Talk:Victoria, Crown Princess of Sweden

Can we have a link to article about the so called "engagment"? Unless/untill the royal court makes an anoucment it's all just speculation.

Wedding bells?

Can we have a link to article about the so called "engagment"? Unless/untill the royal court makes an anoucment it's all just speculation.

I have added mention of Westling as well as quotes given by the Crown Princess regarding her relationship with him and romance in general as well as observations of the couple's apparent relationship by reputable news sources. This does not count as speculation or POV in any fashion. They are seen together, she has been interviewed about her relationship with him and her answers, while guarded, have been relatively candid. Therefore, it is news and part of public debate so should be included in the entry. Mowens35 14:22, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Name

Does anyone know if she is planning to reign under the name Victoria, or might she choose another name so as to avoid confusion/comparison with her great-great-great-grandmother? - Montréalais 04:36, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ruling under a different name than that you are commonly known as as a prince/princess is something very rare in Sweden. I know that in the UK George VI was really called Albert but choose to be styled George as a monarch instead, but I find it very, very unlikely that Victoria would be styled Ingrid, Alice, Desirée, or in fact anything other than Victoria. If she were even considering something like that I'm sure it would be all over the news here in Sweden. —Gabbe 14:37, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

What about the last name "Bernadotte"? Doesn't she bear it any more? -134.176.19.218 23:36, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Formally she never has. Most royalty does not have a surname, and while some cases (for instance the United Kingdom) might be difficult, Sweden is not: Swedish royalty has never had surnames (at least not since mediaeval times, when kings sometimes used their patronymics). It is true that some members of the Royal House have used Bernadotte as if it were a surname (I believe that Prince Carl Philip, Duke of Wermelandia was called "Lieutenant Bernadotte", or whatever rank he had, in the navy), but that is purely a personal choice made for convenience. Their formal names (as registered with the tax and census autorities etc) do not include the name Bernadotte. As a real surname, Bernadotte has been used in Sweden only by family members who lost their royal status and thus needed a normal surname (the Counts Bernadotte af Wisborg and Prince Carl Bernadotte). -- Jao 08:59, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

Actually, her surname is Bernadotte, as is established on the Royal Family's website, the Almanach de Gotha, and other reference books of nobiliary enrollment. The family is descended from a French general surnamed Bernadotte and the royal family has been known as the House of Bernadotte since 1818, having succeeded a previous royal house of Holstein-Gottorp when Marshal Bernadotte was adopted by Karl XIII of Sweden. As all biographies of Marshal Bernadotte (who reigned as Karl XIV Johan) indicate, he did not give up his surname upon his adoption and made it very clear that his descendants would carry his surname. And the Royal Family's website clearly refers to the family as the Bernadotte dynasty. Mowens35 14:29, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have never claimed that the family is not "the Bernadotte dynasty", or that Victoria would not belong to the Royal House of Bernadotte, but there is an important difference between dynasty name and personal surname (as shown, for instance, by the people of the dynasty of Windsor bearing the surname Mountbatten-Windsor). And I have never heard any such thing as that Marshal Bernadotte ever made it clear that his descendants should carry his surname. Do you have a source? -- Jao 21:17, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

I have it on the authority of (a) a Bernadotte I happen to know very well and (b) a biography of Karl XIV Johan (aka Charles XIV) that Bernadotte made it clear in letters to his family that their surname was not to be erased by his elevation to royalty. They remained Bernadottes. (And re the Mountbatten-Windsors, there's a lot of discussion over that; the Queen's order re the family's surname is Windsor for a few, Mountbatten-Windsor for the rest -- but everybody who would normally be Windsor seems to have adopted M-W as their personal surname, regardless of the wording of the QE2's decree.) If there is any further question, I would be happy to email the relevant authorities in Sweden to determine if Bernadotte is the family's actual and continued surname. I'll even be happy to call and get a name to footnote it. Get back to me on this. Mowens35 17:43, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This morning, I called the Press Office of the Royal Palace in Sweden (if you want the phone number, I can provide it). She is officially Her Royal Highness the Crown Princess of Sweden. As the press officer said, "We only have one, so that is the correct way to refer to her." He also noted that it would not be incorrect to call her HRH Crown Princess Victoria of Sweden, but pointed out that, strictly and narrowly speaking, the title she bears is Crown Princess of Sweden (a la the Prince of Wales), not Crown Princess Victoria of Sweden (a la Prince Charles of Wales). He also said that the family surname truly is Bernadotte, though it is only typically used by family members who are not members of the immediate royal family. Given this, I think therefore it is acceptable (a) to have the intro line HRH The Crown Princess of Sweden and (b) to have Bernadotte in parenthesis for the members of the royal family. The former also allows consistency in Wiki (which seems to be very important around here, if I've read the naming conventions closely enough) with titleholders like the Prince of Wales, the Duchess of Cornwall, the Duchess of Hanover, and others. What do you think? Mowens35 08:58, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

