Titles of the Swedish RF and Changes 2019


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
The 2023 constitutional reform in Luxembourg restricted the Grand Duke's power to ennoble to members of the grand-ducal family. The Luxembourg constitution does not define "grand-ducal family", though, so I suppose if the Grand Duke wished to grant titles of nobility to foreign royals, he could try decreeing them to be members of the Luxembourg grand-ducal family. Are the Bernadottes descended from the Luxembourg grand dukes?
They are. Grand Duke Adolphe of Luxembourg (great great grandfather of GD Henri) was brother to Queen Sofia of Sweden (great great grandmother to King CXVIG)

The close family relation (wich for obvious reasons is nowdays only a distant relation) was given as a reason as to why Prince Oscar Duke of Gotland was enobled ”Count Bernadotte of Wisborg” by his uncle, when he lost his title upon marriage.
 
There are currently 12 in the line of Succession and I don't see any issues for another 20 years.
 
They are. Grand Duke Adolphe of Luxembourg (great great grandfather of GD Henri) was brother to Queen Sofia of Sweden (great great grandmother to King CXVIG)

The close family relation (wich for obvious reasons is nowdays only a distant relation) was given as a reason as to why Prince Oscar Duke of Gotland was enobled ”Count Bernadotte of Wisborg” by his uncle, when he lost his title upon marriage.
Indeed. But still they are not descending from Grand Duke of Luxembourg
 
Indeed. But still they are not descending from Grand Duke of Luxembourg
Not strictly as GD Adolphe succeeded King Willem III of the Netherlands as Luxembourg’s Head of State.

Though they do share a line of descent with the current Grand Ducal Family through Queen Sofia.
 
Yes, you are exactly right. The Marshal of the Realm stated at the 2019 press conference that the princely and ducal titles would not be shared with the demoted children's future "partners" or children. (I do not have time to search for the transcription right now, but it was published on the websites of Swedish-language newspapers such as Expressen and Aftonbladet, for example.) A press conference is not legally binding, but it is notable that the King chose to have his Marshal announce these future plans when he could just as well have postponed the decision for many years until one of the grandchildren actually married or had children.



The 2023 constitutional reform in Luxembourg restricted the Grand Duke's power to ennoble to members of the grand-ducal family. The Luxembourg constitution does not define "grand-ducal family", though, so I suppose if the Grand Duke wished to grant titles of nobility to foreign royals, he could try decreeing them to be members of the Luxembourg grand-ducal family. Are the Bernadottes descended from the Luxembourg grand dukes?



The original decision of the King wasn't radical, merely the standing tradition for grandchildren in the line of succession to the throne to bear full royal titles until such time as they lost the right of succession (e.g. Count Lennart Bernadotte of Wisborg, who was born H.R.H. Prince Lennart), even if they were not children of the direct heir. Perhaps some would consider the decision to grant females and their descendants equal rights to the throne, thus putting Princess Madeleine's children on the same footing as Prince Carl Philip's children, to be "radical", but that decision was a fait accompli by parliament in the 1970s (which the King partially opposed).
I can accept that because of the changes in the law enacting strict primogeniture retrospectively in the case of Crown Princess Victoria " radical" may be considered a strong word with reference to HRH Princess Madeleine's children being on the same footing as HRH Prince Carl Philip's children . However I do feel that in that particular case the fact that her husband not only made it clear that he would not be accepting a title, or Swedish citizenship, or any formal role within the Royal Family should have been considered . Only my personal opinion, but I feel that Duchies would have been a good compromise, or the title of Princess or Prince without the HRH . It must have already been clear that it would be unlikely that any children would be required to be full time working members of the Royal Family . Again only my opinion, but I feel that if change was going to happen with regard to primogeniture it should have happened with all Swedish titles .
 
While the official definition of a morganatic marriage is one where the lower-ranked spouse and children can’t use the higher-ranked spouse’s title it seems like the term has been used synonymously with any unequal marriage.
However the marriages of Carl Philip and Madeleine’s children will fit the official definition of a morganatic marriage because Carl Gustaf decided that their spouses can’t share their titles which is strange and unnecessary. Their spouses having courtesy titles wouldn’t change their kids being untitled.
 
But I can see why CG decided it- the public don't differentiate between royals who are married in and those that aren't at the moment so when his grandchildren married there would be 4 new titled Princesses who would potentially be considered royals by the public.

To me it makes sense to say the title is purely personal. It is quite like how in Denmark they use to take away titles when they married (which it was suggested was going to happen to Joachim's kids I believe) but in this scenario the grandchildren themselves get to keep their titles just not their spouse and any children they may one day have.
 
