Showing posts with label constitution. Show all posts
Showing posts with label constitution. Show all posts
Friday, 10 June 2016
Duchess of Cornwall and Duke of Cambridge join Privy Council
Queen Elizabeth II of Britain held a meeting of the Privy Council at Buckingham Palace yesterday afternoon, at which her daughter-in-law Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, and her grandson Prince William, the Duke of Cambridge, were made members of the Privy Council. While this is standard procedure for a future monarch - Prince Charles was made a Privy Councillor in 1977 and the then Princess Elizabeth in 1951 - this is an unusual honour for the Duchess of Cornwall, who becomes the first female member of the royal family to join the Privy Council since Princess Elizabeth in 1951. Indeed, while the consorts of female monarchs - Prince George of Denmark, Prince Albert and Prince Philip - have all been Privy Councillors, no consorts of male monarchs or heirs have been admitted to the council until yesterday,
Thursday, 31 March 2016
Parliament votes in favour of monarchy
Norway remains a monarchy. That is the outcome of today's parliamentary vote on a proposal to amend the Constitution to introduce a republic.
The amendment of several articles of the Constitution, subject to approval by a referendum, which had been suggested by Hallgeir H. Langeland and Snorre Serigstad Valen of the Socialist Left Party and Eirin Sund, Truls Wickholm, Marianne Marthinsen and Jette F. Christensen of the Labour Party, received only 26 votes, while 137 MPs voted against it.
Among the 26 republicans, six belong to the Socialist Left Party, three to the Liberal Party, one to the Conservative Party and sixteen to the Labour Party. Most prominent among the latter was Hadia Tajik, the party's deputy leader.
The amendment of several articles of the Constitution, subject to approval by a referendum, which had been suggested by Hallgeir H. Langeland and Snorre Serigstad Valen of the Socialist Left Party and Eirin Sund, Truls Wickholm, Marianne Marthinsen and Jette F. Christensen of the Labour Party, received only 26 votes, while 137 MPs voted against it.
Among the 26 republicans, six belong to the Socialist Left Party, three to the Liberal Party, one to the Conservative Party and sixteen to the Labour Party. Most prominent among the latter was Hadia Tajik, the party's deputy leader.
Wednesday, 30 September 2015
Prince Joachim of Denmark appoints cabinet minister
Earlier today Prince Joachim of Denmark appointed Peter Christensen of the Liberal Party Minister of Defence and Nordic Co-operation. Prince Joachim acts as Guardian of the Realm in the absence of Queen Margrethe and Crown Prince Frederik, and it seems this is only the second time that he has appointed a cabinet minister.
The outgoing Minister of Defence, Carl Holst, announced his resignation yesterday, 93 days after his appointment, after accusations of using a public servant for his own party-political purposes while he led the Regional Council of Southern Denmark but was seeking election to Parliament.
If the Queen is abroad or incapacitated, the Crown Prince is first in line to act as Regent, but if he is also unavailable Prince Joachim or Princess Benedikte will act as Guardian of the Realm, carrying out the monarch's constitutional functions. According to the television network DR, the only previous occasion on which Prince Joachim has appointed a cabinet minister was in December 2012, when Marianne Jelved succeeded Uffe Elbæk as Minister of Culture.
The outgoing Minister of Defence, Carl Holst, announced his resignation yesterday, 93 days after his appointment, after accusations of using a public servant for his own party-political purposes while he led the Regional Council of Southern Denmark but was seeking election to Parliament.
If the Queen is abroad or incapacitated, the Crown Prince is first in line to act as Regent, but if he is also unavailable Prince Joachim or Princess Benedikte will act as Guardian of the Realm, carrying out the monarch's constitutional functions. According to the television network DR, the only previous occasion on which Prince Joachim has appointed a cabinet minister was in December 2012, when Marianne Jelved succeeded Uffe Elbæk as Minister of Culture.
Thursday, 11 September 2014
Elizabeth, Queen of independent Scotland?
In a week from today, the Scots will vote over whether Scotland should become an independent country. While the no campaign has had a clear lead for months, the opinion polls are now so close that the dissolution of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is a real possibility. If a majority of the Scots votes yes, Scotland will become independent on 24 March 2016. If they vote no, we have now been told that Scotland will immediately be offered greater autonomy within the United Kingdom.
A yes vote will obviously have great consequences, so it is rather surprising that many crucial issues remain unclear, most significantly the financial issue. While the Scottish government insists that Scotland will maintain the pound as its currency, the leaders of the three main British parties have insisted Scotland will not be allowed to do so, and should they change their mind a currency union between Scotland and Britain would clearly involve some sovereignty being ceded. It is also quite surprising that the British government insist they have no plans for what will happen if Scotland votes yes.
The question of what will happen to the monarchy has on the other hand been settled, although it includes unanswered questions. The referendum is about the dissolution of the parliamentary union of 1707, not the union of crowns of 1603. Therefore a vote in favour of independence means that Scotland and the remainder of Britain will revert to the previous arrangement, i.e. a personal union between two independent states. This is roughly the same arrangement as the union between Britain and Hanover between 1714 and 1837 and the union between Norway and Sweden between 1814 and 1905.
This means that Elizabeth II will become Queen of Scotland or of Scots, the latter (and, I believe, older) title apparently being favoured by the Scots. She will obviously drop the numeral in Scotland, as she is the first Scottish monarch of that name. This will put Scotland in the same position as Australia, Canada and numerous other kingdoms of which Elizabeth II is queen, i.e. of having a monarch resident abroad, although I can imagine the Scots will expect her to come to Scotland more frequently. As Queen of an independent Scotland Queen Elizabeth would be bound to take constitutional advice from the Scottish government, which may mean that she could at some stage receive conflicting advice from the Scottish and British governments in her roles as head of state of both countries (the union kings of Norway and of Sweden would have had much to say about such a scenario). One possibility is that her functions as Queen of Scotland is delegated to a governor general or a similar office when she is not in residence in Scotland, as is the case in her other kingdoms, but this has not been officially discussed.
There is also the issue of how long such a personal union would last. A YouGov poll conducted on 2-5 September found 54 % to be in favour of keeping the British monarch as head of state in the event of independence, while 31 % favoured an elected head of state and 15 % were undecided.
The same opinion poll found, for the first time, a majority to be in favour of independence, which has unleashed what seems like panic in London and some rather desperate calls for Queen Elizabeth to intervene and speak out in favour of the union. At the time of her silver jubilee in 1977, when a referendum on devolution of powers within the United Kingdom was coming up, the Queen for once indicated her personal opinion in an address to the Houses of Parliament, saying: "I number Kings and Queens of England and of Scotland, and Princes of Wales among my ancestors and so I can readily understand these aspirations. But I cannot forget that I was crowned Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Perhaps this Jubilee is a time to remind ourselves of the benefits which union has conferred, at home and in our international dealings, on the inhabitants of all parts of this United Kingdom".
On Tuesday the conservative Daily Telegraph used its editorial to call on Queen Elizabeth to speak out in favour of the union. This was rejected outright by a spokesperson who insisted: "The sovereign's constitutional impartiality is an established principle of our democracy and one which the Queen has demonstrated throughout her reign. As such the monarch is above politics and those in political office have a duty to ensure that this remains the case. Any suggestion that the Queen would wish to influence the outcome of the current referendum campaign is categorically wrong. Her Majesty is firmly of the view that this is a matter for the people of Scotland". It would in my opinion have been unwise if she had indeed intervened. It would have jeopardised the monarchy's political neutrality, and might also have alienated it from roughly half the Scottish people. It would also have undermined the Queen's standing, as it would have made a yes vote a personal defeat for Elizabeth II.
A yes vote will obviously have great consequences, so it is rather surprising that many crucial issues remain unclear, most significantly the financial issue. While the Scottish government insists that Scotland will maintain the pound as its currency, the leaders of the three main British parties have insisted Scotland will not be allowed to do so, and should they change their mind a currency union between Scotland and Britain would clearly involve some sovereignty being ceded. It is also quite surprising that the British government insist they have no plans for what will happen if Scotland votes yes.
The question of what will happen to the monarchy has on the other hand been settled, although it includes unanswered questions. The referendum is about the dissolution of the parliamentary union of 1707, not the union of crowns of 1603. Therefore a vote in favour of independence means that Scotland and the remainder of Britain will revert to the previous arrangement, i.e. a personal union between two independent states. This is roughly the same arrangement as the union between Britain and Hanover between 1714 and 1837 and the union between Norway and Sweden between 1814 and 1905.
