Titles of the Swedish RF and Changes 2019

[Heavs]

Interesting, thank you.

I wonder if they will fudge it again (in the way Madeleine's children are not being raised in Sweden but are still in the line of succession) and say that the King is going to grant courtesy royal orders and COA to royal *family* members who are in the line of succession and not just Royal House?

Would there be much outcry over a baby getting the same treatment as his/her older brothers? Probably not.

Being born an HRH and then having it taken away once you have all the other perks seems more dishonest than just giving them the COA and Orders anyway. If he does indeed intend to give them those things.

The other thing to do would be to take away the COA and orders from the other five children but I don't see that happening.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

The existing system of ducal titles was created in 1772. Henceforth, the only circumstance under which there would have been a surviving heir after the death of a duke, if the ducal title had been hereditary, was in 1947 when the father of the future King Carl XVI Gustaf died. His title Duke of Västerbotten apparently became extinct instead of passing to Carl Gustaf.

Every other time a ducal title was created, the duke either became King (before 1973, the ducal title merged with the crown and was free to be regranted if the prince became King), lost his ducal title for an unequal marriage, had no sons (daughters did not hold ducal titles before 1980), or had had their only son excluded from holding royal titles for an unequal marriage.

Given that only once did it matter whether a ducal title was inheritable, when and why was it agreed on that ducal titles are not inheritable?

There is one exception to this trend: Sweden. The flood of princes and princesses (all dukes and duchesses as well).

Sweden was by no means an exception. Grandchildren or nieces/nephews of the Danish, Belgian, British, Luxembourgian, and Liechtenstein sovereigns are princes and princesses. The practices of monarchies in the Middle East and elsewhere are more generous yet.

Counting the child expected to be born in spring, King Carl XVI Gustaf has the same number of prince and princess grandchildren as Queen Margrethe II of Denmark and Prince Hans-Adam II of Liechtenstein, and fewer prince or princess grandchildren than King Albert II of Belgium or the late Grand Duke Jean of Luxembourg.

Regarding the Madeleine issue (although we are going hugely off-topic - and her situation is quite different in that she is the monarch's daughter not grandson); in my perception the main inconsistency is not in keeping her title -she was born a royal highness and currently they don't strip people of titles for not marrying 'equals', so no reason for her to give up her title- but in accepting titles for her children while their father refused a title. So, this is a 'Nordic' example where they give out more titles than previously instead of less or asking/suggesting/forcing to renounce.

It is actually an example of giving out fewer titles than previously, as it was the first time a spouse of a dynast who kept their place in the line of succession and remained a member of the Royal House was allowed to refuse a title.


Replied to succession related posts in the succession thread.

 

[JR76]

The existing system of ducal titles was created in 1772. Henceforth, the only circumstance under which there would have been a surviving heir after the death of a duke, if the ducal title had been hereditary, was in 1947 when the father of the future King Carl XVI Gustaf died. His title Duke of Västerbotten apparently became extinct instead of passing to Carl Gustaf.

Every other time a ducal title was created, the duke either became King (before 1973, the ducal title merged with the crown and was free to be regranted if the prince became King), lost his ducal title for an unequal marriage, had no sons (daughters did not hold ducal titles before 1980), or had had their only son excluded from holding royal titles for an unequal marriage.

Given that only once did it matter whether a ducal title was inheritable, when and why was it agreed on that ducal titles are not inheritable?
[...]

The Order of succession of 1590 retracted the authorisation from the Order of succession of 1544 that allowed princes to receive inheritable duchies. This most likely because the 50 years between the two different Oos had seen Sweden almost break apart because of infighting between the sons and grandsons of Gustav I of whom many had received semi-independent duchies. Henceforth the realm was never to risk becoming divided again. §34 of the Instrument of government of 1772 accordingly mentioned that the royal princes could receive the traditional titles connected to duchies and principalities but without any jurisdiction over them.

 

[0325.Mikael.0929]

Since 1772, the "inheritance" of dukedoms (which actually aren't inherited because they either went extinct or merged with the crown, and were created again) are as follows:

=Södermanland=
1772: Carl XIII, brother of Gustav III
1810: Oscar I, son of then Crown Prince Carl Johan.
1852: Carl Oscar (grandson)
1884: Wilhelm (father's brother's grandson)
2016: Alexander (brother's grandson's grandson)

1810 and 1852 are the only two times the reigning monarch granted his dukedom to princes, who were both the heir apparent to the heir apparent to the throne upon the creation of the dukedom.

