Swedish nobility and gentry
Johan Olofsson
I've received the following text with the proposal to merge it to the
historical texts in the soc.culture.nordic FAQ. Since I've very
limited knowledge about these questions I would appreciate comments
indicating the reliability of the texts.
I also think it would have been much more interesting if the situation
in Norway, Denmark, Finland (and Iceland?) were covered by the text
too, but that might be beyond my capacity...
Swedish nobility and gentry
The noble estate isn't abolished as in France (1848) or Germany (1918) but
their privileged position has been weakened step by step from 1680 and
forth. In contrast to the Benelux countries no hereditary titles or honors
have been granted for over 200 years. (Actually it has been to the
souverains of Luxembourg and Belgium Swedish ex-princes have used to direct
their petitions for restauration of their glory after conflicts over
marriage and wives with the Swedish crown and government.)
The privileges in Sweden are nowadays limited to a protection of the
heraldic arms, and particularly two symbols: the helm with open vizor and
the crowns marking the honor.
Today three classes exists, in consistency of a reform in 1561 (restored
1719):
Counts (grevar) [ three crowns ]
Barons (friherrar) [ two crowns ]
Gentry (adel) [ one crown ]
There are no perfect translation between English and Swedish terms, and for
a Swede the English usage seems both confusing and blurred.
* Below I'll use the term peerage as equivalent to the Swedish högadeln
constituting of counts and barons and their nearest family.
* The term nobility will be used in a wide meaning, including both the
peerage and the gentry, equivalent to the Swedish adeln.
* With gentry I refer to both members of dynasties without a hereditary
title, as well as to second sons of the peerage and their descendents,
equivalent to the Swedish colloquial "knapadeln" or lågadeln.
For Swedes, maybe except the very peerage, the only important distinction is
between noble families with titles ("betitlad adel" - högadel) and families
without ("obetitlad adel" - lågadel).
The archaic term "the frälse" includes also the clergy while referring to
their exemption from tax. The term "ridderskapet" (the knighthood) was
particularly in medieval times used referring to them who financed and
served in the cavalry. Now "ridderskapet" is a solemn synonym for adeln.
Since 1866 noble birth gives no political privileges, and since the begin of
the 20th century also no precedence to positions as civil or military
officers.
The nobility in Sweden and Finland dates back to 1280 when it was agreed
that magnates who could afford to contribute to the cavalry with a
horse-soldier were like the clergy to be exempted from tax - at least from
ordinary taxes. The background was that the old system of a leiðangr fleet
and a king on constant travels in the realm became outmoded and in need of
replacement. The crown's court and castles were now to be financed through
taxes on land.
Soon it was also agreed that the king should govern the realm in cooperation
with a State Council where the bishops and the most distinguished among the
magnates (i.e. the most prominent contributors to the army) participated.
When troublesome decisions were necessary all of the frälse was summoned to
diets.
The Swedish nobility had no hereditary fiefs.
After the Engelbrecht rebellion 1434-36 four estates used to be summoned to
diets: nobility, clergy, burghers and peasantry. The highest estate
comprised all the wealth in the realm why formalized privilege rules were
either unnecessary or self-evident. However, at the end of the 16th century,
from 1568, privileges were arranged - particularly important for the gentry
which came to constitute the backbone of the civil service.
The 17th century was the golden epoque of the peerage. At the end of queen
Christina's reign 1654 the twelve peers of 1625 had multiplied to 81
dynasties; lots of counties had been granted in reward for duties in the
30-years war, and thereby reducing the tax (and rent) incomes for the state.
Not only were the lands and incomes of the nobility exempt from taxation,
but with the raise to peerage followed often also grants of state-owned
lands. Seemingly the wage-demands raised as much among higher state officers
of the 17th century as at the end of the 20th.
Politically the peerage secured a leading role 1626-1680 by the invention of
a new noble class (23 dynasties called the knighthood) between the 12
peerage dynasties and the écuyers ("Swains" - Svenneklassen) of the gentry.
The new class consisted of descendants to prior members of the State
Council, which again became very influential 1626-1672 as the kings and
queens used to be under age or abroad in wars. At votings in the first
estate the peerage, the knighthood and the gentry had one vote each.
35 noble dynasties got two votes against the one vote by the 90 dynasties of
the gentry. Thirty years later it was two votes to 81 noble dynasties and
one vote for the other 600 dynasties.
King Karl XI took support by the three lower estates 1680, withdraw most of
the granted land, and was made dictator. The State Council was however not
abolished until Gustav III's second revolution 1789, confirmed in the
constitution of 1809. The economic and politic supremacy of the peerage was
however finished.
His son Karl XII failed in his wars, and was followed by 53 years of
parliamentarism during which the first estate was ruled by the poor gentry
earning their living as state officers. The clergy was ruled by poor
priests, the burghers in the third estate weren't yet rich and the peasantry
wasn't either.
Parliamentarians in all estates became notorious for their contentiousness
and susceptibility to bribes. The rich peerage could maybe have been less
corruptible, but they were far too few to have any influence in the majority
decisions and the party strifes. The principle of peers in the State Council
got less and less support until the council was definitely abolished
1809/12.
In the 1860:s the first estate negotiated about its own abolition. Probably
it could be argued that the liberals of the noble estate managed to save the
nation from much societal disturbance through the acceptance of a
compromise: hereditary political privileges were exchanged for political
privileges to the rich and wealthy.
Today approximately 30'000 Swedes belong to the nobility (in the wide
sense). There are 46 counts, however not necessarily with a county of
theirs; 124 barons and 450 dynasties of the gentry. ...Oh, yes, "county" in
this sense has nothing to do with the regional governmental units (the län)
but stands for the lands over which the forefathers of the count once had
certain privileges.
Members of the nobility aren't usually recognized as such. When it's called
to attention, it's more likely to serve as disparaging or ridiculing.
Although the peerage might be correctly refereed to and addressed in gossip
magazines.
The title of barons is "Friherren" but in speech they are
addressed as "Baron" (the baron). With counts and royals it's much
easier: they are always "the Count, "the Prince", "the Queen" or
"the King" (Greven, Prinsen, Drottningen & Kungen). Words as Ers
nåd or Ers Kungliga Höghet (my Lord, your Lordship, Your Royal
Highness) belong to the world of historic films and novels.
...well, of course there exists one exception. Of Sweden's
124 barons one actually has the hereditary title "Baron" and the
equivalent to an own county (Baroniet Adelswärd) in south eastern
Östergötland / north eastern Småland.
From the constitution of 1809 new peerages and knight-ships aren't
hereditary.
The last person made a knight was the explorer Sven Hedin in 1902.
Since 1809 it's also enacted that a hereditary noble title is inherited only
by the oldest living son an no-one else.
It's now probably now surprise for the reader that the nobility (i.e.
belonging to the gentry) of politicians as the former prime minister Carl
Bildt or the late Social Democratic Cabinet member and UN Secretary General
Dag Hammarsköld never has been made a part of their image.
