Spain: Princess Letizia pregnant

In a communiqu=E9 posted on the official web site of the Spanish
message, it was announced today that HRH Princess Letizia is expecting
her second child, due in the month of May.

The announcement reignites the debate over succession to the throne, a
topic that recently had received little attention in Spanish politics.
A male child would take precedence over Princess Letizia and Prince
Felipe's first child, the Infanta Leonor. Spain's government has vowed
to put an end to preference for males in succession. In order to make
good that promise, President Rodr=EDguez Zapatero now faces the
unappealing prospect of passing a law changing the rules and then
calling for a new general election to ratify the changes before May of

Antonio...

e=2E

2007, nearly a year before the next election would be due to take place.

Don Aitken...

Unless they do what the Swedes did, and make the change *after* the
child is born.

Dag T. Hoelseth...

It is of course true that the changes to the Swedish succession law
came into force after Prince Carl Philip was born, and he was titled
Crown Prince for a short while, but everyone knew that this was only a
temporary arrangement, as the process to change the law had started
years before it came into force (on 1 January 1980). Chapter 8 Article

"A fundamental law shall be adopted by means of two decisions of
identical wording. The second decision may not be taken until elections
for the Parliament have been held throughout the country following the
first decision, and the newly-elected Parliament has been convened. Not
less than nine months shall furthermore elapse between the time when
the matter was first submitted to the Chamber of the Parliament and the
time of the election, unless the Constitutional Committee of the
Parliament grants an exemption from this provision by means of a
decision taken not later than the Committee stage, and in which no
fewer than five sixths of the members concur."

The Riksdag votes were dated 20 April 1978 and 7 November 1979, in
other words the first before the prince was born in 1979.

Dag T. Hoelseth

Antonio...

But that would be more complicated in the Spanish case. The Prince of
Asturias himself is not the eldest child of the Sovereign. If the
amendment were to apply to people already born and placed in the order
of succession, that would afect Prince Felipe as well, and that is not
desired.

The proposal is to preserve Felipe=B4s situation, since he has already
been groomed for the Throne, and change the rule for royals born in the
future. Now, if the second Asturias child is a male and he is born
before the reform, that would create problems. Of course, the proposed
goal of preserving Felipe=B4s place in the succession and making the
change apply to his children could still be achieved, but not with the
same elegance and legal logic.

In principle, the right to inheirit is determined by the laws in force
at the time of the sucession only. Thus, if no proviso is made and the
rules are simply changed, Felipe would loose his place too. However, it
would require simple language to make the gender-blind rule apply only
to people born after the entry into force of the reform. It would be
seen as a logical attempt to preserve the "expectations of right" of
those already placed in the succession order. Now, a rule safeguarding
some people already born and not safeguarding others gives unequal
treatment to people who are in the same situation.

Antonio...

Report of the Council of State on proposed reforms of the Constitution

Don Aitken...

The simplest solution, I think, would be to apply the new rule to
those born, not after the date of entry into force, but after the date
on which the proposal is first formally introduced to the Cortes,
treating only those born before that date as having an established
right. Not ideally elegant, but workable.

Francois R. Velde...

The way the Belgians dealt with the problem was to make the change
applicable not from a specific point in time onward, but from a specific
point in the line of succession onward (see the Constitution, title IX,
part I).

=?iso-8859-1?B?SmFuIEL2aG1l?=...

This was essentially what the Swedes did, although it wasn't expressed
so clearly. The parliament had no real qualms about depriving Prince
Carl Philip of his hitherto rights, as they had already taken the
change of the constitution in its first reading, and only waited for a
new parliament to convene after the election for the second, and
definitive, reading.

Jan B=F6hme

jkeel_2001...

Especially since the prince was only an infant, by the time of the
second vote (the first vote occuring even before he was born): unlike
the Norwegian heir, he didn't grow up with the expectation of
inheriting the throne. As such, the consequences were only
theoretical, not practical.

