Talk:Swedish nobility

Text for inclusion

The following text is considered for partial inclusion.

It's quoted, with permission, from http://www.lysator.liu.se/nordic/scn/adel.html.

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 almost 100 years. (Actually Swedish ex-princes have used to direct their petitions for restoration of their glory to sovereigns of Luxembourg and Belgium in the not so few cases when princes lost disputes over suitability of wives; a kind of conflicts Swedish princes used to have with the crown and government during the first half of this century. For instance the father of Count Folke Bernadotte, the UN representative assassinated in Jerusalem 1948, had gained his countal status that way.)

The privileges in Sweden are nowadays limited to a protection of some additional part of the heraldic arms: the helm with open visor and the crowns marking the honor.

Terminology Today three classes exists, in consistency of a reform in 1561 (restored 1719). They are distinguished by their titles and by the number of crowns they have in their coats of arms: Högadliga or betitlad adel: ("nobility with hereditary titles") Grevar (Counts) [ three crowns ] Friherrar (Barons) [ two crowns ] Lågadliga: ("nobility without hereditary titles") Obetitlad adel ("Gentry") [ one crown ] (The crowns are different both in number and looks.)

In addition the untitled families (above called the gentry) are subdivided into two groups: kommendörsätter (commander nobility) and truly ordinary nobility.

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. (A more correct term would be "nobility with hereditary titles" - but that's a rather long construction.) The term nobility will be used in a wide meaning, including both the peerage and the untitled nobility (above called the gentry), equivalent to the Swedish adeln. With untitled nobility I refer to members of families without a hereditary title, 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).

I strongly disagree about using the term peerage of the Swedish nobility. Sweden has never had peers and thus no peerage. If the representation in Riddarhuser should be considered peerage, then all of the Swedish nobility consists of peerage. The term is only misleading and very wrong. The terms should be higher nobility and lower nobility or preferably titled nobility and untitled nobility. //Carl de B.

The archaic term "the frälse" includes also the clergy while referring to their exemption from tax.

Since 1866 noble birth gives no political privileges, and since the begin of the 20th century also no precedence to any civil or military positions.

Historical origin 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 to be exempted from tax - at least from ordinary taxes - as the clergy already had been. 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 (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.

During several periods the commander of Viipuri fief (Viborgs län) did in practice function as a Marquis (or Markgraf in German) keeping all the crowns incomes from the fief to use it for the defense of the realm's eastern border. But despite the heavy German influence during the medieval age the elaborate German system with also titles as Lantgraf, Reichsgraf, Burggraf & Pfalzgraf was never applied.

An exception (of course there was at least one exception!) much, much later was when the combined civil and military commanders of the towns Malmö and Helsingborg were appointed Burgreve (Count to the Crown's fortification) during times when Denmark's will to regain the South-Scandinavian provinces seemed threatening. After the Engelbrecht rebellion 1434-36 four estates used to be summoned to diets: nobility, clergy, burghers and peasantry. Until the reformation the crown had not much lands except the different kings' private property. The clergy and the noble magnates were the most important land owners. The nobility was the same as the secular elite of the society. 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 untitled nobility which came to constitute the backbone of the civil service.

During Gustav Vasa's reign (1521-1560) the cavalry became less prioritized; The connection weakened between wealth, military responsibilities, tax exemption and participation in the political decisions. Until Gustav Vasa the kings had been definitely dependent of the Swedish magnates - particularly dependent of the high-born men who constituted the State Council.

Through the reformation 1527 the crown became rich enough to ensure independence against the magnates. And from 1544 the king used Diets (with both commoners and nobility represented) as a regular means to legitimize laws and taxes regardless of the noble opinion. With Gustav Vasa's national state a central civil service started to grow.

See also section 7.3.3 of this faq regarding the situation during medieval times.

Time of greatness At the coronations 1561 & 1569 a new type of nobility was constructed. After European model a dozen men were given noble titles. And for a hundred years positions as judges were a privilege for the nobility - at least on the paper. The number of interested noble men was not always sufficient.

From 1611 the noble privileges are further outlined. Judicial processes against noble men are to be directed to the Svea Hovrätt - the court of appeal in the capital. It's also arranged that the highest state officials necessarily have to be noble: the drots (minister of Justice), marsk (commander in chief), admiral, chancellor, treasurer, fiscal office directors & the governors. This came to last until Gustav III's second revolution 1789.

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 families; 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 employee of the 17th century as at the end of the 20th.

