Titles of the Swedish RF and Changes 2019

[Tatiana Maria]

It’s interesting how CP, Madeleine and Oscar are left in limbo in this announcement. They neither belong to the highest representatives nor to those that will not be called upon to perform royal duties.

Yes, and the total silence on Prince Oscar's future is especially intriguing. He is not even mentioned along with Prince Carl Philip and Princess Madeleine in the press release as someone who "will perform official duties to the extent decided by His Majesty." And while the full announcement states that "When H.R.H. Princess Estelle comes of age, she is also expected to represent the country," the same is not stated for Oscar.

The court appears to have been leaving the door open to the possibility of Oscar never becoming a working royal, despite being in the same position as Carl Philip and Madeleine.

 

[JR76]

I do wonder how committed King Carl XVI Gustaf was to reducing the number of titled descendants. Naturally, he must have had some interest in doing it, since he had the Marshal of the Realm state that the cadet-branch grandchildren would not share their titles with their spouses and descendants. However, the King omitted any mention of those plans in the written announcements on the reform and in the formal document he signed.

There must be some reason King Carl XVI Gustaf chose not to put the title-restriction plan in writing and merely left it as a rather trivial comment in the Marshal’s press conference (a comment which received very little notice outside of places like TRF).

By not putting it in writing The King gave himself and his successors some wiggle room to change things as needs must in the future. The Marshal of the Realm also said that the changes weren't set in stone and could be rethought if required.

 

[tommy100]

This makes perfect sense to me. A decade or two ago it would have been unthinkable for the grandchildren of a sovereign not to be titled (bar being the children of a Princess who couldn't pass on a title). So it is better not to be wholly committed to a plan that seems good now as its quite possible in another decade it won't go far enough - or will go to far if something drastic happens (as the SRF sadly have experience of).

 

[meeralakshmi]

or will go to far if something drastic happens (as the SRF sadly have experience of)

What are you referring to here?

 

[tommy100]

The death of Carl Gustaf's father whilst he was still heir leaving his infant son as next in line to the throne.

 

[meeralakshmi]

The death of Carl Gustaf's father whilst he was still heir leaving his infant son as next in line to the throne.

I see, Gustaf Adolf didn’t even get to be heir because his grandfather was still king when he died

 

[tommy100]

Also the fact that Prince Bertil deliberately didn't marry Lilian to ensure there was still someone in the line to the throne to act as regent.

 

[carlota]

Yes, and the total silence on Prince Oscar's future is especially intriguing. He is not even mentioned along with Prince Carl Philip and Princess Madeleine in the press release as someone who "will perform official duties to the extent decided by His Majesty." And while the full announcement states that "When H.R.H. Princess Estelle comes of age, she is also expected to represent the country," the same is not stated for Oscar.

The court appears to have been leaving the door open to the possibility of Oscar never becoming a working royal, despite being in the same position as Carl Philip and Madeleine.

i don't think this is unexpected or surprising. there needs to be a 'spare' so removing oscar's privileges wouldn't be a reasonable move. besides, CP and madeleine have performed duties in the past, so it isn't unreasonable to expect oscar to do so, until the family grows enough that it would have enough hands, and at that point the sovereign may remove oscar's privileges, just like it is happening now with CP and madeleine.

 

[meeralakshmi]

On the subject of sharing titles I wonder if Victoria will possibly share her style of Her Majesty with Daniel when she becomes queen now that the Swedish monarchy has gotten more progressive (absolute primogeniture, giving duchies to princesses, giving titles to children of princesses, and allowing husbands of princesses to share their non-heir titles). The only other male consort of Sweden received the title of prince consort so we can count on Daniel at least receiving that.

It appears that Swedish royal dukedoms revert to the crown either upon the holder’s death or the holder ascending the throne. Therefore the duchy of Västergötland will revert to the crown when Victoria becomes queen and Daniel will no longer be Duke of Västergötland; Silvia was never Duchess of Jämtland because she married Carl Gustaf after he became king. If they don’t want to pull a Máxima my guess is that Daniel will be HRH (or preferably HM) The Prince Consort of Sweden. The only other male consort of Sweden (husband of Queen Ulrika Eleonora) had the title of prince consort until his wife abdicated so he could become king regnant as Frederick I because she wasn’t able to make him her co-monarch.

