Monarchy Forum
Register Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 1 of 2      1   2   Next
royalcello

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,764
Reply with quote  #1 
http://www.royalcourt.se/kungafamiljen/aktuellahandelser/2009aretsaktuellahandelser/kronprinsessanvictoriaochdanielwestlingforlovade.5.791c885011e97b7e488800014628.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7908049.stm

Well, I guess we always knew the days of equal marriages in Scandinavia were over; after all, her father didn't make one.  I suppose that it would not be logical to object to future sovereigns being patrilineal Westlings since the Bernadottes' royal status is less than two centuries older.   I still think her younger brother should be heir to the throne.  Nevertheless, I wish the couple the best anyway.

LegitimistJacobite

Registered:
Posts: 218
Reply with quote  #2 
Well, I suppose its all frightfully modern and all that sort of thing, but it is not my idea of monarchy.

Still, as you say, best of luck to them.
Ethiomonarchist

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 4,976
Reply with quote  #3 
I eagerly await the new arms of the House of Bernadotte-Westling, with barbels perhaps, or an image of a treadmill...

Wow how snide and condascending did that sound!!!  I wish Her Royal Highness every happiness, and hope the future Prince Daniel will make a good consort.

__________________
The Lion of Judah hath prevailed.

Ethiopia stretches her hands unto God (Quote from Psalm 68 which served as the Imperial Motto of the Ethiopian Empire)

"God and history shall remember your judgment." (Quote from Emperor Haile Selassie I's speech to the League of Nations to plead for assistance against the Italian Invasion, 1936.)
royalcello

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,764
Reply with quote  #4 
I sometimes think to myself about such things, "what would Grand Duchess Augusta say?"

Grand Duchess Augusta of Mecklenburg-Strelitz (1822-1916), née Princess of Great Britain [Cambridge], was the last surviving grandchild of King George III.  She didn't think much of Prince Carl of Denmark becoming King Haakon VII of Norway via plebiscite, and wrote to her niece [future Queen] Mary of her horror at "a revolutionary coronation!"  The Princess of Wales replied, "it is all very strange, but these are very modern times."  1905: Very Modern Times.  What would either of them have made of 2009.... 

Movingly, shortly before her death at the age of 94, separated forever from the land of her birth by the war that would destroy the Old Order she loved, Augusta wrote to Queen Mary to privately assure her that "it is a stout English heart that still beats beneath these old bones."

Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,550
Reply with quote  #5 
Thanks for the information, royalcello. You know my attitude, I deprecate unequal marriages, but they are the way of the world these days, and one must just shrug and accept them. Of course, I join everyone in wishing the couple every happiness.

Ditto with equal primogeniture. I am not opposed to it as such, I just dislike changes to succession except through necessity. Still, we have had that change in Sweden, Norway, the Netherlands and Belgium now, with the constitutional process for it rumbling through in Denmark, in no hurry as the birth of Prince Christian rendered the change moot for some time to come. If Prince William when he eventually gets married is so inconsiderate as to father a girl first, no doubt at all we will have it here. Had Prince William not been XY we long since would have. Again, the way of the world, no point in fighting it.

I wasn't too sure what you meant about the barbels, Ethiomonarchist, that is a kind of fish. Eventually I added the extra l and it clicked! I imagine the Bernadotte name will be retained, as Windsor has been here and before that Orange-Nassau in the Netherlands. No doubt the new Prince will have arms, but some variation on the royal arms or those of his duchy, I would imagine.
Mirabeau

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 43
Reply with quote  #6 
It's regrettable that she could not have married into another royal house, but, all the same, I hope that they produce heirs soon. Even though it's not what most of us may want, at least Sweden still has a crown and hasn't gone the republican route.

__________________
Glory to the King of France and Navarre, who is in God's grace!
Royalistdefender

Registered:
Posts: 849
Reply with quote  #7 
From a newsletter from Harold, there was a poll on what people in Sweden think of the Crown Princess marrying a commoner. This is what the article says:

ROYAL WEDDING
Poll: wedding boosts Sweden's monarchy

Poll: wedding boosts Sweden's monarchy

Published: 26 Feb 09 08:21 CET
Online: http://www.thelocal.se/17842/20090226/

Dictionary tool Double click on a word to get a translation

The engagement of Swedish Crown Princess Victoria to her former gym instructor Daniel Westling has boosted the monarchy's popularity, a new survey from Sifo shows.
Of the 1,000 people surveyed in the Sifo poll, published in the Aftonbladet newspaper, 15 percent have gained a more positive outlook on the royal family as a result of the pending royal wedding.