=Östergötland=
1772: Fredrik Adolf, brother of Gustav III
1829: Oscar II, grandson of Carl XIV Johan
1911: Carl (grandson)
2012: Estelle (father's brother's grandson's granddaughter's daughter)

Sophia of Nassau (1836-1913), the widow of Oscar II, was alive when Carl was granted the dukedom of Östergötland in 1911.
Estelle was granted the dukedom of Östergötland in 2012 when Carl's last spouse Kristine Rivelsrud (1932-2014) was alive, but the dukedom of Östergötland was officially revoked in 1937 when Carl married Elsa von Rosen.

=Småland=
1782: Carl Gustaf, son of Gustav III
1909: Lennart, grandson of Gustaf V

=Värmland=
1798: Carl Adolf, son of Carl XIII
1858: Gustaf V, grandson of Oscar I
1979: Carl Philip (grandson's grandson)

=Skåne=
1826: Carl XV, grandson of Carl XIV Johan
1882: Gustaf VI Adolf (brother's grandson)
2016: Oscar (grandson's grandson)

=Uppland=
1827: Gustaf, grandson of Carl XIV Johan
1907: Sigvard (brother's grandson's son)

=Dalarna=
1831: August, grandson of Carl XIV Johan
1916: Carl Johan (brother's grandson's son)
2017: Gabriel (brother's grandson's son)

=Gotland=
1859: Oscar, nephew of Carl XV
2014: Leonore (brother's grandson's granddaughter's daughter)

=Västergötland=
1861: Carl, nephew of Carl XV
1980: Victoria (brother's grandson's granddaughter)

 

[Stefan]

Since 1772, the "inheritance" of dukedoms (which actually aren't inherited because they either went extinct or merged with the crown, and were created again) are as follows:

=Södermanland=
1772: Carl XIII, brother of Gustav III
1799: Oscar I, son of then Crown Prince Carl Johan.
1852: Carl Oscar (grandson)
1884: Wilhelm (father's brother's grandson)
2016: Alexander (brother's grandson's grandson)

But the future Oscar I. got the Dukedom surely not in 1799 as then he was plain Mr. Oscar Bernadotte and nobody would have gussed at that time that he once would become King of Sweden.

 

[An Ard Ri]

He wasn't styled Crown Prince, Duke of Södermanland until at least 1818?

 

[0325.Mikael.0929]

But the future Oscar I. got the Dukedom surely not in 1799 as then he was plain Mr. Oscar Bernadotte and nobody would have gussed at that time that he once would become King of Sweden.

He wasn't styled Crown Prince, Duke of Södermanland until at least 1818?

Sorry, it was a typo. Changed to 1810.
He became Prince of Sweden and Duke of Södermanland in 1810 when he was 11, then Crown Prince in 1818 when Carl XIV Johan ascends.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

The Order of succession of 1590 retracted the authorisation from the Order of succession of 1544 that allowed princes to receive inheritable duchies. This most likely because the 50 years between the two different Oos had seen Sweden almost break apart because of infighting between the sons and grandsons of Gustav I of whom many had received semi-independent duchies. Henceforth the realm was never to risk becoming divided again. §34 of the Instrument of government of 1772 accordingly mentioned that the royal princes could receive the traditional titles connected to duchies and principalities but without any jurisdiction over them.

Thank you very much for the informative answer.

Where can I read the old Orders of Succession and Instruments of Government, or are they found only in Swedish books?

I am still puzzled as to when and why the decision that ducal titles would be non-inheritable was formed. If the introduction of ducal titles in 1772 was intended to connect to the historical tradition of semi-independent duchies ruled by the king's sons, and the historical semi-independent duchies had been inheritable, shouldn't the ducal titles have been inheritable as well?

 

[JR76]

I am still puzzled as to when and why the decision that ducal titles would be non-inheritable was formed. If the introduction of ducal titles in 1772 was intended to connect to the historical tradition of semi-independent duchies ruled by the king's sons, and the historical semi-independent duchies had been inheritable, shouldn't the ducal titles have been inheritable as well?

