Talk:Haijby scandal

This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBT studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBT studiesLGBT articles

Sweden Mid‑importance

	Sweden portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sweden, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sweden-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SwedenWikipedia:WikiProject SwedenTemplate:WikiProject SwedenSweden articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled[edit]

The Haijby affair did not really involve the king himself. The affair was about how the authorities treated Haijby.83.248.25.135 16:20, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can understand all rumors, but one, about the king being homosexual originates from Haijby himself. And they were not public knowledge until revealed through the Haijby affair. 83.248.81.52 (talk) 23:22, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I realise I'm replying to a 13 year old comment, but I have moved the article because I think the word "affär" does not translate fully to "affair" in English. It has a much more political meaning in Swedish, whereas the English word is mostly about extramarital affairs. EditorInTheRye (talk) 22:02, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

recent research[edit]

Lars Linder's review from April 9^th in Dagens Nyheter is of course in Swedish, as is its subject, Ebervall and Samuelson's Ers majestäts olycklige Kurt. DN, as it is known, is very high quality newspaper, it's only competition for the title of newpaper of record in Sweden being Svenska Dagbladet, called SvD. I have read only the review, not the book yet, but it is based previously classified Swedish documents and reveals far more than Wilhelm Moberg was able to find. — Robert Greer 00:32, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But the new book isn't a history book, it is written as a novel.

Påståendena i verklighetens affär var många och beläggen ofta osäkra. Men romanformen tystar bekvämt alla följdfrågor.

If so, the stories in the book can hardly be used as reference material.

Fred-J 11:17, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The headline in DN reads:

Lena Ebervall och Per E Samuelson: 'Ers majestäts olycklige Kurt'

Dokument eller roman? Vad är egentligen sant i Lena Ebervall och Per E Samuelsons kittlande bok om Haijbyaffären?

Lars Linder anser att händelsen bör tas på större allvar [emphasis added].

Or, for the benefit of those who do not read Swedish:

... the events [described in this book] need to be taken in utter earnest.

My bedtime reading while on vacation in Stockholm this summer was Vilhelm Moberg's Min svenska historia (My Swedish History).

In the foreward to which he explains that his novels were based on historical research and that he is using the same materials for a nonfiction work.

I would suggest that Ebervall and Samuelson's work is similar to Moberg's or to Truman Capote's nonfiction fiction.

More generally that one can write a wholly false work in a scholarly format, Holocaust deniers being an extreme but apt example.

And that one can write perfectly factual material in the format of fiction, of which Capote's In Cold Blood is a prime specimen.

— Robert Greer (talk) 04:06, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, but större allvar doesn't mean utter earnest, it means more earnest.

I suppose some part of the book could be used as reference though, depending on how those sections are written and what can be established as historically verifiable.

Fred-J 21:06, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't agree that Ebervall and Samuelson's novel could be regarded as "research". And where have you found the information that the novel "is based [on] previously classified Swedish documents"? I guess that could be true if you by previously classified means a decade or so ago de-classified, but otherwise I doubt it. Ebervall and Samuelson's book is a novel, and it lacks references, period. Lars Linder's opinion about this novel is subsequently of less interest to Wikipedia than the novel itself. But for your information, Lars Linder strongly dislikes the monarchy and have in DN expressed the opinion that the present king is almost an idiot. By the way, Vilhelm Moberg was a vivid republican too. M3926-990031 (talk) 22:05, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From the review in Sydsvenskan: Den här berättelsen har allt som en riktigt smaskig skandal ska ha. Dessutom bygger den på en sann historia.... ”Ers majestäts olycklige Kurt” är en sannsaga späckad med kandelaberbögar, kungligheter, förräderi och mygel. Här uppträder Karl Gerhard och Gestapo och en hoper parfymdoftande direktörer och, inte att förglömma, stjärtarna på både små och stora gossar. [I believe that this quotation, fifty words from a book review in a month-old newspaper, is within the limits of fair use.]

Translation: This story has all that a really delicious scandal should have. Despite which it builds on a true story.... Your Majesty's Unhappy Kurt is a true-story larded with candelabra gays, royalty, treachery and finagling. Here appear Karl Gerhard and the Gestapo and a [whole] crowd of perfumed directors and, not to be forgotten, the backsides of both small and large boys [emphasis added.] — Robert Greer (talk) 17:15, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I have added two additional book reviews to the article and am taking the liberty of cross-posting this section to the talk page for Gustaf V. — Robert Greer 17:15, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The book "Ers majestäts olycklige Kurt" is still a novel! But, yes it is based on a true story, the Haijby affair. The Haijby affair did occur, that's common knowledge. What's also common knowledge is that the Haijby affair is about the authorities treatment of Kurt Haijby, it's not about Haijby's alleged sexual affair with the king!