Only two percent have become less positive, while 82 percent have not changed their view.

"Women have clearly become more positive," according to Ingemar Boklund at Sifo to the newspaper.

The highest concentration of support for the monarchy is among women aged 65 and older. Fully 86 percent of this group favour retaining the monarchy and only seven percent think that it should be abolished.

The corresponding figure for the whole population is 74 percent in favour of the monarchy and 15 percent for its abolition.

The strongest opposition is among men aged 30-49-years-old. Among this group around 20 percent are in favour of abolishing the institution.

The Crown Princess' choice of Daniel Westling gains strong support among the Swedish people.

"The general picture from the survey is that there is strong backing for Daniel, there are not many that consider him to be the wrong person," Boklund said.

According to the survey only 10 percent consider it wrong for Westling to gain the title of prince. 61 percent are positive.

TT/Peter Vinthagen Simpson (news@thelocal.se)

Ethiomonarchist

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 4,976
Reply with quote  #8 
Barbells... my spelling leaves a great deal to be desired.

I suppose it's good that the marriage is popular, but popular marriages aren't always the wisest way to go.  What could possibly have been more popular than the marriage of the Prince of Wales to Lady Diana Spencer, and look what a disaster that turned out to be.

Then again, popular opinion is very important.  If polls had worried Henry VIII, he would never have tossed poor Queen Katherine of Aragon aside for Anne Boelyn.  There are accounts that after the entwined H and A initials of the King and his new Queen were placed all over London to celebrate Anne's coronation, she was greeted in the streets by people screaming "HA" at her.  Being a hated Queen cannot have been easy for Anne.

Let's hope Prince Daniel and Princess Victoria have a happy life together and carry the burden of the Swedish crown with distinction.

__________________
The Lion of Judah hath prevailed.

Ethiopia stretches her hands unto God (Quote from Psalm 68 which served as the Imperial Motto of the Ethiopian Empire)

"God and history shall remember your judgment." (Quote from Emperor Haile Selassie I's speech to the League of Nations to plead for assistance against the Italian Invasion, 1936.)
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,550
Reply with quote  #9 
Indeed, though he's not I think Prince Daniel yet. I'm not sure whether it will happen automatically upon marriage or, more likely, he will have to be specifically created so. Belgium, quite logically after the introduction of equal primogeniture, changed their system so that even the wife of a Prince of Belgium dies not automatically become a Princess, but has to be herself created one. Equally logically in a way, Prince Lorenz as husband of the then second-in-line was made a Prince of Belgium. Being already Duke of Modena and an Archduke of Austria-Este and Prince of Hungary and Bohemia, he can hardly be said to have needed it.

As for spelling, I just managed to get "kind" right at the third attempt. It was kind of you not to point that out. I blame the eyes. More tests on Monday, I hope finally leading to an answer.
Stairsainty

Registered:
Posts: 64
Reply with quote  #10 

Even though we are in an age of gender equality it is a strange contradiction that there is even greater differences in the way that royal spouses are treated depending on gender. It is still fine for the female spouse of a royal to live as wife and mother, perhaps involved in various charities, but otherwise expected to do no more than be the supportive companion of her royal husband.

Yet the male spouse is in an even more challenging position than in earlier times. With the military rarely a voluntary option today (unless the male spouse is already serving), he risks public censure for sitting around apparently doing nothing if he ceases outside employment or stops running a business. If he continues to run his business he will quickly be accused by a hostile press or business rival of "taking advantage" of his new position, even if he has done nothing of the sort. If he looks for a job, it is inevitable that a future employer will take into account his royal role. With the responsibilities of royal companion inevitably imposing some drain on his time, he may not be the first choice of an employer on the basis of ability or competence - so the kind of employers who will seek him out will be those who want him because of who his wife is. Then one has to ask why would they want him if it was not for the advantage of their business - and why should a business obtain competitive advantage because of the marriage of one of their employees (particularly when the family into which he has married is funded by the tax payer)?