--
e-mail: j...@lysator.liu.se
s-mail: Majeldsvägen 8a, 582 63 LINKÖPING, Sweden
Pieter Kuiper
In article <yzzpw20...@tinkerbell.lysator.liu.se>, Johan Olofsson
<j...@lysator.liu.se> wrote:
>I've received the following text with the proposal to merge it to the
>historical texts in the soc.culture.nordic FAQ. Since I've very
>limited knowledge about these questions I would appreciate comments
>indicating the reliability of the texts.
....
> In contrast to the Benelux countries no hereditary titles or honors
>have been granted for over 200 years. (Actually it has been to the
>souverains of Luxembourg and Belgium Swedish ex-princes have used to direct
>their petitions for restauration of their glory after conflicts over
>marriage and wives with the Swedish crown and government.)
When? (There is a King of Belgians only since 1830.)
What Swedish ex-princes? Princes of royal blood?
And Luxembourg? It is 'only' a Grand-Duchy (before 1890 or so in personal
union with the king of the Netherlands).
--
Pieter
stuck in the WWeb at http://usx218.fysik.uu.se/PieterWWW/
Monte Bohna
Johan Olofsson wrote:
>
> I've received the following text with the proposal to merge it to the
> historical texts in the soc.culture.nordic FAQ. Since I've very
> limited knowledge about these questions I would appreciate comments
> indicating the reliability of the texts.
I can't speak to the reliability of the work, but I can offer thanks for
an interesting overview, as well as some suggestions.
> I also think it would have been much more interesting if the situation
> in Norway, Denmark, Finland (and Iceland?) were covered by the text
> too, but that might be beyond my capacity...
I would be delighted to see a broader treatment.
> Swedish nobility and gentry{Snip}
> The Swedish nobility had no hereditary fiefs.
This could use some elaboration. "Fief" can mean several things, and I'm
not sure what is meant here. Loosely, it can mean hereditary estates -
landed wealth. I assume the Swedish nobility have (or had) landed
estates. More exactly, the term can refer to jurisdictional power
associated with a landed estate or region - i.e. the French noble's
"ban". Is this what is meant here? So the Swedish nobility were much
more like the English than the continental nobillities, being primarily
land-owners without significant public/governmental powers?
> Today approximately 30'000 Swedes belong to the nobility (in the wide
> sense). There are 46 counts, however not necessarily with a county of
> theirs; 124 barons and 450 dynasties of the gentry. ...Oh, yes, "county" in
> this sense has nothing to do with the regional governmental units (the län)
> but stands for the lands over which the forefathers of the count once had
> certain privileges.
So "county" is merely the landed estate of a count, or at least what was
once the landed estate of a count? But what is meant by "once had
certain priviliges? If a count no longer owns a farm, what is the
connection, apart from a sentimental one?
And as an aside, are the Swedish nobility still land-owners, or have
they been forced to sell their lands to pay inheritance taxes and so on?
> Members of the nobility aren't usually recognized as such. When it's called
> to attention, it's more likely to serve as disparaging or ridiculing.
> Although the peerage might be correctly refereed to and addressed in gossip
> magazines.
What is the connection between the Swedish court and the nobility? Are
traditional court offices (does Sweden have a Chamberlain, a Steward, or
similar offices of state?) held by noblemen as in the U.K.? Or has
Sweden's monarchy distanced itself from the nobility?
> The title of barons is "Friherren" but in speech they are
> addressed as "Baron" (the baron). With counts and royals it's much
> easier: they are always "the Count, "the Prince", "the Queen" or
> "the King" (Greven, Prinsen, Drottningen & Kungen). Words as Ers
> nåd or Ers Kungliga Höghet (my Lord, your Lordship, Your Royal
> Highness) belong to the world of historic films and novels.
So, suppose I am a Swede who is introduced to the King. Do I address him
as Majestat or whatever is the Swedish form of the word? Or is it Sir
and Ma'am, as with the Windsors? Or would I say, "Pleased to meet you,
Kungen"?
> From the constitution of 1809 new peerages and knight-ships aren't
> hereditary.
So does this mean that Sweden has a life peerage? Are Swede created
Count or Freiherr for life? How often is this done? Commonly, or has it
lapsed, like knighthoods?
> The last person made a knight was the explorer Sven Hedin in 1902.
>
> Since 1809 it's also enacted that a hereditary noble title is inherited only
> by the oldest living son an no-one else.
So presumably there is a steady attrition of titles, when families fail
to produce a male heir? What happens - do the daughters of a count
without sons become adel rather than hoch-adel? Are lapsed titles ever
revived?
> It's now probably now surprise for the reader that the nobility (i.e.
> belonging to the gentry) of politicians as the former prime minister Carl
> Bildt or the late Social Democratic Cabinet member and UN Secretary General
> Dag Hammarsköld never has been made a part of their image.
Interesting. Are these examples exceptional, or is it fairly common to
find nobles in public life in Sweden, even if they try to obscure the
fact? Do they still figure prominently in social life? Economic life -
is it common to have a noble title or two on a Board of Directors, as it
is in the U.K.?
Monte Bohna
Jan Böhme
kui...@fysik.uu.se (Pieter Kuiper) wrote:
>In article <yzzpw20...@tinkerbell.lysator.liu.se>, Johan Olofsson
><j...@lysator.liu.se> wrote:
>>I've received the following text with the proposal to merge it to the
>>historical texts in the soc.culture.nordic FAQ. Since I've very
>>limited knowledge about these questions I would appreciate comments
>>indicating the reliability of the texts.
>....
>> In contrast to the Benelux countries no hereditary titles or honors
>>have been granted for over 200 years. (Actually it has been to the
>>souverains of Luxembourg and Belgium Swedish ex-princes have used to direct
>>their petitions for restauration of their glory after conflicts over
>>marriage and wives with the Swedish crown and government.)
>When? (There is a King of Belgians only since 1830.)
In the 1880:s and then again in the 1930:s and 1940:s
>What Swedish ex-princes? Princes of royal blood?
Yep. Princes of royal blood who had lost their princely rank by
marrying without the consent of the sovereign. (For all practical
matters, for marrying beneath their rank)
>And Luxembourg? It is 'only' a Grand-Duchy (before 1890 or so in personal
>union with the king of the Netherlands).
Yes, but it is still a bona fide fountain of honour (I know it sounds
ridiculous, but that _is_ actually the technical term), and the
Grand-Duke can confer counthoods on whomever he chooses.
Jan Böhme
Klaus Ole Kristiansen
Johan Olofsson <j...@lysator.liu.se> writes:
>I also think it would have been much more interesting if the situation
>in Norway, Denmark, Finland (and Iceland?) were covered by the text
>too, but that might be beyond my capacity...
All privileges of title or rank are abolished. This clause from our
first free constitution (1849) has been retained in all later constitutions.
We have three grades of nobleman: greve, baron, and untitled noble.
Every son inherits his father's status.
Or rather had. No-one keeps track of who is an untitled noble anymore.
Many Danes would consider "untitled noble" an oxymoron.
Klaus O K
Jan Böhme
Johan Olofsson <j...@lysator.liu.se> wrote:
>I've received the following text with the proposal to merge it to the
>historical texts in the soc.culture.nordic FAQ. Since I've very
>limited knowledge about these questions I would appreciate comments
>indicating the reliability of the texts.
