Talk:Victoria, Crown Princess of Sweden

Coat of Arms

There is also a version without the Order of the Seraphim

I've constructed a free version of her coat of arms which can be included in the article in a suitable place. /Lokal_Profil 01:22, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Just wondering if it should be round or not? What decides that?

Gender decides.(Talk about gender equality...) Ladies bear theirs on a cartouche, while gentlemen bear theirs on a shield. Surtsicna (talk) 23:19, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Gender?

The sentence, "This constitutional reform meant that the throne would be inherited by the monarch's eldest child without regard to gender", is peculiar here, since the noun genders of the Swedish language are common and neuter, not masculine and feminine as the author may have supposed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.237.131.205 (talk) 21:57, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me... what? The sentence is quite clear: the Swedish crown would be inherited by the monarch's eldest [legitimate] child, whether male or female. I don't see what "noun genders of the Swedish language" have to do with that. Surtsicna (talk) 22:26, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Why be so dramatic? Why not just reply calmly, assuming good faith? What I think 24.237.131.205 may have meant is that, in h. opinion, "without regard to gender" might be superfluous, as the meaning actually is the same without that (basically true). I do not agree, if so. In this case it is a good idea to specify that gender is not an issue, for maximal clarity. SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:22, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I have a feeling the basis for the editor's comment is that "gender" refers to the whether a noun or adjective is male, feminine, or neuter, and "sex" refers to whether a human or creature is male or female. -Rrius (talk) 23:29, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

As far as I know, being an American, it is just as correct to use gender as sex here, in English. Webster, at least, seems to agree. The latter is a bit less colloquial. The former prevents any possible giggliness on the part of less sophisticated readers. No biggy. SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:43, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Using "gender" to mean "sex" has definitely become standard, but I figure if its actually tripping an editor up, we may as well switch. Hell, everyone wins: pedants get "sex" and the puerile get giggles! -Rrius (talk) 23:48, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Succession

I wonder if the anon user who objects to accuracy and neutrality could explain the reason for his reverts here. His edit summaries are unclear. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 04:33, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

There is no "anon user who objects to accuracy and neutrality", because there have been no such objections. I suppose you mean me, though. The edit-summaries, "stick to the topic", "Stick to topic & avoid pedantry", and "better writing", seem quite self-explanatory, taken together with the edits themselves. Perhaps if you explained your seeming confusion, I could help you to understand. 64.180.177.195 (talk) 06:17, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Reverting accurate, clear, and neutral edits, as you did, would indicate an objection to them. As my edits were also on topic - namely the Princess' place in lines of succession - and "pedantry" is a subjective opinion, your summaries didn't clarify anything at all, other than perhaps a misunderstanding of the subject matter, on your part. Is that the case? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 06:38, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree that it has been a bit confusing to try to follow recent edits, the reasons for them and some of the unnecessarily masterful language in the summaries. Condescension from anonymous IP users can get on anybody's nerves. In any case, there is nothing non-neutral or POV-y about the British succession here. All legitimate Swedish royalty descending from the current king's grandmother Margaret of Connaught are in that succession. That is such common knowledge and so well-documented elswehere that I don't even see any urgent reason to source it here. SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:13, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

It's the old British monarchy vs 16 Commonwealth monarchies argument, all over again. GoodDay (talk) 17:15, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Condescension from anonymous IPs who follow one around Wikipedia to revert one's edits is particularly bad for the nerves.

Regardless, the singular focus on the British succession is biased because it excludes the other fifteen lines of succession in which Victoria holds a place. This pro-British point of view can be neutralised by the most minor rewording (though, additional work may need to be done to rectify the anon's other edits that didn't improve the sentence structure). I propose the following:

Through her father, a third cousin of Queen Elizabeth II, she is also in the line of succession to the thrones of the Commonwealth realms; unlike in Sweden, however, that line is governed by male preference primogeniture, meaning it places Victoria behind her younger brother, Carl Philip. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:23, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Cool. GoodDay (talk) 19:30, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Her father is related to E2R through Margaret - those are not separate heritages. SergeWoodzing (talk) 01:01, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Can anyone explain why there is a tag now that questions whether or not V is in line for the British throne (she is!), notwithstanding male or female precedence or the thrones of other countries? Shouldn't the reason for the tag be clear enough to show why it's there? SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:10, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I assume it's because the argument is being made that Vicky is in line for the British, Canadian, Australian, New Zealand etc etc thrones. GoodDay (talk) 23:19, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

