Swedish Line of Succession

[Josefine]

Line of succession
King Carl XVI Gustaf (born 1946)[3]
(1) Crown Princess Victoria, Duchess of Västergötland (b. 1977)[4]
(2) Princess Estelle, Duchess of Östergötland (b. 2012)[7]
(3) Prince Oscar, Duke of Skåne (b. 2016)[8]
(4) Prince Carl Philip, Duke of Värmland (b. 1979)[9]
(5) Prince Alexander, Duke of Södermanland (b. 2016)[10]
(6) Prince Gabriel, Duke of Dalarna (b. 2017)[citation needed]
(7) Princess Madeleine, Duchess of Hälsingland and Gästrikland (b. 1982)[11]
(8) Princess Leonore, Duchess of Gotland (b. 2014)[12]
(9) Prince Nicolas, Duke of Ångermanland (b. 2015)[13]
(10) Princess Adrienne, Duchess of Blekinge (b. 2018)[14]

 

[Josefine]

The last time there were 10 in line for the Swedish throne were september 20th, 1918

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Line of succession
King Carl XVI Gustaf (born 1946)[3]
(1) Crown Princess Victoria, Duchess of Västergötland (b. 1977)[4]
(2) Princess Estelle, Duchess of Östergötland (b. 2012)[7]
(3) Prince Oscar, Duke of Skåne (b. 2016)[8]
(4) Prince Carl Philip, Duke of Värmland (b. 1979)[9]
(5) Prince Alexander, Duke of Södermanland (b. 2016)[10]
(6) Prince Gabriel, Duke of Dalarna (b. 2017)[citation needed]
(7) Princess Madeleine, Duchess of Hälsingland and Gästrikland (b. 1982)[11]
(8) Princess Leonore, Duchess of Gotland (b. 2014)[12]
(9) Prince Nicolas, Duke of Ångermanland (b. 2015)[13]
(10) Princess Adrienne, Duchess of Blekinge (b. 2018)[14]

If it were not for the amendments of the Act of Succession in 1980, not a one of them would be in the line to the throne now.

 

[Somebody]

The long title of Swedish princes in those days was HRH Prince xxx, Arvfurste (Hereditary Prince) of Sweden, Duke of xxx. There is a precedent for conserving part of this title when forfeiting succession rights. King Oscar II's second son Oscar married a non-royal woman and gave up his succession rights and the titles of HRH, Arvfurste and Duke. However, he kept the title of Prince and was known from then as Prince Oscar Bernadotte, without the HRH.

As for retaining the ducal title after losing the HRH, while there is no actual precedent, there is the court's declaration that Jonas Bergström would share Princess Madeleine's ducal title but not become a prince. Was it seen as a planned act of ennoblement back then? If it was, the king could have convincingly argued that it would not be, given that no dukes have ever been in the nobility of Sweden - only the royal house.

A fourth question is if the King sees the possible eventual removal of Leonore, Nicolas, and Adrienne from the line of succession as extending to their future children. In the case that Leonore were raised in the United States, and later moved to Sweden where she raised her own children, withdrawing royal titles from Leonore would create questions if her children were in the line of succession.

That would be very sensible (I would propose limiting it by proximity to any monarch instead of the current monarch in order that no one is forced to lose their succession rights or titles when there is a change of reign) as it would avoid the delicate situation in some other monarchies with private citizens who are not even princesses or princes theoretically being required to be king/queen if something happened to the royals.

Exactly, in the Netherlands they had to make a special provision for princess Margriet to remain a member of the royal house when Willem-Alexander ascended the throne (this was already anticipated in 2002 and arranged back then) while she was the daughter of a queen and the sister of another queen and dedicated her whole life to royal service. Willem-Alexander's brother, however, will no longer be a member of the royal house when his niece Catharina-Amalia ascends the throne (but will remain in line to the throne; his children - Catharina-Amalia's cousins will loose their succession rights).

My suggestion for the Swedish royal family would be to reduce the official 'royal house' (or king's family) to the monarch, his children and the heir's children; and include any other grandchildren as 'members of the royal family but not the royal house' - keeping their succession rights. I don't see why their children would need to remain part of the royal family. CP's offspring could become counts Bernadotte, so their descendance in male-line of the royal family remains clear. Madeleine's grandchildren (by Nicolas) can revert back to O'Neill.