>I also think it would have been much more interesting if the situation
>in Norway, Denmark, Finland (and Iceland?) were covered by the text
>too, but that might be beyond my capacity...
> Swedish nobility and gentry
>The noble estate isn't abolished as in France (1848) or Germany (1918) but
>their privileged position has been weakened step by step from 1680 and
>forth. In contrast to the Benelux countries no hereditary titles or honors
>have been granted for over 200 years.
Wrong. The last person to be nobilitated in Sweden wes Sven Hedin, the
explorer, in 1902. And his title was hereditary, too. Only he wasn't
married, not taking too keen an interest in women, and thus concluded
his own noble house. Adolf Fredrik Nordenskjöld, already a nobleman by
birth, received a baronage after the completion of the North-East
passage in 1885 or thereabouts.
> (Actually it has been to the
>souverains of Luxembourg and Belgium Swedish ex-princes have used to direct
>their petitions for restauration of their glory after conflicts over
>marriage and wives with the Swedish crown and government.)
>The privileges in Sweden are nowadays limited to a protection of the
>heraldic arms, and particularly two symbols: the helm with open vizor and
>the crowns marking the honor.
>Today three classes exists, in consistency of a reform in 1561 (restored
>1719):
>Counts (grevar) [ three crowns ]
>Barons (friherrar) [ two crowns ]
>Gentry (adel) [ one crown ]
Three, two, and one crown is not the normal way of distinguishing
between the different ranks of the House of Nobility. Rather, the
countal crown looks different from the baronial one, which in turn is
different from that of the ordinary nobility. Strangely enough, the
crown of a count and an untitled nobelman are relatively similar,
whereas the baronial crown looks quite different.
In addition the untitled families are adtually subdivided into two
groups: "kommendörsätter" (commander nobility, or whatever) and truly
ordinary nobility.
"Gentry" might a reasonable _description_ for "adel", but I would
argue against its use for the lowest class of the House of Nobility,
since the "gentry" of Great Britain very clearly are commoners, and
_not_ noble. "Untitled nobility", or, perhaps "plain nobility" is more
suitable to describe a noble rank to my mind, just as we don't call
our counts "earls" in English, just beacuse it would be the nearest
British equivalent.
>There are no perfect translation between English and Swedish terms, and for
>a Swede the English usage seems both confusing and blurred.
> * Below I'll use the term peerage as equivalent to the Swedish högadeln
> constituting of counts and barons and their nearest family.
> * The term nobility will be used in a wide meaning, including both the
> peerage and the gentry, equivalent to the Swedish adeln.
> * With gentry I refer to both members of dynasties without a hereditary
> title, as well as to second sons of the peerage and their descendents,
> equivalent to the Swedish colloquial "knapadeln" or lågadeln.
Again, this usage is unadvisable. The Swedish system of nobility is
the continental one, _not_ the British one, and following the language
of the British peerage only causes confusion.
>For Swedes, maybe except the very peerage, the only important distinction is
>between noble families with titles ("betitlad adel" - högadel) and families
>without ("obetitlad adel" - lågadel).
>The archaic term "the frälse" includes also the clergy while referring to
>their exemption from tax. The term "ridderskapet" (the knighthood) was
>particularly in medieval times used referring to them who financed and
>served in the cavalry.
I contest that. At least during the late middle ages, "ridderskapet"
meant the families with a member that had been personally made a
knight by the King. This was a rare honour, normally held by no more
than thirty people at the same time, and often considerably less.
>Now "ridderskapet" is a solemn synonym for adeln.
><snip>.
>The Swedish nobility had no hereditary fiefs.
However, they of course had hereditary estates, which could be very
extensive. Bo Jonsson Grip (d. 1386) had 1500 farms as personal
property, beside his fiefs, with comprised the larger part of the
realm. These fiefs were not entirely non-inheritable, either; Bo
Jonsson's fiefs were not reduced back to the sovereign, but held in
trust by the executioners of his will.
>After the Engelbrecht rebellion 1434-36 four estates used to be summoned to
>diets: nobility, clergy, burghers and peasantry. The highest estate
>comprised all the wealth in the realm why formalized privilege rules were
>either unnecessary or self-evident.
Not quite true. Quite a considerable part of the wealth in
late-medieval Sweden was concentrated in the hands of the clergy.
><snip>
>King Karl XI took support by the three lower estates 1680, withdraw most of
>the granted land, and was made dictator. The State Council was however not
>abolished until Gustav III's second revolution 1789, confirmed in the
>constitution of 1809. The economic and politic supremacy of the peerage was
>however finished.
Isn't it pretty commonplace to write Charles XI or XII in English,
even when referring to Swedish Kings? None of tha monarchs above ever
signed their names as "Karl", by the way. Most of the time, it was the
Latin "Carolus"; on rarer occasions "Carl" with a C. But never "Karl".
>His son Karl XII failed in his wars, and was followed by 53 years of
>parliamentarism during which the first estate was ruled by the poor gentry
>earning their living as state officers. The clergy was ruled by poor
>priests, the burghers in the third estate weren't yet rich and the peasantry
>wasn't either.
>Parliamentarians in all estates became notorious for their contentiousness
>and susceptibility to bribes. The rich peerage could maybe have been less
>corruptible, but they were far too few to have any influence in the majority
>decisions and the party strifes. The principle of peers in the State Council
>got less and less support until the council was definitely abolished
>1809/12.
The State Council was, for all practical purposes, abolished already
in 1789, when the King in the Act of Union and Security (Förenings-
coh säkerhetsakten) got the power to decide the number of the
Councillors, and promptly set the number to zero.
>In the 1860:s the first estate negotiated about its own abolition. Probably
>it could be argued that the liberals of the noble estate managed to save the
>nation from much societal disturbance through the acceptance of a
>compromise: hereditary political privileges were exchanged for political
>privileges to the rich and wealthy.
That was what they thought; Louis de Geer talked about "placing the
power in the hands of the middle class". However, it tured out that
the farmers were rich enough to count, and Swedish politics at the end
of the 19th century were dominated by the Farmer's interests, rather
than those of the middle class.
>Today approximately 30'000 Swedes belong to the nobility (in the wide
>sense). There are 46 counts, however not necessarily with a county of
>theirs; 124 barons and 450 dynasties of the gentry. ...Oh, yes, "county" in
>this sense has nothing to do with the regional governmental units (the län)
>but stands for the lands over which the forefathers of the count once had
>certain privileges.
Watch out: There are 46 countal _families_. However, in the Swedish
system, all male members of a countal family are styled as counts.
Continental style, you know.(There are some exceptions concerning
counts (or barons) created after 1809 in accordance with Article 37 of
the Constitution. There, only the head of the family (or, in a couple
of bizarre cases, only the head and his oldest son) have the right to
the title. Or the rank, in the case of untitled nobility.)
Therefore, there are considarebly more than 46 counts in Sweden. A
large countal family, such as the house of Hamilton, can easily have
as many counts as that within its own ranks.