It appears that Daniel will cease to be duke consort of Västergötland and receive the title of prince (or possibly king in the unlikely event that Sweden decides to pull a Máxima) consort when Victoria becomes queen due to the way Swedish royal dukedoms work.

 

[Somebody]

i don't think this is unexpected or surprising. there needs to be a 'spare' so removing oscar's privileges wouldn't be a reasonable move. besides, CP and madeleine have performed duties in the past, so it isn't unreasonable to expect oscar to do so, until the family grows enough that it would have enough hands, and at that point the sovereign may remove oscar's privileges, just like it is happening now with CP and madeleine.

Which 'privileges' were removed from CP and Madeleine?

 

[Tatiana Maria]

On the subject of sharing titles I wonder if Victoria will possibly share her style of Her Majesty with Daniel when she becomes queen now that the Swedish monarchy has gotten more progressive (absolute primogeniture, giving duchies to princesses, giving titles to children of princesses, and allowing husbands of princesses to share their non-heir titles).

Although I would love to see all remaining discrimination against women abolished, I can’t imagine the future Queen Victoria being the one to do so.

The Crown Princess seems to be a “traditionalist” in relation to gender roles, even when it means she favors foreign gender-unequal traditions over Swedish gender-equal traditions. She and the King caused a massive controversy when they insisted he would walk her down the aisle at her wedding, in contrast to the Swedish national tradition of the bride and groom walking down the aisle together. Shortly before that she chose to follow foreign tradition and wear an engagement ring from her fiancé without giving him one in return, whereas Swedish tradition would have the couple mutually exchange rings.

Later the Crown Princess bestowed her son with a name borne by two Kings of Sweden, but for her daughter - a future queen - she chose a name with no royal significance whatsoever (other than being the name of a foreign-born commoner who married a non-royal descendant of the Swedish royal family; it is as “royal” a name as Gary (Gary Lewis) is for the British royals).

And while this is more subjective, the interviews I have read also give the feeling that the Crown Princess views her marriage through the lens of traditional gender roles. From what I recall, her praise of her husband centered on his strength which she relies on, his protectiveness over her, and his energetic work ethic. Those are of course valid compliments for people of any gender, but they fits with the traditionalist conception of a husband/father’s role: to provide authority, protection, and labor to supply material resources to his wife and children (whereas to traditionalists the wife/mother’s role is to support, nurture, and manage domestic affairs).

The only other male consort of Sweden received the title of prince consort so we can count on Daniel at least receiving that.

Those interested in Fredrik of Hesse's title: See the thread Title & Role of a Consort in General Royal Discussion, starting here.

To my knowledge Prince Fredrik never held the title of Prince Consort. He was raised to the dignity of Royal highness on December 6, 1718 by his wife The Queen which was confirmed by Parliament on March 9, 1719.

 

[Prinsara]

Later the Crown Princess bestowed her son with a name borne by two Kings of Sweden, but for her daughter - a future queen - she chose a name with no royal significance whatsoever (other than being the name of a foreign-born commoner who married a non-royal descendant of the Swedish royal family; it is as “royal” a name as Gary (Gary Lewis) is for the British royals).

And while this is more subjective, the interviews I have read also give the feeling that the Crown Princess views her marriage through the lens of traditional gender roles. From what I recall, her praise of her husband centered on his strength which she relies on, his protectiveness over her, and his energetic work ethic. Those are of course valid compliments for people of any gender, but they fits with the traditionalist conception of a husband/father’s role: to provide authority, protection, and labor to supply material resources to his wife and children (whereas to traditionalists the wife/mother’s role is to support, nurture, and manage domestic affairs).

How is it less feminist to give your daughter, the future queen regnant, a name you simply like with no associations for her (as she has confirmed Estelle was rather than after a distant relative) rather than try to find a place for her in centuries of patriarchal tradition?

Likewise, however she may publicly frame their marriage, everyone knows Daniel chose the supportive/subordinate role. Strength and protection can still come from that position (and are probably something Victoria wants and needs regardless of her job). CPV not needing to be the protector despite her position of power is as feminist as anything else, too.