This means that Elizabeth II will become Queen of Scotland or of Scots, the latter (and, I believe, older) title apparently being favoured by the Scots. She will obviously drop the numeral in Scotland, as she is the first Scottish monarch of that name. This will put Scotland in the same position as Australia, Canada and numerous other kingdoms of which Elizabeth II is queen, i.e. of having a monarch resident abroad, although I can imagine the Scots will expect her to come to Scotland more frequently. As Queen of an independent Scotland Queen Elizabeth would be bound to take constitutional advice from the Scottish government, which may mean that she could at some stage receive conflicting advice from the Scottish and British governments in her roles as head of state of both countries (the union kings of Norway and of Sweden would have had much to say about such a scenario). One possibility is that her functions as Queen of Scotland is delegated to a governor general or a similar office when she is not in residence in Scotland, as is the case in her other kingdoms, but this has not been officially discussed.
There is also the issue of how long such a personal union would last. A YouGov poll conducted on 2-5 September found 54 % to be in favour of keeping the British monarch as head of state in the event of independence, while 31 % favoured an elected head of state and 15 % were undecided.
The same opinion poll found, for the first time, a majority to be in favour of independence, which has unleashed what seems like panic in London and some rather desperate calls for Queen Elizabeth to intervene and speak out in favour of the union. At the time of her silver jubilee in 1977, when a referendum on devolution of powers within the United Kingdom was coming up, the Queen for once indicated her personal opinion in an address to the Houses of Parliament, saying: "I number Kings and Queens of England and of Scotland, and Princes of Wales among my ancestors and so I can readily understand these aspirations. But I cannot forget that I was crowned Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Perhaps this Jubilee is a time to remind ourselves of the benefits which union has conferred, at home and in our international dealings, on the inhabitants of all parts of this United Kingdom".
On Tuesday the conservative Daily Telegraph used its editorial to call on Queen Elizabeth to speak out in favour of the union. This was rejected outright by a spokesperson who insisted: "The sovereign's constitutional impartiality is an established principle of our democracy and one which the Queen has demonstrated throughout her reign. As such the monarch is above politics and those in political office have a duty to ensure that this remains the case. Any suggestion that the Queen would wish to influence the outcome of the current referendum campaign is categorically wrong. Her Majesty is firmly of the view that this is a matter for the people of Scotland". It would in my opinion have been unwise if she had indeed intervened. It would have jeopardised the monarchy's political neutrality, and might also have alienated it from roughly half the Scottish people. It would also have undermined the Queen's standing, as it would have made a yes vote a personal defeat for Elizabeth II.
Saturday, 17 May 2014
On this date: 200 years of independence
Today is the National Day and today the celebrations of the bicentenary of Norway’s independence and the Constitution, which was passed on 16 May 1814 and signed and dated the following day, will reach their climax.
The Constitution is the world’s second oldest which remains in force today (following the American), although it has of course been amended on several occasions to adapt it to changing times. The Constitution and Norway’s independence were both results of the Napoleonic Wars.
The election of the heir to the Norwegian throne, Olav Håkonsson, to King of Denmark following the death of his maternal grandfather in 1376 meant that Norway and Denmark entered a personal union when Olav succeeded his father, Håkon VI Magnusson, as King of Norway in 1380. Norway and Denmark remained separate countries, but the gradual weakening of Norway saw Denmark take a dominant role and in 1536 Christian III abolished the Norwegian Council and decreed that Norway should henceforth be a Danish province on par with Jutland or Zeeland.
Towards the end of the eighteenth and beginning of the nineteenth century the new ideas of the Enlightenment and nationhood saw a growing dissatisfaction with Danish absolutist rule among the Norwegian elite, but things would most likely not have happened so quickly were it not for the Napoleonic Wars.
The British bombardment of Copenhagen and seizure of the Dano-Norwegian fleet in 1807 meant that Denmark-Norway entered the Napoleonic Wars on the French side and while other allies deserted Napoléon along with his luck, Frederik VI stuck by his side to the bitter end. Although this has often been lambasted as stubbornness Frederik VI actually had little choice.
After Russia had conquered Finland from Sweden in 1809, the French Marshal Jean-Baptiste Bernadotte had been elected Crown Prince of Sweden with the name Carl Johan. He turned everything around when he in 1812 joined Napoléon’s enemies and the allied great powers promised him Norway as some sort of compensation for the loss of Finland. For Frederik VI the most important thing was to retain his realm undivided, but the allied promises to Carl Johan meant that he had nothing to win by changing sides. Frederik VI believed that the Napoleonic Wars would end with a negotiated peace rather than a military victory and hoped that Napoléon at this peace conference would help him retain Norway.
This proved a severe miscalculation and after Napoléon’s defeat at Leipzig in October 1813 Carl Johan led his troops northwards and invaded Denmark, thus forcing Frederik VI to cede Norway to the King of Sweden in the Treaty of Kiel on 14 January 1814.
Since the previous year King Frederik’s cousin and heir, Prince Christian Frederik, had been his Lieutenant of the Realm in Norway and he was not willing to agree to the loss of Norway. He originally intended to proclaim himself King by virtue of Frederik VI’s renunciation, but at a meeting at Eidsvoll (80 kilometres north of Oslo) in February a group of advisers persuaded him that Frederik VI’s renunciation meant that the sovereignty had reverted to the people and that it was now for them to decide their future.
Assuming the title of Regent, Prince Christian Frederik convened a Constituent Assembly, which met at Eidsvoll on 10 April. There the 112 founding fathers in little more than a month produced a Constitution that drew on inspiration from, among others, the constitutions of the USA, France, the Batavian Republic and Sweden and that was one of the most radical of its age.
The Constitution was passed on 16 May 1814 and signed and dated the next day, when the assembly unanimously elected Christian Frederik King of Norway. He accepted the crown two days later, but his reign would only last for one summer.
The great powers stuck to their promises to Sweden, and at the end of July Sweden invaded Norway. This, the last of the many wars fought between the Nordic countries (and Sweden’s last war to this day), saw some Swedish victories and some Norwegians, but in the long term Norway would not have been able to resist the much stronger Swedish military. The war ended with a ceasefire agreed in Moss on 14 August 1814, whereby Crown Prince Carl Johan agreed to respect Norway’s Constitution and independence, while King Christian Frederik agreed to abdicate after convening an extraordinary Parliament that would pass a revised Constitution adapted to a union with Sweden.
King Christian Frederik signed his abdication on 10 October in the Garden Room at Bygdøy Royal Manor and left Norway forever sixteen days later. (25 years on he succeeded to the Danish throne as King Christian VIII). Parliament meanwhile entered into negotiations with Swedish commissioners about a constitutional revision and, led by the able Speaker, Wilhelm F. K. Christie, succeeded in maintaining almost all of it, although changes necessitated by the union were obviously made.
On 4 November 1814 Parliament elected King Carl XIII of Sweden King of Norway and the two countries thereby embarked on a union of crowns. However, this was a union completely different from the one with Denmark, as Sweden and Norway were both independent kingdoms in a very loose personal union. There were separate parliaments, constitutions, governments, laws, courts, churches, armies, navies, bureaucracies, royal households and so on; indeed the King and the foreign service were the only shared institutions. This arrangement lasted until 1905, when Norway seceded from the union.
King Christian Frederik was subsequently criticised for his conduct by people who thought it more honourable if more blood had been shed (even today there is a handful of people who proclaim his view), but today the established view is that by choosing negotiations over defeat Christian Frederik saved Norway’s independence and Constitution. In recognition of this a statue of King Christian Frederik was erected outside the Parliament Building today, where it will be unveiled by Queen Margrethe – a huge admirer of his – in the presence of the King and Queen at noon on Sunday.
Today the usual parades of children will take place all over the country followed by a celebration at Eidsvoll that is expected to attract thousands, including the royal family and the Danish and Swedish monarchs. Unlike the King and Queen of Sweden the Queen and Prince Consort of Denmark will also be present at the Royal Palace during the children’s parade, but will watch from a window rather than joining the royal family on the palace balcony.
The Constitution is the world’s second oldest which remains in force today (following the American), although it has of course been amended on several occasions to adapt it to changing times. The Constitution and Norway’s independence were both results of the Napoleonic Wars.
The election of the heir to the Norwegian throne, Olav Håkonsson, to King of Denmark following the death of his maternal grandfather in 1376 meant that Norway and Denmark entered a personal union when Olav succeeded his father, Håkon VI Magnusson, as King of Norway in 1380. Norway and Denmark remained separate countries, but the gradual weakening of Norway saw Denmark take a dominant role and in 1536 Christian III abolished the Norwegian Council and decreed that Norway should henceforth be a Danish province on par with Jutland or Zeeland.
Towards the end of the eighteenth and beginning of the nineteenth century the new ideas of the Enlightenment and nationhood saw a growing dissatisfaction with Danish absolutist rule among the Norwegian elite, but things would most likely not have happened so quickly were it not for the Napoleonic Wars.