Last edited:
But I can see why CG decided it- the public don't differentiate between royals who are married in and those that aren't at the moment so when his grandchildren married there would be 4 new titled Princesses who would potentially be considered royals by the public.

To me it makes sense to say the title is purely personal. It is quite like how in Denmark they use to take away titles when they married (which it was suggested was going to happen to Joachim's kids I believe) but in this scenario the grandchildren themselves get to keep their titles just not their spouse and any children they may one day have.
They would be considered royals because they were married to royals. Swedish princesses can share their (non-heir) titles with their spouses, Madeleine’s husband declined a title because he didn’t want to become a Swedish citizen. CG removed the HRH from CP and Madeleine’s children so the titles they hold are purely courtesy titles. Their spouses’ titles would be courtesy titles without an HRH as well. In Denmark they would take away princely titles upon marriage if the marriage was unequal, princes would receive the title of count of Rosenborg and princesses would become Mrs. (husband’s surname). I can imagine that the public will find it very strange that a prince’s wife is simply Mrs. Bernadotte, the spouses should at least get to share the ducal titles.
 
However the marriages of Carl Philip and Madeleine’s children will fit the official definition of a morganatic marriage because Carl Gustaf decided that their spouses can’t share their titles which is strange and unnecessary. Their spouses having courtesy titles wouldn’t change their kids being untitled.
The marriages won't be morganatic since spouse and children never had any rights to their spouse or parents' title or status in the first place. They will also be a part of the Line of Succession.
They would be considered royals because they were married to royals. Swedish princesses can share their (non-heir) titles with their spouses, Madeleine’s husband declined a title because he didn’t want to become a Swedish citizen. CG removed the HRH from CP and Madeleine’s children so the titles they hold are purely courtesy titles. Their spouses’ titles would be courtesy titles without an HRH as well. In Denmark they would take away princely titles upon marriage if the marriage was unequal, princes would receive the title of count of Rosenborg and princesses would become Mrs. (husband’s surname). I can imagine that the public will find it very strange that a prince’s wife is simply Mrs. Bernadotte, the spouses should at least get to share the ducal titles.
One of the major points of the reform of 2019 was to limit the members of the Royal House and to limit the use of Royal titles. If all of the seven grandchildren in question marry and their spouses get to share their courtesy titles that would add seven princes and princesses to the Royal family which would go against the purpose of the reform. Most likely more than seven since some of them are statistically bound to get divorced and remarry.
The cut-off has to happen somewhere and this is the solution that The King decided upon.
 
One of the major points of the reform of 2019 was to limit the members of the Royal House and to limit the use of Royal titles. If all of the seven grandchildren in question marry and their spouses get to share their courtesy titles that would add seven princes and princesses to the Royal family which would go against the purpose of the reform. Most likely more than seven since some of them are statistically bound to get divorced and remarry.
The cut-off has to happen somewhere and this is the solution that The King decided upon.
Couldn’t the spouses at least use the ducal titles? Carl Gustaf was going to create Madeleine’s ex-fiancé a duke consort but not a prince. Also does this reform mean that Oscar’s kids won’t be titled?

One of the major points of the reform of 2019 was to limit the members of the Royal House and to limit the use of Royal titles.
And yet he allowed his two grandchildren born after 2019 to be a prince and princess.
 
Couldn’t the spouses at least use the ducal titles? Carl Gustaf was going to create Madeleine’s ex-fiancé a duke consort but not a prince. Also does this reform mean that Oscar’s kids won’t be titled?


And yet he allowed his two grandchildren born after 2019 to be a prince and princess.
We don't know what will happen to any children of Oscar's, but IMO to conform with the purpose of the reform they shouldn't get any titles.

The King is treating all his grandchildren through his two youngest children the same. I thought that'd appeal to you.
 
We don't know what will happen to any children of Oscar's, but IMO to conform with the purpose of the reform they shouldn't get any titles.

The King is treating all his grandchildren through his two youngest children the same. I thought that'd appeal to you.
I’m glad the decision he made was gender-blind, doesn’t mean I agree with it. I’m fine with CP and Madeleine’s grandchildren not being titled but I think their children’s spouses should still receive titles. Making them non-royal duke/duchess consorts like the title CG was going to give to Madeleine’s ex-fiancé would be a good compromise.
 
The future wife of Prince Alexander, Duke of Södermanland, for example let’s say her name is Alexandra, would it be incorrect to address her as Alexandra, Princess Alexander, Duchess of Södermanland or Princess Alexander, Duchess of Södermanland?
 