A common explanation given, regarding the king's objection to
Parliament's actions, is that he was opposed only to retroactive
application of the new law -- not to female succession per se.
However, I've always suspected that there were more things governing
his sentiments -- when considering the fact that Carl XVI Gustaf was in
the small minority of dissenters to the measure (obviously, since
majority rule must have held sway for the declaration of Princess
Victoria as heiress apparent).

It has been explained that the king was, from the beginning, against
the idea of his daughter one day inheriting the throne -- although he
probably wasn't opposed to her having some kind of succession rights.
He is said to have personally favored male-preferred primogeniture
(like the British system) as the new law -- and undoubtedly envisioned
Victoria as one day being displaced from her presumptive rights, by the
birth of a brother (if he didn't necessarily wish for a son as his
firstborn child, it was probably because he didn't expect Sweden's
Parliament to one day adopt such a radical law as fully cognatic
primogeniture -- although he must have been aware that the issue was
already being studied and debated at the time of her birth).

The fact of the matter, however, is that adopting even male-preferred
primogeniture, in such a manner as to give his daughter presumptive
rights, would have been a retroactive measure -- precisely by
displacing Prince Bertil in the succession. This would have been the
case regardless of when exactly the Swedish Parliament enacted such a
law -- whether before Victoria's birth, between her birth and that of
her brother, or sometime after the birth of Carl Philip.

I cannot imagine the king being opposed to having his daughter being
born heiress to the throne, so as to displace an elderly uncle who was
unlikely to ever have any children of his own -- so long as her rights
were subject to displacement by the birth of a brother later on. I
also cannot imagine His Majesty being opposed to Victoria being
inserted into the succession sometime after her birth (even after the
arrival of Carl Philip), by a change of law -- if the only person being
displaced was her great-uncle (this kind of retroactive application of
a new succession law was precisely what occured in 1953 Denmark:
although it was only male-preferred primogeniture, so as to give
presumptive rights to King Frederik IX's three daughters, it was enough
to displace three male heirs in line to the throne).

As such, the argument that the Swedish king was opposed only to the
principle of retroactively a new law doesn't hold much sway (history
has shown us that it's almost impossible for new laws not to have SOME
kind of retroactive consequences; after all, oftentimes new laws are
passed precisely to change the status quo).

The way I see it: Carl XVI Gustaf is simply a traditional-minded person
regarding royal succession -- advocating a system that favors the
accession of kings. This sentiment is entirely understandable, when
you consider where he comes from: after all, he himself was born the
youngest of five children -- but only son -- in his family. So it's
only natural for him to find absolute primogeniture too radical for his
taste (a blow to his masculine pride, if you will).

If one examines the press reports at the time, he expressed precisely
just this sort of sentiment (that perhaps the Swedes had a "preference"
for kings) -- IN ADDITION to (and if you will, independently of) his
negative view of retroactively applying a new succession law.

I am doubting not that opposition to the principle of retroactive
application (which in this case carried the practical consequence of
displacing his son as heir) was indeed A governing force behind the
king's reaction. =20

Only that it was the ONLY one.

(Gary Holtzman) garyholtzman...

Couldn't the law be framed so as to mention the don Felipe by name and specify
that it is among his descendants that the new rules apply, followed by his
sisters by the same order?

=?iso-8859-1?B?SmFuIEL2aG1l?=...

The fact that this flew in Sweden depended on no major political force
making a fuss about it. If the PP opposes it, the Spanish situation
will be quite different from the Swedish case, where the only one
making a fuss - and then rather subtly - was the King, who ordered the
full forty-two rounds of salute for an heir to the throne when Prince
Carl Philip was born - technically Crown Prince Carl Philip.

Antonio...

There seems to be a political consensus among the main political
parties in Spain. Even the prince of Asturias has expressed this view
that such a change would be a good thing. The big stumbling block in
Spain are the rules for amending that part of the Constitution. The
move must be approved by the present Cortes, then the Cortes
immediately dissolve upon approving the measure, and new Cortes are
elected with special powers to decide the proposition. After approval
by the second Cortes, the constitutional reform must be ratifyed by the
Spanish people in a referendum. If the amendment passes in the
referendum, the constitutional reform is then solemnly promulgated by
the monarch.

Jan B=F6hme