The one thing we do know for sure is that, to my knowledge, no Swedish duchy and the titles connected to it has ever been inherited. Not even in the Middle ages. It's hard to tell why since none of the Vasa dukes ever had the option to pass their duchies on to their sons because of them either seizing the throne, inheriting the throne or not having any legitimate offspring. I'm just speculating here but I do interpret the ban on inheritable duchies as including the titles connected to them. Again it's hard to tell since there weren't any dukedoms, titular or "political", after 1622. I don't know if that was a conscious decision or a consequence of the fact that no prince, other than future kings, lived beyond the age of 2 between the death of Prince Karl Filip in 1622 and the birth of the brothers of Gustav III in 1748 and 1750.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

The one thing we do know for sure is that, to my knowledge, no Swedish duchy and the titles connected to it has ever been inherited. Not even in the Middle ages. It's hard to tell why since none of the Vasa dukes ever had the option to pass their duchies on to their sons because of them either seizing the throne, inheriting the throne or not having any legitimate offspring. I'm just speculating here but I do interpret the ban on inheritable duchies as including the titles connected to them. Again it's hard to tell since there weren't any dukedoms, titular or "political", after 1622. I don't know if that was a conscious decision or a consequence of the fact that no prince, other than future kings, lived beyond the age of 2 between the death of Prince Karl Filip in 1622 and the birth of the brothers of Gustav III in 1748 and 1750.

Are you saying that the ban applied exclusively to inheritable duchies (and possibly inheritable ducal titles), leaving the possibility of non-inheritable duchies/titles? I would like to know the precise phrasing of the law.

Regarding the system of ducal titles introduced in 1772, my question was what produced the decision that Prince Carl Gustaf would not inherit the ducal title of his father in 1947, seeing that no other titular duke had the option to pass on their ducal title due to not leaving any royal sons.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

It's also clear that the king treated his son's children differently in terms of dukedoms than his younger daughter's children. While especially Carl Philip's eldest child (the rightful heir in CG's eyes?!) got ducal titles with a lot of history (and a palace attached to it). Madeleine's childeren (just like their mother) mostly got 'new' ducal titles or with a more limited royal history (probably taking into account that Leonore was the spare at that point).

And while Estelle did get a ducal title with a lot of history; her younger brother's title has only been awarded to future kings.

Estelle: Östergötland
Sune Sik, Duke of Östergötland 12th century (according to 18th-century Swedish historian Magnus Boræn)
Prince Magnus, Duke of Östergötland 1560–1595
Prince John, Duke of Östergötland 1606–1618
Princess Maria Elizabeth, Duchess of Östergötland 1612–1618 as consort and widow of Prince John
Prince Fredrik Adolph, Duke of Östergötland 1772–1803
Prince Oscar, Duke of Östergötland 1829–1872, then King Oscar II of Sweden and Norway
Princess Sophia, Duchess of Östergötland 1857–1872 as consort of Prince Oscar, then Queen of Sweden and Norway
Prince Carl, Duke of Östergötland 1911–1937, Queen Astrid of Belgium's brother, later Prince Bernadotte
Princess Estelle, Duchess of Östergötland 2012–

Oscar: Skane
Prince Carl, Duke of Scania (1826-1859), later King Carl XV of Sweden and Norway
Prince Gustaf Adolf, Duke of Scania (1882-1950), later King Gustaf VI Adolf of Sweden
Prince Oscar, Duke of Skåne (2016–present)

Alexander: Söndermanland
Erik Magnusson, son of King Magnus III, from 1302 until his death in 1318
Prince Karl, son of King Gustav I, from 1560 until he became King in 1604
Prince Karl Filip, son of King Karl IX, from 1609 until his death in 1622
Prince Karl, son of King Adolf Fredrik, from 1772 until he became King in 1809
Prince Oscar, son of King Karl XIV Johan, from before 1818 until he became King in 1844
Prince Carl Oscar, son of Crown Prince (later King) Karl (XV), from his birth in 1852 until his death in 1854
Prince Wilhelm, son of King Gustaf V, from his birth in 1884 until his death in 1965
Prince Alexander, grandson of King Carl XVI Gustaf, from 2016

Gabriel: Dalarna
Prince August, Duke of Dalarna 1831–1873
Prince Carl Johan, Duke of Dalarna 1916–1946
Prince Gabriel, Duke of Dalarna 2017–present