So, 2nd degree from any monarch or heir (from an approved marriage) would be my proposed requirement to be in line to the throne.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

I believe the Court is following a literal reading of the Act of Succession, which says that "[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]princes and princesses of the Royal House are brought up [...] within the Realm". Since Madeleine's children are no longer "princes and princesses of the Royal House", the literal interpretation is that the aforementioned requirement no longer applies to them.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]
[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Accordingly, if we keep reading the Act literally, Madeleine's and CP's children (and their respective descendants) will no longer forfeit their succession rights if they marry without the consent of the government granted upon application by the King, or become the sovereign ruler of a foreign country without the consent of the King and the Parliament of Sweden. Again, both provisions in the text apply only to "princes or princesses of the Royal House".
[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]
[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]As I said, the reason why the Act of Succession of 1810 laid down several requirements on "princes of the Royal House" (later amended in 1979 to "princes and/or princesses of the Royal House") as opposed to "persons in the line of succession" is probably that, in the legislator's reasoning, those two classes of people were equivalent. In fact, Alexander and Gabriel are the first direct male descendants in male line of Jean Baptiste Bernadotte who ceased to be "princes of the Royal House" (HRHs) without simultaneously forefeiting their succession rights. We are in unchartered territory then.
[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]
[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Strictly speaking, in a literal reading of the Act of Succession, the only possibility now to disqualify Madeleine's or CP's children from inheriting the throne would be if they ceased to profess " [/FONT][FONT=Arial,Helvetica][FONT=Arial,Helvetica]the pure evangelical faith, as adopted and explained in the unaltered Confession of Augsburg and in the Resolution of the Uppsala Meeting of the year 1593" as the disqualification based on the aformentioned religious test extends to "[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Arial,Helvetica][FONT=Arial,Helvetica][FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Any member of the Royal Family" as opposed to "princes and/or princesses of the Royal House" only.
[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica][FONT=Arial,Helvetica][FONT=Arial,Helvetica]
[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]

Thanks! Your explanation finally explains the equivocal comments from the Marshal of the Realm, and as such I believe you are correct regarding the Court's reading of the term "princes and princesses of the Royal House".

I could not agree more with your belief that the Court's reading is contrary to the intentions of the legislature. No doubt there was no premonition in 1810 or 1979 that the line of succession could extend beyond the Royal House. It would be absurd to contend that a private businessperson without any royal responsibilities should be preferred as King or Queen over a princess or prince who has carried out duties on behalf of the monarch for twenty years, when both of them married without the consent of the government.

To be entirely honest, I am persuaded that this new literal reading of the Act of Succession is not motivated by legal conventions or reasoning, but has the purpose of preventing Princess Madeleine's children from dropping out of the succession under circumstances (the apprehension that their stay in America will last indefinitely) which, on the Court's previous reading of the Act of Succession, would remove them from the line of succession. If this is what has happened here, it is not apparent to me why the King is seemingly committed to retaining the children of his youngest child in the succession. The succession is already secure without them, and if they are in fact brought up outside Sweden, they will hardly be qualified to serve as Sweden's head of state.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

I had the impression the court seems to think that Madeleine's children will remain in the line of succession while growing up in the States... is that something that only has been attributed to them or is did truly what they or more likely their representatives stated.

It was said to have been stated by the Marshal of the Realm in his meeting with the press, but I never found his exact words anywhere. Is anybody able to help?

I think that the court is being consciously vague not to set a precedent that could back them into a corner in the future and keep as much of leeway as possible.

But don't you think they have gone beyond what the public required with their explicit interpretations? They had no urgent need to announce in 2013 that not being raised in Sweden after the age of six would mean exclusion from the line of succession, or to suggest in 2019 that Leonore and her siblings would be free(r) to be raised overseas without affecting their place in line. The court could have remained completely indifferent to the issue of the Bernadotte O'Neills' succession rights until the question became meaningful, i.e., if and when something happened to Victoria and Carl Philip's branches of the family.

That being said, I have an absolute preference for the Swedish court's clumsy transparency over royal courts such as Monaco or Belgium which keep these matters completely vague.

Yes, that's indeed how they interpreted it. Of course, these regulations were never meant to provide a way out of the regulations pertaining to those with succession rights - everyone with succession rights would be expected to be a member of the royal house and a prince(ss) of Sweden, so those rules would apply to each and everyone in the line of succession. By kicking them out of the royal houses and removing the 'of Sweden' (but keeping them princes and princesses and continuing their ducal titles) they circumvented the rules... And I don't think it should be up to the royal house themselves to decide whether this is allowable.

I agree with you. In a constitutional democracy in which the monarchy is mainly a figurehead, there is no reason why matters like royal succession, membership of the house, and titles should not be accountable to the democratically elected parliament. Japan is an excellent example to follow in that regard.

It is not that much different from the current situation in the UK for example, where the monarch's consent is not needed for marriages of anyone who is 7th or lower in the line of succession.

CP's sons are likely to be still among the first six people in line to the throne by the time they are engaged to marry, but Leonore probably won't be. In any case, none of them is likely to succeed, so an argument can be made that whoever they marry is inconsequential as a matter of state interest.

