The Swedish Marshal of the Realm (i.e. Lord Chamberlain), Svante Lindqvist, has announced that Christopher O’Neill, who will marry Princess Madeleine on 8 June, will receive no title by virtue of his marriage and remain simply Mr Christopher O’Neill.
The reason given for this is a policy of the royal house’s that a member of the royal house ought to be a Swedish citizen and ought not occupy a position of responsibility in business.
As Christopher O’Neill intends to remain an American citizen (and I suppose also a British subject) and continue his business career he cannot bear the title of HRH Prince of Sweden or Duke of Helsingia and Gastricia, the royal court states, adding that he has consequently respectfully requested to be allowed to remain a private citizen.
The King of Sweden’s lawyer, Axel Calissendorff, recently stated that Mr O’Neill in order to become duke or prince had to become a Swedish citizen, which Calissendorff thought would be possible while at the same time retaining his American and British passports. Apparently Christopher O’Neill preferred not to pursue such a course.
When Princess Madeleine became engaged to Jonas Bergström, in 2009 it was announced that he would become Duke of Helsinga and Gastricia, the two dukedoms held by Princess Madeleine.
As Princess Madeleine, unlike her aunts, has full succession rights to the throne she will retain her title as Her Royal Highness Princess Madeleine of Sweden, Duchess of Helsinga and Gastricia.
As I commented elsewhere, I'm quite pleased that the official reasons given for the decision are grounded on Chris O'Neill's citizenship and choice of career, not (as many predicted) on gender.
ReplyDeleteI couldn't locate any previous record of the Swedish royal house's purported policies regarding citizenship and business activities, which suggests that they are recent inventions. They are nonetheless wise policies; hopefully, they will be applied consistently in the future (including to any future spouse of Carl Philip).
What are your thoughts on the decision, Trond?
I too find it pleasing that gender is not the reason, which would have been illogical as, post-1980, there is no difference whatsoever between the positions of Prince Carl Philip and Princess Madeleine. Obviously this means that if Prince Carl Philip marries Sofia Hellqvist, who is a Swedish citizen and has never had much of a career, she might well become HRH Princess and Duchess although Christopher O'Neill remained just Christopher O'Neill.
DeleteThe policy on citizenship must indeed be a new one, as it is the first time that a spouse of someone with succession rights does not become a Swedish citizen. The policy on business activities must also be a new invention, given that Jonas Bergström was supposed to become a duke while continuing his career as a lawyer.
Only a glance at how Princess Märtha Louise exploits her royal title for commercial purposes is enough to suggest that this might be a good policy for the Swedish royal house to follow.
I am not sure whether the Swedish word näringslivet is exactly equivalent to the English word business (and the court has not produced an official translation), but if it is, then Jonas Bergström's career as a lawyer might not be covered by the ban.
DeleteI too thought of the Märtha Louise precedent (among others). Indeed, a royal whose goal is profit-making is all too likely to be perceived (perhaps accurately) as exploiting her or his title, and the existing potential for controversy around a royal's private activities is multiplied concerning business. Furthermore, the business objective of seeking to attain as much wealth as possible is, in my opinion, not well suited to a royal house in a representative, constitutional monarchy.
However, there is one irony of this new policy: A person who contributes nothing to the monarchy, but fills her or his time with parties and vacations, can enjoy royal titles and status. A person who contributes nothing to the monarchy, but fills her or his time with a productive private career in business, cannot.
It might not, but I see no reason why a lawyer should not be covered by the ban - it is after all a profession whose main aim is to earn money. Furthermore I would think a member of the royal house working as a lawyer might be more problematic than working as a businessman, even in a country where the monarch is no longer part of the executive power.
DeleteAn addendum: Interestingly, the royal court's statement implied that royal titles are contingent on membership of the royal house, and that Chris O'Neill not only will be untitled, but will not even acquire membership of the royal house - indeed, he will remain a "private citizen."
ReplyDeleteWhile I know from your articles that the first point has precedent, the second point is a bit strange. It was announced that Chris would attend official engagements (including the Nobels) with his wife and her family, and it seems odd for a person who attends these kinds of events in an official capacity, and in the company of the royal family, to be considered a "private citizen."
I am not sure if I agree that this is odd; after all Tord Magnuson has remained a private citizen after marrying Princess Christina nearly forty years ago and has never been accorded membership of the royal house or family; yet he is frequently present at his wife's side at official events. It seems the only difference between him and Christopher O'Neill will be that the latter's wife unlike Princess Christina is not only a princess, but also a royal highness in line of succession.
DeleteIn my opinion, there is a difference in that Christina herself is neither a member of the royal house nor treated as such. Even when she attends the Nobel, for example, she does not do so as a member of the royal house; her attendance is not included in the court's calendar or reported (except in passing) on its website, and she is seated in the audience, not on stage with the members of the royal house.
DeleteIn contrast, Madeleine and Chris's joint appearances during their engagement were highlighted on the court's website, and the court spokesman has commented on Chris's attendance. (Although the latter likely carries far less weight than it used to, given how the court regularly issues statements about the not-officially-royal Sofia Hellqvist.)
Indeed Princess Christina is not a member of the royal house, but of the royal family; and although her engagements are not listed on the royal website she is a very hard-working member of the royal family. But I do not quite see the difference you point out, except that she is seated in the audience at the Nobel ceremony (interestingly, so was Jonas Bergström during his engagement to Princess Madeleine, although fiancés are normally seated together). Christopher O'Neill will probably not accompany his wife on school visits, exhibition openings etc, but only to major events, meaning that his position will be the same as Tord Magnuson's.
DeleteI meant that although Christina attends events such as the Nobels, it seems to me that she is not attending them as a representative of the Swedish crown (as shown by her absence from the court calendar, her non-membership in the royal house, etc.). The same naturally applied to Jonas, as unlike Christina, he was not even a member of the royal family.
DeleteFor Chris to attend such events with core members of the royal house, who are representing the Swedish crown, seems less "private" than Christina and Tord Magnuson attending on their own, separately from the high-profile working royals.
No, but there are many other occasions when Princess Christina in reality does represent the "crown" even though her engagements are not listed on the royal website. As I see it there will be no significant difference between the positions of Christopher O'Neill and Tord Magnuson; obviously we disagree about that.
DeleteI think it is wise not to grant Mr. O'Neill any title . However I think it was unwise, as you seem to hint at Trond, to motivate the fact that no title is granted. A king like everybody else does not have to give reasons everytime he is not taking a decision.No decision-no title.
ReplyDeleteI expect with interest what titles the possible children of the couple will be given. The Act of Succession seems to take it for granted that all persons with succession rights are princes or princesses. If that interpretation is correct the King has no power to deprive them of their princely titles. He would however be free not to grant them any dukedoms. In a distant future the Swedish princes and princesses will then be as numerous as are presently the heirs to the British throne.
Martin Rahm
But I think King Carl Gustaf had little choice, as it was already known that Jonas Bergström would have become a duke and as the title(s) accorded to Prince Carl Philip's future wife would sooner rather than later have caused someone to ask why Christopher O'Neill received no title.
DeleteThe issue of the children and what seems like the Act of Succession's supposition about their titles is an interesting question, but obviously the outcome remains to be seen. I my eyes it would be odd if children whose father (or mother) has not received the title prince(ss) would become princes and princesses (although there is a Dutch precedence for that).