social media, including but not limited to, rhapsodizing about what it's like to have carnal relations on ice and what it feels like to make out with a porn star. And after realizing that there were photographs of myself online that could be construed as immodest enough to be banned from certain message boards and that the Swedish Court felt compelled to "scrub clean" I would not have expected the Audrey Hepburn treatment just because I had gone and bagged myself a Royal Prince.

I would have just kept my mouth shut and proven myself with what you refer to as "practical work"...letting the results speak for itself.

Minus the whinging and complaining about unfair treatment.

But that's just me.

 

[Mbruno]

I wonder how many were relieved to lose their place in succession, and have more privacy and personal freedom?

I don't thnk they would give up their place in the line of succession if they had the option to keep it. On the contrary, some actually tried to get their title and rank back as Sigvard Bernadotte, who even went to the European Court of Human Rights to have hs princely status recognized by the Swedish government. There is a great deal of myth IMHO about royals resenting a lack of privacy and personal freedom. Especially when it comes to cadet children of monarchs, it seems to me that their perks tend to outnumber their obligations or the intrusion in their private lives.


There is indeed an issue, however, with royal marriages requiring official consent, which may be seen as a restriction of personal freedom (in this case, the freedom to marry whoever you choose). The consent requirement itself is understandable in my opinion, considering that the issue of those marriages will be in the line of succession to the throne. Nevertheless, maybe the current British model of limiting the consent requirement only to the first six persons in line makes more sense as it is very unlikely that someone lower than sxth place will ever ascend the throne anyway.

 

[Skippy]

Well, for starters Skippy I would probably not have never shared the dicey details of my personal life on social media, including but not limited to, rhapsodizing about what it's like to have carnal relations on ice and what if feels like to make out with a porn star. And after realizing that there were photographs of myself online that could be construed as immodest enough to be banned from certain message boards and that the Swedish Court felt compelled to "scrub clean" I would not have expected the Audrey Hepburn treatment just because I had gone and bagged myself a Royal Prince.

I would have just kept my mouth shut and proven myself with what you refer to as "practical work"...letting the results speak for themselves.

Minus the whinging and complaining about unfair treatment.

But that's just me.

I would not do all those things either, I am with you about that, but I won't sling anonymous mud at someone (a then-future royal in this case) online because of them having done it and talking about it. Calling them names and stuff - it's happened.
Not here perse but some folks online have been really mean about her. Only because they disagree with her past and there the differing viewpoints come along.

It was not the smartest thing to do but she has - elsewhere - only just escaped crucification. I guess that she hoped that online life had also moved with the times and not dredge up something from years ago.

She's learnt a hard lesson with that, is my take. And it was naive, Internet never erases.
She could have acknowledged that she understood the concerns about her past but that she moved on from it a long time ago and all the rest she said.
That would couple both sides (public view and her own viewpoint) - with the approach that she took I can imagine that it stung for some people.

And now I believe I have said all I wanted to say about it

 

[Moonmaiden23]

You make excellent points and yes, that would have been a great way for Sofia to have handled herself.

Thank you Skippy.

 

[ladongas]

With few exceptions, everyone makes mistakes in life; sometimes they are horrible, cruel mistakes which hurt others terribly. Sometimes they are foolish, naive, and selfish mistakes made in the blithe ignorance of youth, and which are hurting only yourself.

When you are 20 years old, you unthinkingly do things that you can’t imagine will affect your future. But if you are just an ordinary “sinner”, at some point you mend your foolish ways and begin being the kind of person you were intended to be: self-aware, kind, wholesomely ambitious, and anxious to live a good life.

This is the transition Sofia has gone through. By a wonderful stroke of luck, she fell in love with a special man, and he fell in love with her. I can’t imagine anyone still obsessing over her party girl past.