The British bombardment of Copenhagen and seizure of the Dano-Norwegian fleet in 1807 meant that Denmark-Norway entered the Napoleonic Wars on the French side and while other allies deserted Napoléon along with his luck, Frederik VI stuck by his side to the bitter end. Although this has often been lambasted as stubbornness Frederik VI actually had little choice.
After Russia had conquered Finland from Sweden in 1809, the French Marshal Jean-Baptiste Bernadotte had been elected Crown Prince of Sweden with the name Carl Johan. He turned everything around when he in 1812 joined Napoléon’s enemies and the allied great powers promised him Norway as some sort of compensation for the loss of Finland. For Frederik VI the most important thing was to retain his realm undivided, but the allied promises to Carl Johan meant that he had nothing to win by changing sides. Frederik VI believed that the Napoleonic Wars would end with a negotiated peace rather than a military victory and hoped that Napoléon at this peace conference would help him retain Norway.
This proved a severe miscalculation and after Napoléon’s defeat at Leipzig in October 1813 Carl Johan led his troops northwards and invaded Denmark, thus forcing Frederik VI to cede Norway to the King of Sweden in the Treaty of Kiel on 14 January 1814.
Since the previous year King Frederik’s cousin and heir, Prince Christian Frederik, had been his Lieutenant of the Realm in Norway and he was not willing to agree to the loss of Norway. He originally intended to proclaim himself King by virtue of Frederik VI’s renunciation, but at a meeting at Eidsvoll (80 kilometres north of Oslo) in February a group of advisers persuaded him that Frederik VI’s renunciation meant that the sovereignty had reverted to the people and that it was now for them to decide their future.
Assuming the title of Regent, Prince Christian Frederik convened a Constituent Assembly, which met at Eidsvoll on 10 April. There the 112 founding fathers in little more than a month produced a Constitution that drew on inspiration from, among others, the constitutions of the USA, France, the Batavian Republic and Sweden and that was one of the most radical of its age.
The Constitution was passed on 16 May 1814 and signed and dated the next day, when the assembly unanimously elected Christian Frederik King of Norway. He accepted the crown two days later, but his reign would only last for one summer.
The great powers stuck to their promises to Sweden, and at the end of July Sweden invaded Norway. This, the last of the many wars fought between the Nordic countries (and Sweden’s last war to this day), saw some Swedish victories and some Norwegians, but in the long term Norway would not have been able to resist the much stronger Swedish military. The war ended with a ceasefire agreed in Moss on 14 August 1814, whereby Crown Prince Carl Johan agreed to respect Norway’s Constitution and independence, while King Christian Frederik agreed to abdicate after convening an extraordinary Parliament that would pass a revised Constitution adapted to a union with Sweden.
King Christian Frederik signed his abdication on 10 October in the Garden Room at Bygdøy Royal Manor and left Norway forever sixteen days later. (25 years on he succeeded to the Danish throne as King Christian VIII). Parliament meanwhile entered into negotiations with Swedish commissioners about a constitutional revision and, led by the able Speaker, Wilhelm F. K. Christie, succeeded in maintaining almost all of it, although changes necessitated by the union were obviously made.
On 4 November 1814 Parliament elected King Carl XIII of Sweden King of Norway and the two countries thereby embarked on a union of crowns. However, this was a union completely different from the one with Denmark, as Sweden and Norway were both independent kingdoms in a very loose personal union. There were separate parliaments, constitutions, governments, laws, courts, churches, armies, navies, bureaucracies, royal households and so on; indeed the King and the foreign service were the only shared institutions. This arrangement lasted until 1905, when Norway seceded from the union.
King Christian Frederik was subsequently criticised for his conduct by people who thought it more honourable if more blood had been shed (even today there is a handful of people who proclaim his view), but today the established view is that by choosing negotiations over defeat Christian Frederik saved Norway’s independence and Constitution. In recognition of this a statue of King Christian Frederik was erected outside the Parliament Building today, where it will be unveiled by Queen Margrethe – a huge admirer of his – in the presence of the King and Queen at noon on Sunday.
Today the usual parades of children will take place all over the country followed by a celebration at Eidsvoll that is expected to attract thousands, including the royal family and the Danish and Swedish monarchs. Unlike the King and Queen of Sweden the Queen and Prince Consort of Denmark will also be present at the Royal Palace during the children’s parade, but will watch from a window rather than joining the royal family on the palace balcony.
Friday, 16 May 2014
Princess Ingrid Alexandra makes parliamentary debut
Today (or by now rather yesterday) Parliament held a special meeting to commemorate the bicentenary of the Constitution, which was passed on 16 May 1814 and signed and dated the following day. For this occasion the MPs were joined by the royal family, the members of the cabinet and the Supreme Court and the speakers of the parliaments of Denmark, Sweden, Iceland and Finland.
The King and Queen were accompanied by the Crown Prince and Crown Princess, Princess Ingrid Alexandra and Princess Astrid. Prince Sverre Magnus had apparently been excused, while Princess Märtha Louise, who lives in London, had chosen not to travel to her native land for this important occasion. For Princess Ingrid Alexandra this was her first appearance in Parliament which she, unless the Constitution is changed, will open every year when she succeeds to the throne.
The Constitution bars the King from being present while Parliament is sitting, but as no parliamentary deliberations took place today his presence was "tolerated". Similar meetings have been held in the presence of members of the royal family to commemorate other important occasions, including the 175th anniversary of the Constitution 25 years ago, the 50th, 75th and 100th anniversaries of the dissolution of the personal union with Sweden in 1905 and the 100th anniversary of the introduction of parliamentarianism in 1884, as well as after the terrorist attacks directed against the Labour Party by a right wing extremist in 2011.
Today speeches were given by the Speaker of Parliament, Olemic Thommessen (Conservative), as well as the speakers of the Danish and Swedish parliaments, Mogens Lykketoft and Per Westerberg. Following the meeting the King and Queen hosted a reception at the Palace for nearly all the mayors of the 428 municipalities, while a sparsely attended "people's party" was held in Eidsvoll Square outside the Parliament Building.
The King and Queen were accompanied by the Crown Prince and Crown Princess, Princess Ingrid Alexandra and Princess Astrid. Prince Sverre Magnus had apparently been excused, while Princess Märtha Louise, who lives in London, had chosen not to travel to her native land for this important occasion. For Princess Ingrid Alexandra this was her first appearance in Parliament which she, unless the Constitution is changed, will open every year when she succeeds to the throne.
The Constitution bars the King from being present while Parliament is sitting, but as no parliamentary deliberations took place today his presence was "tolerated". Similar meetings have been held in the presence of members of the royal family to commemorate other important occasions, including the 175th anniversary of the Constitution 25 years ago, the 50th, 75th and 100th anniversaries of the dissolution of the personal union with Sweden in 1905 and the 100th anniversary of the introduction of parliamentarianism in 1884, as well as after the terrorist attacks directed against the Labour Party by a right wing extremist in 2011.
Today speeches were given by the Speaker of Parliament, Olemic Thommessen (Conservative), as well as the speakers of the Danish and Swedish parliaments, Mogens Lykketoft and Per Westerberg. Following the meeting the King and Queen hosted a reception at the Palace for nearly all the mayors of the 428 municipalities, while a sparsely attended "people's party" was held in Eidsvoll Square outside the Parliament Building.
Friday, 9 May 2014
Norway's Constitution bicentenary coming up
Norway celebrates the bicentenary of its independence this year and next week will be filled with events to mark the bicentenary of the Constitution, which was passed at Eidsvoll on 16 May 1814 and signed and dated the following day, when Prince Christian Frederik of Denmark was elected King of Norway.
The main events will obviously take place on 17 May. In addition to the usual National Day celebrations there will be a televised gala from the park at Eidsvoll Manor, where the Constituent Assembly was held. For this event the King and Queen and the Crown Prince and Crown Princess will be joined by the Queen and Prince Consort of Denmark and, very reluctantly, the King and Queen of Sweden. For a few hours this day the original Constitution, which is usually kept under lock and key in the Parliamentary Archives, will be brought back
Two days prior, at noon on 15 May, Parliament will hold a special commemorative meeting. This will be one of the rare occasions when the King is present in Parliament (the Constitution forbids his presence during parliamentary deliberations, a remnant from the days the King might try to coerce Parliament into doing what he wanted), and the King will be accompanied by the Queen, the Crown Prince and Crown Princess and Princess Astrid. At previous such events the children of the royal family have also attended, but it remains to be seen whether Princess Ingrid Alexandra and perhaps also Prince Sverre Magnus will make a first appearance in Parliament. Afterwards a public celebration will take place in Eidsvoll Square in front of the Parliament Building (while the King and Queen host a reception for mayors from across the country at the Palace).