 

[meeralakshmi]

Although I would love to see all remaining discrimination against women abolished, I can’t imagine the future Queen Victoria being the one to do so.

The Crown Princess seems to be a “traditionalist” in relation to gender roles, even when it means she favors foreign gender-unequal traditions over Swedish gender-equal traditions. She and the King caused a massive controversy when they insisted he would walk her down the aisle at her wedding, in contrast to the Swedish national tradition of the bride and groom walking down the aisle together. Shortly before that she chose to follow foreign tradition and wear an engagement ring from her fiancé without giving him one in return, whereas Swedish tradition would have the couple mutually exchange rings.

Later the Crown Princess bestowed her son with a name borne by two Kings of Sweden, but for her daughter - a future queen - she chose a name with no royal significance whatsoever (other than being the name of a foreign-born commoner who married a non-royal descendant of the Swedish royal family; it is as “royal” a name as Gary (Gary Lewis) is for the British royals).

And while this is more subjective, the interviews I have read also give the feeling that the Crown Princess views her marriage through the lens of traditional gender roles. From what I recall, her praise of her husband centered on his strength which she relies on, his protectiveness over her, and his energetic work ethic. Those are of course valid compliments for people of any gender, but they fits with the traditionalist conception of a husband/father’s role: to provide authority, protection, and labor to supply material resources to his wife and children (whereas to traditionalists the wife/mother’s role is to support, nurture, and manage domestic affairs).

That’s fascinating, especially for someone who initially couldn’t inherit the throne but was made heir due to tradition being broken for the sake of gender equality. One nontraditional thing she has done is have her husband take her last name so their kids can have hers but I’m not sure if that was her or Carl Gustaf’s idea. As for Estelle’s name her namesake accomplished a lot of good so I think it’s great that Victoria wanted to honor her, her not having a royal title is no big deal. It’s a huge honor to have your name carried by a queen, I’m sure Victoria didn’t choose the name lightly.

How is it less feminist to give your daughter, the future queen regnant, a name you simply like with no associations for her (as she has confirmed Estelle was rather than after a distant relative)

When did she say this? This is what Carl Gustaf said about the name: "It is a name which is very close to the heart of the princess and also the family."

 

[duke of poliganc]

Although I would love to see all remaining discrimination against women abolished, I can’t imagine the future Queen Victoria being the one to do so.

The Crown Princess seems to be a “traditionalist” in relation to gender roles, even when it means she favors foreign gender-unequal traditions over Swedish gender-equal traditions. She and the King caused a massive controversy when they insisted he would walk her down the aisle at her wedding, in contrast to the Swedish national tradition of the bride and groom walking down the aisle together. Shortly before that she chose to follow foreign tradition and wear an engagement ring from her fiancé without giving him one in return, whereas Swedish tradition would have the couple mutually exchange rings.

Later the Crown Princess bestowed her son with a name borne by two Kings of Sweden, but for her daughter - a future queen - she chose a name with no royal significance whatsoever (other than being the name of a foreign-born commoner who married a non-royal descendant of the Swedish royal family; it is as “royal” a name as Gary (Gary Lewis) is for the British royals).

And while this is more subjective, the interviews I have read also give the feeling that the Crown Princess views her marriage through the lens of traditional gender roles. From what I recall, her praise of her husband centered on his strength which she relies on, his protectiveness over her, and his energetic work ethic. Those are of course valid compliments for people of any gender, but they fits with the traditionalist conception of a husband/father’s role: to provide authority, protection, and labor to supply material resources to his wife and children (whereas to traditionalists the wife/mother’s role is to support, nurture, and manage domestic affairs).



Those interested in Fredrik of Hesse's title: See the thread Title & Role of a Consort in General Royal Discussion, starting here.

I think your post in the Alternate history thread speaks to the points you have raised here, it is accepted that Carl Gustav wanted his son to remain the crown prince instead of Victoria and made no effort to hide his opinion about it so it is natural to see that Victoria is some how a bit conservative as this is more likely the way that she was raised as her father and to some extent her mother who mentioned several times that her mother was a conservative of the old school, so it’s natural to see that she is more conservative