I've written here why I feel the UK and now Swedish situation is strange. https://www.theroyalforums.com/foru...he-crown-act-2013-a-34108-58.html#post2354680

Even if consent were needed, I don't see the King (or Victoria if she is already Queen by then) or the Swedish government refusing to consent to a marriage between Leonore and Christian of Denmark, or George of Cambridge, or any other prince in direct line to a foreign throne.

I expect consent would not even be requested in that situation. All sides would take it for granted that a personal union of crowns would be unacceptable in current times.

 

[An Ard Ri]

The last time there were 10 in line for the Swedish throne were september 20th, 1918

There will be 11 hopefully in 2021 so that record is broken again.

 

[0325.Mikael.0929]

There will be 11 hopefully in 2021 so that record is broken again.

It would technically be a tie with the period between 31 October 1916 and 20 September 1918, because the number dropped to 10 on 20 September 1918 due to Prince Erik's death.

The Line of Succession since 1907

[1907-1918: Early Reign of Gustaf V]

060422 [7] Birth of Gustaf Adolf, Duke of Västerbotten
070607 [8] Birth of Sigvard, Duke of Uppland
071208 [7] Death of Oscar II, Duke of Östergötland
090508 [8] Birth of Lennart, Duke of Småland
110110 [9] Birth of Carl, Duke of Östergötland
120228 [10] Birth of Bertil, Duke of Halland
161031 [11] Birth of Carl Johan, Duke of Dalarna

[1918-1950: Later Reign of Gustaf V]

180920 [10] Death of Erik, Duke of Västmanland
320311 [9] Lennart loses Swedish titles
340308 [8] Sigvard loses Swedish titles
370706 [7] Carl (Duke of Östergötland) loses Swedish titles
460219 [6] Carl Johan loses Swedish titles
460430 [7] Birth of Carl XVI Gustaf, Duke of Jämtland
470126 [6] Death of Gustaf Adolf, Duke of Västerbotten
470817 [5] Death of Eugen, Duke of Närke

[1950-1973: Reign of Gustaf VI Adolf]

501029 [4] Death of Gustaf V, Duke of Värmland
511024 [3] Death of Carl, Duke of Västergötland
650605 [2] Death of Wilhelm, Duke of Södermanland

[1973-2012: Early Reign of Carl XVI Gustaf]

730915 [1] Death of Gustaf VI Adolf, Duke of Skåne
790513 [2] Birth of Carl Philip, Duke of Värmland
800101 [3] Victoria becomes Crown Princess and Duchess of Västergötland
820610 [4] Birth of Madeleine, Duchess of Hälsingland & Gästrikland
970105 [3] Death of Bertil, Duke of Halland

[2012-20??: Later Reign of Carl XVI Gustaf]

120223 [4] Birth of Estelle, Duchess of Östergötland
140220 [5] Birth of Leonore, Duchess of Gotland
150615 [6] Birth of Nicolas, Duke of Ångermanland
160302 [7] Birth of Oscar, Duke of Skåne
160419 [8] Birth of Alexander, Duke of Södermanland
170831 [9] Birth of Gabriel, Duke of Dalarna
180309 [10] Birth of Adrienne, Duchess of Blekinge
210404? [11] Birth of the third child of Carl Philip

 

[Tatiana Maria]

No, only children of persons in the the line of succession were princes and princesses. Prince Carl's marriage to Elsa von Rosen was approved by the King, but it contravened the ban on marriage to Swedish private men's daughters in the Act of Succession and he lost his place in the line of succession. His daughter was never a princess.

Hadn't thought about that. Wouldn't that have applied to Victoria's children as well? Or would it only apply to Swedish brides and not bridegrooms?

It applied only to brides of princes of the Royal House. The Act of Succession 1810 once included a clause in Article 6 which stipulated that Princesses of the Royal House could not be permitted to marry a Swedish man, but this clause was deleted under a law passed in 1921 (SFS 1921:21).

 

[Mbruno]

I apologize if this is not the appropriate forum, but I was watching the new Swedish series Young Royals on Netflix when a question about the Swedish line of sucession crossed my mind, which I would like to share.


As you may know, that series is about a fictional Swedish Royal Family where the reigning queen has two unmarried sons. The eldest son dies in a car accident and his 16-year-old younger brother then becomes the new Crown Prince and, apparently, the only person left in the line of succession. However, the younger son finds out that he also happens to be gay, which apparently creates some complications for him.



I know that, in the UK for example, babies born of a surrogate mother are not eligible to succeed to peerages (and presumably also to the Crown?) even when both the sperm and the egg were donated by the baby's married (heterosexual) parents. I believe that, in that case, the biological parents may "legitimize" the child in UK law, but his/her legal status is considered equivalent to that of an adopted child and, therefore, with no succession rights (please correct me if I am wrong).