Same goes for barons, of course.
>Members of the nobility aren't usually recognized as such. When it's called
>to attention, it's more likely to serve as disparaging or ridiculing.
>Although the peerage might be correctly refereed to and addressed in gossip
>magazines.
Some noble names, starting vith "von" or "af" are usually recognised
as such, although no special deference is made to their bearers.Other
noble families have names so similar to Swedish commoner's names that
one has to be a specialist in genealogy or avid reader of
"Adelskalendern" (the Swedish equivalent of Burke's Peerage or
Almanach de Gotha) to recognise them as noble.
> The title of barons is "Friherren" but in speech they are
> addressed as "Baron" (the baron). With counts and royals it's much
> easier: they are always "the Count, "the Prince", "the Queen" or
> "the King" (Greven, Prinsen, Drottningen & Kungen). Words as Ers
> nåd or Ers Kungliga Höghet (my Lord, your Lordship, Your Royal
> Highness) belong to the world of historic films and novels.
Although "Ers majestät" ("Your Majesty") as adress to the King seems
to have regained popularity over those last years.
> ...well, of course there exists one exception. Of Sweden's
> 124 barons one actually has the hereditary title "Baron" and the
> equivalent to an own county (Baroniet Adelswärd) in south eastern
> Östergötland / north eastern Småland.
Well, of course it is a barony, not a county, then.
>From the constitution of 1809 new peerages and knight-ships aren't
>hereditary.
This is a misconception. See above and below. No non-hereditary
peerage or knighthood has ever been conferred in Sweden.
>The last person made a knight was the explorer Sven Hedin in 1902.
>Since 1809 it's also enacted that a hereditary noble title is inherited only
>by the oldest living son an no-one else.
This is highly misleading. Reality is, as outlined above, that
post-1809 titles and knighhoods are worn only by the head of the
family. However, the privilege of other members of older noble
families to title or nobility has _not_ been touched.
>It's now probably now surprise for the reader that the nobility (i.e.
>belonging to the gentry) of politicians as the former prime minister Carl
>Bildt or the late Social Democratic Cabinet member and UN Secretary General
>Dag Hammarsköld never has been made a part of their image.
Although both had/have a kind of "stiff upper lip" image that is to
some extent consistent with their noble origin.
General comment: The text uses questionable English terms pertaining
to the very peculiar British system of nobility, and is fraught with
major misconceptions as regards the heritability of Swedish titles.
I have tried to straighten out all that I have spotted, but there are
probably errors hidden in the above text mass that I have not
detected.
In addition, I agree that it would be good to include sections on the
Danish and Finnish nobility. The Norwegian nobility essentailly died
out during the Black Death, and today's Norway does not recognise
noble rank, so there might not be too much to write about there. The
Finnish situation is, for historical reasons, realtively similar to
that of Sweden. An interesting feature of the Finnish nobility is that
it is, to this day, predominantly Swedish-speaking.
The Danish situation is quite complex, and in some respects different
to the Swedish case outlined above. Unfortunately, my expertise in
Danish nobility and its ways is highly limited.
Jan Böhme
Rolf Manne
Jan....@imun.su.se (Jan Böhme) wrote:
>kui...@fysik.uu.se (Pieter Kuiper) wrote:
>>In article <yzzpw20...@tinkerbell.lysator.liu.se>, Johan Olofsson
>><j...@lysator.liu.se> wrote:
>>>I've received the following text with the proposal to merge it to the
>>>historical texts in the soc.culture.nordic FAQ. Since I've very
>>>limited knowledge about these questions I would appreciate comments
>>>indicating the reliability of the texts.
>>....
>>> In contrast to the Benelux countries no hereditary titles or honors
>>>have been granted for over 200 years. (Actually it has been to the
>>>souverains of Luxembourg and Belgium Swedish ex-princes have used to direct
>>>their petitions for restauration of their glory after conflicts over
>>>marriage and wives with the Swedish crown and government.)
>>When? (There is a King of Belgians only since 1830.)
>In the 1880:s and then again in the 1930:s and 1940:s
>>What Swedish ex-princes? Princes of royal blood?
>Yep. Princes of royal blood who had lost their princely rank by
>marrying without the consent of the sovereign. (For all practical
>matters, for marrying beneath their rank)
>>And Luxembourg? It is 'only' a Grand-Duchy (before 1890 or so in personal
>>union with the king of the Netherlands).
>Yes, but it is still a bona fide fountain of honour (I know it sounds
>ridiculous, but that _is_ actually the technical term), and the
>Grand-Duke can confer counthoods on whomever he chooses.
When Prince Oscar Bernadotte married without the official consent of
his father, King Oscar II, he got his princely title from his mother's
brother, the grand-duke of Luxemburg. As Jan Böhme writes, this was in
the 1880's. I believe that the title "count of Wisborg" which was/is
used by his descendants and by other Swedish royalty marrying without
royal consent has been given by the grand-dukes of Luxemburg.
In the 1930's Prince Carl (Junior) got a princely title from his
brother-in-law King Leopold III of Belgium under similar
circumstances.
All these details are rather silly, and I think they matter very
little. I have looked up the relationship between Oscar Bernadotte and
the grand-duke of Luxemburg but the rest is from memory.
Jan Böhme has done a good job (as always) at cleaning up the original
message.
Rolf Manne
Rolf Manne
kl...@diku.dk (Klaus Ole Kristiansen) wrote:
>Johan Olofsson <j...@lysator.liu.se> writes:
>>I also think it would have been much more interesting if the situation
>>in Norway, Denmark, Finland (and Iceland?) were covered by the text
>>too, but that might be beyond my capacity...
>All privileges of title or rank are abolished. This clause from our
>first free constitution (1849) has been retained in all later constitutions.
>We have three grades of nobleman: greve, baron, and untitled noble.
>Every son inherits his father's status.
>Or rather had. No-one keeps track of who is an untitled noble anymore.
>Many Danes would consider "untitled noble" an oxymoron.
In Sweden, the nobility has kept their organization "Riddarhuset"
which owns a very beautiful 17th century building in the old part of
Stockholm and which also controls some funds. I believe that it is
the same organization which puts out "Adelskalendern" which lists its
members. There are also "noble families" which for some reason or
other are outside "Riddarhuset" - so-called "icke-introducerad adel".
Some of these are of Baltic-German origin.
It used to be said that the only remaining privilege of noblemen in
Sweden was that they were entitled to be beheaded with a sword instead
of with an axe. I have also seen it clearly stated that this is
untrue.
To continue on the anecdotal level: There are 3 things which are not
found north of Dalälven - a major Swedish river: Oak trees, noblemen
and direktörer (company directors). This is largely true as regards
oak trees and noblemen. The farming country north of this limit was
not suitable for that type of large-scale farming which noble families
set up in certain parts of southern Sweden. As to "direktörer", the
traditional title for these people in northern Sweden was "disponent".
The farming condtions in Norway are similar to those in northern
Sweden, and the influence of the Norwegian nobility in Norwegian
history has been relatively minor. South of Bergen there is a manor
house called "baroniet Rosendal" donated to the University of Oslo
in the will of the last baron (early part of this century). It is a
nice place but a relatively minor attraction compared to similar
places in Sweden.
