Talk:Prince Carl Philip, Duke of Värmland

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]

I hope that someone will explain where Prince Carl Philip and his sister are in the British line of succession, if they are,there if this is to remain in the ariticle. If it is only a reference to where he would be in Sweden if Sweden used the British system, this has already been fully dealth with earlier in the article.

Rlquall 15:45, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The reference was very real. Carl Philip and his sister are currently #234 and #235 to the British throne, Roman Catholics included (see [1]). I really think mentioning their presence in that list is quite irrelevant to the article, though, so I took the paragraph out. Go ahead and put it back in if you disagree, and I won't revert you. -- Jao 10:06, Aug 21, 2004 (UTC)

No, that's just what I was looking for, but at that distance, I'll leave it alone. The inbred nature of European royalty has always fascinated me, like how probably Queen Victoria's carrying of the gene for hemophilia led to the Tsarevitch having it, which helped to lead to the subsequent domination of the Russian court by Rasputin, which of course helped bring about the February and then October Revolutions. While it's hardly that simple, it was surely a major factor.

Rlquall 19:50, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Change in the Act of Succession

Hi. I've always wondered about this particularity of the Swedish monarchy. If the Act had been amended before the present King had any children, I wouldn't think anything of it, but as it happened, Prince Carl was stripped of his right to the throne after he had acquired it (for that matter, it wouldn't have made any difference either if a male heir had been born first). In most legal systems, juridically speaking, that is unconstitutional, although it is pertaining to civil law (you might call it "acquired right"), and it sounds particularly bad when concerning a monarchy, which exists based on the strength of tradition. In other times, something like this might have entailed a civil war. How was that possible? Didn't the fact that the future King was already born (and thus had the status of Heir apparent to the throne) weigh at all when the amendment was passed? Is there no resistence to this in Sweden? I mean, don't get me wrong, I have nothing against full cognatic primogeniture, but as it was, it should have been established from the next generation (unborn) onwards. Can anyone enlighten me? Regards, Redux 13:42, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Short version: in Sweden, any change to the constitution has to be approved by the parliament twice with a general election separating the two votes. Carl Philip was born between the first and second votes, so it was known from the start that he would be the crown prince only temporarily.

The long version would include the reasons for the change (family history, mostly) and a timeline of events. I doubt that this bit of historical trivia is significant enough to include in the article, though. Bo Lindbergh 17:20, 2004 Dec 8 (UTC)

That is interesting. Thanks for the explanation. I do believe this merits inclusion in this article. It would certainly be too much for the more general article on the Swedish Royal Family, but being that this one is about the prince himself, it would definately be interesting to have both the "long" historical reasons for the change in Succession rules and the technicality of him having been born in the middle of the process. But I still have a doubt: I know next to nothing about the particularities of the Swedish legal system, but generally speaking, in most western legal systems, any piece of legislation can only produce its effects once it comes into full force, that is, once its approved. While its still being created (legislative process underway), the existing rules apply fully. In that context, the Swedish Legislative branch had not yet approved the amendment to change the rules of Succession when Prince Carl was born, which means that the previous rule was in full force, and that means that the prince did acquire the status of heir apparent to the throne when he was born, only to be stripped from it later. Did the text make any specific reference to the children of King Karl Gustav? Or maybe it established a date (since Princess Victoria, the eldest, was born in 1977, maybe the text said, "those born from 1977 onwards..."?)? In any case, it still looks like there's a loophole, because the prince was born before the change could be approved by Parliament. Again, I don't know the specifics, but it looks to me that this contingency should have forced the application of the new rules to be deferred to the next generation (namely, Prince Carl's children, who would succeed to the throne). Does that sound right? Regards, Redux 13:20, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I will try to address this in short. Firstly, yes, Carl Philip WAS heir apparent and crown prince regardless of pending constitutional changes, and this status was later taken from him. Some Swedes think that this is an example of retroactive legislation, which is of course frowned upon. (The King himself has made statements to that end, while his children were too young at the time to have opinions on the matter.) It all comes down to what level of promise one reads into a role such as heir apparent (or monarch, for that matter). Had Carl Philip been promised to keep this status no matter what or just until the constitution changes? Certainly constitutional changes have deposed people (even acceded monarchs) from their positions – are all these changes retroactive and therefore bad?

Secondly, no, the 1980 text doesn't say anything in particular about the King's children, but then again, this text restricts succession to only the descendants of Carl XVI Gustaf (the now deceased Prince Bertil was temporarily amended by Parliament as a back-up because the children were not of legal age). Among these descendants, full cognatic primogeniture is to be applied without exceptions. (The matter was quite similar when Norway introduced the same system a decade later, although the children were older. There, just the solution you suggest was adopted. Only family members born after a specific date were to be affected by the change, and so Haakon Magnus remains Crown Prince despite having an older sister.) -- Jao 11:02, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)