Leonore: Gotland
Duke Eric, Lord of Gotland (1397)
Ex-King Eric, Lord of Gotland (1439–1449)
Prince Oscar, Duke of Gotland (1859–1888)
Princess Leonore, Duchess of Gotland (2014–present)

Nicolas: Angermanland
Prince Nicolas, Duke of Ångermanland (2015 - present)

Adrienne: Blekinge
Princess Adrienne, Duchess of Blekinge (2018 - present)

And the pattern continued with Prince Julian's duchy of Halland, which is attached to the memory of Prince Bertil. Although born as a mere third son, Prince Bertil was for many years the most senior royal after the King (and later the Queen) and the only eligible regent to take over during absences of the King.

 

[Mbruno]

Thank you very much for the informative answer.

Where can I read the old Orders of Succession and Instruments of Government, or are they found only in Swedish books?

Wikisource has a copy (in Swedish) of the Instruments of Government of 1809 and 1772.



https://sv.wikisource.org/wiki/Regeringsform_1809


https://sv.wikisource.org/wiki/Regeringsform_1772

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Thank you!

So, based on the King's speech, the son of the Crown Prince (Kronprins) was called Hereditary Prince (Arvprins in the YouTube subtitles). So why isn't Estelle called "Arvprinsessa" as the eldest daughter of the Crown Princess?

Was Carl Gustaf himself known as Hereditary Prince from the moment his father died? Or was this not used because the title had been used for his father and it would have been to painful for his mother?

[...] It seems Carl Gustaf's grandfather was also known as Hereditary Prince before he became Crown Prince.

There's probably a quite simple explanation. "Arvprins" was used as a variety of "arvfurste" and in some cases to signify the first-in-line to the throne but later came to be the sometimes title of the second-in-line to the throne. Since "arvfurste" was taken out of use with the new order of succession in 1980 I assume that "arvprins" was as well. A few people realise that up until then the official title for a male member of the Royal family was "Sveriges arvfurste". The use of prince, although widespread and even semi-official, was really an informal way to style arvfurstarna.
Regarding Carl XVI Gustav I can't find that he was ever styled "arvprins" between the deaths of his father and great-grandfather but he was frequently styled "our little arvfurste" by the Swedish media between his birth and him becoming crown prince.

Here is historian Trond Norén Isaksen's (whose specialty is the Scandinavian royal families) explanation of the history behind the titles of "prins", "arvprins" and "arvfurste":

The position as heir apparent to the heir apparent does not in itself bring any particular title. Prince Gustaf Adolf, the father of the current King, who predeceased both his father and grandfather and thus never became Crown Prince, was occasionally referred to as “arvprins Gustaf Adolf” (Hereditary Prince), but this was simply an informal reference, probably used to separate more clearly between him and his father, whose name was also Gustaf Adolf.

The title “arvprins” (Hereditary Prince) does not exist in Sweden, so the child will quite simply be Prince or Princess of Sweden until its mother accession, when it will become Crown Prince or Crown Princess of Sweden.

[...]

Until 1982 there was also another title for princes in line of succession: that of “Sveriges arvfurste” (between 1814 and 1905 “Sveriges och Norges arvfurste”). There is no exact English translation of this title, nor is there any good English translation. Like “arvprins” it might be translated as “Hereditary Prince”, but whereas “arvprins” is used informally to designate the heir apparent to the heir apparent, “arvfurste” was an official title used for all princes of the royal house with succession rights, except the Crown Prince.

The current King’s father was for instance “HKH prins Gustaf Adolf, Sveriges arvfurste, hertig av Västerbotten”. The title was quietly abolished in 1982, probably in connection with the birth of Princess Madeleine. As gender-neutral succession had been introduced two years previously and her elder brother had been styled “arvfurste” since being deprived of the title Crown Prince, the alternative solution would obviously have had to be to introduce the new title “arvfurstinna” for princesses with succession rights. Instead “arvfurste” was abolished, making Prince Carl Philip and Prince Bertil the last princes in history to hold this title.​

 

[Tatiana Maria]

The fact that there was discussion about what title Jonas would get (as the first to marry a princess with succession rights) makes clear that he wouldn't automatically become a prince of Sweden - unlike Sofia who did become princess.