In the Norwegian constitution of 1814 there were no explicit
privileges of the noble families, and if there were any in other laws,
they were abolished shortly afterwards (quoting from memory).
I am certain, however, that those Norwegian families which once were
noble still know about that. Noone else really cares, however.
In the 1960's, when I still lived in Sweden, some of those with titles
of "greve" or "friherre" had that listed in the telephone book. I
don't know if that is done today. More in line with current ideals is
the fact that the president of the Swedish Red Cross writes her name
as "Christina Magnusson". She is the sister of the king.
I read many years ago that one difference between Denmark and the
other Nordic countries was that so-called "colored weeklies" in
Denmark wrote more about nobility than their counterparts in the
other countries. I don't know if that is true today.
Rolf Manne
Erik Berg
Rolf Manne (Rolf....@kj.uib.no) wrote:
: kl...@diku.dk (Klaus Ole Kristiansen) wrote:
:
: >Johan Olofsson <j...@lysator.liu.se> writes:
:
: >>I also think it would have been much more interesting if the situation
: >>in Norway, Denmark, Finland (and Iceland?) were covered by the text
: >>too, but that might be beyond my capacity...
:
: >All privileges of title or rank are abolished. This clause from our
: >first free constitution (1849) has been retained in all later constitutions.
[ ... snipped.. ]
: The farming condtions in Norway are similar to those in northern
: Sweden, and the influence of the Norwegian nobility in Norwegian
: history has been relatively minor. South of Bergen there is a manor
: house called "baroniet Rosendal" donated to the University of Oslo
: in the will of the last baron (early part of this century). It is a
: nice place but a relatively minor attraction compared to similar
: places in Sweden.
:
: In the Norwegian constitution of 1814 there were no explicit
: privileges of the noble families, and if there were any in other laws,
: they were abolished shortly afterwards (quoting from memory).
The constitution stated that no new noble title were to be created, and
later (in 1821) nobility was abolished. The titles would end with the
current holders. The only family that still exists is Wedel-Jarlsberg.
Not all the old Norwegian noble families died in the black plague, but
there were foreign nobility (mostly Danish, and perhaps Swedish). I'm not
sure if the old Norwegiand nobility were reckognized as such by the king
in Copenhagen, after the reformation. If not there were only 3 Norwegian
noble houses county of Jarlsberg, county of Laurvigen and the barony of
Rosendal.
: I am certain, however, that those Norwegian families which once were
: noble still know about that. Noone else really cares, however.
:
: Rolf Manne
:
--
Erik Berg
Department of Computer Systems
Faculty of Physics, Informatics and Mathematics
Norwegian University of Science and Technology
Snail : Rooseveltsvei 9, N-7058 JAKOBSLI, Norway
E-mail : eri...@stud.ntnu.no, eri...@idt.ntnu.no
WWW : http://www.stud.ntnu.no/~erikbe/
Johan Olofsson
Jan....@imun.su.se (Jan Böhme) writes:
> > * Below I'll use the term peerage as equivalent to the Swedish högadeln
> > constituting of counts and barons and their nearest family.
>
> Again, this usage is unadvisable. The Swedish system of nobility is
> the continental one, _not_ the British one, and following the language
> of the British peerage only causes confusion.
On this point I think I prefer not to follow Jan Böhme's advice,
since I feel "Counts & Barons" to be a stupid substitution when I, at
least, suspect that Barons on some places where it now stands "peer"
or "peerage" weren't intended either.
> >The archaic term "the frälse" includes also the clergy while referring to
> >their exemption from tax. The term "ridderskapet" (the knighthood) was
> >particularly in medieval times used referring to them who financed and
> >served in the cavalry.
>
> I contest that. At least during the late middle ages, "ridderskapet"
> meant the families with a member that had been personally made a
> knight by the King. This was a rare honour, normally held by no more
> than thirty people at the same time, and often considerably less.
The paragraph is removed.
> >The Swedish nobility had no hereditary fiefs.
>
> However, they of course had hereditary estates, which could be very
> extensive.
What about:
The Swedish nobility had no hereditary fiefs (län). I.e. in case they
were appointed to a castle of the crown's then their heirs couldn't
claim their civil or military authority.
The lands of the magnates who constituted the medieval nobility were
their own and not "on lease" from a feudal king. ..and if they by own
means (including the suffering of the local peasantry) build a castle,
and financed its troops, then the castle was theirs but the troops of
course a part of the realm's army.
Until the reformation the crown had not much lands except the king's
private property. The clergy and the noble magnates were the most
important land owners.
> >After the Engelbrecht rebellion 1434-36 four estates used to be summoned to
> >diets: nobility, clergy, burghers and peasantry. The highest estate
> >comprised all the wealth in the realm why formalized privilege rules were
> >either unnecessary or self-evident.
>
> Not quite true. Quite a considerable part of the wealth in
> late-medieval Sweden was concentrated in the hands of the clergy.
Hmmm, do we have to change that too?
> Isn't it pretty commonplace to write Charles XI or XII in English,
> even when referring to Swedish Kings? None of tha monarchs above
> ever signed their names as "Karl", by the way. Most of the time, it
> was the Latin "Carolus"; on rarer occasions "Carl" with a C. But
> never "Karl".
Maybe you are right, but a reason to use the in Swedish established
way of writing is that search engines like Altavista more easily give
wished hits on Karl than on Charles.
> >Parliamentarians in all estates became notorious for their contentiousness
> >and susceptibility to bribes. The rich peerage could maybe have been less
> >corruptible, but they were far too few to have any influence in the majority
> >decisions and the party strifes. The principle of peers in the State Council
> >got less and less support until the council was definitely abolished
> >1809/12.
>
> The State Council was, for all practical purposes, abolished already
> in 1789, when the King in the Act of Union and Security (Förenings-
> coh säkerhetsakten) got the power to decide the number of the
> Councillors, and promptly set the number to zero.
a few lines above it is stated:
King Karl XI took support by the three lower estates 1680, withdraw
most of the granted land, and was made dictator. The State Council was
however not abolished until Gustav III's second revolution 1789,
confirmed in the constitution of 1809. The economic and politic
supremacy of the peerage was however finished.
> >In the 1860:s the first estate negotiated about its own abolition. Probably
> >it could be argued that the liberals of the noble estate managed to save the
> >nation from much societal disturbance through the acceptance of a
> >compromise: hereditary political privileges were exchanged for political
> >privileges to the rich and wealthy.
>
> That was what they thought; Louis de Geer talked about "placing the
> power in the hands of the middle class". However, it tured out that
> the farmers were rich enough to count, and Swedish politics at the end
> of the 19th century were dominated by the Farmer's interests, rather
> than those of the middle class.
I've added a clause about this.
> Watch out: There are 46 countal _families_. However, in the Swedish
> system, all male members of a countal family are styled as counts.
Thanks a lot!
(Corrected!)
> >Since 1809 it's also enacted that a hereditary noble title is inherited only
> >by the oldest living son an no-one else.