I wonder if that is also the case in Sweden. Concretely, if the king was married to another man and they had a baby with sperm donated by the king, but an egg from a woman who was not married to him and also served as a surrogate mother, would that child be in the line of succession to the throne as a legitimate descendant of the king? Or, in the scenario featured in the Netflix series, would the Royal House face the possibility of extinction?

 

[JR76]

I apologize if this is not the appropriate forum, but I was watching the new Swedish series Young Royals on Netflix when a question about the Swedish line of sucession crossed my mind, which I would like to share.


As you may know, that series is about a fictional Swedish Royal Family where the reigning queen has two unmarried sons. The eldest son dies in a car accident and his 16-year-old younger brother then becomes the new Crown Prince and, apparently, the only person left in the line of succession. However, the younger son finds out that he also happens to be gay, which apparently creates some complications for him.



I know that, in the UK for example, babies born of a surrogate mother are not eligible to succeed to peerages (and presumably also to the Crown?) even when both the sperm and the egg were donated by the baby's married (heterosexual) parents. I believe that, in that case, the biological parents may "legitimize" the child in UK law, but his/her legal status is considered equivalent to that of an adopted child and, therefore, with no succession rights (please correct me if I am wrong).


I wonder if that is also the case in Sweden. Concretely, if the king was married to another man and they had a baby with sperm donated by the king, but an egg from a woman who was not married to him and also served as a surrogate mother, would that child be in the line of succession to the throne as a legitimate descendant of the king? Or, in the scenario featured in the Netflix series, would the Royal House face the possibility of extinction?

First of all the statues of Riddarhuset (The Swedish Nobles Association) does not give noble status to any other than the children that are born within a marriage of a noble man to a woman. Since the Royal family aren't members of Riddarhuset these rules doesn't concern them in any way.
Regarding the Order of Succession there are a few ways to interpret that regarding this issue, but the simple answer is that the child would not be in the line of succession since:
1. The preface speaks about children that are the result of the marriage (äkta barn & bröstarvingar)
2. Surrogacy is illegal in Sweden.
Contradicting this are a few possible loopholes:
1. Today a lesbian couple can chose to have the name of both mothers on the birth certificate of their child instead of the biological father making it the result of their marriage.
2. The preface, and earlier versions of the OoS, speaks about bröstarvingar an expression that literally means heirs of the breast. This originally meant, again, children that were the result of a marriage, but today it means any child of someone be it "legitimate", "illegitimate" or adopted so the question is could it also mean the child born from a persons seed or egg?
3. I know of several gay male couples where the child was conceived through surrogacy abroad and the children are legally the bröstarvingar of both of the fathers. Either through adoption by the non-biological father or by having both father's' names on the birth certificate.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

But the preface does not speak about "äkta barn", it speaks about "äkta manliga bröstarvingar", which I think translates literally to "legitimate/marital male heirs of the body".

https://www.riksdagen.se/sv/dokumen...ing/successionsordning-18100926_sfs-1810-0926

So, I believe that the preface, which was written in 1810 and was one of the sections of the Act of Succession which remained unaltered after 1980, only lays down the historical rules of succession which were in effect in 1810. Otherwise, we must also interpret it to exclude female children from the line of succession.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

That is all surprising, but I suspect it has to do with the opinion of the Constitutional Committee that the category of "princes and princesses of Royal House" as used in the Act of Succession includes all persons in the line of succession, regardless of their being designated HRHs and members of the Royal House by the Royal Court or not.

By implication, I would assume that the legal requirement in the Act of Succession that "princes and princesses of the Royal House" be raised in Sweden still applies to Princess Madeleine's children. Leonore, in particular, is already of school age, which, in the past, was mentioned by the Court as the age threshold for the residence requirement to be enforced. So, I wonder what the legal implications will be for Madeleine's children as far as their status as "Princes/Princesses of Sweden" is concerned.

In the appended analysis by Martin Sunnqvist, he gave his opinion that noncompliance with the mandate lacks legal consequences because no consequences are explicitly specified in the Constitution. (pp.118 and 404)

https://www.regeringen.se/4a718f/co...-av-anslaget-till-hovet-sou-202174-bilaga.pdf

Även Holmberg m.fl. har ansett att successionsrätten går förlorad för en successionsberättigad som uppfostrats utomlands.634 Eftersom detta inte kan stödjas på någon uttrycklig föreskrift kan jag inte instämma i den slutsatsen, särskilt som lagstiftaren år 1980 hade tillfälle men valde att inte reglera frågan på så sätt att någon rättsföljd av utrikes uppfostran lades till.

[...]

Det finns en bestämmelse om att prinsar och prinsessor ska uppfödas inom riket. Det finns inte någon rättsverkan angiven för det fall så inte sker, och det är min uppfattning att man inte kan tolka in i bestämmelsen någon rättsföljd t.ex. i form av att successionsrätten skulle vara förverkad.