I think the pre-wedding announcement regarding the King's decision on Sofia Hellqvist's future title makes clear it was not automatic. The government approved the marriages of the King's children when the engagements were announced, guaranteeing that they would keep their places in the line of succession. Had the titles been automatic for a female spouse of a dynast, no further decision would be necessary.

What is less clear to me is whether the King simply decided that Sofia would become a member of the Royal House, and becoming a princess was an automatic effect of membership, or whether he decided that she would become a member of the Royal House and decided that she would become a princess.


https://www.kungahuset.se/press/pre...nriksmarskalken.5.16654f1914c9e0f7f9ac8e.html

Hans Majestät Konungen har beslutat att Fröken Sofia Hellqvist, sedan hon har förmälts med H.K.H. Prins Carl Philip, skall upptas i det Kungl. Huset och därmed bära titeln H.K.H. Prinsessan Sofia, Hertiginna av Värmland.


The Royal Court's translation: https://www.kungahuset.se/royalcour...shaloftherealm.5.36257d1d14c9d87d3cd65ae.html

His Majesty The King has decided that Miss Sofia Hellqvist, after the wedding with HRH Prince Carl Philip, will become a member of the Royal Family and will receive the title of HRH Princess Sofia, Duchess of Värmland.

 

[Somebody]

I think the pre-wedding announcement regarding the King's decision on Sofia Hellqvist's future title makes clear it was not automatic. The government approved the marriages of the King's children when the engagements were announced, guaranteeing that they would keep their places in the line of succession. Had the titles been automatic for a female spouse of a dynast, no further decision would be necessary.

What is less clear to me is whether the King simply decided that Sofia would become a member of the Royal House, and becoming a princess was an automatic effect of membership, or whether he decided that she would become a member of the Royal House and decided that she would become a princess.


https://www.kungahuset.se/press/pre...nriksmarskalken.5.16654f1914c9e0f7f9ac8e.html

Hans Majestät Konungen har beslutat att Fröken Sofia Hellqvist, sedan hon har förmälts med H.K.H. Prins Carl Philip, skall upptas i det Kungl. Huset och därmed bära titeln H.K.H. Prinsessan Sofia, Hertiginna av Värmland.


The Royal Court's translation: https://www.kungahuset.se/royalcour...shaloftherealm.5.36257d1d14c9d87d3cd65ae.html

His Majesty The King has decided that Miss Sofia Hellqvist, after the wedding with HRH Prince Carl Philip, will become a member of the Royal Family and will receive the title of HRH Princess Sofia, Duchess of Värmland.

'därmed' seems to indicate the latter: she will become a member of the royal house and therefore she will carry the title HRH princess Sofia, Duchess of Värmland. For some reason the English translation omitted this word.

In Jonas case, it seems he was also going to be a member of the royal house but wouldn't have been HRH prince Jonas, Duke of Hälsingland and Gästrikland but 'only' Duke of Hälsingland and Gästrikland. So, that seems to indicate a clear difference between the spouse of a born-prince versus the spouse of a born-princess. Of course, because the marriage never materialized we aren't completely sure how they would have referred to him after marriage.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

'därmed' seems to indicate the latter: she will become a member of the royal house and therefore she will carry the title HRH princess Sofia, Duchess of Värmland. For some reason the English translation omitted this word.

In Jonas case, it seems he was also going to be a member of the royal house but wouldn't have been HRH prince Jonas, Duke of Hälsingland and Gästrikland but 'only' Duke of Hälsingland and Gästrikland. So, that seems to indicate a clear difference between the spouse of a born-prince versus the spouse of a born-princess. Of course, because the marriage never materialized we aren't completely sure how they would have referred to him after marriage.

It was announced by the royal court (and Jonas himself) that he would be only a Duke, but I haven't been able to find an announcement that he would be a member of the royal house. Do you have a source?

Note that Mr. Bergström stated he planned to continue to work as a lawyer after marriage, and according to an announcement in 2014, members of the Royal House were prohibited from commercial activities. Sofia Hellqvist gave up her career long before the engagement, so there was no obstacle in her case.

 

[Somebody]

It was announced by the royal court (and Jonas himself) that he would be only a Duke, but I haven't been able to find an announcement that he would be a member of the royal house. Do you have a source?

Note that Mr. Bergström stated he planned to continue to work as a lawyer after marriage, and according to an announcement in 2014, members of the Royal House were prohibited from commercial activities. Sofia Hellqvist gave up her career long before the engagement, so there was no obstacle in her case.

