Royalty/Nobility and Gender

[Tatiana Maria]

But why the King’s sisters? They weren’t even heirs under old rules.

Not sure why you use that as an argument against leaving them inheritances, as you were the one who pointed out that the Bertils leaving their inheritances to Carl Philip had nothing to do with the rules of succession to the throne (to which Victoria is the heir, not Carl Philip).

Again, I was responding to your argument that Victoria was bypassed because she was already the heir to other assets. I pointed out that Carl Philip too was already the heir to other assets, just like Victoria. Madeleine and the King's sisters are not.

The Bertil’s gifted the assets to whoever they wanted to and that’s that.

You made this point earlier and I responded to it at the time:

Regarding the assets of Prince Bertil and the royalist family friend, it was up to them to give up their assets to whoever they wished be it a bus driver, a charity or anyone else.

Of course, that was the point. It was up to them to give their assets to whoever they wished - and they did not wish their assets to belong to a female future monarch, or to charities or bus drivers, but to a male royal.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

[...] him wanting to have his branch of the family as a separate one with his daughter succeeding him. I wouldn’t simply say it’s natural, but just self-serving especially when some of them may have older sisters but now that they have daughters instead of sons, the bending of the old rules comes into play.

It is somewhat self-serving when men only support female headship or inheritance rights for their daughters when they do not have sons.

It is far more self-serving when men insist on male-only or male-preference succession which allows them to inherit over their sisters and female cousins.

 

[SirGyamfi1]

It is somewhat self-serving when men only support female headship or inheritance rights for their daughters when they do not have sons.

It is far more self-serving when men insist on male-only or male-preference succession which allows them to inherit over their sisters and female cousins.

It’s even more self-serving in the former because the succession rights to family headship and “assumption” to the title is Salic or male line only. Secondly, it was like this in the time when there actually was a monarchy so it cannot be changed legally or recognised. Thirdly, the person in question is inheriting assets that were bought off other family members, so there’s no issue of an inheritance. The brides father tried to get his line of the family recognised as a separate branch of the Waldburg branch by the Gotha genealogy handbook, but his request was denied. Franz Clemens is also not head of the family as his line is actually a side branch.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

It’s even more self-serving in the former because the succession rights to family headship and “assumption” to the title is Salic or male line only.

So the reason you consider men denying family headship to all women to be less self-serving than men denying family headship to most but not all women is that... women were already denied family headship? I do not follow your logic.

Please bear in mind that my comment was a response to your general comment on women's rights and not about the Hohenems case.

 

[SirGyamfi1]

So the reason you consider men denying family headship to all women to be less self-serving than men denying family headship to most but not all women is that... women were already denied family headship? I do not follow your logic.

Most of the time, “awarding” headship in the deposed German nobility to women is only because the last male head only has daughters and there being no other male line heirs to contest decisions so it somewhat self-serving.

My response to your post, is that it’s denied because women were already denied headship prior to the de recognition of noble titles in Austria and Germany.

Plus the men during the time of the monarchy couldn’t just pass down headship, coat of arms, titles to women without receiving permission from authorities (in Austria’s case, the Kaiser and committee of nobles) as well as sending information to the Gotha handbook.

Nobles cannot legally personally pass down titles to any of their children regardless of gender because there are letters patent, charters and decrees that clearly stated how the succession would operate. Additionally, in a hypothetical scenario do you think that if Franz Clemens had one older daughter, but 4 younger sons with the eldest son succeeding, do you think he would be trying to contact the gotha genealogy handbook to present his branch of the family as a separate branch and request that his eldest daughter be recognised as heiress to titles which aren’t legally, socially or by courtesy recognised?

 

[Tatiana Maria]

So the reason you consider men denying family headship to all women to be less self-serving than men denying family headship to most but not all women is that... women were already denied family headship? I do not follow your logic.

My response to your post, is that it’s denied because women were already denied headship prior to the de recognition of noble titles in Austria and Germany.

[...]

Plus the men during the time of the monarchy couldn’t just pass down headship, coat of arms, titles to women without receiving permission from authorities (in Austria’s case, the Kaiser and committee of nobles) as well as sending information to the Gotha handbook.

Nobles cannot legally personally pass down titles to any of their children regardless of gender because there are letters patent, charters and decrees that clearly stated how the succession would operate.

[...]

And prior to the derecognition of noble titles in Austrian and Germany, the authorities who issued the male-only charters and denied permission to women to inherit were men.

 

[SirGyamfi1]

And prior to the derecognition of noble titles in Austrian and Germany, the authorities who issued the male-only charters and denied permission to women to inherit were men.

Yes, and in the event of a woman being an heiress, the arms and titles would be joined with her husband’s. Additionally, the spouse in question would also have to be the woman’s social equal in terms of rank and prestige.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

To be honest, I am rather bemused by the comments online (not specific to this forum) heralding Prince Sverre Magnus as a savior of the monarchy and urging the King and Crown Prince to designate him as a future full-time working royal. Aside from the question of whether Norway truly requires so many full-time working royals, he is only 18 years old, meaning that most of the public know little of him at this stage (as it should be), and there is no sure method to predict what sort of royal he will be. He may prove to be as lovable and respectable as his paternal grandfather, or he may prove to cause as much scandal as his brother and paternal aunt.