1611-1719 nobility is the prerequisite for careers in both military and civil service. Consequently nobilitation becomes the means to get the most competent persons promoted. The majority in the noble estate had been raised to their current rank in their own lifetime. Their solidarity & identification was not with the old rich nobility, but with the crown which had given them their position and often also with the commoners which they knew as friends and family.

Politically the peerage secured a leading role 1626-1680 by the invention of a new noble class (23 families called the knighthood) between the 12 peerage families and the écuyers ("Swains" - Svenneklassen) of the untitled nobility. 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 untitled nobility had one vote each. 35 families got two votes against the one vote by the 90 families of the untitled nobility. Thirty years later it was two votes to 81 families and one vote for the other 600 families.

1634 - 1845 the courts of appeal in the realm are required to have half of their judges appointed among noble men, and the other half among commoners.

1650-1789 about 60 positions in the civil service were reserved for noble men. 1723-1789 about 60 military positions were reserved too.

Diminishing power King Karl XI took support by the three lower estates 1680, withdrew most of the granted land, and made himselg absolute. 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.

Karl XII (the son of Karl XI) failed in his wars, and was followed by 53 years of parliamentarism during which the first estate was ruled by the poor untitled nobility earning their living mainly as state officials. The clergy was ruled by poor priests, the burghers in the third estate weren't yet rich and the peasantry wasn't either.

1719-1772 the power to prepare laws (including tax-laws) is practically shared between the noble State Council and the parliament's secret standing committee, in which the noble estate appointed the half of the members, and the clergy and the burghers one fourth each. The peasantry was not trusted to handle matters of foreign policy, military plans and state finances, which were the official purpose of the secret standing committee.

1719-1809 nobilitation is however restricted, and hence commoners come to be appointed to higher and higher positions in the civil service. The ambitious commoners came to lose both the faith in the legitimacy of the noble privileges and to lose their feeling of identification with the nobility as it became more and more impossible for them selves to get nobilitated. The socio-cultural abyss between nobility and commoners widened.

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.

Above is a lot of rubbish.

The principle of nobles 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. However, it turned out that the farmers were rich enough to count, and Swedish politics at the end of the 19th century were dominated by the Agrarians' interests, rather than those of the upper and middle class.

From the constitution of 1809 new peerages and knight-hoods are worn only by the head of the family. However, as the privilege of older noble families to title or nobility has not been touched, this concerns only the 40 men enobeled after 1809.

20th century 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.

At the turn of the century there weren't many of the noble privileges left. The tax exemption was in principle abolished 1810, as was the requirement to appoint noble men to certain positions in the civil service. But still nobility according to the law was to be milder treated by the police and the courts, had wider right to beat their servants than commoners had, had some advantages over for other creditors in case the debtor lived on their land, and some remaining privileges regarding hunting. And judicial processes regarding inheritance and family matters were still to be started at the court of appeal in the capital, where it could be avoided to let commoners to judge noble men.

Today there are 25'000 Swedes who belong to the nobility (in the wide sense). But since many live abroad the actual figure is less. [Source: Raneke, j. "Svensk Adelsheraldik", Corona 1990]

There are 46 comital families; 122 families of baronial rank; and 441 families of the untitled nobility. In the Swedish system, all male members of a countal family nobilitated before 1809 are styled as counts, like all male members of the baronial families are barons.

The head of each of these families has a seat in the House of Nobility (Riddarhuset), which used to be one of the four estates of parliament untill 1865. Therefore it would be a mistake to say that the untitled nobility is the same as British gentry.

...Oh, yes, "county" (grevskap) 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.

The term grevskap (county as in a count's domain) has no judicial meaning since hundreds of years, but the word can still be heard among people who live there. The meaning is the area which is dominated by a count's manor (gods in Swedish), owning much of the land and/or being a major employer.

Where is this heard. Being a Swedish noble, I have never ever heard about it. The person who has written above must be either bery young or insane.

Except for in the conquered but not yet incorporated provinces Halland and Scania the privilege to receive tax from the county was withdrawn in 1680. The privilege to appoint judges and priests were also abolished a long time ago (except in Scania and Halland), but in practice did the noble magnates of course continue to have a deciding influence ...and so had also the common magnates and industrialists well into the 20th century. ...Actually there remained also a few cases of noble lords who until the 1910s retained their old privileges to appoint priests in their "own" village churches.

The southern provinces (Scania, Blekinge and Halland) were gained in the peace of Roskilde 1658 and contributed with a different culture. The commoners owned virtually no land, and the influence of the lords remained overwhelming for centuries. However small to their area these provinces represented a considerable increase in the number of Swedish citizens. Finally, in 1945, the agricultural manors were by law forced to improve the conditions for their employees, and hence the rural proletarians were converted to tenant farmers. The land is still owned by the countal manor, often converted to a company, and is rented on long terms, for instance on 20 years.