My opinion is that in the introductory paragraph, could be mentioned "of the House of Bernadotte", but that it is stupid to write here "Victoria Ingrid Alice Desiree Bernadotte" or "Victoria Bernadotte", nor after a marriage, "née Bernadotte". 217.140.193.123 2 July 2005 11:45 (UTC)

First Bernadotte Monarch

Though it is entirely accurate to call him Charles XIV, in Sweden, where he reigned, he was known upon his accession and is known now as Carl XIV Johan. I see no reason to have changed it, since it linked to the proper entry, so I have changed it back. If you insist on the change, then we'll have to translate the present king's name as well for continuity's sake. Do you agree? Is Wiki preference to translate all foreign first names into the English equivalent? If so, we have a lot of work ahead of us correcting entries to conform. Mowens35 17:36, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Actually, you didn't change it back. What you previously had written was Karl XIV Gustaf, with an unnecessary redirect through Jean-Baptiste Bernadotte, rather than a link to his royal name.

As for translating names, this is not my invention: the Wikipedia policy is to use the commonly used English names of people. For some strange reason, it has been decided that this is Charles XIV, while a more reasonable solution would be to use Charles XIV John (as the Encyclopaedia Britannica does). In this respect, historical monarchs are treated differently from the living. It is not at all consistent, but as a rule, historical rulers of major European states have commonly used English versions of their names, i.e. English Charles rather than Carlo, Carlos, Carl or Charles-with-French-pronunciation. Look at the disambiguation page for Charles II, for instance. Some more recent monarchs (such as the German emperors Wilhelm I and Wilhelm II) and some rulers of slightly more exotic states retain the original form of their names. There are certainly cases where this anglicization of names is debatable or even gets silly, but I don't think this is one of those. -- Tupsharru 18:48, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Is there someone in Wiki who can parse this? It seems ridiculous to have one king of Sweden called "Charles XIV" when his successor in the name uses "Carl XVI" ... after he drops dead, do we immediately rename his page "Charles XVI Gustav"??? (And what exactly is the English equivalent of Gustav/Gustaf??) This is bizarre in the extreme to me and wildly inconsistent, even illogically willful; I could understand in the case of someone like Catalina of Aragon, who became Catherine in England, after marrying an English king. Does Wiki write Nicholas Ceaucescu instead of Nicolae? Any why not then call any of the French kings "Lewis" instead of "Louis", which would be the most correct if Wiki is to be followed precisely. I'm very confused. And think this mode of operation needs to be rethought. I just checked re Ceaucescu; we call him Nicolae; why not Nicholas? Is there a Wiki reason for this? Mowens35 20:21, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It is quite normal to treat names of monarchs and rulers differently from "private" individuals, even presidents and other non-royal leaders. This is done in most history books and reference books (like in the Encyclopaedia Britannica, which I just cited above). There are other categories of people where the same thing is done: Biblical figures are referred to by their names in the English Bible translations, rather than the original names in Hebrew or Greek. Classical authors: Homer, Horace and Virgil. Popes: John Paul II, Benedict XVI, not the Latin form. I really don't understand how you can be so surprised about this. Look at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles) for the Wikipedia policy. -- Tupsharru 20:43, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

PS. Gustaf in English is usually Gustavus, with the Latin ending. Gustavus Adolphus is traditionally the way to refer in English to the king called Gustav II Adolf in modern Swedish (and Gustavus for the other Swedish kings with the name Gustaf). It might seem paradoxical to drop the Latin ending from popes called Benedictus, while adding it to non-English and non-Latin names, but that is the way it is. -- Tupsharru 20:49, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