The future wife of Prince Alexander, Duke of Södermanland, for example let’s say her name is Alexandra, would it be incorrect to address her as Alexandra, Princess Alexander, Duchess of Södermanland or Princess Alexander, Duchess of Södermanland?
Wives of Swedish princes have always been made princesses in their own right so she would be Princess Alexandra, Duchess of Södermanland if not for CG’s decision.
 
Wives of Swedish princes have always been made princesses in their own right so she would be Princess Alexandra, Duchess of Södermanland if not for CG’s decision.
I though if a woman married a Swedish prince and their marriage is approved by the monarch they are automatically are princesses and they weren’t created princesses in their own right!
 
It would be helpful if everyone could clarify what is meant by “in their own right”, since that phrase seems to take on different (and sometimes contradictory) meanings, depending on the user and the circumstances. :flowers:


As far as the titles of Swedish princes’ wives are concerned, I’ll address three issues that are sometimes implicated in the phrase “in her own right”:


Wife’s or husband’s forename

Scandinavian custom is for married women to use their own forenames (Princess Sofia, not Princess Carl Philip), whether they are princesses, countesses, baronesses, or plain Mrs.

It is simply how it is done, and it implies nothing about titles being “in their own right”.


Legal status

There is no difference in the legal status of, say, Sofia’s titles versus Madeleine’s titles. Sofia and Madeleine each bear their titles by the will of the King, and the King may revoke the titles from either Sofia or Madeleine if that is his will.

(Since 1975, the Constitution has been silent on the subject of titles, but the politicians have given King Carl XVI Gustaf free rein to continue regulating the titles of the royal family.)


Automaticity

There was a time when women automatically took their husbands’ titles by law, and therefore a prince’s wife automatically became a princess. However, that was no longer the case by the time of Prince Bertil’s marriage to Lilian Craig in 1976. King Carl XVI Gustaf made a decision to create Lilian a princess; it was not automatic.

See page 139 of the parliamentary report on the Swedish monarchy by professor Martin Sunnqvist in 2021:

Av tradition har hustrun följt mannens stånd, vilket gällde enligt 9 kap. 1 § i 1734 års giftermålsbalk och fortsatte att gälla enligt 4 § lagen om införande av 1920 års giftermålsbalk. Detta har lett till att prinsars hustrur per automatik har fått titeln prinsessa.816 Vad som numera gäller är mera oklart, men det har ansetts att konungen tilldelade prins Bertils gemål Lilian prinsesstiteln vid giftermålet. Om det är korrekt torde även prinsessan Sofia ha tilldelats en prinsesstitel, precis som konungen har förlänat titeln prins till prins Daniel. Det synes vara en lämplig ordning att beslut fattas i varje enskilt fall, eftersom det inte längre går att falla tillbaka på 1734 års giftermålsbalk.​

Translation:

By tradition the rank of the wife followed that of the husband, which was in accordance with chapter 9, section 1 of the marriage code of 1734 and continued to apply under section 4 of the law on the implementation of the marriage code of 1920. This led to wives of princes automatically receiving the title of princess. The current state of matters is less clear, but the king was considered to have conferred Prince Bertil's spouse Lilian with the princess title upon the marriage. If this is correct, Princess Sofia must also have been conferred with a princess title, just as the king granted the title of prince to Prince Daniel. It seems to be a suitable arrangement that a decision is taken on each individual occasion, since it is no longer possible to fall back on the marriage code of 1734.​

 
I though if a woman married a Swedish prince and their marriage is approved by the monarch they are automatically are princesses and they weren’t created princesses in their own right!
They’ve always become Princess (their own name), not Princess (husband’s name). Men who marry princesses can now become princes as well but not crown prince or king unfortunately.

As far as the titles of Swedish princes’ wives are concerned, I’ll address three issues that are sometimes implicated in the phrase “in her own right”:


Wife’s or husband’s forename

Scandinavian custom is for married women to use their own forenames (Princess Sofia, not Princess Carl Philip), whether they are princesses, countesses, baronesses, or plain Mrs.

It is simply how it is done, and it implies nothing about titles being “in their own right”.
Them becoming Princess (her own name) was what I meant but it’s correct that that’s a courtesy title held by marriage.
 
I get that in Sweden they were always referred to as Princess (own name) of Sweden, in my original question is that as a courtesy would referring The future wife of Prince Alexander, Duke of Södermanland as Princess Alexander, Duchess of Södermanland as the king indicated that his grandchildren spouses will not be princesses?
 
I get that in Sweden they were always referred to as Princess (own name) of Sweden, in my original question is that as a courtesy would referring The future wife of Prince Alexander, Duke of Södermanland as Princess Alexander, Duchess of Södermanland as the king indicated that his grandchildren spouses will not be princesses?
No, she’ll simply be Mrs. Bernadotte which is ridiculous. The title of Princess (husband’s name) doesn’t exist in Sweden.