That's why I wrote 'it seems' (based on him receiving a title) but I couldn't find any specifics about him being a member of the royal house or not, that's why I pointed out: we don't know what would have happened because indeed they didn't make any specific declaration about it.

I am not sure how he could have been a duke if he had not been part of the royal house; isn't there a rule/law that only members of the royal house may receive a title of nobility (and as husband's of noble women aren't entitled to carry their wife's title as far as I am aware; him becoming duke would be akin to receiving a title) - or does that apply to all members of the royal family (and if so, until which generation)?

For Chris it seemed either the full package or nothing at all (but that could be personal preference as well).

 

[Tatiana Maria]

That's why I wrote 'it seems' (based on him receiving a title) but I couldn't find any specifics about him being a member of the royal house or not, that's why I pointed out: we don't know what would have happened because indeed they didn't make any specific declaration about it.

My mistake, I read "it seems he was also going to be a member of the royal house but wouldn't have been HRH prince Jonas" to mean that you were not sure about either the royal house issue or the prince issue (which was clarified by the royal court), which is why I replied with a source addressing the prince issue.

I am a bit confused: You wrote "So, that seems to indicate a clear difference between the spouse of a born-prince versus the spouse of a born-princess". If you agree that we do not know whether Jonas would have received the same titles as Sofia if he had been in the same position as her (i.e. a confirmed member of the royal house), what is the clear difference?

I am not sure how he could have been a duke if he had not been part of the royal house; isn't there a rule/law that only members of the royal house may receive a title of nobility

In Sweden ducal titles are not part of the nobility, which uses only the titles of baron and count. Given that Prince Julian received one without ever being part of the royal house, the King evidently has scrapped the rule that only members of the royal house may receive one.

(and as husband's of noble women aren't entitled to carry their wife's title as far as I am aware; him becoming duke would be akin to receiving a title)

I am a bit confused here as well. I thought we were discussing whether the King made a difference (where titles are concerned) between female spouses and male spouses of younger children, but in this comment it seems you have already assumed that he does.

 

[Somebody]

My mistake, I read "it seems he was also going to be a member of the royal house but wouldn't have been HRH prince Jonas" to mean that you were not sure about either the royal house issue or the prince issue (which was clarified by the royal court), which is why I replied with a source addressing the prince issue.

I am a bit confused: You wrote "So, that seems to indicate a clear difference between the spouse of a born-prince versus the spouse of a born-princess". If you agree that we do not know whether Jonas would have received the same titles as Sofia if he had been in the same position as her (i.e. a confirmed member of the royal house), what is the clear difference?

I was assuming both of them would be members of the royal house; although I acknowledged that we don't know for sure what their titles would be. I still stand behind this as I haven't seen any evidence that suggests that Jonas would have become a prince; and it would go completely against everything that we have seen in the Swedish and in other royal families.

In Sweden ducal titles are not part of the nobility, which uses only the titles of baron and count. Given that Prince Julian received one without ever being part of the royal house, the King evidently has scrapped the rule that only members of the royal house may receive one.

Yes, he indeed did so but only AFTER he decided to reduce the royal house and for logical reasons as he didn't want to treat this grandson differently than his elder brothers (unless it would be absolutely necessary). But as the Swedes have been rather flippant in their interpretation to fit whatever they like things to mean, I am not sure that was the reasoning several years back.

I am a bit confused here as well. I thought we were discussing whether the King made a difference (where titles are concerned) between female spouses and male spouses of younger children, but in this comment it seems you have already assumed that he does.

I am not sure what you are confused about... I was sharing one of the arguments that might lead us to conclude that Jonas would have become part of the royal house (because if he would be a random citizen he couldn't take up his wife's title - so he would need to be part of the royal house to do so). I know it is not set in stone but it is one of the indications that we have to help us interpret the situation.

But yes, I fully believe that the king differentiates between male and female spouses of younger children - just like he differentiates between their children as is evidenced by the duchies he hands out to children of his younger daughter (minor and mostly new) versus duchies for children of his son (prominent and with meaning and history) - and it seems you believe the opposite ?

 

[Tatiana Maria]

I was assuming both of them would be members of the royal house; although I acknowledged that we don't know for sure what their titles would be. I still stand behind this as I haven't seen any evidence that suggests that Jonas would have become a prince; and it would go completely against everything that we have seen in the Swedish and in other royal families.

