Thursday, 23 February 2012

A future Queen of Sweden born

Right now Prince Daniel of Sweden is holding a press conference at Karolinska Universitetssjukhuset (the Caroline University Hospital) in Solna, announcing that Crown Princess Victoria gave birth to a princess at 4.26 a.m.
The Princess is 51 centimetres long and weighs 3 280 grams.
Around 6 p.m. yesterday an ambulance and two black cars were seen leaving Haga Palace, but the royal court says the Crown Princess was only admitted at 12.50 a.m.
The names and the dukedom given to the infant princess will be announced by King Carl Gustaf in a state council at the Royal Palace tomorrow.
As the succession to the Swedish throne is gender-neutral since 1980, the newborn princess will one day become Queen Regnant (given that the monarchy survives, of course). This means that in her generation, there will be female monarchs in Norway, Sweden, Belgium, the Netherlands and probably Spain and a male monarch only in Denmark unless Prince William of Britain's firstborn is a boy.


  1. This baby's gender should be a consolation to those among us who were against allowing a dynasty of Westling to ascend the Royal Throne.
    I do not subscribe to that prejudice. but I want to mention the observation.
    Since the future Queen Victoria will one day be succeeded by her daughter and not by a son, the "Westling dynasty" in person of one female will remain a temporary phenomenon and easier to be regarded as a part of the Bernadotte dynasty rather than anything else.


    1. Well, but as Prince Daniel assumed the surname Bernadotte on his marriage, I think there can be no doubt that Bernadotte will remain the name of the Swedish dynasty also in the reigns of Queen Victoria I and (let us call her) Queen Christina II.

  2. Dear Mr. Isaksen:

    I was being quite charitable, given the clear misrepresentation of my previous statements (giving av few (3-4) alternatives and even having opened for another alternative), but I could of course have been even more charitable, and I am sorry for the way it turned out.

    I will not apologize for my views. Nor will I apologize for requesting/expecting in a debate that essential arguments are responded to and not clearly misrepresented. However, I will apologize for having hijacked this blog post. To be honest, it turned into a lengthy, eventually fierce, debate neither of us really had the time for.

    As a matter of principle, I do not agree to disagree. I do not consider the debate on the issue as such settled, but this particular discussion is of course over, and I will not pick it up again at your weblog. I will also avoid similar situations in the future at this weblog.

    The comments thread started admittedly with a rather provocative comment, but the initial intent was not for it to go the way it did.

    We do have our disagreements, which this debate has been an extremely clear exemplification of. That being said, I find much to appreciate with your blog, and I will continue to visit it. You are, of course, free not to appreciate anything of mine. I will continue, as I have in the past, to comment where I believe my contribution to be constructive to the blog post, which this comments thread was not. But I will only do so if I am welcome to.

    Again, I apologize for the way this turned out and for having hijacked this blog post.

    I hope you enjoy the rest of your week, sir.

    1. Thank you. This is indeed not the place for picking quarrels. If agreeing to disagree is against your principles, I think the best I can do is to delete this discussion thread and try to forget about this unpleasant incident.

  3. Dear Sir:

    I do not agree to disagree because it in a sense is giving up. I am fully aware that it may sound harsh to some -- or a great deal of -- people.

    I do, however, agree to leave discussions because it is not the time nor place for them (quite a lot actually), and I have understood that this weblog is not the place for these kinds of discussions. That is not to say that I will constantly be looking for other times and places to pick up the thread again. I am not constantly "at war" with people. I can acknowledge disagreement and leave it at that.

    Not agreeing to disagree then is not as bad as it sounds initially? If not, we will have to leave it at that, because we should not turn this into a discussion on the concept of "agreeing to disagree."

    If you decide for deletion, as I have said previously at this blog post, it is your prerogative to decide what happens at your weblog. I will not hold any deletion against you.

    Again, there is much to appreciate with your work. That does not only go for the weblog, but also your work otherwise. You stand out as a Norwegian historian with a strong emphasis on history of monarchy and royalty. Not many do have this emphasis -- if anyone else at all. And this emphasis I do much appreciate.

    I am not suggesting that we have been or should be friends (please do not interpret this in the worst meaning), but I hope that we can have a friendly relationship -- in the sense that one has a relationship with one's (frequent and occasional) blog commenters.

    Enjoy your weekend! :-)

  4. BTW, sir, if there is any doubt, for the discussion ending last Sunday, I do acknowledge disagreement and leave it at that.


Comments are welcome, but should be signed - preferably by a name, but an initial or a nick will also be accepted. Advertisements are not allowed. COMMENTS WHICH DO NOT COMPLY WITH THESE RULES WILL NOT BE PUBLISHED.