I wonder if some (certainly not all, but some) of the comments are rooted in the patriarchal notion that the future king's eldest son has a "right" to royal treatment even if he is not the eldest child. Reading older discussions on royal forums, it seems there was also much more upset when Prince Sverre Magnus was denied the HRH at birth compared to when Princess Märtha Louise was stripped of her HRH shortly before marriage.

I don’t think that posters are following patriarchal notions when discussing Sverre Magnus’s possible future public role as realistically pointing out that the NRF are a tiny group of working royals.
As we all know, King Harald is very elderly and in bad health. His daughter in law the CPrss has a very serious health condition which limits her royal duties and the heir to the heir, Prss I-A is still very young and in the midst of her further education.

If she marries at say 25 and has children in the following five years, who, besides her father, is likely to be a full time working royal? Is Ingrid-Alexandra not to be given any respite from full on royal duties as a young wife and mother if her husband remains in private life? And what if she remains single and childless? Imo it’s just plain commonsense to make sure that her younger brother should at least have some training in royal duties for the future, just in case.

Those were not the comments I referred to. Not only do I agree that Prince Sverre Magnus should be trained in royal duties, but my view on the matter is that in every monarchy with a difficult-to-modify line of succession to the throne, every individual in line should be trained in royal duties, so Princess Märtha Louise and her daughters should either also be trained in royal duties or be excluded from the line of succession to the throne.

However, the popularity of calls (again, not only on this forum) for Prince Sverre Magnus to become a full-time royal exceeds the calls for female "spares" to become full-time working royals, even in royal families with a small roster of working royals. For Spain and Belgium (both of which have larger populations than Norway), royal watchers have had little objection to Infanta Elena and Princess Astrid being sidelined, even though the brothers who sidelined them "only" have elderly parents (of whom at least the fathers abdicated for a reason) and children too young for royal duties.

But presumably that's also a pattern-breaking newborn child versus someone on the same level as her aunts

You're correct that the situations are not exactly the same. However, most of the "upset" comments I read were not "Why can't Sverre Magnus be an HRH until he gets married like his great-aunts or until he goes into business like his aunt?" but rather "Why can't Sverre Magnus be an HRH? He's the son of a king!"

There also seems to be no offense taken over British Prince Edward's daughter Louise being only a Lady while her younger(!) brother gets to be an Earl, compared to the outrage over Magnus the spare having a title "unequal" to his older sister the future queen.

I also read an old comment (I think on this forum) complaining that with Sverre Magnus not being an HRH, Ingrid Alexandra's future husband might outrank him. In contrast, I have never seen any royal watcher be disturbed by Crown Princess Mette-Marit outranking Princess Märtha Louise or Queen Sonja outranking Princess Astrid.

Why do you expect Ingrid-Alexandra's future husband to remain in private life? I fully expect the spouse of the future monarch to be fully dedicated to his role as consort - just like Daniel has shown in neighboring Sweden.

Perhaps Curryong meant that he could dedicate himself private home life and the care of his children, like the Duchess of Cambridge did for a period. But if what was meant was that he might remain working in private business life, that would be a clear example of sexist treatment as no female consort in the same position would be expected or allowed to do the same.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

It appears it is much more socially acceptable to criticize a female royal's choice of spouse than to criticize a male royal's choice of spouse. In discussions on the appropriateness of a princess's choice of husband, or about third parties who may disapprove of her choice, it seems posters are free to suggest the princess should not marry him or should accept the negative consequences for marrying him, without facing backlash for their views. But in discussions on the appropriateness of a prince's choice of wife, or about third parties who may disapprove of his choice, posters who argue that the prince should not marry her or should accept the negative consequences for marrying her are typically in the minority and are often subjected to severe rejoinders (including accusations of being medieval, misogynistic, racist, etc.), even in some cases when the bride is unpopular or has a checkered past.

That is certainly not the case. You should look and read all the threads about Swedish prince Carl-Philip when he was dating his current wife.

oh gosh yes, and on other royal forums it was even worse than here, i swear there are some who still hold her past against her

Perhaps our recollections differ. I have read those threads, and found that they contained many instances of what I described about discussions of princes' choices of spouse, namely:

It appears it is much more socially acceptable to criticize a female royal's choice of spouse than to criticize a male royal's choice of spouse. In discussions on the appropriateness of a princess's choice of husband, or about third parties who may disapprove of her choice, it seems posters are free to suggest the princess should not marry him or should accept the negative consequences for marrying him, without facing backlash for their views. But in discussions on the appropriateness of a prince's choice of wife, or about third parties who may disapprove of his choice, posters who argue that the prince should not marry her or should accept the negative consequences for marrying her are typically in the minority and are often subjected to severe rejoinders (including accusations of being medieval, misogynistic, racist, etc.), even in some cases when the bride is unpopular or has a checkered past.

Without opining on the proposition that past behavior should not be held against a chosen spouse, it seems to me to be another difference between the more generous treatment of princes' marital choices compared to the treatment of princesses' marital choices, as I rarely see it applied to the latter.

I will add that those not convinced of the difference in treatment by royal watchers should compare and contrast the discussions of the controversial marriage of Princess Märtha Louise of Norway with the discussions of controversial marriages of royal princes.