With apologies, I still am not sure what you are standing behind.

That Jonas would not have become a prince: There is evidence that he would not have become a prince (specifically, the official announcement that he would only be a duke), so it is not mere assumption or suggestion but fact, and nobody has claimed that he would have been a prince.

That Jonas would have become a member of the royal house: This is what I haven't seen evidence for.

But yes, I fully believe that the king differentiates between male and female spouses of younger children - just like he differentiates between their children as is evidenced by the duchies he hands out to children of his younger daughter (minor and mostly new) versus duchies for children of his son (prominent and with meaning and history) - and it seems you believe the opposite ?

Not exactly the opposite, although I will return to that later. I realize my last post was vague, so I will try again.

What I meant was that I thought you were giving an explanation of why you believed that Sofia would have automatically carried her husband's titles but Jonas would not have automatically carried his wife's titles if they had both become members of the Royal House. However, you went on to write "and as husband's of noble women aren't entitled to carry their wife's title as far as I am aware" - which I read as being fundamentally the same point (i.e. women's husbands are differentiated from men's wives) which I thought you were in the process of giving evidence to prove. Clearly, you would not be using your own assertion as evidence for itself, so it was obvious that I misread your post(s) in some fashion. ?

I am not sure what you are confused about... I was sharing one of the arguments that might lead us to conclude that Jonas would have become part of the royal house (because if he would be a random citizen he couldn't take up his wife's title - so he would need to be part of the royal house to do so). I know it is not set in stone but it is one of the indications that we have to help us interpret the situation.

I think I may be beginning to see what you mean. But I think the assumption that the King would treat "random citizen" spouses of his younger children differently based on gender is very similar to the assumption that he would treat royal house member spouses of his younger children differently based on gender, so I don't think one can be used to prove the other.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Frederick is so far the only man to have ever been married to a Swedish queen but he never carried the title of Prince Consort. Instead he was created a Prince of Sweden with the style of HRH by his wife in December 1718 which was approved by Parliament in March 1719.

Are you sure that he was created a Prince of Sweden? I only read that he was created HRH by his wife and Parliament, and the title Prince of Sweden was not officially in use by the royal family at the time (princes in the line of succession were strictly Sveriges Arvfurste up to 1982, when the present King altered it to Prins av Sverige).

From where I've read (only secondary sources) he was created Prince of Sweden. I did find two mentions of him on page 26 of the SOU* 1977:5:
1 - "Added to that (Princess) Ulrika Eleonora's husband, the Hereditary Prince Frederik of Hesse was a member of the Reformed Church"
2 - "the following year the Queen abdicated in favour of her husband Prince Frederik" implying (atleast that's how I interpret it) that there had been a change of title when his wife was elected queen (though the SOU doesn't style him as Prince of Sweden).
Regarding arvfurste he could never have carried the title without being included in the line of succession which he never was.

*For those of you who don't know an SOU is the name of an official series of reports of committees appointed and convened by the*Government of Sweden for the analysis of issues in anticipation of a proposed legislation before the*Riksdag or the issuance of*ordinances.

Thank you for this.

I also read mainly from secondary sources, including his article in the Svenskt Bibliografiskt Lexikon, which mention that he was created HRH by his wife and approved by Parliament but do not mention him being created Prince of Sweden. There is also the Regeringsform from his accession which includes a mention styling him as Queen Ulrica Eleonora's husband, citing him as "Hennes Kongl. Maj:ts högtälskelige gemål, den durchleuchtigste furste Friedrich, arfprins till Hessen, furste till Hirschfeldt, grefve till Catzen-Ellenbogen, Dietz, Ziegenheim, Nidda och Schaumburg &c." including his titles from the house of Hesse but without a Swedish title.

I'm aware he was not included in the line of succession and therefore did not carry the title of Sveriges arvfurste; my point was that if he was created a Prince of Sweden he would be only male member of the royal family to carry that title in an official capacity as the others up to that point had been Sveriges arvfurste.

 

[JR76]

Thank you for this.

I also read mainly from secondary sources, including his article in the Svenskt Bibliografiskt Lexikon, which mention that he was created HRH by his wife and approved by Parliament but do not mention him being created Prince of Sweden. There is also the Regeringsform from his accession which includes a mention styling him as Queen Ulrica Eleonora's husband, citing him as "Hennes Kongl. Maj:ts högtälskelige gemål, den durchleuchtigste furste Friedrich, arfprins till Hessen, furste till Hirschfeldt, grefve till Catzen-Ellenbogen, Dietz, Ziegenheim, Nidda och Schaumburg &c." including his titles from the house of Hesse but without a Swedish title.

I'm aware he was not included in the line of succession and therefore did not carry the title of Sveriges arvfurste; my point was that if he was created a Prince of Sweden he would be only male member of the royal family to carry that title in an official capacity as the others up to that point had been Sveriges arvfurste.

I've been trying to find both Ulrika Eleonora's and Frederick's Acts of election (Valakter) to see what they say but can't find them online. Also there must be some documentation of the parliamentary approval of his change of status.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

As this thread was designated to discuss changes to the Royal House in 2019, I hope it is acceptable to continue a discussion about membership of the Swedish Royal House here.

King Carl Gustav felt that he couldn't undo the decisions made by his grandfather and great-grandfather, but that he was free to make decisions of his own. This, it was communicated, was one of the main reasons behind him not allowing his uncles Sigvard, Carl-Johan and his cousin Lennart to regain the use of their titles after the wedding of Bertil and Lilian in 1986 and later when Sigvard after the British State visit to Sweden in 1983 decided to start using that title and later sued to have it legally validified.

I wonder why Princess Christina was an exception to his approach. She married in the reign of King Carl XVI Gustaf who had the freedom to permit her to remain a member of the Royal House just as he decided for Prince Bertil, but the King formally demoted her though she kept her patronages and public duties. It is especially confusing given her many years of duty and loyal support of her brother.

 

[Prinsara]

Possibly twofold: what Bertil did for his nephew and the Crown was quite exceptional, over many decades, and actually involved sacrifice on his part. Christina was very loyal and hardworking as part of the royal house, but she didn't give anything up to do it.

Then if CG had not demoted her, he would have shown special treatment to one of his own sisters, not just his uncles, and probably caused a rift in his even more immediate family. Perhaps he preferred not to cause trouble there.

 

[Somebody]

My guess is also that he didn't want to treat one sister differently than the others - and probably Christina didn't want him to either. She wasn't in line to the throne and it didn't change her ability to support her brother in his royal duties.

 

[JR76]

I wonder if the fact that Christina had received permission to marry from her grandfather played a small part in this. I can't remember where I read it, but she told in one interview about how she drove out to Drottningholm to ask him permission to marry and that he gave her his blessing, but asked her to wait because her brother would need her support when he ascended the throne.

 

[LadyFinn]

I wonder if the fact that Christina had received permission to marry from her grandfather played a small part in this. I can't remember where I read it, but she told in one interview about how she drove out to Drottningholm to ask him permission to marry and that he gave her his blessing, but asked her to wait because her brother would need her support when he ascended the throne.

Christina writes this at the book "Dagar på Drottningholm/Days at Drottningholm", here Expressen writes about that. Christina had gone to see her grandfather in "vårvintern" 1973 and asked permission to marry Tord.
Kungen fick prinsessan Christina att skjuta på bröllopet

 

[JR76]

Christina writes this at the book "Dagar på Drottningholm", here Expressen writes about that. Christina had gone to see her grandfather in "vårvintern" 1973 and asked permission to marry Tord.
Kungen fick prinsessan Christina att skjuta på bröllopet

Thank you LF, for finding the source.
Vårvintern translates as the time of year when winter and spring seems to fight each other so her grandfather probably only had about six months left to live.

 

[Somebody]

Yes it may be a legal issue but that didn't stop a lot of people including me from thinking that CG would find a way to "grandfather" Julian is as it were but so far he hasn't.

His brothers and cousins got their orders of the Seraphim on the day of their baptism, so as he isn't baptized yet, he would have received the order yet even if he had been born a member of the royal house and prince of Sweden.

After his baptism we'll know for sure whether the king found a way to 'grandfather' him in.

 

[maria-olivia]

It is Grand Duke Adolphe de Luxembourg who gave to Prince Oscar of Sweden the Tittle of Bernadotte of Wisbourg , luxembourger nobility tittle for his morganatic Wedding.