I get that in Sweden they were always referred to as Princess (own name) of Sweden, in my original question is that as a courtesy would referring The future wife of Prince Alexander, Duke of Södermanland as Princess Alexander, Duchess of Södermanland as the king indicated that his grandchildren spouses will not be princesses?
A courtesy title would be the typical title held by the wife of a prince so Princess X, Duchess of Södermanland without the HRH since Alexander no longer has an HRH.
 
I’m glad the decision he made was gender-blind, doesn’t mean I agree with it. I’m fine with CP and Madeleine’s grandchildren not being titled but I think their children’s spouses should still receive titles. Making them non-royal duke/duchess consorts like the title CG was going to give to Madeleine’s ex-fiancé would be a good compromise.
That would in my opinion make the whole reform rather pointless since instead of limiting the Royal family we'd have more dukes and duchesses than ever before.
In the end we'll have to see how it all plays out. The status' of the King's grandchildren haven't been set in stone and it's all up to the will of the monarch.
 
CG removed the HRH from CP and Madeleine’s children so the titles they hold are purely courtesy titles. Their spouses’ titles would be courtesy titles without an HRH as well.
I get that in Sweden they were always referred to as Princess (own name) of Sweden, in my original question is that as a courtesy would referring The future wife of Prince Alexander, Duke of Södermanland as Princess Alexander, Duchess of Södermanland as the king indicated that his grandchildren spouses will not be princesses?

What is meant by “courtesy”? :flowers:

If a courtesy title is defined as a title without any privileges attached to it, then all of the royal family’s titles, besides Alexander’s dukedom of Södermanland (which has property attached to it), are courtesy titles.

If a courtesy title is defined as a title that is not legally recognized, then I don’t think any of the royals’ titles are courtesy titles. The HRHs have been allowed to use their royal titles in some, though not all, legal documents (including marriage contracts and driver’s licenses), and I assume the non-HRHs will be permitted to do the same.


Since there is no Swedish tradition of distinguishing between “courtesy” and non-”courtesy” royal titles, I interpret the 2019 comments from the Marshal of the Realm to mean that the grandchildren’s spouses should not be called (or call themselves) Prince/ss or Duke/Duchess, period. (Of course, there is plenty of time to reconsider that decision.)

By the way, does anyone know the exact words of his comment? Expressen paraphrases it as Deras titlar kommer dock inte att föras vidare till deras framtida partners och barn (Their titles will not be passed on to their future partners and children), but it is not a direct quote.




The marriages won't be morganatic since spouse and children never had any rights to their spouse or parents' title or status in the first place. [...]

It is clear that people differ in their definitions of “morganatic”, but wouldn’t your definition exclude nearly all marriages that others refer to as morganatic (such as Countess Sophie Chotek to Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria-Este)? In most cases, if a spouse does not share their marriage partner’s title and status, it is because they never had a legal right to it.
 
Does the Swedish monarch still have to give approval for a royal marriage? If so I wonder if they won't do so for the younger grandchildren purely to limit the numbers, then keeping a non HRH personal title is a better option than loosing all the titles all together which others have done in the past?
I could see potentially the grandchildren remaining Prince / Princess and their spouse taking on the alternative form of their ducal title maybe?
 
What is meant by “courtesy”? :flowers:

If a courtesy title is defined as a title without any privileges attached to it, then all of the royal family’s titles, besides Alexander’s dukedom of Södermanland (which has property attached to it), are courtesy titles.

If a courtesy title is defined as a title that is not legally recognized, then I don’t think any of the royals’ titles are courtesy titles. The HRHs have been allowed to use their royal titles in some, though not all, legal documents (including marriage contracts and driver’s licenses), and I assume the non-HRHs will be permitted to do the same.


Since there is no Swedish tradition of distinguishing between “courtesy” and non-”courtesy” royal titles, I interpret the 2019 comments from the Marshal of the Realm to mean that the grandchildren’s spouses should not be called (or call themselves) Prince/ss or Duke/Duchess, period. (Of course, there is plenty of time to reconsider that decision.)

By the way, does anyone know the exact words of his comment? Expressen paraphrases it as Deras titlar kommer dock inte att föras vidare till deras framtida partners och barn (Their titles will not be passed on to their future partners and children), but it is not a direct quote.






It is clear that people differ in their definitions of “morganatic”, but wouldn’t your definition exclude nearly all marriages that others refer to as morganatic (such as Countess Sophie Chotek to Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria-Este)? In most cases, if a spouse does not share their marriage partner’s title and status, it is because they never had a legal right to it.
I mean something similar to Maxima who is legally not the Queen of the Netherlands, only Princess of the Netherlands but by courtesy she is addressed as HM Queen Maxima.
 