>
> This is highly misleading. Reality is, as outlined above, that
> post-1809 titles and knighhoods are worn only by the head of the
> family. However, the privilege of other members of older noble
> families to title or nobility has _not_ been touched.
Corrected.
> I have tried to straighten out all that I have spotted, but there are
> probably errors hidden in the above text mass that I have not
> detected.
I, and possibly many others, am very grateful for that!
kind regards!
Johan Olofsson
Rolf Manne
Johan Olofsson <j...@lysator.liu.se> wrote:
>Monte Bohna <mbo...@third-wave.com> writes:
>> I can't speak to the reliability of the work, but I can offer thanks for
>> an interesting overview, as well as some suggestions.
>Well, there were at least some serious errors, noticed by among others
>Jan Böhme and Ian Hamilton.
,
>> What is the connection between the Swedish court and the nobility? Are
>> traditional court offices (does Sweden have a Chamberlain, a Steward, or
>> similar offices of state?) held by noblemen as in the U.K.? Or has
>> Sweden's monarchy distanced itself from the nobility?
>This question is unfortunately beyond my knowledge, but I quote it in
>the hope it won't be forgotten.
To my knowledge, there are no offices at the Swedish court set aside
for the nobility.
> The last person to be nobilitated in Sweden was the explorer Sven
> Hedin in 1902. And his title was hereditary, too. Only he wasn't
> married, not taking too keen an interest in women, and thus concluded
> his own noble house. Some years before Adolf Fredrik Nordenskjöld,
> already a nobleman by birth, had received a baronage after the
> completion of the North-East passage.
>
I have read a fairly recent biography of Sven Hedin which mentioned a
lady who he seems to have been in love with. Not to be prejudiced
against him I think one should delete the clause "not taking too keen
an interest in women" from the FAQ.
Sven Hedin held conservative political opinions which were out of date
in his own days. It is quite wellknown that he wrote the king's speech
in 1914 (is the year right?) (borggårdstalet) which proclaimed the
king's right to rule against a cabinet which had support from the
parliament and thus caused a major political crisis.
Also, Hedin was one of 2 Swedes bidding farewell to the departing
German embassy at the Stockholm railway station in May 1945. Still,
according to the biography he was not a clearcut nazi, and definitely
not a racist but rather a hopelessly naive admirer of Germany.
Rolf Manne
Jan Böhme
Johan Olofsson <j...@lysator.liu.se> wrote:
>Jan....@imun.su.se (Jan Böhme) writes:
>> > * Below I'll use the term peerage as equivalent to the Swedish högadeln
>> > constituting of counts and barons and their nearest family.
>>
>> Again, this usage is unadvisable. The Swedish system of nobility is
>> the continental one, _not_ the British one, and following the language
>> of the British peerage only causes confusion.
>On this point I think I prefer not to follow Jan Böhme's advice,
>since I feel "Counts & Barons" to be a stupid substitution when I, at
>least, suspect that Barons on some places where it now stands "peer"
>or "peerage" weren't intended either.
A Swedish usage for counts and barons beside "högadel", which clarly
has an archaic or historic connotaiton, is "betitlad adel". What about
"titled nobility"?
>> >The archaic term "the frälse" includes also the clergy while referring to
>> >their exemption from tax. The term "ridderskapet" (the knighthood) was
>> >particularly in medieval times used referring to them who financed and
>> >served in the cavalry.
>>
>> I contest that. At least during the late middle ages, "ridderskapet"
>> meant the families with a member that had been personally made a
>> knight by the King. This was a rare honour, normally held by no more
>> than thirty people at the same time, and often considerably less.
>The paragraph is removed.
No need to remove the whole paragraph. The sentence about "the frälse"
is kosher enough.
>The Swedish nobility had no hereditary fiefs (län). I.e. in case they
>were appointed to a castle of the crown's then their heirs couldn't
>claim their civil or military authority.
>The lands of the magnates who constituted the medieval nobility were
>their own and not "on lease" from a feudal king. ..and if they by own
>means (including the suffering of the local peasantry) build a castle,
>and financed its troops, then the castle was theirs but the troops of
>course a part of the realm's army.
>Until the reformation the crown had not much lands except the king's
>private property. The clergy and the noble magnates were the most
>important land owners.
Very good.
>> >After the Engelbrecht rebellion 1434-36 four estates used to be summoned to
>> >diets: nobility, clergy, burghers and peasantry. The highest estate
>> >comprised all the wealth in the realm why formalized privilege rules were
>> >either unnecessary or self-evident.
>>
>> Not quite true. Quite a considerable part of the wealth in
>> late-medieval Sweden was concentrated in the hands of the clergy.
>Hmmm, do we have to change that too?
Yes, we do, for another reason. I just realise that there is another
gaffe in the above paragraph. In pre-Reformation diets, the _clergy_
was the highest estate, _not_ the nobility. However, it is quite clear
that the nobility is intended above.
>> Isn't it pretty commonplace to write Charles XI or XII in English,
>> even when referring to Swedish Kings? None of the monarchs above
>> ever signed their names as "Karl", by the way. Most of the time, it
>> was the Latin "Carolus"; on rarer occasions "Carl" with a C. But
>> never "Karl".
>Maybe you are right, but a reason to use the in Swedish established
>way of writing is that search engines like Altavista more easily give
>wished hits on Karl than on Charles.
Perhaps. If you, on the other hand, include the ordinal, which is
advisable anyway, "Charles XI" and "Charles XII" are unique. No other
country ever got that far on their Charles line. This is because the
Swedes cheated, and the Swedish enumeration of Charleses _starts_ with
Charles IX. The Medieval Kings before that, who were styled with
patronymic such as Karl Sverkersson, have to take Swedish form to be
congruent, I suppose.
Please also note that "the established Swedish way of writing" quite
possibly is being eroded by the present King spelling his name with a
C. If we let him get away with that, why should we spell all the other
monarchs, who also invariably spelled their name with a C, with a K?
But this is a trifling point.
By the way, you _did_ throw away the garbage about post-1809
nobilisations being only for life, and not hereditary, didn't you?
Jan Böhme
Jan Böhme
>This could use some elaboration. "Fief" can mean several things, and I'm
>not sure what is meant here. Loosely, it can mean hereditary estates -
>landed wealth. I assume the Swedish nobility have (or had) landed
>estates. More exactly, the term can refer to jurisdictional power
>associated with a landed estate or region - i.e. the French noble's
>"ban". Is this what is meant here? So the Swedish nobility were much
>more like the English than the continental nobillities, being primarily
>land-owners without significant public/governmental powers?
Please first note that the sentence above relates to the medieval
situation, rather than to post-1500. The conditions in Sweden were
very different before and after the Reformation, for one thing. In
fact, at the peak of their powers, during the 1600:s, the Swedish
nobility were, indeed, much more like the continental nobility, having
significant public and govermental powers.
However, the free Swedish peasantry is a feature which distinguishes
Sweden from the avearage continental counrty. Indeed, nobility was
scant or non-existing in vast tracts to the north and north-west.
