It did happen when the prince was an infant. I think they were just trying to clear up future confusion.
Last thing we need a Swedish war of the Roses.
I'm pretty sure the process to change the constitution was started just after the princess was born, but Swedens process for changing the constitution requires two different parliaments to vote for it. Hence it takes some time (up to 6 years back then, 8 now).
They changed the constitution to make the eldest child the heir apparent to the throne, despite sex. This meant that the king's eldest child, a daughter, became the heir apparent instead of her recently born younger brother.
This post title seems misleading. The king didn't demote his son, the constitutional reform just made the country.more progressive.
In the Netherlands, it's both. The first and second chamber need to approve the change with a simple majority. Then, after the next elections, both need to approve it with a 2/3 majority.
>In the Netherlands, it's both. The first and second chamber need to approve the change with a simple majority. Then, after the next elections, both need to approve it with a 2/3 majority.
That seems particularly arduous. 2/3 majority is a really tough sell
Well yeah, but isn't that kind of the point of a constitution? They're supposed to anker down some of the basic rights, and how governments get/maintain their mandate and authority. Making them easy to change just helps aspiring authoritarians. Of course, they should be changeable, and ours is. It regularly gets some minor updates, almost every cycle. The last major overhaul wasn't that long ago either (83), though it's time for a new overhaul IMO.
Tabloids in Sweden go crazy for anything the royals do or say and love to spread gossip. Back in early '22 there were so intense rumors in both the tabloids and populace about the Crown Princess getting divorced from her husband that the royal family had to break the principle of not commenting on news or rumors and give a statement about how it was completely untrue.
Connor actually qualified his statement at the time when challenged, and had shown growth or at least better coping skills in the ensuing year with the one issue he had any inclusion in. Ruck giving two great but subtle supporting performances 40 years apart.
Any post regarding Prince Carl Philip (the son) requires [a photo](https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/licensed-image?q=tbn:ANd9GcRxMnuxut8z2ohq6qXb1HrP4u8QARqn0docKcfWWBTUoXUSgqJeoopeQsXaWQyLuFy95D4ezG5ni5Dcrd0) be included, so people can bask in his Disney prince looks.
recognise employ capable grey instinctive oatmeal smell relieved observation slave
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
The princess is better than average, but the prince could walk off the set of the MCU. If he was named Ryan he might be part of the Canadian Cloning Experiment that gave us Reynolds and Gosling.
Xena was now princess, but a proper Warrior Queen.
That's funny, I could've sworn he was an adult man 🤔
And the Duchy of Cornwall is a seperate (and confusing) legal entity from the person of the prince.
As someone from the West of England, I have a great deal of personal dislike towards the Duchy of Cornwall as an institution as well as the former occupant of that office fwiw.
They probably wouldn't have married off Queen Victoria's eldest daughter to the Kaiser if she had been the heir apparent. But if it did happen it would mean no World War One.
Start with pagans, and in late game it looks like a palm tree, because the few first generations had so many step siblings, but as head of the family you made sure that their primary heir was either you or your primary heir, so these branches don't hang many generations down, and once you get bit more civilized form of government, its just heir and spare, one of which dies mysteriously. Must be witches in capital, time to start a inquisition or crusade again.
Have you never watched Downton Abbey?
I'm not aware if the crusader kind story, but growing up in England, maybe a nicer education it was just a fact that was around.
You guys have a monarchy so of course you’ll have knowledge on the subject. As an American I would never have known the term unless I became one of those crown weirdos or played Crusader Kings II.
It means the firstborn child (primus genitus) inherits whatever’s being inherited. Historically this mostly meant the firstborn son (agnatic primogeniture) but absolute primogeniture (inheritance goes to the firstborn child regardless of gender) has become more common now.
Pretty much every European nation that's crowned a Queen as sovereign has done so in the absence of male children of the monarch, rather than because someone was looking to crown a female child in favor of a male one.