On 18 May a statue of King Christian Frederik by the sculptor Kristian Blystad will be unveiled in Eidsvoll Square by Queen Margrethe in the presence of the King and Queen and Prince Consort Henrik.
Among other events is a banquet in the City Hall of Oslo on 14 May and an ecumenical service in Nidaros Cathedral in Trondheim on 20 May, as well as several exhibitions at museums in Oslo as well as other places.
The main events will obviously take place on 17 May. In addition to the usual National Day celebrations there will be a televised gala from the park at Eidsvoll Manor, where the Constituent Assembly was held. For this event the King and Queen and the Crown Prince and Crown Princess will be joined by the Queen and Prince Consort of Denmark and, very reluctantly, the King and Queen of Sweden. For a few hours this day the original Constitution, which is usually kept under lock and key in the Parliamentary Archives, will be brought back
Two days prior, at noon on 15 May, Parliament will hold a special commemorative meeting. This will be one of the rare occasions when the King is present in Parliament (the Constitution forbids his presence during parliamentary deliberations, a remnant from the days the King might try to coerce Parliament into doing what he wanted), and the King will be accompanied by the Queen, the Crown Prince and Crown Princess and Princess Astrid. At previous such events the children of the royal family have also attended, but it remains to be seen whether Princess Ingrid Alexandra and perhaps also Prince Sverre Magnus will make a first appearance in Parliament. Afterwards a public celebration will take place in Eidsvoll Square in front of the Parliament Building (while the King and Queen host a reception for mayors from across the country at the Palace).
On 18 May a statue of King Christian Frederik by the sculptor Kristian Blystad will be unveiled in Eidsvoll Square by Queen Margrethe in the presence of the King and Queen and Prince Consort Henrik.
Among other events is a banquet in the City Hall of Oslo on 14 May and an ecumenical service in Nidaros Cathedral in Trondheim on 20 May, as well as several exhibitions at museums in Oslo as well as other places.
Thursday, 9 January 2014
King of Sweden to attend Norwegian jubilee after all
In an almost unprecedented step, the King of Sweden today changed his mind and decided that he and Queen Silvia will after all attend the bicentenary of Norway’s independence. The anniversary will be commemorated at Eidsvoll in the evening of 17 May, 200 years to the date after the signing of the Constitution. NRK’s revelation on Monday that the Queen and Prince Consort of Denmark would be attending, but that the King and Queen of Sweden had declined caused many unfavourable reactions (not only in Norway, but also some in Sweden).
The Swedish royal court rather grandly explained that the inviation had been declined as “the King does not visit other countries to commemorate their holidays or national days”. Apparently the King and his advisers did not realise that he and the Queen had been invited to the jubilee, not to the national day celebrations, and today released a press statement that explains that “This year the celebration of Norway’s national day, 17 May, also commemorates that 200 years have passed since the Norwegian constitution was adopted”. In light of this “additional information about the event on 17 May [...] the King has decided that He [sic!], together with the Queen” will after all attend.
The Swedish royal court is to be congratulated on their newfound knowledge. Their next discovery about the neighbouring country and former union partner may perhaps be that Danish is not the official language of Norway and that it is consequently not our “grundlov” that is being celebrated.
The Swedish royal court rather grandly explained that the inviation had been declined as “the King does not visit other countries to commemorate their holidays or national days”. Apparently the King and his advisers did not realise that he and the Queen had been invited to the jubilee, not to the national day celebrations, and today released a press statement that explains that “This year the celebration of Norway’s national day, 17 May, also commemorates that 200 years have passed since the Norwegian constitution was adopted”. In light of this “additional information about the event on 17 May [...] the King has decided that He [sic!], together with the Queen” will after all attend.
The Swedish royal court is to be congratulated on their newfound knowledge. Their next discovery about the neighbouring country and former union partner may perhaps be that Danish is not the official language of Norway and that it is consequently not our “grundlov” that is being celebrated.
Monday, 6 January 2014
Queen of Denmark to attend Norway’s bicentenary, King of Sweden declines
This year marks Norway’s 200th anniversary as an independent state, which will obviously be celebrated throughout the year, with the National Day 17 May as the major events. On that day, 200 years will have passed since the Constitution )which had been passed the previous day) was signed and dated at Eidsvoll and Prince Christian Frederik of Denmark elected King of independent Norway.
This will be commemorated at Eidsvoll in the afternoon on 17 May this year, and NRK today reports that the Queen and Prince Consort of Denmark have accepted the invitiation to join the Norwegian royals for the celebrations at Eidsvoll. Queen Margrethe is known to be deeply passionate about history and has several times pointed out Christian Frederik, who later reigned as King Christian VIII of Denmark, as her favourite among her predecessors.
The King and Queen of Sweden have on the other hand declined their invitations, which a spokeswoman for the Swedish royal court explains to Dagens Nyheter is because “the King does not visit other countries to commemorate their holidays or national days”.
Norway had entered into a personal union with the accession of King Olav Håkonsson in 1380 and was declared a Danish province by King Christian III in 1536. On 14 January 1814, as a result of the Napoleonic Wars, King Frederik VI was forced to cede Norway to the King of Sweden. However, his cousin, Prince Christian Frederik, who was his lieutenant in Norway, put himself at the head of a rebellion which declared Norway independent. A constituent assembly met at Eidsvoll in April and wrote the Constitution which was passed on 16 May, the day before Christian Frederik was elected King. However, a brief war with Sweden in the summer ended with an armistice whereby Christian Frederik agreed to renounce the Norwegian crown, while Sweden agreed to accept the Constitution and Norway’s independence. The personal union between Sweden and Norway, which came into force on 4 November 1814, lasted until 1905.
This will be commemorated at Eidsvoll in the afternoon on 17 May this year, and NRK today reports that the Queen and Prince Consort of Denmark have accepted the invitiation to join the Norwegian royals for the celebrations at Eidsvoll. Queen Margrethe is known to be deeply passionate about history and has several times pointed out Christian Frederik, who later reigned as King Christian VIII of Denmark, as her favourite among her predecessors.
The King and Queen of Sweden have on the other hand declined their invitations, which a spokeswoman for the Swedish royal court explains to Dagens Nyheter is because “the King does not visit other countries to commemorate their holidays or national days”.
Norway had entered into a personal union with the accession of King Olav Håkonsson in 1380 and was declared a Danish province by King Christian III in 1536. On 14 January 1814, as a result of the Napoleonic Wars, King Frederik VI was forced to cede Norway to the King of Sweden. However, his cousin, Prince Christian Frederik, who was his lieutenant in Norway, put himself at the head of a rebellion which declared Norway independent. A constituent assembly met at Eidsvoll in April and wrote the Constitution which was passed on 16 May, the day before Christian Frederik was elected King. However, a brief war with Sweden in the summer ended with an armistice whereby Christian Frederik agreed to renounce the Norwegian crown, while Sweden agreed to accept the Constitution and Norway’s independence. The personal union between Sweden and Norway, which came into force on 4 November 1814, lasted until 1905.
Tuesday, 1 October 2013
Queen Máxima designated Dutch regent
The Dutch Government Information Service yesterday announced that the government has made a proposition to Parliament designating Queen Máxima regent if the Princess of Orange, Princess Catharina-Amalia, should succeed to the throne before reaching her eighteenth birthday. If the Princess comes to the throne as a minor and Queen Máxima should herself be deceased the regency will devolve to Prince Constantijn, King Willem-Alexander’s only brother.
This is in line with Dutch and Orange traditions, whereby the surviving parent rather than the nearest adult in the line of succession has generally been designated regent. This was also the case in the reign of Queen Beatrix, when her consort, Prince Claus, was designated regent ahead of her sister, Princess Margriet.
The last time such a scenario became a reality was in 1890, when King Willem III upon his death was succeeded by his ten-year-old daughter Wilhelmina, whose mother, Queen Emma, served as regent for the next eight years. There are also several examples from before the House of Orange became the Dutch royal family of mothers deputising for their minor sons.
This is in line with Dutch and Orange traditions, whereby the surviving parent rather than the nearest adult in the line of succession has generally been designated regent. This was also the case in the reign of Queen Beatrix, when her consort, Prince Claus, was designated regent ahead of her sister, Princess Margriet.
The last time such a scenario became a reality was in 1890, when King Willem III upon his death was succeeded by his ten-year-old daughter Wilhelmina, whose mother, Queen Emma, served as regent for the next eight years. There are also several examples from before the House of Orange became the Dutch royal family of mothers deputising for their minor sons.