This is also not true.

How to address nobles correctly? 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 a Barony, the equivalent to an own county, (Baroniet Adelswärd) in south eastern Östergötland / north eastern Småland.

Sweden has far more then 124 barons, maybe 124 baronial families. The baronial title of Adelswärd has never had a legal standing, and the "barony" never any other legal standing than other fideikomiss.

In families enobeled before 1799, all members have the noble status with one exception (count Beck-Friis). In families enobled between 1799 and 1809 the head of the family and his oldest son according to the principle of primogenitur have the title. For families enobled after 1809, only the head of the family has the noble status (and the title) according to the 37th paragraph of the constitution of 1809.

The king's right to award nobleship disapeard after the constitution of 1975. However, the Nobility was never abolished in Sweden as for instance it was in Germany or Norway. The legal basis of the Nobility are regulated in the riddarhusordningen last rewritten 1866.

Which lost it's legal status in 2005.

Foreign Nobility do not have Swedish noble status and are not represented at the House of Nobility (Riddarhuset), but there is an "association of unintroduced Nobility" in Sweden with 92 families of foreign descent represented. Frequently in the history, foreign noblemen have been made Swedish by the king through a process called naturalization. Looking in the adelskalendern (the catalogue of families represented at the House of Nobility) one can roughly estimate that at least 1/3 of the Swedish nobility are of foreign descendance.

It's now probably no surprise for the reader that the nobility of politicians as the former prime minister Carl Bildt or the late Social Democratic Cabinet member and UN Secretary General Dag Hammarskjöld never has been made a part of their image.

One ought to note that although in France noble titles were abolished in 1848, they were reinstated, and are currently recognized, and regulated by law. Unlike Germany, where they are simply part of the name, in France there are legal procedures, for instance, that prevent people from using a title that rightfully belongs to somebody else, etc. john 07:02 27 May 2003 (UTC)

Placenames in peerage fiefs

As primary original contributor of these lists, I choose (and will retain) the stylistic option of having placenames in such variants that are used by their current locality in English texts. Thus, Kuressaare, not Arensburg; Pori, not Björneburg. Etc. Suedois 02:13, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

The best solution regarding placenames would be to use the original Swedish with a link to the current name in parentheses, if it is different.

• county of Björneborg (Pori) to Gustav Horn

This applies to place names. Names of persons is a different and far more complicated issue. -- Petri Krohn 22:25, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

The use of Finnish language in historical Swedish context is absolutly weird. If, for example an Englishman reads a letter from Bengt Oxenstierna af Korsholm och Wasa to the Earl of Dalkeith, he will never understand if he scans Wikipedia and finds the names in Finnish. Finnish was a language for some peasants and servants, and not for writing. And, when changing the name of Lars Cruus to Lauri, what is the meaning? Nobody uses the name Lauri about him. It is absolutly incorrect.

Peerage

The use of this term to describe the Swedish nobility is extremely confusing for several reasons:

1. The UK's Peerage is the near-exclusive basis of most English-speakers' familiarity with that word. In the UK, peerage is legally synonymous with "nobility", whereas the majority of Sweden's nobility has always been and is untitled -- yet an untitled nobleman is an oxymoron in Britain. It is literally inconceivable.
2. Intrinsic to the British and French concepts of peerage, is male primogeniture. Yet in most titled Swedish families, the title is equally borne by all male-line descendants of the original grantee, including all females. So all sons and daughters of a count are counts and countesses, and all the children of those counts are counts and countesses, and so on.
3. Peerage still suggests to most English-speakers a hereditary member of the national legislature, whereas Swedish nobles have not been members by birth of Sweden's State Council since 1789 (officially since 1809). Thus calling a 19th or 20th century titled Swedish nobleman a "peer" evokes an image that is inaccurate.
4. The use here of peerage as a translation of "högadel" seems to derive from the 1996 FAQ drafted by Johann Olofsson for the newsgroup soc.culture.nordic. Even then, the use of peerage to describe Sweden's titled nobility was cogently challenged in that forum by Jan Böhme for the reasons outlined above. He also pointed out that the use of "county" to describe the estate and/or position of a Count is also misleadingly anachronistic, yet it can be found in this article. A more accurate term, at least for the post-medieval era, referring to the status/lands of Swedish counts (and British earls) is "countship", just as "dukedom" is more accurate than "duchy", unless you're talking about the realm of Luxembourg (I realize that Swedish dukes, being princes, actually did hold appanages that are appropriately called "duchies", but that too refers to lands/titles of princes living in the first half of the 17th century or earlier). Lethiere 06:39, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, English peerage started without express titles: the original way to make someone a member of the later upper house, was to summon the person to parliament. No honorific title was generally used, nor received at that time. A doctrine afterwards (much later, seems to me) evolved that such person had by that act been created Lord, and titled baron. In Scotland, Lords of Parliament actually are not as such titled barons. In that sense, I cannot find any oxymoron in thinking "untitled" "peerage". (Not going to the fact that actually title covers a more extensive fied than honorific. Just also should be mentioned that "having title to a seat and vote" as well as "holding the title to a landed property" also belong to English language.) How many UK lords (lower tan viscounts) actually are called "baron" anyway?