So what you are saying, basically, is that when Carl XVI Gustaf drops dead, his entry will be moved to Charles XVI Gustavus. And my surprise is that Wiki policy regarding this is illogical to my mind. And you still haven't explained Lewis versus Louis to me. Got any ideas about that one? I think the Wiki stylebook needs some finetuning. And I've just looked at Wiki's entry on Alfonso XIII of Spain; by yours and Wiki's reckoning, it should be something closer to Alphonse. And will Juan Carlos I, the present king, be shifted to John Charles I when he dies? Actually, by my reading of the Wiki guidelines, he should be John Charles I right now, as his entry heading, and his son should be Philip, Prince of Asturias. Should I go ahead and change these and other entries to conform with Wiki's policy, which does clearly state that we are to use the most common form of the name used in English . . . Mowens35 22:21, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't have a crystal ball and can't tell you what Wikipedia will do with the article on the present Swedish king whenever he dies. (In the particular case of the present Swedish king vs earlier monarchs, Wikipedia seems to be no more inconsistent than the Encyclopaedia Britannica.) In any case, I think it would be better if you discussed this general issue on the policy talk page (Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (names and titles)). It is not relevant to this article in particular. -- Tupsharru 06:37, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Alfonso is such an exotic name that the English have not usually bothered to translate it. After all, Edward I of England had a son prince Alfonso - which apparently is the accepted English name version. Louis seems to be at least as English version as Lewis (compare all those guys named Louis in US and in England), thus no significant need of translation. Actually, Louis seems to be the accepted English translation of king Louis I of Spain who in Spain was of course Luis I.
I feel that those -us -phus endings in Adolphus and Gustavus are at least archaic, obsoleted and not current, if ever even were seriously English.
Our current era's monarchs and princes are allowed more native versions - and that does not affect to established versions of historical figures. Thus, we will now have here king Charles XIV, king Charles XV, and king Carl XVI. As Jan Carlos is the only one of that precise name in Spanish history, I believe he stays as Juan Carlos I in English history books even when he is pushing daisies (sometimes things are not so consistent) - my crystal ball estimates to me. More difficult to say about Carl Gustav. You can always put the anglicized version on display to the text of the article - for information to those who may wonder has "Carl" something to do with "Charles". 217.140.193.123 2 July 2005 12:01 (UTC)

Title of Article

I have moved page from "Crown Princess Victoria of Sweden" to "Victoria, Crown Princess of Sweden," per Wiki convention of examples re "Charles, Prince of Wales" and "Felipe, Prince of Asturias." Have also rewritten intro line to conform to further Wiki convention, ie "Her Royal Highness Victoria, Crown Princess of Sweden ..." as per Wiki convention of "His Royal Highness Felipe, Prince of Asturias" and "His Royal Highness The Prince Charles, Prince of Wales." However, I will call the Swedish Royal press office on Monday to determine more precisely her official title per intro though I think the way it is now, per my edit, is best, as it follows established Wiki convention. Though the Swedish royal website lists all of the CP's birth names, followed by her titles, I do not believe this is correct per Wiki nor per her precise titular distinction ... unless Sweden is wildly different than other monarchies per namings. Note that the king's sisters' official titles do not include the entire roster of their birth and christening names but merely utilize their royal title (Princess), the name they are known by (ie Jane) and their married style (ie Mrs. Doohickey).Mowens35 12:22, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ask the press office...

What position they hold about her changing the dysnasty name to her future husbands name, and that of her potential children and heirs. Personally, and in a compleatly Non point of View, I would have her retain her dynasty name and the children retain her dynasty name as is,Drachenfyre

Until she's decided to marry, that question's a moot point. It likely will be as you said, which appears to be the usual situation in such cases, a la Denmark, where Prince Consort Henrik's original French surname does not appear to be used by or for his children, who are members of the royal family of S-H-S-Glucksborg (abbreviation). The princely house of Monaco remains Grimaldi, though Prince Rainier's father was a Polignac by birth (he adopted Grimaldi as a condition of marriage), et cetera, et cetera. Only in the UK has the surname issue with regard to a queen regnant or heiress apparent -- ie Windsor, Mountbatten, and Mountbatten-Windsor -- appeared controversial and/or complicated. Mowens35 07:44, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I like the old picture

I like the old picture. She looked better. Not that it matters, however. Эрон Кинней 11:44, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I do too, but if it is not a 'fair use' picture, than it had to go. Prsgoddess187 15:09, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Imo a free image is always better than a fair use one. If there is a free image available, there's no reason to use a fair use one, also, the fair use law fails if it's possible to illustrate the article in another way. Additionally, this image seems much more natural than an official governmental portrait. /Grillo 00:43, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Imo a free image is always better than a fair use one - I sincerely disagree with you. Which image gives the most 'encyclopedic' impression: the 'mugshot' File:Carl XVI Gustaf of Sweden.jpg or the official File:Kinggus.jpg? 83.252.72.10 19:14, 10 December 2005 (UTC)