Tuesday, 28 May 2013
On this date: Danes voted for altered succession sixty years ago
The funeral of Count Christian of Rosenborg (by birth Prince of Denmark) tomorrow will miss by only one day the sixtieth anniversary of the referendum which deprived his branch of the Danish royal family of the crown and bestowed it upon the current Queen Margrethe II. The events of 1953 would drive a wedge between King Frederik IX and his younger brother, Hereditary Prince Knud, who were thereafter not on speaking terms for the remainder of their lives.
Until 1953 only men were eligible to inherit the Danish throne, so the birth of a daughter to Crown Prince Frederik and Crown Princess Ingrid in 1940, after five years of marriage, was of no significance for the succession. On the other hand, the Crown Prince’s younger brother, Prince Knud, had had a son that year, Prince Ingolf, and two years later he fathered another son. This son was named Christian, the name which was “reserved” for the eldest son of Crown Prince Frederik. According to Ingolf, the choice of name caused things to go “completely wrong” between Frederik and Knud.
The succession issue was not resolved by the birth of two more daughters to Crown Prince Frederik, which meant that Prince Knud upon his brother’s succession to the throne in 1947 became heir presumptive.
The Danish Constitution of 1915 had by then become outdated in several ways, but it was a complicating factor that changing it required the consent of 45 % of the entire electorate in a referendum. A new constitution had been defeated in 1939 as turn-out had been too low to bring the approval rate over the required 45 % of the electorate.
But after the Second World War an MP by the name of Poul Thisted Knudsen had the idea of linking a new constitution with a new Act of Succession which would allow a princess to inherit the crown if she had no brothers. This was apparently seen as something which would interest the voters more than lowering the age of suffrage and abolishing the bicameral system and might thus cause enough voters to turn out for the changes to be approved by more than 45 % of the electorate.
Indeed this did interest voters, but the problem for Prince Knud’s family was that the debate soon took the form of a choice between King Frederik’s attractive daughters and Prince Knud and his sons, who were portrayed as ugly and stupid.
In the referendum held on 28 May 1953 the new Constitution and the Act of Succession narrowly received the support of the required 45 %. The Constitution and the Act of Succession were signed into law by King Frederik IX in a State Council on 5 June 1953, Denmark’s national day. At that moment Prince Knud lost everything, and Prime Minister Erik Eriksen later told the historian Tage Kaarsted that Prince Knud had attempted to sabotage the signing of the laws.
Now fourth in line of succession, Prince Knud knew that he would never inherit the throne, yet he was, rather oddly, now given the title of “Hereditary Prince”. According to an interview with Ingolf for his seventieth birthday in 2010, King Frederik IX and Hereditary Prince Knud never spoke again except at official events and when King Frederik came to his brother’s home to confer the Order of the Elephant on Ingolf on his 21st birthday in 1961.
While this might seem irrational, as the changes to the succession had not been instigated by King Frederik and he had at the outset been sceptical, it seems Hereditary Prince Knud, like many others, may have thought that Queen Ingrid was the mind behind the amendment. This she would later firmly deny, as has Queen Margrethe done, but after the referendum Queen Ingrid did write a letter of gratitude to Poul Thisted Knudsen, whose idea it had been.
When King Frederik IX died on 14 January 1972 he was succeeded by his eldest daughter, Queen Margrethe II, who has now reigned successfully for 41 years. Full cognatic succession was introduced in 2009.
Hereditary Prince Knud outlived his brother for four years, dying on 14 June 1976, and according to Ingolf he “would have liked very much to have those years as king”. He died a bitter man and left instructions that his funeral should take place without any public attention.
Much against the will of his mother, Hereditary Princess Caroline-Mathilde, Ingolf thereafter brokered a reconciliation with his cousin, Queen Margrethe. Eventually Caroline-Mathilde herself, who died in 1995, became reconciled with Queen Ingrid.
As some sort of compensation for losing the crown, Ingolf annually receives 1.5 million DKK from the state. He became a farmer, while his elder sister Princess Elisabeth embarked on a career in the Foreign Office and his younger brother Christian served in the Navy.
As they did not receive King Frederik’s consent, Ingolf and Christian lost their royal titles when they married commoners in 1968 and 1971, respectively, and were both created Count of Rosenborg. Princess Elisabeth lived for 20 years with the filmmaker Claus Hermansen, but the couple never married because, as she has explained in an interview, she had no desire for children and wanted to keep her royal title. As Count Ingolf is unable to have children, Christian would have been heir presumptive to the throne if Ingolf had become king.
Today the relationship between the two branches of the family seems correct, but not particularly warm. The children of Prince Knud are invited to major events, but privately the cousins see little of each other.
Until 1953 only men were eligible to inherit the Danish throne, so the birth of a daughter to Crown Prince Frederik and Crown Princess Ingrid in 1940, after five years of marriage, was of no significance for the succession. On the other hand, the Crown Prince’s younger brother, Prince Knud, had had a son that year, Prince Ingolf, and two years later he fathered another son. This son was named Christian, the name which was “reserved” for the eldest son of Crown Prince Frederik. According to Ingolf, the choice of name caused things to go “completely wrong” between Frederik and Knud.
The succession issue was not resolved by the birth of two more daughters to Crown Prince Frederik, which meant that Prince Knud upon his brother’s succession to the throne in 1947 became heir presumptive.
The Danish Constitution of 1915 had by then become outdated in several ways, but it was a complicating factor that changing it required the consent of 45 % of the entire electorate in a referendum. A new constitution had been defeated in 1939 as turn-out had been too low to bring the approval rate over the required 45 % of the electorate.
But after the Second World War an MP by the name of Poul Thisted Knudsen had the idea of linking a new constitution with a new Act of Succession which would allow a princess to inherit the crown if she had no brothers. This was apparently seen as something which would interest the voters more than lowering the age of suffrage and abolishing the bicameral system and might thus cause enough voters to turn out for the changes to be approved by more than 45 % of the electorate.
Indeed this did interest voters, but the problem for Prince Knud’s family was that the debate soon took the form of a choice between King Frederik’s attractive daughters and Prince Knud and his sons, who were portrayed as ugly and stupid.
In the referendum held on 28 May 1953 the new Constitution and the Act of Succession narrowly received the support of the required 45 %. The Constitution and the Act of Succession were signed into law by King Frederik IX in a State Council on 5 June 1953, Denmark’s national day. At that moment Prince Knud lost everything, and Prime Minister Erik Eriksen later told the historian Tage Kaarsted that Prince Knud had attempted to sabotage the signing of the laws.
Now fourth in line of succession, Prince Knud knew that he would never inherit the throne, yet he was, rather oddly, now given the title of “Hereditary Prince”. According to an interview with Ingolf for his seventieth birthday in 2010, King Frederik IX and Hereditary Prince Knud never spoke again except at official events and when King Frederik came to his brother’s home to confer the Order of the Elephant on Ingolf on his 21st birthday in 1961.
While this might seem irrational, as the changes to the succession had not been instigated by King Frederik and he had at the outset been sceptical, it seems Hereditary Prince Knud, like many others, may have thought that Queen Ingrid was the mind behind the amendment. This she would later firmly deny, as has Queen Margrethe done, but after the referendum Queen Ingrid did write a letter of gratitude to Poul Thisted Knudsen, whose idea it had been.
When King Frederik IX died on 14 January 1972 he was succeeded by his eldest daughter, Queen Margrethe II, who has now reigned successfully for 41 years. Full cognatic succession was introduced in 2009.
Hereditary Prince Knud outlived his brother for four years, dying on 14 June 1976, and according to Ingolf he “would have liked very much to have those years as king”. He died a bitter man and left instructions that his funeral should take place without any public attention.
Much against the will of his mother, Hereditary Princess Caroline-Mathilde, Ingolf thereafter brokered a reconciliation with his cousin, Queen Margrethe. Eventually Caroline-Mathilde herself, who died in 1995, became reconciled with Queen Ingrid.
As some sort of compensation for losing the crown, Ingolf annually receives 1.5 million DKK from the state. He became a farmer, while his elder sister Princess Elisabeth embarked on a career in the Foreign Office and his younger brother Christian served in the Navy.
As they did not receive King Frederik’s consent, Ingolf and Christian lost their royal titles when they married commoners in 1968 and 1971, respectively, and were both created Count of Rosenborg. Princess Elisabeth lived for 20 years with the filmmaker Claus Hermansen, but the couple never married because, as she has explained in an interview, she had no desire for children and wanted to keep her royal title. As Count Ingolf is unable to have children, Christian would have been heir presumptive to the throne if Ingolf had become king.
Today the relationship between the two branches of the family seems correct, but not particularly warm. The children of Prince Knud are invited to major events, but privately the cousins see little of each other.
Friday, 17 May 2013
On this date: 199 years of independence
Today is the National Day of Norway, commemorating the events of 1814 which led to Norway’s independence and the passing of the Constitution which remains in force today, making it the second oldest exisiting constitution in the world. The bicentenary next year will be marked with a series of events.