Dissenting note: Except for the lowest rank of the Peerage of Scotland, all UK peers lower than Viscounts are barons. Lord is simply a generic term to refer to peers generally, regardless of whether they are a Marquess or Baron. Lord is also a courtesy title used by the younger sons of Dukes and Marquesses.

Peerage as term and institution has its origins in France, not in British Isles. It seems to me that dubbing "peerage" as "near-exclusive"ly UK institution is a gross anglocentrism that should be avoided here in an objective, worldwide encyclopedia. Actually, readers should be taught here to get rid of their possible UK-centric notions in this matter.

When I think this more, I can see close similarities with a Swedish king granting an ennoblement (without any other honorific to the front of the name than just "herr") which produces a seat and vote to its holder, and a British king granting a lordship through Letters Patent.

I beg to differ with an allegation that in the UK, "peerage is synonymous with nobility". I have a notion that also for example baronets are nobles, and that younger children of, for example, UK dukes and marquesses are regarded as noble. I would gladly to hear better and more and convincing evidence that nobility is defined to encompass just peers in the UK, and of the allegation that such definition actually is made by law ("legally").

Another dissenting note: As far as I am aware, the spouses and children of a male UK peer are untitled nobles, even though they are commoners. The legal distinction is between peers and commoners, not nobles and commoners. Some nobles are peers, some nobles are commoners. Baronets are not nobles. A baronet is an hereditary knight and ranks as a knight - not "above" a knight. Knights and Esquires in the UK system are higher gentry, not nobles. Except in Scotland, the UK doesn't have high and low nobility. Its nobility is all high nobility (peers and their families). The equivalent class to continental lesser nobility in the UK are the gentry.

In France, junior members of the high-noble family generally have (courtesy?) title, such as count. And in the UK, junior children of highest peers have courtesy titles "Lady", "Lord" in front of their names. Swedish system of honorifics is not essentialy fully different. There are some smaller variations. Actually, primogeniture has been and is also a very important thing in Swedish nobility system: head of the house, determined according to rules of male primogeniture, holds a seat and vote at Riddarhuset - and in certain several cases, a higher honorific/title than genealogically junior members of the house.

There is a clear mistake above when 1789/ 1809 is alleged as end of hereditary participation in national legislature. It did not end yet at that time. Royal councillors were not legislature (State Coucil was not legislature, that's a clear mistake), nor were they hereditary, at that time not even in any practice. Heads of Swedish noble houses are still, even today, holders of a hereditary seat and vote at Riddarhuset of Sweden - which "legislates" upon its own jurisdiction. I have got an understanding that hereditary peers are no longer entitled to hereditary vote anywhere (hope that's a misunderstanding - it would be nice if they are members of at least some hereditary institution).

Above is an allegation that in "post-medieval" eras, there were no counties of counts, etc, in Sweden. That is a clear mistake: for example in the 17th century there were designated fiefs granted as counties and baronies in Sweden. Later, plenty of fideicommisses were approved as counties or baronies, and (at least Gustav III) clearly granted them the title of county/ barony. (For example, when creating a certain Beck-Friis a count, king Gustav III formulated the grant of the honorific "to the holder of fideicommiss, according to the designated order of succession to the fideicommiss" and mentioned the then fideicommiss, Börringe and Fiholm, as the county of the Beck-Friis line.) For example, "Baroniet Adelswärd" exists today in Swedish law, I think.

In the above writing of Lethiere, there are plenty of mistakes. I cannot regard it any sort of cogent treatise on Swedish nobility. Rather, it misleads in several points.

If Johan Olofsson and Jan Böhme quarreled over the designation of that term, surely both POVs should be explained in the article... Who actually are Jan Böhme and Johan Olofsson? Marrtel 02:49, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to write a "treatise" on Swedish nobility, cogent or otherwise. I was explaining why I consider the term confusing as used in this article. I'm no expert on Scandinavian nobility, so my errors don't prove that the use of the term is correct. The bottom line is that the standard translation of "högadel" into English is not "peerage". Calling it that in Wiki violates the rules against neologisms and original research, because it is a new or atypical translation.

From the Peerage page: "The Peerage is a system of titles of nobility that exists in the United Kingdom and is one part of the British honours system." (My emphasis). That said, I don't have a better word. "Titles", maybe? --Regebro 08:00, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Peerage was just as much a part of the French nobility system as the British, although it operated in a completely different way. But France's peerage was abolished in the 19th century (although titles are still legal there), whereas the British peerage still exists. A better translation for "högadel" is either "titled nobility", "high nobility" or "upper nobility". But most Swedes have never called it the "peerage". Lethiere 20:46, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

True enough. There has never been any peerage in Sweden or any other Germanic country. (? Britain is a germanic country) When one refers to peers (pärer) in Swedish, one exclusively means either British or French peers (and maybe Japanese ones). All Swedish noble families had and have right to representation at the Swedish House of Nobility, titled ones and others. Families with comital and baronial status are "better placed" in the order of precendance, however this is completly obsolete. The only place where the title does matter is at the gatherings in the House of Nobility, where nobles are sitting in respect of there titles, Counts and Barons on the sides of the speaker and the others in the background. Interestingly in Scandinavia Counts and Barons are reffered to, as the high nobility, whereas Royals are considered out of "princely rank" and are not a part of the nobility, and all other nobles are just reffered to as the nobility. This differs from other Germanic countries where untitled to barons are considered as low nobility and counts to royalty as high nobility, thus making royals rank alike with some counts.

I think there may be some confusion in the above paragraph. In Germany there are two terms for Baron - Freiherr and Baron. English "Barons" are the equivalent of a "Freiherr" and are high nobility. In Scotland the equivalent rank to an English "Baron" is "Lord of Parliament". These people are high nobility. A Scottish "Baron" is the equivalent of a German "Baron", and is often considered lesser nobility. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidNZL (talk • contribs) 09:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

"Considerable social and historical significance"

Oh, really? What is "Historical significance" in this context? Isn't something of historical importance something that happened in the past? Are todays Swedish nobles in the past? And what social significance is it? The nobles I've met from Sweden doesn't behave differently from "common" people, and I don't think I know anybody who would treat them differently either. Explanations please. --Regebro (talk) 19:59, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

"outside the royal family"?

Does the king have the right to give titles inside the royal family? --OpenFuture (talk) 20:40, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

There is no rule at all, that was my point when I changed the article. The royals have also never been represented in the corporation of the Swedish nobility, i.e. the Swedish House of Lords.--Danog-76 (talk) 20:52, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

My point is that the king has no expressed right to ennoble in the constitution of 1975, the formulation in the constitution has been removed. But in another article in the constitution article 1 in chapter 1 all powers are granted to the people, so that could probably be interpreted as that he only can ennoble inside his own family or call them by titles, because he would then not have such powers in relation to other Swedish citizens.--Danog-76 (talk) 21:04, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

If there is no rule, then he can not ennoble, even within his family. Your interpretation makes absolutely no sense. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:58, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

There is no prohibition in the law, that is understandable isn't it?--Danog-76 (talk) 22:02, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

What is your interpretation? /Danog-76 (talk) 22:07, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

If there is no law giving him the right to ennoble anyone, then he has no legal right to ennoble anyone. Pretty obvious, I have to say. --OpenFuture (talk) 22:10, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

But is it an ennoblement? I have not stated that it absolutetely should be interpreted as an ennoblement. /Danog-76 (talk) 22:14, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

The king should have a right to govern his own household as anyone - but I am not interpreting the laws of Sweden, are you?, and how are these titles conferred to his children then? Is this not a legal fact (precedent) and a Swedish tradtition not abolished? /Danog-76 (talk) 22:21, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Is *what* ennoblement? Yes, he has the right to "govern" hos household. But the House of nobles is not his household, and he therefore has no right to introduce anyone there, unless the law says so, and it doesn't. I really don't understand what you are confused about here. --OpenFuture (talk) 22:27, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Have I said that? (that he introduces people there)? /Danog-76 (talk) 22:28, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes. " so that could probably be interpreted as that he only can ennoble inside his own family". --OpenFuture (talk) 22:31, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

yes "probably ennoble" but not "introduce" - another thing: is this a power that the king has that is a contradiction to article 1 in chapter 1 in the 1974 constitution? /Danog-76 (talk) 22:39, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

It's the same thing, and that power can not be contrary, because it does not exist. The King does not have that power. Do you want to discuss this in Swedish? Maybe that would work better, because this debate is obviously completely pointless and not going anywhere. --OpenFuture (talk) 22:43, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

What do you really mean when you say that the king has to introduce his daughter into Riddarhuset when he has given a traditional title to her?, a king has as far as I know never done that, and it is not like that in the British House of Lords.

It does exist because the titles are given somehow according to Swedish tradition, and it is allowed because it is not a power used (maybe it is not even an ennoblement). Then there is no prohibition for him to grant the titles in his own family. That seems to be the interpretation. /Danog-76 (talk) 22:55, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

No, giving these titles can hardly be called an ennoblement. But it's still unclear who gives the titles. As mentioned, the King seems to have no right to do so. This is not something that is prohibited, it's a right that is *granted*. Otherwise, as mentioned, anyone could give titles to anyone else, as they are not explicitly forbidden to do so. This is pretty damn obvious, to be honest. So stop this nonsense that he has the right to give titles because it's his family, because he is not expressly forbidden to do so. It's follows no logical rule, and is not an interpretation, but nonsense. --OpenFuture (talk) 23:02, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

He gives them though, isn't he? /Danog-76 (talk) 23:14, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Vi kan ta det på svenska, jag såg för ett tag sen att du ville det. Jag kom just på att kungen kan ge ordnar inom familjen sedan kronprinsessans myndighetsdag. Regeringen ändrade den kungl. kungörelsen av 1975 så att medlemmar av kungahuset inte gällde förbudet. Silvia hade fått ordnarna innan förbudet trädde ikraft 1975. Men man kan undra hur barnen fick titlarna dagarna efter att de fötts. /Danog-76 (talk) 23:24, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

We should keep to English here, but can discuss it in Swedish on other places if you like to.

Yes, the King gives the honorary titles of Duke and Duchess to the Princes and Princesses. That is not seen as ennoblement, and the title is not hereditary. The Knights orders could not since 1975 be given to Swedish citizens. You are right in that since 2003 the right to give them to members of the royal family have been reintroduced. That's probably not relevant for this article though, as recipients of these Knights Orders do not become members of the Swedish Nobility. --OpenFuture (talk) 01:51, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes we could do that, but maybe we can get to a result here quite soon.

I have thought a little more on this now. I agree that of course a right to ennoble must be granted especially when one thinks of the mentioned article in the first chapter in the constitution. I have also concluded that there can be different forms of ennoblements and that two different forms were regulated in two different articles in the old constitution of 1809. The old hereditary form that partly was created in the 16th century was a feudal one, and lands, often from the former catholic church confiscated by the crown, were most often given to them together with a title, the ennoblement (and even the crown's right to judge, govern and collect taxes), a fief (förläning in Swedish). This was a way of paying for services to the crown. Some war lords also got rich when they were at war. But later during the reign of Queen Kristina and later there were a lot of ennoblements without these fiefs to lower military officers and to civil servants to strengthen the monarch's own power. In medieval times and in the reigns of Erik XIV and John III and to some extent during the reign of Charles IX, dukes also had been given the right to govern their special parts of the kingdom and to collect taxes. That was why no duchies were granted to royal princes since the beginning of the 17th century, to hold together the country. That as the economy was also the motive for the reduction (Sweden). But Gustav III again granted titular dukedoms to his brothers (as in other monarchies like France and Great Britain) without feudal rights, this is most commonly referred as ennoblement (as they are feudal titles), but is only ceremonial, and this right to give in practice non-feudal titles to members of the royal house was confirmed in the constitution of 1809 article 45 (§ 45). As these are only ceremonial and not feudal rights granted, this can be in conformity with the 1974 constitution. In Swedish law the term förarbete (preparatory work on a regulation) is important. In the preparatory work of the 1974 constitution the law makers saw the office of the head of state as a ceremonial one and that was why he should have a right to wear the uniforms of an admiral and a general. That's probably also why the royal titles of prince and so on can be preserved under the new constitution. What do you think of this analysis? --Danog-76 (talk) 13:43, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

You are pretty much correct, but note WP:NOR, you can't put your own analysis into articles, you need sources. That said, in fact, KU made much the same analysis in 1979. It came to the conclusion that the Grundlagsberedning did not intend to change the right of the King to give out ceremonial "fiefdoms", so in practice KU gave the King this right in 1979, even though it's not an actual legal text. [1] So in fact, the king can not since 1975 ennoble, end of story. He can however give out these ceremonial titles to princes and princesses. --OpenFuture (talk) 14:12, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes I know. But the analysis of the committee of KU is the analysis I had, and my analysis corresponds with historical facts which can be used as sources in the article. My analysis is not controversial and only a way of answering your question. Good that you brought that source into the discussion.

Another question is how we then shall write about the knighthoods in the royal orders and the granted royal titles. Internationally, e.g. in Britain, knighthoods can be seen as a form of ennoblement as I can see (traditions since the medieval times), as also the royal titles, even if some of them are in practice or in statute not hereditary. But in Sweden such titles are not connected with the counts, barons and hereditary noblemen in the Swedish House of Lords. /Danog-76 (talk) 14:28, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

As far as I understand, being knighted is not necessarily seen as a form of ennoblement in England either. Also, as far as I can understand, you can in Britain have peerage and be a Lord without being noble. Only the hereditary titles are seen as the nobility, as far as I can confer. So it's a mistake to equate Knighthood and ennoblement. --OpenFuture (talk) 14:48, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Though both have roots in the medieval feudal chivalry (where knights were central). And yes the feudal peerage title baron can since the 1960s be granted as a nonhereditary life title in Britain. But the term ennoblement seems to be a bit problematic I agree, but one can of course mention in the article about the knighthoods in the royal orders as connected to what rights the king had before the ordinance of 1975.--Danog-76 (talk) 15:06, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, the article is about the Swedish nobility, not the royal orders. They are not closely, except that as you say the nobility and the term knight both have it's roots in medieval chivalry, and that both used to be given as an honour (while now ennoblement isn't given, and orders are mostly giving to visiting heads of state and such, so not much honour involved anymore). --OpenFuture (talk) 15:17, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes I agree. And the honour system is still used as long it is not given to Swedish citizens (e.g. to consuls). As the subjects are related I think it can be mentioned and we can also insert links to other related articles.--Danog-76 (talk) 15:25, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Legal Status of the Nobility is unclear

The article is ambiguous about the current legal status of the Swedish nobility. On one hand, it appears that nobility is no longer regulated by law and that the registry of noble families is maintained solely by a private corporation. At the same time, however, the article implies that nobility "has not been abolished" in Sweden. What does that mean exactly ? Can someone whose family is introduced in the House Of Nobility use a title or honorific predicate with his legal name and have this title appear for example in official documents like passports or ID cards ? Conversely, if someone whose family is not part of the House of Nobility uses a nobility title, is he/she subject to a fine or some other sanction in law ? I would appreciate if you could please clarify.161.24.19.44 (talk) 13:43, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

"Wellborn"

This has been reinstated after I knowlegeably removed it "Out of traditions, some customs may be enjoyed, such as addressing nobility with the style wellborn." No such form of address is ever known to be used in Sweden this century or most of the last. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:21, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

The word "wellborn" was also incorrectly linked to a disambiguation page. Seems pretty unknown even in English. In Sweden anyone using the archaic expression välboren or högvälboren would be laughed out of any room, methinks even at the House of Nobles. I am trying not to edit war about this, but such a ridiculous allegation should not ever appear in any WP article, even during a discussion. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:37, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Previous content simply aimed to reflect the historic custom as well its present occurence in some related organisational correspondance. Chicbyaccident (talk)

OK, in other words not Wiki material. Unsourced is enough to establish that fact. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:50, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Error in the article

Article quote: "With the exception of the current king's sister Désirée who officially and specifically was created a baroness in 1964 by the Swedish government, which is still valid today, the last time a person was ennobled in Sweden was in 1902. From 1974 the monarch can not confer nobility." So how do you explain the King continuing to ennoble his children and grandchildren with ducal titles then? 121.73.7.84 (talk) 11:55, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Those titles are considered royal, not noble, whereas Désirée's is not royal. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:34, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

I've read an article which states that the Swedish monarch can make anyone in the line of succession, but only those in the line of succession, a duke or duchess. The article needs to say this. In the British system most English-language readers are likely to be familiar with, the title of duke is still a title of nobility even when held by royalty. Also, the concept that the King's sister is not royal could be confusing to a non-Swedish readership, so that situation needs elaboration. 121.73.7.84 (talk) 17:40, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

That's explained in the articles about those persons, and has no direct connection to the subject of this article. Those titles, I repeat, are royal, not noble. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:41, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

I have removed the sentence about the King's sister Desirée. She was not created a baroness by the Government, she simply married a baron. /Elzo 90 (talk) 18:08, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

We normally (normally) discuss before we alter article text. Her title is still recognized todey by the government as given her by the government. Other titles of Swedish nobility are not. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:41, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Clarification

For a native English speaker the following text in the article is ambiguous: "Until 2003 the nobility was regulated by a government statute but in that year the statute was lifted and all connections between state and nobility dissolved." So does this mean the Swedish nobility was abolished in the eyes of the law in 2003? That's what this statement appears to be saying euphemistically. A more categorical statement would be helpful. Is a Swedish title of nobility now a pretense like Russian or German nobility is? 121.73.7.84 (talk) 11:58, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes. Private club only. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:30, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

So much like the Japanese situation where there is still a monarch but the nobility is abolished as a legal entity, only existing as a social concept? 121.73.7.84 (talk) 17:45, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

The Act of 2003 accomplished two things: 1) the ordinance regulating the organization and membership of the House of Nobility will no longer need the Government's approval to be changed or amended, and 2) a long obsolete law on the noble privileges (from 1723) was repealed. This was meant to end all public regulations concerning the nobility, not to abolish it altogether. Some noble families claim that their titles and noble status are guaranteed by their letters patent. Those have not been repealed, as as happened in several other countries. /Elzo 90 (talk) 18:42, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

This site: http://www.almanachdegotha.org/id224.html (rightly? or wrongly?) states that the law recognises and regulates the use of noble titles in Sweden. As such the nobility are recognised in law in that case. 121.73.7.84 (talk) 18:12, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

There are no specific laws concerning noble titles, but such titles are still recognized by the King and governmental agencies. /Elzo 90 (talk) 18:42, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

In this case the nobility hasn't been abolished, just its privileges, correct? 121.73.7.84 (talk) 10:28, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Or, as in France, the class of "nobility" is 1. abolished or 2. not recognized by the government, but hereditary titles are still legal to use (although no longer called "noble titles" by the Swedish government) and still descend according to the letters patent which created them? It depends on the exact words used in the 2003 law, and in any older laws that may have been only partially repealed by the 2003 law. FactStraight (talk) 17:30, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

What titles of any kind, if not obscene, are illegal to use, anywhere? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:21, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Nobility is abolished and hereditary titles are banned, illegal to attribute to citizens in, for instance, Russia and Austria. In other former monarchies, the law forbids government to attribute titles per se or other noble privileges to citizens (Germany), but recognizes formerly noble hereditary titles as legal surnames. In France, nobility as a class is abolished and the government no longer uses titles for individuals. But hereditary titles -- no longer "noble" -- are legal to use and are protected from usurpation. Italy's government, like Sweden's, no longer recognizes a legal class called nobility. Nor does it use titles of nobility but it has neither abolished nobility nor banned the use of hereditary titles, and government documents do use the nobiliary particle and territorial designation without the formerly associated title. FactStraight (talk) 10:56, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! In Sweden today it is not generally normal, nor considered necessary to use any titles of nobility whatsoever except if one wants to be extra courteous to certain individuals. When listing people as Dr. or Prof. etc (earned titles) the same applies, though it might be considered especially impolite to use such titles for some of the people without the (now obsolete) noble titles of others on the list.

What there is now is full freedom to do as one likes, with the healthy choice nowadays to entitle some individuals whom we consider particularly worthy in those historic families (becoming sort of like earned titles, rather than just inherited ones), and not to do so for others.

The Count Basie syndrome has also come to Sweden now, and it can no longer be considered improper to use noble titles just out of admiration, notwithstanding outdated regulations that previously governed such things by law.

The nobiliary particle (af, von, de) is now normally alphabetized officially as the first word of an already existing double surname, whereas new double surnames (such as Karlsson Blomqvist or Lundberg-Nordström) are no longer approved for anyone (with or without a hyphen). --SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:19, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

So in Sweden, use of names is regulated, while use of titles is not? Curious. You also seem to be addressing something new in this discussion: how members of society treat titles. Heretofore, we've been discussing how different countries' laws treat titles, customs being different from law. FactStraight (talk) 16:01, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

"Curious"? Finding titles utterly unimportant while simultaneously finding names very important? Why curious?

Sorry! Since titles, if they ever have been, certainly no longer are the subject of any Swedish law whatsoever, except as concerns academic degress, I just thought I'd go into usage today. That subject seems relevant to this article, but perhaps I shoud have started a new section? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:45, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Can someone whose family is introduced in the House Of Nobility use a title or honorific predicate with his legal name and have this title appear for example in official documents like passports or ID cards ? Conversely, if someone whose family is not part of the House of Nobility uses a nobility title, is he/she subject to a fine or some other sanction in law ? I would appreciate if you could please clarify.161.24.19.112 (talk)