That would in my opinion make the whole reform rather pointless since instead of limiting the Royal family we'd have more dukes and duchesses than ever before.
In the end we'll have to see how it all plays out. The status' of the King's grandchildren haven't been set in stone and it's all up to the will of the monarch.
That’s why I pointed out that CG allowed his grandchildren born after 2019 to be a prince and princess which doesn’t limit the number of titled people. You’re right that by the time CP and Madeleine’s children get married Victoria will be queen and she may want to do something different.
 
Does the Swedish monarch still have to give approval for a royal marriage? If so I wonder if they won't do so for the younger grandchildren purely to limit the numbers, then keeping a non HRH personal title is a better option than loosing all the titles all together which others have done in the past?
I could see potentially the grandchildren remaining Prince / Princess and their spouse taking on the alternative form of their ducal title maybe?
Under the Act of Succession, "princes and princesses of the Royal House" need the consent of the Swedish government to get married, but such consent can only be granted upon application by the King. In practice, then, they need a double consent of the King and the government. If a prince or princess of the Royal House marries without consent, the said prince or princess and their descendants are excluded from the line of succession.

There is some controversy involving the meaning of "prince of the Royal House" in the Act of Succession, but my understanding is that the constitutional commitee of the Swedish Parliament interprets this term, within the context of the Act, to mean all persons who are in the line of succession to the Swedish throne.
 
What is meant by “courtesy”? :flowers:
I meant a title without an HRH.

I could see potentially the grandchildren remaining Prince / Princess and their spouse taking on the alternative form of their ducal title maybe?
I think the spouses becoming non-royal dukes/duchesses would be a good compromise as well but unfortunately the 2019 reform doesn’t allow for that. Victoria may make a new reform when her nieces and nephews get married.
 
I mean something similar to Maxima who is legally not the Queen of the Netherlands, only Princess of the Netherlands but by courtesy she is addressed as HM Queen Maxima. that

Thank you for clarifying! :flowers:

An important difference between the Netherlands and Sweden is that in the Netherlands (and the other Benelux countries), there is a tradition of married women being addressed by courtesy with a name/title which is not their legal name/title. This is not true in Sweden (or the other Scandinavian countries).

The Netherlands laws on civil status are influenced by the system introduced under the Bonaparte dynasty in the early 19th century. Under this system, women (and men) legally keep their birth name and rank for life, but married women are permitted to use their husbands' name and rank in an unofficial social capacity. Thus, if Dutch nobleman Count Claus-Casimir of Orange-Nassau of Amsberg married a commoner named Johanna de Vries, she would legally remain an untitled commoner, and her legal surname would remain de Vries, but she could be socially addressed as Countess Johanna of Orange-Nassau of Amsberg.

In Sweden, on the other hand, the tradition is that the legal name and title matches the social mode of address. When Swedish nobleman Count Folke Bernadotte of Wisborg married commoner Estelle Manville, she was legally elevated from commoner to noblewoman and her legal name and title became Countess Estelle Bernadotte of Wisborg.

So, if the monarch does not bestow a Princess title on Alexander’s future wife, but she calls herself a Princess regardless, she will not be observing the customs of her country, she will simply be disobeying the monarch.
 
Last edited:
In the Netherlands married women always keep their first name (also in combination with their husband's surname or titles) also in how they ate socially addressed. It is not customary to use the husband's first name - that seems to ba a British custom.

Note that this 'social use' is also registered by the government. At the deposition for marriage a couple is asked to indicate how each of them wants to be addressed (including by the government) after marriage - although it is indicated that the legal family name doesn't change after marriage.
 
Last edited:
In the Netherlands married women always keep their first name (also in combination with their husband's surname or titles) also in how they ate socially addressed. It is not customary to use the husband's first name - that seems to ba a British custom.

Yes, you're right, and I've corrected the post. I was momentarily thinking of Belgium, which has essentially the same system, but where the French speakers follow the French custom of using the husband's first name.
 
The Marshal of the Realm used the phrases "personal titles" when referring to the title prince/princess and "honorary titles" when referring to the title of duke/duchess.
By the way, does anyone know the exact words of his comment? Expressen paraphrases it as Deras titlar kommer dock inte att föras vidare till deras framtida partners och barn (Their titles will not be passed on to their future partners and children), but it is not a direct quote.
The Marshal said that: "These titles are personal and won't be passed on to wife/husband or the next generation".
 
Back
Top Bottom