I understand that what was done in Sweden in regards to absolute primogeniture was done legally and that in constitutional monarchies Parliaments set the rule. I just simply wish the transfer to absolute primogeniture in Sweden was done as it later would be in Norway. Just a preference nothing more.
There is historical precedence for displacing the heir: it happened in 1953, when Denmark amended the constitution to change the succession law to permit women to inherit the throne. Although Parliament opted for male-preferred primogeniture, thereby making the present queen heir presumptive (instead of heir apparent), it had the effect of displacing the then-heir presumptive, who would have succeeded to the throne but for the change.
It may be contrary to principle, but it was a perfectly legitimate thing to do, since it was done through due process in a reigning house. The monarchy exists at the mercy of the people, in a democracy, and it is their will that reigns supreme: Parliament, not the sovereign or other member of the royal family, rules.
Sweden in 1980 was no different: the fact is that there already had been a move to change the succession law to absolute primogeniture -- initiated in 1975. So Parliament clearly intended for the law to be effective with the children of the present king (not yet born). In fact, the first vote passed early in 1979, several months before Prince Carl Philip was born. He was not raised with the expectation of inheriting the throne (like the current Norwegian crown prince). As such, Parliament justified a retroactive application of the law (made official, when later that year the second vote was passed).
I agree that if the majority had voted against applying the new law retroactively, and opted instead for it to apply only to the descendants of Prince Carl Philip, then he should have remained crown prince.
But that was not how it happened: as it was, the king was upset over the decision to the point of filing a lawsuit on behalf of his son. Parliament, however, responded by introducing a bill to abolish the monarchy (which they had a perfect right to do, just as they did to change the succession law). In so doing, an ultimatum was issued to His Majesty: either accept your daughter as heir to the throne, or there is no throne for anybody to inherit.
So for me, it's not really so much about *girl power* per se, as it is about democracy and legality -- the fact that in the end, Parliament (and not the king) is sovereign. The king reigns, but Parliament (elected by the people) rules.
For this reason, I would have accepted any decision by the Norwegian Parliament in 1990 regarding the change of law and question of application. Ditto for Belgium in 1991 and Luxembourg in 2011.
I have mixed feelings about how the Swedish monarchy enacted absolute primogeniture. I can be progressive and have no problem with the eldest daughter succeeding to the throne. There is another side of me that is a traditionalist and that part of me wished Sweden would have made absolute primogeniture for the children of Carl Philip instead of placing his sister ahead of him in the succession since Car Philip was already Crown Prince.
Gustav V was succeeded by Gustav VI Adolf.
And Carl XVI Gustav could have been followed by Carl XVII Philip if the law have not been changed.
I was a bit disappointed that Willem Alexander didnít go by Willem IV. I like post-nominal numbers. I think the consultation is I also like double names. I also like how the Swedish do it. For another example Carl X of Sweden Carl X Gustav.
Well, that's his entitlement ... I personally find it frustrating and confusing. Look at Prussia, where some kings reigned as Friedrich, and others as Friedrich Wilhelm.
Why can't they all adopt the Swedish way, where a king can reign under two names -- but only the first has a post-nominal number? As it is, the country has had kings named Carl XV and Carl XVI Gustaf.
He prefers to be called Willem-Alexander, without the IV