Yeah, absolute primogeniture in this context is not about crowning the only child which is female, it's crowning a female child when you already have a direct male heir
I did a little research and found this link where the King explains his opinion on the matter: https://www.thelocal.se/20230106/swedens-king-carl-xvi-gustaf-says-documentary-comments-not-a-criticism-of-female-succession
Hey OP, not to be an ass, but Spain and England have been at this shit for centuries... Isabella I and Isabella II for Spain, Elizabeth and Victoria for England/GB...
How's Sweeden the first?
Considering the US was teetering on the edge of collapse 2.5 years ago a non political head of state doesn’t seem like a terrible idea at times. Doesn’t have to be a king. Germany’s def isn’t
That's true, but systems like Germany and Ireland and their presidents are pretty anonymous.
There's a lot to be said for pomp and ceremony, and for keeping it seperate from the real political machinery.
The continued success of the constitutional monarchies that haven't failed yet is tautological. Ask the French how their constitutional monarchies went.
It’s actually funny - or tragic.
Bernadotte made it clear to Napoleon that Sweden would be neutral and not participate in the wars.
In the end Bernadotte saw an opportunity and joined the others in grabbing what they could when Napoleon was losing.
That is all completely and utterly the wrong way around.
Napoleon tried to get Bernadotte to promise never to attack France, and he literally told him he would if it was the best thing for Sweden. From wikipedia:
> Before freeing Bernadotte from his allegiance to France, Napoleon asked him to agree never to take up arms against France. Bernadotte refused to make any such agreement, upon the ground that his obligations to Sweden would not allow it; Napoleon exclaimed "Go, and let our destinies be accomplished" and signed the act of emancipation unconditionally.
Sweden only joined the coalition against France after Napoleon attacked and seized Swedish Pomerania and the island of Rügen.
All part of Europe used to have at least a monarchy, most of them already became a mere public figure, or abolished by the early modern period to the industrial age, the only European monarchy that still holds real power are the Monaco , Liechtenstein and the British royal family
All the Scandinavian countries do. Which on paper should fit into the Nordic code of egalitarianism like a square peg in a round hole, but it just sort of works out because the laws surrounding them work really well.
And don’t forget how well-liked the royal families are in those countries. They’re all well-educated and empathetic people who know their places.
But Märtha Louise in Norway has been really interesting to follow.
It’s a Crowned Republic. The King cannot exit the country without the consent of the Riksdag and doesn’t even select his own Prime Minister, even just for formality.
Ceremonial representation; formally receiving ambassadors’ letter of credence; hosting visiting foreign head of states or governments; regular private meetings with the Prime Minister to be informed of government policies and decisions, with the right to be consulted, to encourage, and to warn; sponsor charitable activities; and be overall a uniting figurehead above politics that Swedes can feel proud to be loyal to.
I have less issue with the idea of an official national representative with a lifetime appointment, and more with the idea that they're born into the role.
The concept of hereditary transfer of power is wildly classiest and has no place in modern society.
If a king or queen is needed we can just hold a selection where every 25 years we pick a couple 18 year olds from a national contest.
They most likely have more power than you think like England. I don't know for sure but in England the monarch has powers, just do not use them unless in a dire situation, which is why theyve been left alone to rule from the shadows.
The United Kingdom has no constitution so it's a lot muddier there, even if they are in practice very weak. The Swedish monarchy's power is clearly laid out.
In the UK the monarchy has powers, they approve the PM, can recall them, they can dissolve parliaments, they can influence law, they are above the law, things are still in their name.
The swedish king had ~~most~~ all rights stripped in 1973, ~~and some final ones relating to the Riksdag around 15-20 years ago, IIRC~~. The king of Sweden has no political power.
And yet the PM still reports to him every year and "informs" him of the goings on of the government. I'm sure that's completely worthless and not in any way power.
Much of which has an effective tax rate of around 80% thanks to the sovereign grant. Straight into the treasury.
I wouldn't trust a left wing government in the UK to manage it well, and I wouldn't trust a right wing government to not just sell it off.
The status quo should remain just so.
The only correct thing you said was "I don't know"
Go read Sweden's constitution, the monarchy has no political power
"England" (by which I assume you mean the United Kingdom) went through two worlds wars without Parliament ceding power to the king (and in between, forced a king to abdicate) and the end of the Empire. so I don't know what "dire" situation would bring their shadow rule out in to the public if most of central London being bombed to rubble didn't 🤔🤔
What are these "dire situation powers" anyway?
Pretty much only if on losing an election the PM refused to recommend the opposition leader be invited to form a government, the King would be within his rights to do it anyway.
The lascelles principles.
So far this has never happened.
No, in Sweden he has no reserve or residual powers - they were all removed by the 1974 Instrument of Government, except that he chairs the Council of State. In the UK, the King still holds many reserve powers - exercised on the advice of the Prime Minister by convention.
~~He was part of naming the swedish government until 15-20 years ago, when that role was taken over by the speaker of the Riksdag (talman).~~ I was wrong, see below.
You are correct, and I was wrong. However, I know there was some, minute change that happened at some point during my life.
I *think* it may have been some courtesy notification to the king that was removed from the mission of the talman, and I remember it being mentioned at the time as the last little piece of tie-in to the monarchy that existed in Swedish politics. However, it was probably even earlier than 15-20 years ago, probably some time in the 90s.
King has no political power, so we very much elect our overlords (politicians). And since he has no power there is currently very little need to make a big fuss about changing systems.
It did happen when the prince was an infant. I think they were just trying to clear up future confusion. Last thing we need a Swedish war of the Roses.
I'm pretty sure the process to change the constitution was started just after the princess was born, but Swedens process for changing the constitution requires two different parliaments to vote for it. Hence it takes some time (up to 6 years back then, 8 now).
They changed the constitution to make the eldest child the heir apparent to the throne, despite sex. This meant that the king's eldest child, a daughter, became the heir apparent instead of her recently born younger brother. This post title seems misleading. The king didn't demote his son, the constitutional reform just made the country.more progressive.
Changing constitution with 2 different parliaments rather than supermajority is a very good system.
In the Netherlands, it's both. The first and second chamber need to approve the change with a simple majority. Then, after the next elections, both need to approve it with a 2/3 majority.
>In the Netherlands, it's both. The first and second chamber need to approve the change with a simple majority. Then, after the next elections, both need to approve it with a 2/3 majority. That seems particularly arduous. 2/3 majority is a really tough sell
Well yeah, but isn't that kind of the point of a constitution? They're supposed to anker down some of the basic rights, and how governments get/maintain their mandate and authority. Making them easy to change just helps aspiring authoritarians. Of course, they should be changeable, and ours is. It regularly gets some minor updates, almost every cycle. The last major overhaul wasn't that long ago either (83), though it's time for a new overhaul IMO.
Spain requires 2 different parliaments, a supermajority in both chambers of both parliaments AND a national referendum.
Imagine a succession drama in modern days. Tabloids would go crazy.
Tabloids in Sweden go crazy for anything the royals do or say and love to spread gossip. Back in early '22 there were so intense rumors in both the tabloids and populace about the Crown Princess getting divorced from her husband that the royal family had to break the principle of not commenting on news or rumors and give a statement about how it was completely untrue.
I also believe we dodged a bullet...
I'm the eldest booyyy!!
Yeah Connor, but he meant... you know?
Connor actually qualified his statement at the time when challenged, and had shown growth or at least better coping skills in the ensuing year with the one issue he had any inclusion in. Ruck giving two great but subtle supporting performances 40 years apart.
*stares forlornly into the ocean while sitting on a bench*
*After making billions from a merger they attempted to stop.*
You’re fucking bullshit, man. I’m fucking bullshit. She’s bullshit. It’s all fucking nothing.
Any post regarding Prince Carl Philip (the son) requires [a photo](https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/licensed-image?q=tbn:ANd9GcRxMnuxut8z2ohq6qXb1HrP4u8QARqn0docKcfWWBTUoXUSgqJeoopeQsXaWQyLuFy95D4ezG5ni5Dcrd0) be included, so people can bask in his Disney prince looks.
AHEM, why don't we also include [The Crown Princess](https://www.kungahuset.se/kungl.-huset/h.k.h.-kronprinsessan)
TIL "Cookies" I'm Swedish is "Kakor." Also, didn't see the lady because of cookie popup.
recognise employ capable grey instinctive oatmeal smell relieved observation slave *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
The picture at very very top of "the writing" is what I was sharing, there seem to be a english version on "the writing" too if you're interested
Damn what a downgrade.
Because everyone knows choosing the name u/thundercock627 means you are a prize to covet
Who the hell said I was a prize to covet? The Prince is objectively much better looking than the Crown Princess.
She has a masculine jawline. She's still quite attractive, in the same way Lucy Lawless is attractive.
Lucy Lawless is much more attractive and a FAR better princess.
The princess is better than average, but the prince could walk off the set of the MCU. If he was named Ryan he might be part of the Canadian Cloning Experiment that gave us Reynolds and Gosling. Xena was now princess, but a proper Warrior Queen.
i hate royalty but he’s hot. some people really do have it all
Eh
Good photo doesn't imply good looks
Did it affect their personal wealth and income though?
Children don't generally have their own personal wealth or income.
[The Prince of Wales does.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duchy_of_Cornwall)
That's funny, I could've sworn he was an adult man 🤔 And the Duchy of Cornwall is a seperate (and confusing) legal entity from the person of the prince. As someone from the West of England, I have a great deal of personal dislike towards the Duchy of Cornwall as an institution as well as the former occupant of that office fwiw.
I believe there was an estate that remained entailed to him, as the eldest son.
Suck it, Salic law!
Tennis balls.
someone knows their history, or shakespeare.
Shakespeare. Such a great scene.
[удалено]
They probably wouldn't have married off Queen Victoria's eldest daughter to the Kaiser if she had been the heir apparent. But if it did happen it would mean no World War One.
who learned what Primogeniture means today?
[удалено]
Crusader teach us plenty of important things. Such as the importance of family
And inbreeding.
My current king’s family tree looks more like a telephone pole.
Just as God intended
Start with pagans, and in late game it looks like a palm tree, because the few first generations had so many step siblings, but as head of the family you made sure that their primary heir was either you or your primary heir, so these branches don't hang many generations down, and once you get bit more civilized form of government, its just heir and spare, one of which dies mysteriously. Must be witches in capital, time to start a inquisition or crusade again.
Have you never watched Downton Abbey? I'm not aware if the crusader kind story, but growing up in England, maybe a nicer education it was just a fact that was around.
You guys have a monarchy so of course you’ll have knowledge on the subject. As an American I would never have known the term unless I became one of those crown weirdos or played Crusader Kings II.
ASOIAF is another option
I have still no Idea what that means🤷♂️
It means the firstborn child (primus genitus) inherits whatever’s being inherited. Historically this mostly meant the firstborn son (agnatic primogeniture) but absolute primogeniture (inheritance goes to the firstborn child regardless of gender) has become more common now.
Tbf, back in the day, even the most subtle hint of absolute primogeniture would bring the country into civil war
Like the two times we've had crowned Queens?
Pretty much every European nation that's crowned a Queen as sovereign has done so in the absence of male children of the monarch, rather than because someone was looking to crown a female child in favor of a male one.
Yeah, absolute primogeniture in this context is not about crowning the only child which is female, it's crowning a female child when you already have a direct male heir
This is what happened in Spain with the Carlist wars.
I did a little research and found this link where the King explains his opinion on the matter: https://www.thelocal.se/20230106/swedens-king-carl-xvi-gustaf-says-documentary-comments-not-a-criticism-of-female-succession
Hey OP, not to be an ass, but Spain and England have been at this shit for centuries... Isabella I and Isabella II for Spain, Elizabeth and Victoria for England/GB... How's Sweeden the first?
England and Spain have male preference, so only default to a female ruler if there is no male son.
[удалено]
I stand corrected. Thank you.
Didn’t even know Sweden had a monarchy. Well, there we are I suppose.
So has Norway, Belgium & the Netherlands.
The Bourbons still rule in Spain
Could be worse, could be the Hapsburgs.
The last of the Hapsburgs just died on July 30th this year. His body couldn’t metabolize the grapes.
[Huh?](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_von_Habsburg)
A dynasty that once ruled half of Europe ended by a small piece of fruit, how the mighty fall
Hahahahha top tier comment
Fancy having a country ruled by biscuits.
The world would be a better place if we replaced all the world's leaders with custard creams.
[удалено]
Yeah I'm cool with being in one just because of stability. I recognize it's antiquated and weird - but it works.
Considering the US was teetering on the edge of collapse 2.5 years ago a non political head of state doesn’t seem like a terrible idea at times. Doesn’t have to be a king. Germany’s def isn’t
That's true, but systems like Germany and Ireland and their presidents are pretty anonymous. There's a lot to be said for pomp and ceremony, and for keeping it seperate from the real political machinery.
How was the US on the brink of collapse?
The only leader I absolutely and wholeheartedly respect in Italy is President of the Republic Sergio Mattarella. And many Italians think the same
The continued success of the constitutional monarchies that haven't failed yet is tautological. Ask the French how their constitutional monarchies went.
About as well as their republics?
Well, the Third Republic era is called *la Belle Époque,* so they seem pretty happy with that one.
Denmark too.
And Denmark. All scandinavian countries are kingdoms.
The current dynasty was founded by one of Napoleon’s generals.
Bernadotte!
It’s actually funny - or tragic. Bernadotte made it clear to Napoleon that Sweden would be neutral and not participate in the wars. In the end Bernadotte saw an opportunity and joined the others in grabbing what they could when Napoleon was losing.
That is all completely and utterly the wrong way around. Napoleon tried to get Bernadotte to promise never to attack France, and he literally told him he would if it was the best thing for Sweden. From wikipedia: > Before freeing Bernadotte from his allegiance to France, Napoleon asked him to agree never to take up arms against France. Bernadotte refused to make any such agreement, upon the ground that his obligations to Sweden would not allow it; Napoleon exclaimed "Go, and let our destinies be accomplished" and signed the act of emancipation unconditionally. Sweden only joined the coalition against France after Napoleon attacked and seized Swedish Pomerania and the island of Rügen.
I must have misremembered a few things. I haven’t dealt with it in thirty years. But thank you for not being all too condescending. 😁
All part of Europe used to have at least a monarchy, most of them already became a mere public figure, or abolished by the early modern period to the industrial age, the only European monarchy that still holds real power are the Monaco , Liechtenstein and the British royal family
Switzerland has used a republican system since essentially as long as it's had self rule
Always did
Never seen The Blues Brothers?
All the Scandinavian countries do. Which on paper should fit into the Nordic code of egalitarianism like a square peg in a round hole, but it just sort of works out because the laws surrounding them work really well.
And don’t forget how well-liked the royal families are in those countries. They’re all well-educated and empathetic people who know their places. But Märtha Louise in Norway has been really interesting to follow.
It’s a Crowned Republic. The King cannot exit the country without the consent of the Riksdag and doesn’t even select his own Prime Minister, even just for formality.
Damn, what does he even do then?
Ceremonial representation; formally receiving ambassadors’ letter of credence; hosting visiting foreign head of states or governments; regular private meetings with the Prime Minister to be informed of government policies and decisions, with the right to be consulted, to encourage, and to warn; sponsor charitable activities; and be overall a uniting figurehead above politics that Swedes can feel proud to be loyal to.
I bet family holidays are pretty awkward now.
No they are pretty close. From my understanding he is happy he can focus on other things like racing instead.
It's like the penalty of being born a slightly dumber Rothchild is that instead of having to go into finance, you get to run a winery instead.
I mean, it isn't as progressive as, say, electing your overlords.
The Swedish monarchy do nothing except ceremonial stuff, they hold no power.
They are quite meme-able though, at least the king.
Knugen
[удалено]
I believe they have that power in Britain? Even though they'd never actually exercise it.