That would hardly be clear to a reader who sees a tag that looks like her heritage itself is in question, not how many thrones - or the gender issues. Can it be done so that we don't have that problem? If not, I'd like to remove the tag and let the discussion suffice. SergeWoodzing (talk) 01:01, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Remove the tag, since there's nobody disputing that Vicky is in the succession for the British throne. GoodDay (talk) 01:39, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

 Done. SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:09, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure why everyone here is speaking about a tag as though it were a tag. There's a big difference. Victoria's place in the succession isn't questioned, it's the exclusion of the realms other than Britain that's at issue. Is there any objection to my proposed sentence above? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:41, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

The tag, where it was and how it looked, could only be interpreted by a regular reader as a tag questioning the neutrality of her heritage itself, not of how many thrones are involved or whether or not men go before women. That's why I removed it the first time and that's why I removed it again.

As to the question you want discussed, I see no way, in this article, to cover everything about all those thrones and all the gender issuses. It's not for an article about just one of the hundred's of heirs to cover that. It needs to be addressed in some other way, more generally.

What I do think is that only the first 20-30 people in line for Elizabeth's thrones should have any of this in their articles at all. It becomes rather irrelevant when you are the two-hundred-and-eleventh in line or so. That specialty knowledge can be looked up by especially interested readears in special articles about that heritage. SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:44, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

(See below) Are you planning on making changes in the British throne succession box, too? GoodDay (talk) 19:46, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not planning anything with that. Just giving my opinions. Would love to see the British succession removed from any bio page where a person is over 20th-30th in line or so. But I'm not going to do anything about it myself. 19:51, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Question meant for Mies. GoodDay (talk) 20:12, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I've introduced a compromise. I think it is silly to expect the average reader to know what the Commonwealth thrones are without mentioning the UK. As such, I've changed it to "British and other Commonwealth thrones". While Elizabeth is clearly as much Queen of Canada as she is Queen of the UK, most people best understand her has the latter, so the writing should reflect that. After all, writing is about conveying information to readers; if we want the best way to convey who she is distantly in line to succeed, we should make sure we include the information most likely to fill in that blank. -Rrius (talk) 22:29, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

That's an acceptable compromise for this article & other bios articles of people in that line of succession. The British throne succession boxes should get similiar 'pipe-linking' too. GoodDay (talk) 22:35, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, well done. SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:43, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

British throne succession box

Actually, if we go with Mies' argument, the British throne succession box of this article & a few other articles, would have to be re-named. See Frederik, Crown Prince of Denmark & Haakon, Crown Prince of Norway (for 2 examples). GoodDay (talk) 23:26, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

How meticulously detailed and how complicated do we have to get? Can't we just link to an article such as Commonwealth realms, that shows how many thrones are involved? SergeWoodzing (talk) 01:01, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd rather stick with British. GoodDay (talk) 01:38, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Succession rights to the British throne disputed

An anonymous commentator argued on one of the Wikipedia's talk pages that, since the King Carl Gustaf's mother, Princess Sybilla of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, married without asking the consent of the British monarch, her marriage is legally invalid in the UK under the Royal Marriages Act. Therefore, the King and his subsequent descendants, including Princess Victoria, would be illegitimate issue under British law and, thus, excluded from the line of succession to the UK throne. What does Wikipedia have to say about that ? 161.24.19.112 (talk) 16:16, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Dutch descent???

There is a category at the bottom of the page 'Swedish people of Dutch descent'. How is this proven and from what ancestor? It's the first i've seen of them having Dutch ancestry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaelic Rules (talk • contribs) 04:35, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

The only information I could find is that she is a great-great-granddaughter of Princess Helena of Waldeck and Pyrmont (sister of Emma of the Netherlands), who herself is a great-great-granddaughter of Princess Carolina of Orange-Nassau and Charles Christian, Prince of Nassau-Weilburg. Princess Carolina was born in Leeuwarden and was the daughter of William IV, Prince of Orange, the Stadtholder of the Netherlands. Mr. D. E. Mophon (talk) 06:15, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Crownprincess Victoria of Sweden Skultuna 2007.jpg Nominated for Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:Crownprincess Victoria of Sweden Skultuna 2007.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 5 August 2011 What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 09:20, 5 August 2011 (UTC)