Today the schoolchildren paraded as usual in large and small places all over the country. In Oslo the parade passed by the Royal Palace, where it was greeted by the King and Queen, the Crown Prince and Crown Princess, Princess Ingrid Alexandra and Prince Sverre Magnus from the balcony. As usual Princess Astrid watched from a window, while Princess Märtha Louise this year took part in the celebrations in London, where she lives with her family.
The tradition of the royal family greeting the people on 17 May dates to 1845, when Queen Josephine, Prince Gustaf and Princess Eugénie greeted the celebrators from a window in the then royal residence, the Mansion. The first person to do so from the balcony of the Palace, which was inaugurated in 1849, was Crown Prince Regent Carl in 1858.
The British terror bombardment of Copenhagen in 1807 forced the Danish state, which Norway was part of, into the Napoleonic wars on the French side. King Frederik VI remained Napoléon’s ally until the end, and by the Treaty of Kiel of 14 January 1814 he was forced to cede Norway to the King of Sweden. This was not accepted by the Norwegian, and the King’s cousin and heir, Prince Christian Frederik, who had served as Lieutenant of the Realm since the previous year, headed a rebellion which led to a constituent assembly being convened at Eidsvoll, where the Constitution was passed on 16 May 1814. It was signed the following day and Christian Frederik elected King of independent Norway.
A brief war with Sweden followed in July and August, which ended with an armistice on 14 August. Christian Frederik abdicated on 10 October, and having passed several amendments to the Constitution, an extraordinary Parliament voted in favour of a personal union with Sweden on 4 November, when Carl XIII was elected King of Norway. However, Norway retained its independence and its constitution in the personal union, which came to an end in 1905.
Today the schoolchildren paraded as usual in large and small places all over the country. In Oslo the parade passed by the Royal Palace, where it was greeted by the King and Queen, the Crown Prince and Crown Princess, Princess Ingrid Alexandra and Prince Sverre Magnus from the balcony. As usual Princess Astrid watched from a window, while Princess Märtha Louise this year took part in the celebrations in London, where she lives with her family.
The tradition of the royal family greeting the people on 17 May dates to 1845, when Queen Josephine, Prince Gustaf and Princess Eugénie greeted the celebrators from a window in the then royal residence, the Mansion. The first person to do so from the balcony of the Palace, which was inaugurated in 1849, was Crown Prince Regent Carl in 1858.
The British terror bombardment of Copenhagen in 1807 forced the Danish state, which Norway was part of, into the Napoleonic wars on the French side. King Frederik VI remained Napoléon’s ally until the end, and by the Treaty of Kiel of 14 January 1814 he was forced to cede Norway to the King of Sweden. This was not accepted by the Norwegian, and the King’s cousin and heir, Prince Christian Frederik, who had served as Lieutenant of the Realm since the previous year, headed a rebellion which led to a constituent assembly being convened at Eidsvoll, where the Constitution was passed on 16 May 1814. It was signed the following day and Christian Frederik elected King of independent Norway.
A brief war with Sweden followed in July and August, which ended with an armistice on 14 August. Christian Frederik abdicated on 10 October, and having passed several amendments to the Constitution, an extraordinary Parliament voted in favour of a personal union with Sweden on 4 November, when Carl XIII was elected King of Norway. However, Norway retained its independence and its constitution in the personal union, which came to an end in 1905.
Sunday, 28 April 2013
Changes to British succession receives royal assent
This week the bill changing the succession to the British throne, which was introduced by the government in December, passed its final reading in the House of Lords and before the weekend it received royal assent, meaning that it is now law.
The new Succession to the Crown Act means that the succession is now gender neutral, so that the eldest child will inherit the throne regardless of its sex, whereas until now a daughter would be superseded by a younger brother.
Thus, if the child expected to be born to the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge in July is a girl, she will be the future monarch even if she eventually has a brother.
The change will, however, not be retroactive, except for those born after 28 October 2011, the date the prime ministers of the sixteen realms of which Elizabeth II is queen agreed to reform the succession to the thrones. Thus for instance Princess Anne will still come after her two younger brothers and their offspring in the succession, while Senna Lewis, a granddaughter of the Duke of Gloucester, will apparently overtake her younger brother Tane, who was born after that date.
The Succession to the Crown Act 2013 also means that those in line of succession will no longer lose their rights if they marry non-Protestants, and as this is retroactive it means that for instance Prince Michael, who lost his rights when marrying a Catholic in 1978, is now back in the order of succession.
The Act also repeals the Royal Marriages Act of 1772, which means that it is now only the first six persons in line of succession who are obliged to seek the monarch’s permission to marry.
Of the seven European kingdoms, Spain is now the only country left where sons come ahead of daughters in the order of succession. Gender neutral succession was first introduced in Sweden in 1980, followed by the Netherlands in 1983, Norway in 1990, Belgium in 1991 and Denmark in 2009.
The new Succession to the Crown Act means that the succession is now gender neutral, so that the eldest child will inherit the throne regardless of its sex, whereas until now a daughter would be superseded by a younger brother.
Thus, if the child expected to be born to the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge in July is a girl, she will be the future monarch even if she eventually has a brother.
The change will, however, not be retroactive, except for those born after 28 October 2011, the date the prime ministers of the sixteen realms of which Elizabeth II is queen agreed to reform the succession to the thrones. Thus for instance Princess Anne will still come after her two younger brothers and their offspring in the succession, while Senna Lewis, a granddaughter of the Duke of Gloucester, will apparently overtake her younger brother Tane, who was born after that date.
The Succession to the Crown Act 2013 also means that those in line of succession will no longer lose their rights if they marry non-Protestants, and as this is retroactive it means that for instance Prince Michael, who lost his rights when marrying a Catholic in 1978, is now back in the order of succession.
The Act also repeals the Royal Marriages Act of 1772, which means that it is now only the first six persons in line of succession who are obliged to seek the monarch’s permission to marry.
Of the seven European kingdoms, Spain is now the only country left where sons come ahead of daughters in the order of succession. Gender neutral succession was first introduced in Sweden in 1980, followed by the Netherlands in 1983, Norway in 1990, Belgium in 1991 and Denmark in 2009.
Wednesday, 20 March 2013
Parliament votes in favour of the monarchy
Yesterday the Norwegian Parliament debated a proposal aiming at initiating a process leading to the introduction of a republic. The proposal was put forward by the MPs Hallgeir H. Langeland and Snorre Serigstad Valen of the Socialist Left Party, and Eirin Sund, Truls Wickholm, Marianne Marthinsen and Jette F. Christensen of the Labour Party. After a short debate, which may be read here (external link), the idea was rejected with 83 votes against and only 11 for.
Sunday, 16 December 2012
British government introduces bill to change succession
Earlier this week the British government presented its bill to change the succession to the throne, formally called the Succession to the Crown Bill. As earlier mentioned the introduction of this bill follows agreement having been reached between the sixteen realms of which Elizabeth II is queen to introduce gender neutral succession.
This mean that the as yet unborn first child of Prince William will be heir to the throne regardless of whether it is a boy or a girl, whereas a girl would, under previous legislation, have been bypassed by a younger brother.
The bill makes this change retroactive, but only back to 28 October 2011, the date the prime ministers of the sixteen realms reached their agreement. Thus it will only affect those born after that date, which means that for instance Princess Anne and her descendants will still come after her younger brothers Prince Andrew and Prince Edward and their descendants. Lady Louise Windsor, the daughter of Prince Edward, will also still follow behind her younger brother James, Viscount Severn. I think the person closest to the throne who will actually be affected by this is the newborn grandchild of the Duke of Gloucester, Tane Lewis, who is currently ahead of his elder sister Senna in the succession, but who will cease being so when the bill is enacted.
The bill further removes the ban on people married to Catholics from succeeding to the throne. However, those who are themselves Catholic will still be barred from succeeding (as the monarch is head of the Church of England). Interestingly, this provision is made retroactive for those who have married Catholics and are still alive. The persons closest to the throne affected by this are the Earl of St Andrews (son of the Duke of Kent) and Prince Michael, who lost their succession rights when they married Catholics, but who will now regain a place in the order of succession. Several other people will also be affected by this, including for instance the three children of the late Princess Ragnhild of Norway.
Thirdly, the bill radically limits the scope of people who need the British monarch’s permission to marry. Under the Royal Marriages Act of 1772 (which will now be repealed in its entirety), all descendants of George II, except those descending from princesses who married into foreign royal houses, needed the monarch’s permission to marry in order for their marriages to be valid under British law. From the time this bill comes into force the need to obtain permission will only apply to the first six in line for the throne – i.e. currently the Prince of Wales (Prince Charles), the Duke of Cambridge (Prince William), Prince Henry, the Duke of York (Prince Andrew), Princess Beatrice and Princess Eugenie. Once the first child of Prince William is born next year, Princess Eugenie will be free of this obligation. Failure to comply with this rule means the loss of succession rights for the person in question and his or her descendants. Most marriages deemed void by the Royal Marriages Act will now be “legalised”.