I see. Thanks for the explanation. Well, here's what I believe: European monarchies tend to obey a set of common rules established in the 16th century, with only small variances from country to country, and the general rules of Succession are among them. In that system, and as we can read in our heir apparent article here in Wikipedia, acquiring this status precludes the possibility that the individual may be replaced as next sovereign (different from heir presumptive, which accounts for the uncertainty of succession). So, if Prince Carl was heir apparent to the Swedish throne in accordance with the laws in force at the time, he could not be removed as next sovereign by new legislation. Sure others have been removed from succession, and even the throne, by posterior legislation, but that can only happen within the legal order when the individual had achieved that status in breach of the rules in the first place (v.g.: illegitimate children - many crown princes and sovereigns have been contested under the claim that they were illegitimate). Other than that, it's a change, or a breach, in the order, such as a coup d'état (as when Napoleon replaced a number of European monarchs with his own brothers). Norway appears to have taken a saffer path legally wise, there we can't contest the legitimacy of a future crown princess that might have a younger brother.
But that's the legal part. Philosophically speaking, it is my understanding that the full cognatic rule has been established in the interest of political correctness. Would that be an accurate statement? Normally, that would be fine. But I find it problematic when it tampers with ancient institutions that exist today based solely on tradition. I wonder if there's any perspective in Sweden of correcting this, or is it already spoken for? I have nothing against princess Victoria, she looks like a nice girl, but technically speaking, her accession to the throne would simply be illegitimate, and all of this because Parliament would not wait a few more decades to be politically correct. Regards, Redux 12:39, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I would say that your understanding of the reasons for the change is quite apt. To be sure, it was argued at the time that keeping the old order of succession would put the future of the monarchy at stake as the childless Prince Bertil was the only legitimate heir to the throne (females couldn't inherit the throne at all, and all other males had left the succession for various reasons). This argument seems a bit hasty as the King was not elderly – au contraire, he was in his early thirties and there was no reason to believe that he would not produce more children. And the fact that Parliament after the 1979 election followed through with the change despite such a child, a male heir to the throne, already having been born, is of course way too easy a counter-argument for this to hold as more than a pseudo-reason. Furthermore, if this had been the true reason, one could just as easily have implemented the well-tested British-Danish cognatic system instead of this utterly new experiment. No, rushed and inconsiderate demand for political correctness is truly what lay behind the change, just as it lay behind other radical (by which I mean "strange") laws of the time (the 1964 abolition of the fideikommiss and the 1982 name law are two examples). Some politicians to the right might have felt that this change was needed to save the monarchy (the Social Democrats, the largest Swedish party, had then and has still abolition of the monarchy on its program, although for largely populistic reasons it is reluctant to act on it). -- Jao 13:44, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)

Indeed. But it amazes me that such an attack on the institution of Swedish monarchy could be carried out without any effective resistence. In most western democratic systems, not even Parliament is absolute when passing a piece of legislation. There are mechanisms to prevent abuses and exaggerations. Normally, a new law could be declared illegal or even unconstitutional, even if it's an amendment to the Constitution itself. The "ability" to request that an Act of Parliament (a new legislation) be declared void usually rests with pre-designated institutions (Supreme Court, General Attourney's Office, Legal Bar, etc. – it varies from country to country). With that in mind, I'm really curious as to whether or not there's any perspective in Sweden to undo this "experiment". And, of course, if there's any realistic chance that such an effort might succeed. Or maybe nothing is being discussed right now, but since things were done how they were done and for those feeble reasons, a "shadow" may be hanging, and when the King dies and Succession to the throne finally becomes a reality, rather than a relatively distant event in the future, voices might rise against crowning Victoria Queen of Sweden. Again, I have nothing against the girl, is just that it is really not her right to succeed to the throne. Could that be the case? Regards, Redux 18:46, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think that the reasoning above, while attractive, is ultimately flawed: the Swedish (and Norwegian) legal systems are not based on common law, and as such, having the position of heir apparent does not confer any special rights - the position is purely derived from current law; historical traditions have no power whatsoever. The actual act of succession only takes place the moment the current sovereign dies, and the heir apparent or presumptive at that point in time accedes to the throne. The Swedish and Norwegian constitutions are, strictly speaking, only concerned with this, and as such, the constitutional changes were never retroactive. I am also uncertain as to whether any courts in the two countries have the right to strike constitutional amendments. Furthermore, one could mention that in the UK, Parliament's powers are absolute, so (e.g.) Prince Charles could lose his right to throne tomorrow, if Parliament so desired. Tobyox 00:45, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)

I would think that Prince Carl would resent being unfairly deprived of his position as Crown Prince. --Anglius

As it was done while he was still a baby, he never knew any different. The process was in motion before he was born, so even though he was Crown Prince for a while, everyone knew it wouldn't last. Prsgoddess187 12:56, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, madam, but when he became older, I would think that he would.--Anglius 18:20, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

He might be upset about the change, but he has been content in the last few years to let his sisters have the spotlight, so maybe he prefers it this way. Prsgoddess187 19:03, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree that he probably does not mind. What pity, madam, that princes do not appear to be as not conscientious or ambitious as they once were. --Anglius 19:46, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I wish I knew because my comments and my questions about this file were removed. Notice that, in a democratic and civilized country, everyone has the right to freeely express his opinions and nobody has the right to cancel them, when expressed in a proper and not offensive way. I don't know where are you from, but I seem clear you are not accostomed to these basic principles. I can't accept, in any way, dictatorial behaviours and I vibrately protest towards your less of democracy. VAL

[edit] Bernadottean-Gallieran fideicommisses

There are articles that say Carl Philip will succeed to those inheritances and titles, such as Gallierasamlingen. Suedois 11:51, 20 October 2006 (UTC)