The consorts of living Queens or recent female sovereigns all married at a time when the press was less intrusive and the Duke of Edinburgh, Prince Felix of Bourbon-Parma, Prince Bernhard of Lippe all had military commissions. Prince Henrik of Denmark has always been somewhat controversial, but as a foreigner was able to deflect some criticism by his absence - but a home-grown male spouse of a crown princess has family who may or may not take advantage but may in any case be resented for their new found status.

It is an unenviable job and a predictable consequence of the determination to do away with male priority succession. Poor Prince Daniel; whether he remains "idle", maintains his business career or tries something new, the attendant criticism that will emanate from a mean-spirited press (which always turns against their favourites in the end) may put a great strain on their marriage and, indeed, the Swedish monarchy.


__________________
Guy Stair Sainty
Ponocrates

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 2,445
Reply with quote  #11 
I think you occasionally need unequal marriages to reinvigorate the stock with new vigor, virtue, or beauty.   There is a reason for fables of the young, beautiful, and virtuous woman who gets discovered and captures the heart of the prince, or the young man of courage, intelligence, and natural charisma who wins the hand of the princess.     It is important that the common is ennobled by the marriage, not the other way, or a slumming down of the noble.   This should make the monarchy, or aristocracy, more acceptable to the whole society: that they there is the possibility of upward mobility (for natural quality) rather than a rigid caste system.    

__________________
"For every monarchy overthrown the sky becomes less brilliant, because it loses a star. A republic is ugliness set free." - Anatole France
royalcello

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,764
Reply with quote  #12 
Perhaps, but even so I still think it's unfortunate that such marriages have become the rule rather than the exception, meaning that over time the royal families will become less and less closely related to each other, with no two monarchs having any recent common ancestors, and their ancestries no longer completely traceable.  

Also, more pragmatically, there is the danger that as the idea that "they're just like us" is overemphasized, such "normality" could backfire into more people wondering what the point is.  Royalty need a bit of a mystique, and restrictions on who they could marry were one aspect of that.  I've read that already this has been a problem in Norway, where some people apparently think that Queen Sonja (formerly Miss Sonja Haraldsen) acts too regally for someone who "is just like us"--a criticism that would never be made of a queen consort who had not previously been an ordinary Norwegian.  It perhaps works a bit better, if royalty are going to marry commoners, to marry a foreigner, as the Queens of Denmark and the Netherlands, the King of Sweden, and the Crown Prince of Denmark have, rather than a subject.

I think people are more willing to accept the wealth privileges that royalty have if they are also seen as having duties and restrictions that go with it.  If royalty insist on modern freedoms while continuing to enjoy traditional privileges, there is a danger of being perceived as wanting to "have their cake and eat it too."

BaronVonServers

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 11,968
Reply with quote  #13 
Haven't quite a few of the consorts of the Kings of England, Great Britain, and the United Kingdom been 'commoners'?

__________________
"In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas"

I am NOT an authorized representative of my Government.

Learn more about the Dominion of British West Florida at http://dbwf.net
royalcello

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,764
Reply with quote  #14 
Yes, more than on the Continent, though it depends to an extent on what one means by "commoner."  In Britain anyone who is neither the Sovereign (or his wife), a Prince or Princess, or a Peer (or his wife), is a "commoner."  So daughters and younger sons of Peers, though aristocrats, are technically "commoners."  (Actually I think there is an even stricter definition which would limit non-"common" status to the Sovereign and Peers and their wives---which absurdly would classify Princes William and Harry, for example, as "commoners.")  However, most if not all of the female "commoners" who have married into the royal family were closely connected to the aristocracy, not "commoners" in the more colloquial sense of not having any titled background at all.

After Henry VIII, British monarchs and heirs (James II excepted) did not again marry commoners until the 20th century.
Lusitano

Registered:
Posts: 6
Reply with quote  #15 

And it seems that Princess Victoria' s brother and sister will also marry commoners. It' s not just the fact that Daniel Westling is a commoner, by now we are used to that, especially in scandinavian monarchies, but does he have the minimum requirements to be a companion, a consort to a Queen? He comes very short in that department from what is known of his biography.


__________________
Lusitano
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation: