Earlier I replied to the posts about the King's opinion of the change of the Act of Succession
in the Change of the Act of Succession thread. But, given that the discussion about the succession has now been moved back to this thread, I will repost the most relevant parts of my replies here.
The Office of the Marshal of the Realm, i.e. the Royal Court, formally recommended to Parliament in 1977 that it change the Act of Succession to the same system used in Denmark, the Netherlands, and Great Britain. At the time, these three countries allowed a woman to be queen if and only if she had no brothers.
I think it is safe to say that the recommendation of the Royal Court is the recommendation of the King.
Note that in its recommendation, the Office supports introducing equal primogeniture
if introducing the Danish/Dutch/British system is unfeasible, but it strongly recommends implementing it for future descendants only and allowing the King's potential future oldest son if born before the change to become king, bypassing Victoria.
Refer to the Riksmarskalksämbetet's comments on page 29 and 15.
om kvinnlig tronföljd Proposition 1977/78:71 - Riksdagen
And regarding the King's interviews in 1980 and 2003:
For future reference, here are the quotes in Swedish from the 2003 Aftonbladet article:
Kungen: Grundlagen är lustig | Aftonbladet
Det har kungen ännu inte accepterat.
- Självklart, svarade han i går i en intervju med Rapport på frågan om han tycker att grundlagsändringen var fel.
- Jag tycker det är enkelt. En grundlag som arbetar retrospektivt, det är lustigt.
Tidigare kritik
Och redan 1980 ska kungen ha uttalat sig kritiskt mot lagändringen.
- Själv vill jag ha min son Carl Philip som efterträdare, sa han då enligt Vestmanlands läns tidning.
And here are the quotes translated into English:
I couldn't quite comprehend the recent threads, but here is another article on it:
http://pub.tv2.no/nettavisen/english/article158322.ece
NEWS IN ENGLISH
SWEDEN:
Victoria's father does not want her as queen
Tilrettelagt av
Carin Pettersson 25.11.03 10:59
It is 23 years since the constitution was changed, but Carl XVI Gustav of Sweden is still not comfortable with the law change that makes his oldest daughter the next regent of Sweden.
“It’s strange,” said Carl Gustav in an interview on Swedish television Sunday.
Prince Carl Philip was born as the Swedish Crown Prince in 1979, but the Swedish government changed the constitution in 1980, making the oldest child inherit the throne. Suddenly Victoria became the Crown princess, and Carl Philip was degraded to prince.
The King of Sweden apparently still has a hard time with accepting the change.
“I think it’s simple, a constitution that works in retroactive force is strange.”
The King of Sweden has always been against the law change. In 1980 Carl Gustav said the following, according to the paper Vestmanland:
“I would prefer that my son Carl Philip is my successor, and I’m sure that the majority of the Swedish people would prefer to have a king on the throne.”
The Swedish court was Monday very specific when it stressed that the Kings comments do not mean that he is displeased with Crown Princess Victoria or the job she does.
The statements from the King were not at all appreciated by Swedish politicians. Gudrun Schyman, the Liberal Parties former leader, said the King’s statements is another argument to why Sweden should abolish the monarchy, and she said that she thinks it is horrible if the King questions a democratic decision.
Interesting article.. Surely he would have had a say at the time??
Swedish king says his son, not daughter, should take over throne
Mon Nov 24
STOCKHOLM (AFP) - Twenty-three years have passed since Sweden adopted a new Succession Act, but King Carl Gustaf XVI is still upset that his eldest child, Princess Victoria, and not his only son will become Sweden's next monarch.
The Swedish Constitution was changed in 1980, giving the eldest child of the royal couple the right to the throne, regardless of gender.
The new law stripped seven-month-old Carl Philip of the title of Crown Prince and made his elder sister Victoria, now 26, heir to the throne.
Victoria is hugely popular in Sweden and is widely viewed as a capable and worthy successor to her father, but the king nonetheless said at the weekend that he was displeased by the change in the law.
Asked by Swedish television whether he still believed the change was wrong, he said:
"Of course. It's simple. A constitutional law that works retroactively, that's odd," he said.
A spokesman for the royal family, Elisabeth Tarras-Wahlberg, stressed that the king was however very pleased with the way Victoria was carrying out her duties as crown princess.
The King referred to the constitutional amendment as retroactive (assuming the translation is accurate). In fact, it was not. To be technical, a "retroactive" law is a law that applies to a period of time
prior to the entry into force of the law.
An example of a true retroactive law is the section of the
British Succession to the Crown Act that recognized certain marriages which were not recognized as valid until the law entered into force. The British law stated that "A void marriage under that Act is to be treated as
never having been void if [...]". Should an affected person have contracted an invalid marriage in 2010, not only would their marriage be valid after the law entered into force in 2015, but their marriage would be treated as if it had been valid in the period from 2010 to 2015.
The amendment of the Act of Succession in 1980 would have been an actual retroactive law if, for instance, it stated that Victoria would be treated as if she had been Crown Princess from birth.
But that is not what is stated in the law. It entered into force on January 1, 1980, and Victoria became Crown Princess with effect from January 1, 1980. To this day, Carl Philip is treated as having been the Crown Prince from May 13 through December 31, 1979.
AFAIK he did say that he didn't like the idea of the change being retroactive..and that he'd prefer his son to succeed him... but while that's understandable on a personal level, the fact was that the public wanted to change the law... and that meant that Carl Philip' as the second child would not succeed....
JR76's point was that he did not say he preferred his son to succeed him
in 2003. He expressed his preference for his son in the 1970s and 1980s, including the interview from 1980 quoted above, but in the 2003 interview he apparently restrained himself to criticizing the supposed "retroactivity" of the change.