>> Today approximately 30'000 Swedes belong to the nobility (in the wide
>> sense). There are 46 counts, however not necessarily with a county of
>> theirs; 124 barons and 450 dynasties of the gentry. ...Oh, yes, "county" in
>> this sense has nothing to do with the regional governmental units (the län)
>> but stands for the lands over which the forefathers of the count once had
>> certain privileges.
>So "county" is merely the landed estate of a count, or at least what was
>once the landed estate of a count? But what is meant by "once had
>certain priviliges? If a count no longer owns a farm, what is the
>connection, apart from a sentimental one?
This usage of "county" is very dubiuos in the text. A count may
possess a small estate, alarge estate or no estate at all (as in the
vast majority of cases). However, whatever the size, such an estate is
called "gods" meaning just "estate", and never "grevskap" which would
be the equivalent of "county".
"Grevskap" is clearly a historical notion, inmplying _jurisdiction_,
rather than ownership. And there has not been any noble jurisdiction
for a very long time.
Come to think about it, this sentence about counties is misleading
enough to be deleted.
>And as an aside, are the Swedish nobility still land-owners, or have
>they been forced to sell their lands to pay inheritance taxes and so on?
>> Members of the nobility aren't usually recognized as such. When it's called
>> to attention, it's more likely to serve as disparaging or ridiculing.
>> Although the peerage might be correctly refereed to and addressed in gossip
>> magazines.
>What is the connection between the Swedish court and the nobility? Are
>traditional court offices (does Sweden have a Chamberlain, a Steward, or
>similar offices of state?) held by noblemen as in the U.K.? Or has
>Sweden's monarchy distanced itself from the nobility?
Sweden has much fewer of these offices. There is a Marshal of the
Realm (riksmarskalk), who is the highest official at the court, Court
Marshals (hovmarskalk), a Lady of the Realm (statsfru) and a couple of
other officials. None of these offices is reserved for nobility these
days, although there is a clear over-representation of nobility.
>> The title of barons is "Friherren" but in speech they are
>> addressed as "Baron" (the baron). With counts and royals it's much
>> easier: they are always "the Count, "the Prince", "the Queen" or
>> "the King" (Greven, Prinsen, Drottningen & Kungen). Words as Ers
>> nåd or Ers Kungliga Höghet (my Lord, your Lordship, Your Royal
>> Highness) belong to the world of historic films and novels.
Article Unavailable
Johan Olofsson
Rolf....@kj.uib.no (Rolf Manne) writes:
> >Yep. Princes of royal blood who had lost their princely rank by
> >marrying without the consent of the sovereign. (For all practical
> >matters, for marrying beneath their rank)
How was it? Did the Swedish prince Bertil lose his rank as he married
some years ago?
What about foreign nobility who settle in Sweden. If they have other
ranks than the common in Sweden (Dukes for instance) do they change
rank, or are they regarded as Swedish citizens of "foreign nobility"
for eternal times?
> >>And Luxembourg? It is 'only' a Grand-Duchy (before 1890 or so in personal
> >>union with the king of the Netherlands).
>
> >Yes, but it is still a bona fide fountain of honour (I know it sounds
> >ridiculous, but that _is_ actually the technical term), and the
> >Grand-Duke can confer counthoods on whomever he chooses.
I understand the ex-princes themselves would have no chance to be
introduced in the Swedish nobility, but what about their descendants?
> All these details are rather silly, and I think they matter very
> little. I have looked up the relationship between Oscar Bernadotte and
> the grand-duke of Luxemburg but the rest is from memory.
Well, that's true of course!
Johan
Rolf Manne
Johan Olofsson <j...@lysator.liu.se> wrote:
>Rolf....@kj.uib.no (Rolf Manne) writes:
>> >Yep. Princes of royal blood who had lost their princely rank by
>> >marrying without the consent of the sovereign. (For all practical
>> >matters, for marrying beneath their rank)
>How was it? Did the Swedish prince Bertil lose his rank as he married
>some years ago?
No, since he married with the consent of the king. Remember that the
king himself is married to a commoner. I read somewhere that he could
do it since the law supposedly only forbids him to marry the daughter
of a Swedish commoner.
>What about foreign nobility who settle in Sweden. If they have other
>ranks than the common in Sweden (Dukes for instance) do they change
>rank, or are they regarded as Swedish citizens of "foreign nobility"
>for eternal times?
Foreign nobility may be "introduced" into the Swedish nobility. How
this is done, and if it can be done today, I don't know. I have a
vague memory tht the introduction was to the court, not just a general
introduction to the nobility.
As I have mentioned earlier, there is a family d'Otrante in Sweden -
obviously of French origin - which has the rank of duke. Someone who
cares could check whether they are in "Adelskalendern" or not.
The same applies to the Bernadotte af Wisborg families.
Rolf Manne
Jarmo Niemi
>No, since he married with the consent of the king. Remember that the
>king himself is married to a commoner. I read somewhere that he could
>do it since the law supposedly only forbids him to marry the daughter
>of a Swedish commoner.
I vaguely remember having read, that the law forbids the heir to the
crown from marrying a commoner, but once he became king, he could
marry anyone. I may be wrong.
--
Jarmo Niemi jar...@utu.fi http://www.utu.fi/~jarnie/
Rolf Manne
Jan....@imun.su.se (Jan Böhme) wrote:
>>> Isn't it pretty commonplace to write Charles XI or XII in English,
>>> even when referring to Swedish Kings? None of the monarchs above
>>> ever signed their names as "Karl", by the way. Most of the time, it
>>> was the Latin "Carolus"; on rarer occasions "Carl" with a C. But
>>> never "Karl".
>>Maybe you are right, but a reason to use the in Swedish established
>>way of writing is that search engines like Altavista more easily give
>>wished hits on Karl than on Charles.
>Perhaps. If you, on the other hand, include the ordinal, which is
>advisable anyway, "Charles XI" and "Charles XII" are unique. No other
>country ever got that far on their Charles line. This is because the
>Swedes cheated, and the Swedish enumeration of Charleses _starts_ with
>Charles IX. The Medieval Kings before that, who were styled with
>patronymic such as Karl Sverkersson, have to take Swedish form to be
>congruent, I suppose.
>Please also note that "the established Swedish way of writing" quite
>possibly is being eroded by the present King spelling his name with a
>C. If we let him get away with that, why should we spell all the other
>monarchs, who also invariably spelled their name with a C, with a K?
>But this is a trifling point.
Here in Norway, the rule is that you spell the names of living kings
the way they prefer themselves but the names of dead kings are
spelled according to the present spelling rules. I have not seen this
rule formulated in that way in Sweden but it may well be there.
Rolf Manne
(a Swede in Norway)
Rolf Manne
Jan....@imun.su.se (Jan Böhme) wrote:
>Sweden has much fewer of these offices. There is a Marshal of the
>Realm (riksmarskalk), who is the highest official at the court, Court
>Marshals (hovmarskalk), a Lady of the Realm (statsfru) and a couple of
>other officials. None of these offices is reserved for nobility these
>days, although there is a clear over-representation of nobility.
There hasn't been a Riksmarskalk for quite some time. The last one was
Birger Ekeberg - check in a Swedish encyclopedia when he died.
Both the present king and his predecessor Gustav VI Adolf have done a
lot to modernize the court administration.
>Some of them figure prominently in social life, particularly some of
>the titled nobility who has still kept vast estates. It is not
>particularly common with titled nobility in business, although there
>are slightly more that could be expected. Prominent titled noblemen in
>business include Count Gustaf Douglas, former managing director of
>Dagens Nyheter, Sweden's largest morning daily, Count Ian
>Wachtmeister, owner of an investment company, and also an erratic
>figure in Swedish politics, and Baron Stig Ramel, former managing
>director of the Nobel Trust.
Not to forget Baron Povel Ramel, the entertainer.
Rolf Manne
Teemu Leisti
In article <55ird1$7...@news.datakom.su.se> Jan....@imun.su.se (Jan
Böhme) writes:
> It is not customary to have a title or two on the board; most Swedish
> businessmen are reasonably self-made, and tend to share the widespread
> notion of the (titled) nobility as dim-witted. Besides, there is a
> commoner family which forms the nobility, if not the royal house, of
> Swedish business: the Wallenberg family, which has held controlling
> power of a large segment of Swedish business enterprises for more than
> a hundred years. A member of _that_ family on the board accounts for a
> lot more than an odd count or so.
So a count doesn't count for much, eh?
(Sorry -- it had to be said...)
-- Teemu Leisti / lei...@mpr.ca
Jan Böhme
Rolf....@kj.uib.no (Rolf Manne) wrote:
>Johan Olofsson <j...@lysator.liu.se> wrote:
>>Rolf....@kj.uib.no (Rolf Manne) writes:
>>> >Yep. Princes of royal blood who had lost their princely rank by
>>> >marrying without the consent of the sovereign. (For all practical
>>> >matters, for marrying beneath their rank)
>>How was it? Did the Swedish prince Bertil lose his rank as he married
>>some years ago?
>No, since he married with the consent of the king. Remember that the
>king himself is married to a commoner. I read somewhere that he could
>do it since the law supposedly only forbids him to marry the daughter
>of a Swedish commoner.
Please note that there are _no_ restrictions as regards the King
marrying. He can marry anyone he damn well pleases, _including_ the
daughter of a Swedish commoner, as long as he does it with his own
consent :-)
Prince Bertil got the royal consent for a couple of reasons. First and
foremost, because he had self-effacingly sacrificed married life for
so many years, in the intrest of the monarchy. Under the old
Constitution, the sovereign or his deputy must always be in function,
inside the country. And Prince Bertil was the only eligible deputy
during all of the fifties and sixties, when the Crown Prince - our
present King - had not attained his majority. Had he married Mrs.
Craig when he met her - during the fourties - the Swedish monarchy
would have been impossible to uphold, from a purely technical point of
view.
Anothe way of reasoning is that the attitudes, both within the Royal
House and in the population has evolved on this subject. Besides the
general feeling that the old chap deserved it, the Swedish population
in addition quickly took their new Princess to heart. She might not be
the country's foremost intellectual, but she is an extremely kind,
pleasant and energetic woman, with very strong sense of duty.
>>What about foreign nobility who settle in Sweden. If they have other
>>ranks than the common in Sweden (Dukes for instance) do they change
>>rank, or are they regarded as Swedish citizens of "foreign nobility"
>>for eternal times?
>Foreign nobility may be "introduced" into the Swedish nobility. How
>this is done, and if it can be done today, I don't know. I have a
>vague memory tht the introduction was to the court, not just a general
>introduction to the nobility.
The "introduction" in question is that to the Swedish House of
Nobility. In historic times, you could be eligible for introduction to
the House of Nobility either by presenting a letter patent from the
King conferring the rank of noble upon you, or you could prove your
bona fide foreign noble rank, in which case you might be "naturalised"
into the House of Nobility.
However, no foreign nobility has been naturalised into the Swedish
House of Nobility for a very long time. I'm certain it hasn't happened
after the adoption of the Constitution of 1809. (It _did_ happen at
least in 1780, when an obscure branch of my own ancestral tree was
naturalised - some members posthumously!)
So for almost two hundred years, foreign nobility has in principle
been denied introduction to the Swedish house of nobility, and thus to
any official recognition of their titles. Some families have founded
the Association of Unintroduced Nobility (Ointroducerad Adels
Förening) as a sort of knockoff House of Nobility, but that doesn't
really count, either.
>As I have mentioned earlier, there is a family d'Otrante in Sweden -
>obviously of French origin - which has the rank of duke. Someone who
>cares could check whether they are in "Adelskalendern" or not.
>The same applies to the Bernadotte af Wisborg families.
In fact, the family d'Otrante is a _very_ special case. It is _not_ a
member of the House of Nobility, and Sweden also does not recognise
ducal rank outside the Royal House. However, by virtue of a special,
and to my knowledge unique, letter of privilege by the King, the dukes
d'Otrante are accorded the same ranks and privileges (essentially none
these days, really, but never the same) as a Swedish count from an
introduced countal family.
It can be added that the origin of the family d'Otrnte is'nt either
that ancient or that awe-inspiring. They descend from the head of
Napoleon's secret police, Fouché, who was made a duke by the Emperor
for his exellent contribution to the political stability (as the
current Swedish usage would have it) of the Empire.
But this is the only case. All the other unintroduced foreign noble
families are technically commoners, whatever melliflous titles they
might sport in "Calendar of Unintroduced Nobility"
Or, for that matter, in the phone book.
Jan Böhme
Rolf Manne
Jan....@imun.su.se (Jan Böhme) wrote:
>Rolf....@kj.uib.no (Rolf Manne) wrote:
>>Johan Olofsson <j...@lysator.liu.se> wrote:
>>>Rolf....@kj.uib.no (Rolf Manne) writes:
>>>> >Yep. Princes of royal blood who had lost their princely rank by
>>>> >marrying without the consent of the sovereign. (For all practical
>>>> >matters, for marrying beneath their rank)
>>>How was it? Did the Swedish prince Bertil lose his rank as he married
>>>some years ago?
>>No, since he married with the consent of the king. Remember that the
>>king himself is married to a commoner. I read somewhere that he could
>>do it since the law supposedly only forbids him to marry the daughter
>>of a Swedish commoner.
>Please note that there are _no_ restrictions as regards the King
>marrying. He can marry anyone he damn well pleases, _including_ the
>daughter of a Swedish commoner, as long as he does it with his own
>consent :-)
I think wat I remembered was the old constitution. The present one
says that the right of succession may be lost without the consent of
the goverment (regering) - with the king putting the question before
the goverment.
Probably it was still the old constitution when the present king
married.
>Prince Bertil got the royal consent for a couple of reasons. ....
I couldn't agree more.
Some of the stuff in Jan's contribution about un-introduced nobility
should be added to the nobility FAQ.
Rolf Manne
Johan Olofsson
one could add that I have checked in a few schoolary texts in English
this week, and found at least a weak tendency to spell the old kings'
(and dukes'!) names according to our current Swedish custom also in
British texts.