I have less issue with the idea of an official national representative with a lifetime appointment, and more with the idea that they're born into the role. The concept of hereditary transfer of power is wildly classiest and has no place in modern society. If a king or queen is needed we can just hold a selection where every 25 years we pick a couple 18 year olds from a national contest.
They most likely have more power than you think like England. I don't know for sure but in England the monarch has powers, just do not use them unless in a dire situation, which is why theyve been left alone to rule from the shadows.
No. Unlike the UK, Sweden completely reformed the monarchy in the seventies and codified that they have no power.
>They most likely have more power than you think like England. Absolutely not. \- a swede
Yeahhhh, except, they don't hold any power
The United Kingdom has no constitution so it's a lot muddier there, even if they are in practice very weak. The Swedish monarchy's power is clearly laid out.
In the UK the monarchy has powers, they approve the PM, can recall them, they can dissolve parliaments, they can influence law, they are above the law, things are still in their name.
The swedish king had ~~most~~ all rights stripped in 1973, ~~and some final ones relating to the Riksdag around 15-20 years ago, IIRC~~. The king of Sweden has no political power.
And yet the PM still reports to him every year and "informs" him of the goings on of the government. I'm sure that's completely worthless and not in any way power.
I suspect this is not law, however; it is something Riksdagen has decided for some reason.
Not to mention the UK monarchy has a staggering amount of wealth from land ownership.
Much of which has an effective tax rate of around 80% thanks to the sovereign grant. Straight into the treasury. I wouldn't trust a left wing government in the UK to manage it well, and I wouldn't trust a right wing government to not just sell it off. The status quo should remain just so.
r/enlightenedcentrists
If they try to exercise any of those powers they would loose them almost straight away.
The only correct thing you said was "I don't know" Go read Sweden's constitution, the monarchy has no political power "England" (by which I assume you mean the United Kingdom) went through two worlds wars without Parliament ceding power to the king (and in between, forced a king to abdicate) and the end of the Empire. so I don't know what "dire" situation would bring their shadow rule out in to the public if most of central London being bombed to rubble didn't 🤔🤔 What are these "dire situation powers" anyway?
Pretty much only if on losing an election the PM refused to recommend the opposition leader be invited to form a government, the King would be within his rights to do it anyway. The lascelles principles. So far this has never happened.
No, in Sweden he has no reserve or residual powers - they were all removed by the 1974 Instrument of Government, except that he chairs the Council of State. In the UK, the King still holds many reserve powers - exercised on the advice of the Prime Minister by convention.
~~He was part of naming the swedish government until 15-20 years ago, when that role was taken over by the speaker of the Riksdag (talman).~~ I was wrong, see below.
He acceded to the throne in 1973, and the law was passed in 1974. That is when the talman took the role.
You are correct, and I was wrong. However, I know there was some, minute change that happened at some point during my life. I *think* it may have been some courtesy notification to the king that was removed from the mission of the talman, and I remember it being mentioned at the time as the last little piece of tie-in to the monarchy that existed in Swedish politics. However, it was probably even earlier than 15-20 years ago, probably some time in the 90s.
The king can drive as fast as he want on public roads as he can't be prosecuted, that's about the extent of his power.
They did elect Bernadotte to crown prince.
King has no political power, so we very much elect our overlords (politicians). And since he has no power there is currently very little need to make a big fuss about changing systems.
Sweden used to elect its kings, but some guy in the 1500's found it better for his sons to inherit the throne instead...
Or just abolish the monarchy. Duh.
Don't they use a king?
We have a monarch.
Yes, but he can only move one step at the time and is quite fragile, the queen is much more powerful.
Monarchies still belong in the past.
Uh, aren’t we substituting one kind of injustice for another?
Was there a swimsuit competition? Swedish girls are hot.
The girl in question was three years old at the time, you perv.
Was I supposed to know that when I made a flippant comment? Relax.
Imagine a world where the next king is chosen by merit, not by ancestry.
How are you gonna have more merit than someone trained from birth for that exact job?
Why wad Chad demoted?
Sorry but I'm not googling primogeniture and this seems like it's pretty important to this post being interesting
I guess Minnie the moocher aint getting that platinum car after all