The bill also involves amendments to several other pieces of legislation, namely the Treason Act of 1351, the Bill of Rights, the Act of Settlement and the Regency Act of 1937. Interestingly, the bill does not make any changes to the practice whereby the Duchy of Cornwall devolves on the heir to the throne when the eldest son of the monarch. I believe this will require separate legal amendments, as does the issue of whether the title Princess of Wales may in the future be given to the heir apparent when being the monarch’s daughter.
Under current legislation the title Prince(ss) of the United Kingdom and the style Royal Highness are(by Letters Patent of 1917) limited to the children and the male-line grandchildren of the monarch. At some stage one would expect new letters patent to be issued to alter this, which will no longer make sense when the eldest child is heir regardless of its sex.
It is also interesting to observe that the bill does not limit the succession to the throne. Thus all descendants of the Electress Sophia of Hanover, except Catholics, will continue to be in the order of succession and the retroactive inclusion of those who have married Catholics will mean that the number of potential heirs (which already run to hundreds and hundreds of people) will actually increase.
When this bill is passed by the House of Commons and the House of Lords and come into effect Spain and Monaco will be the only European monarchies where males still take precedence over females in the succession (while Liechtenstein bars women altogether).
This mean that the as yet unborn first child of Prince William will be heir to the throne regardless of whether it is a boy or a girl, whereas a girl would, under previous legislation, have been bypassed by a younger brother.
The bill makes this change retroactive, but only back to 28 October 2011, the date the prime ministers of the sixteen realms reached their agreement. Thus it will only affect those born after that date, which means that for instance Princess Anne and her descendants will still come after her younger brothers Prince Andrew and Prince Edward and their descendants. Lady Louise Windsor, the daughter of Prince Edward, will also still follow behind her younger brother James, Viscount Severn. I think the person closest to the throne who will actually be affected by this is the newborn grandchild of the Duke of Gloucester, Tane Lewis, who is currently ahead of his elder sister Senna in the succession, but who will cease being so when the bill is enacted.
The bill further removes the ban on people married to Catholics from succeeding to the throne. However, those who are themselves Catholic will still be barred from succeeding (as the monarch is head of the Church of England). Interestingly, this provision is made retroactive for those who have married Catholics and are still alive. The persons closest to the throne affected by this are the Earl of St Andrews (son of the Duke of Kent) and Prince Michael, who lost their succession rights when they married Catholics, but who will now regain a place in the order of succession. Several other people will also be affected by this, including for instance the three children of the late Princess Ragnhild of Norway.
Thirdly, the bill radically limits the scope of people who need the British monarch’s permission to marry. Under the Royal Marriages Act of 1772 (which will now be repealed in its entirety), all descendants of George II, except those descending from princesses who married into foreign royal houses, needed the monarch’s permission to marry in order for their marriages to be valid under British law. From the time this bill comes into force the need to obtain permission will only apply to the first six in line for the throne – i.e. currently the Prince of Wales (Prince Charles), the Duke of Cambridge (Prince William), Prince Henry, the Duke of York (Prince Andrew), Princess Beatrice and Princess Eugenie. Once the first child of Prince William is born next year, Princess Eugenie will be free of this obligation. Failure to comply with this rule means the loss of succession rights for the person in question and his or her descendants. Most marriages deemed void by the Royal Marriages Act will now be “legalised”.
The bill also involves amendments to several other pieces of legislation, namely the Treason Act of 1351, the Bill of Rights, the Act of Settlement and the Regency Act of 1937. Interestingly, the bill does not make any changes to the practice whereby the Duchy of Cornwall devolves on the heir to the throne when the eldest son of the monarch. I believe this will require separate legal amendments, as does the issue of whether the title Princess of Wales may in the future be given to the heir apparent when being the monarch’s daughter.
Under current legislation the title Prince(ss) of the United Kingdom and the style Royal Highness are(by Letters Patent of 1917) limited to the children and the male-line grandchildren of the monarch. At some stage one would expect new letters patent to be issued to alter this, which will no longer make sense when the eldest child is heir regardless of its sex.
It is also interesting to observe that the bill does not limit the succession to the throne. Thus all descendants of the Electress Sophia of Hanover, except Catholics, will continue to be in the order of succession and the retroactive inclusion of those who have married Catholics will mean that the number of potential heirs (which already run to hundreds and hundreds of people) will actually increase.
When this bill is passed by the House of Commons and the House of Lords and come into effect Spain and Monaco will be the only European monarchies where males still take precedence over females in the succession (while Liechtenstein bars women altogether).
Tuesday, 4 December 2012
Elizabeth II’s realms agree to change succession laws
It was announced today that all the sixteen countries of which Elizabeth II is Queen have agreed to change their succession laws so that the eldest child will henceforward inherit the throne whether it is a boy or a girl. Britain’s Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg, who is in charge of constitutional affairs, says that the government will now introduce the Succession to the Crown Bill in the House of Commons as soon as possible. Similar measures will be taken in Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, the Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Canada, Grenada, Jamaica, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, the Solomon Islands and Tuvalu.
The initiative to change the succession laws was taken by British Prime Minister David Cameron in October 2011 and an agreement was reached by the prime ministers of the sixteen realms at the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in Perth. The task of securing formal consent from all realms was given to the government of New Zealand, which was expected to complete this task by December. With perfect timing, the process of gathering formal consent has now been completed the day after it was announced that the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge are expecting their first child.
Under the current rules, daughters came after sons in the order of succession, so that a firstborn daughter of the Duke of Cambridge would have been surpassed by a younger brother born at a later date. However, it was earlier stated that if the modified succession had not come into effect before the birth of a child to the Duke of Cambridge the changes would be retroactive from October 2011.
Among the legislation which will be amended by the Succession to the Crown Bill are the Bill of Rights of 1688 and the Act of Settlement of 1701. The bill will also mean that those who marry Catholics will no longer lose their place in the order of succession.
When the changes take effect Spain, Monaco and Liechtenstein will be the only monarchies in Europe which do not have gender neutral succession.
The initiative to change the succession laws was taken by British Prime Minister David Cameron in October 2011 and an agreement was reached by the prime ministers of the sixteen realms at the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in Perth. The task of securing formal consent from all realms was given to the government of New Zealand, which was expected to complete this task by December. With perfect timing, the process of gathering formal consent has now been completed the day after it was announced that the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge are expecting their first child.
Under the current rules, daughters came after sons in the order of succession, so that a firstborn daughter of the Duke of Cambridge would have been surpassed by a younger brother born at a later date. However, it was earlier stated that if the modified succession had not come into effect before the birth of a child to the Duke of Cambridge the changes would be retroactive from October 2011.
Among the legislation which will be amended by the Succession to the Crown Bill are the Bill of Rights of 1688 and the Act of Settlement of 1701. The bill will also mean that those who marry Catholics will no longer lose their place in the order of succession.
When the changes take effect Spain, Monaco and Liechtenstein will be the only monarchies in Europe which do not have gender neutral succession.
Tuesday, 11 October 2011
New Danish government wants to remove monarch from Constitution
Berlingske today reports that the new Danish government, made up of the Social Democrats, the Danish Social Liberal Party and the Socialist People’s Party, has decided to set up a commission to consider a revision of the Constitution, which will aim at removing the monarch from it and including the human rights.The current Constitution, which received the royal assent on 5 June 1953 (pictured above), has not been altered since and to do so will require a referendum in which at least 40 % of the entire electorate (not only those actually voting) will have to vote in favour of the amendments.
I suppose “removing the monarch from the Constitution” means that one desires literally to change those articles which say “the King” where one actually means the government. However, as the referendum about changing the Act of Succession two years ago showed, this might easily be like opening a can of worms and lead to a more extensive debate on the monarchy.
As recently as last year an opinion poll showed a majority in favour of scrapping the monarch’s right to appoint the government and sign bills into law, thus reducing the Danish monarchy to a merely symbolic institution like its Swedish counterpart (an arrangement Queen Margrethe has earlier said she would find difficult).
The European Convention of Human Rights has the status of an ordinary law and it has long been the wish of several parties to include it in the Constitution itself, which would also mean that it could not simply be scrapped by a parliamentary vote.
It appears from Berlingske’s report that the Danish Social Liberal Party is the driving force behind these revisions, but that the Social Democrats and the Socialist People’s Party are in full agreement with their coalition partner. However, the two parties which were just ejected from the government offices, the Liberal Party and the Conservatives, see no reason for amending the Constitution, while a spokesman for the right-wing extremist Danish People’s Party, which has earlier described human rights as left-wing values, says they will not “under no circumstances” contribute to such changes.
Monday, 6 June 2011
On this date: Sweden’s National Day
Today is the National Day of Sweden and the royal family – including Princess Madeleine, just back from the USA – will as usual take part in the celebrations in Stockholm and elsewhere.6 June was the date in 1523 when Gustaf Eriksson (Vasa) was elected King of Sweden following the secession from the pan-Nordic Kalmar Union and also the date in 1809 when Prince Carl, Duke of Sudermania was offered the Crown. The Constitution of 1809 was consequently dated 6 June although it was only on 27 June that the Constitution was accepted by the Fourth Estate.
In the twentieth century 6 June came to be celebrated as the Day of the Swedish Flag and it was officially proclaimed the National Day in 1983. Since 2006 it is also a public holiday.
Wednesday, 23 March 2011
Crown Prince Regent sends Norwegian planes to Libya
In an extraordinary State Council held at the Royal Palace at 9 a.m. today the Crown Prince Regent gave his assent to a royal resolution authorising the Minister of Defence to send six Norwegian warplanes to assist in the efforts to enforce UN resolution 1973 (aimed at stopping the genocide Muammar Gaddafi is carrying out against his own people). The planes will be put under American command.
Crown Prince Haakon is Regent while the King and Queen are holidaying privately abroad. Since turning eighteen in 1991 he has been Regent on numerous occasions, including two lengthier periods during his father’s illnesses in 2003-2004 and 2005, and as such it has fallen upon him to host two state visits (by the Emperor of Japan and the President of Portugal) and to appoint a member of the cabinet (Anniken Huitfeldt in 2008), but committing Norwegian forces to combat is obviously the most serious government decision he has been called upon to authorise.
Crown Prince Haakon is Regent while the King and Queen are holidaying privately abroad. Since turning eighteen in 1991 he has been Regent on numerous occasions, including two lengthier periods during his father’s illnesses in 2003-2004 and 2005, and as such it has fallen upon him to host two state visits (by the Emperor of Japan and the President of Portugal) and to appoint a member of the cabinet (Anniken Huitfeldt in 2008), but committing Norwegian forces to combat is obviously the most serious government decision he has been called upon to authorise.
Thursday, 20 January 2011
The royal oath to the Constitution
Twenty years ago tomorrow King Harald V swore the oath of allegiance to the Constitution in the Parliament Chamber. The oath to govern the country according to its constitution and laws is laid down in the Constitution’s article 9. The King is expected to swear the oath as soon as he accedes to the throne, but until 1871 Parliament met only every third year and until 1990 Parliament did not sit throughout the year. If a change of monarch happened while Parliament was not sitting, the King would make a written oath and later repeat it orally in front of Parliament, usually during the next State Opening of Parliament. Christian Frederik, the first King of Norway after independence was restored, was elected by the Constituent Assembly on 17 May 1814, the day after the Constitution had been passed. On 19 May he accepted the crown and appeared before the Constituent Assembly in the main hall of Eidsvold Værk Manor to swear his oath to the Constitution.
The course of events forced him to abdicate a few months later and the instrument of abdication, which he signed on 10 October 1814, was ratified by Parliament on 4 November. The same day King Carl XIII was elected King of Norway, but as ill health and other reasons meant that Carl XIII never came to the country during his reign, he never swore the oath orally in front of Parliament, but rather in front of a delegation from the Norwegian Parliament which came to Stockholm in December to inform him formally of his election to the Norwegian throne. Before that his heir, Crown Prince Carl Johan, had presented the King’s written oath to the Speaker of Parliament when he and Prince Oscar, first came to Parliament on 10 November.
In 1818 the State Opening of Parliament took place on 6 February 1818, before news had arrived that Carl XIII had died the previous evening. It was thus obviously impossible for his adopted son and heir, Carl XIV Johan, to be present, but Parliament was still sitting when he arrived in Christiania (now Oslo) on 11 August 1818 on his way to his coronation in Nidaros Cathedral in Trondhjem (now Trondheim). He stayed in Christiania until 25 August, but there is no mention in parliamentary minutes of his going to Parliament to swear the oath. On the contrary all the MPs called on the King in the Royal Mansion both after his arrival in the capital and the day before his departure. The King rather swore the oath during the coronation in Nidaros Cathedral on 7 September 1818, where only a deputation from Parliament was present.
Carl XIV Johan died on 8 March 1844, at a time when Parliament was not sitting. His son Oscar I swore the oath during the State Opening of Parliament in the provisory parliament building in Christiania on 10 February 1845. The King was flanked on the dais by his three eldest sons – Crown Prince Carl, Prince Gustaf and Prince Oscar – while Queen Josephina and the two youngest children, Princess Eugénie and Prince August, watched from a royal box.
King Oscar I died on 8 July 1859, when Parliament was not sitting. While Oscar I was joined by his entire family, Carl XV came unaccompanied by any family member when he took the oath during the State Opening of Parliament on 6 October 1859, which was again held in the provisory parliament building.
Parliament was again not sitting when Carl XV passed away on 18 September 1872. In 1866 the national assembly had moved into a building of its own and during the State Opening of Parliament on 3 February 1873 King Oscar II thus became the first monarch to swear his oath in the room which remains the Parliament Chamber today. Like his brother before him, Oscar II was unaccompanied by any members of his family. It is interesting to note that the session was presided over by Johan Sverdrup as Speaker of Parliament, the man who would later become Oscar II’s main opponent in the fight over the introduction of parliamentarianism and who was appointed Prime Minister following the King’s defeat in 1884.
Following Oscar II’s deposal on 7 June 1905 and his abdication on 26 October 1905, the newly elected King Haakon VII arrived in Norway on 25 November 1905. Parliament was sitting at the time and two days after his arrival the new King drove to the Parliament Building to take his oath to the Constitution, accompanied by Queen Maud, who became the first royal lady to take her seat with the King on the dais rather than in a royal box. Above is Harald Dal’s painting of the event, which exists in three versions – this version hangs in the Parliament Building’s Central Hall. That it is painted more than fifty years after the event can be deducted from the fact that the walls of the Parliament Chamber were not actually red at the time – they got their present colour only in 1914.
King Haakon died on 21 September 1957, after Parliament had been dissolved ahead of the upcoming election. In those days Parliament would not reconvene until more than three months after the election and it was thus only during the State Opening of Parliament on 20 January 1958 that King Olav V swore his oath.
To complicate matters further the Parliament Building was undergoing a thorough rebuilding at the time, which meant that the Parliament Chamber was a construction site and that parliamentary sittings were temporarily held in a large conference room in the new annex to the building. The King, MPs, ministers, supreme court judges and all other dignitaries thus squeezed together in the smaller Lagting Chamber (which was used for the sittings of the so-called Lagting during the semi-bicameral system which was in force from 1814 to 2009) for the ceremony. King Olav was not accompanied by any member of his family.
Since 1990 Parliament is no longer dissolved and thus it formally sits from the beginning of October to the end of September, although there are of course recesses. When King Olav died on 17 January 1991, his son was thus able to go to Parliament on the following Monday, 21 January 1991, to swear his oath of allegiance. By accompanying him Queen Sonja became the first Queen to be present in Parliament for 69 years.
A little-known fact is that there were also other royal oath-taking ceremonies during the union of crowns with Sweden. During the State Opening of Parliament on 24 October 1900, Prince Gustaf Adolf, who accompanied his parents Crown Prince Gustaf and Crown Princess Victoria (King Oscar II was ill at the time and Crown Prince Gustaf thus acted as Regent), swore an oath of loyalty to the Constitution and the King.
The newspaper Verdens Gang questioned the correctness of this as there was no legal provision for the heir to swear such an oath. However, it was clearly inspired by the Swedish tradition whereby princes upon reaching their 18th birthday swore an oath of allegiance during the Swedish State Opening of Parliament (the present King of Sweden was the last prince to do so, in 1965 – the oath disappeared with new Constitution in 1975, but Crown Princess Victoria made an informal pledge of loyalty on her 18th birthday in 1995).
It was also pointed out that Prince Gustaf Adolf’s father, Crown Prince Gustaf, had sworn the same oath when accompanying his father to the State Opening of Parliament on 7 February 1877. There are however no indications that Crown Prince Carl swore such an oath in 1845 or Crown Prince Carl Johan in 1814, but on the other hand Crown Prince Oscar swore an oath of loyalty during his father’s coronation in 1818.
No such oath has been sworn following the dissolution of the union of crowns with Sweden in 1905, but the Crown Prince makes a written oath along the same lines when he becomes eligible for acting as Regent.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