And you still haven't answered the question about where you got the information that the novel "is based [on] previously classified Swedish documents". M3926-990031 (talk) 21:33, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kurt Haijby's mistreatment cannot be explained without or seperated from his connection to Gustaf V; scoundrel that he was (and I most emphatically do not find him charming) there was no justification for placing Haijby in the hands of the Gestapo nor can doing so be justified by arguments that one needs to view the Swedish government's actions in the context of the times.

I intend to buy a copy of Ers majestäts olycklige Kurt when I'm in Stockholm at Christmas; all I read prior to the edit war you've begun is the review in DN — which you dismiss out of hand — when I was there in August, so it must have been in that review, which you are free to read at your leisure.

I skimmed the Expressen and Sydsvenskan reviews before adding them to the External links and chose them for solely for variety, omitting Svenska Dagbladet and Aftonbladet not wanting Stockholm papers to dominate and not wanting to list more than three external links (some Wikipedians criticize excessively long lists of the same); and could have added Göteborgs-Posten instead of Sydsvenskan but the latter came up near the top in a quick Google search.

And I have other fish to fry: this is not a matter of enought interest to me to do more than restore See also Haijby affair to the Gustaf V article, which I will thank you not to remove. — Robert Greer (talk) 17:32, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no mentioning of "previously classified Swedish documents" in any of the three reviews you obviously put so much value to. And they are still just reviews of a fictional story so you can't use them as references!

And where do you get that kind of nonsense about someone "placing Haijby in the hands of the Gestapo"? Haijby went to Germany of his own free will, where he was arrested for some kind of sexual harassment of boys, or something like that. Just because Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia it doesn't mean that you are allowed to spread the kind of lies that you do. M3926-990031 (talk) 07:11, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do chiefly agree with M3926-990031 above. Particularly in regard to "what the Haijby affair was really about" but also with respect to the value of the Ebervall-Samuelson family's novel as a source for Wikipedia.

The context of each public assertion must be kept in mind. Moberg was clearly influenced by the homophobia of the McCarthyism, he and Tingsten were clearly anti-Monarchist and first and foremost journalists knowing how to get the attention of the public. Most officials were clearly interested primarily in guarding the reputation of either the state or its authorities.

What the novel shows, however, is that the issue still is, to some degree, titillating for a portion of the general public.

This Wikipedia article would gain a lot from attributing controversial statements to sources, and comparing conflicting statements beside eachother. I have recently (and humbly) contributed to de:Haijby-Affäre where at least most of the many conflicting time frames in this narrative have been corrected. It relies (almost) solely on Swedish language sources available both in print and on the net, and they are easy to find in the notes of the article, why I hope that Robert Greer, or someone else, will find time to develop this article even further.

This is not to say that I, personally, be convinced that Gustaf V. should have lived a purely heterosexual life. No, I am not. But I do see other possible reasons for those rumors, as dislike for Gustaf's decissions in a couple of controversial questions:

Giving up the personal union with Norway without a military fight
Not entering WWI on the side of Germany
Naming not only Liberals, but Socialists to the Cabinet - and as PMs
Accepting, without being forced by a civil war, the popular demands for political democracy and parliamentarism
Not entering the Civil War in Finland on the side of the White Government
Supporting popular demands on the Åland islands for a secession from Finland (and reunion with Sweden)
Not entering the Winter War despite advanced preparations
Not entering Operation Barbarossa

Add to this the known liasons between his queen and some men, the reports about her regarding their mariage as "cool", her long absences from Sweden, and the lack of any known liasons between the king and ...anyone at all.

- But he was known to like stiching embroideries. Can a "real man" be like that? Mustn't he be an Uranian?

I have one additional (though small) remark:

There was in fact a for Swedish conditions highly unusual secrecy around the investigations done in the early 1950s. And as far as I understand, without being totally sure, important parts remained classified until 2002. There is no reason to distrust Ebervall-Samuelson when they state that they believe in an erotic affair between the 75 years old Gustaf and the 40 years younger Kurt, and that they have arrived at this belief by reading the now unclassified investigations. But Wikipedia can not state that there actually should have been an affair, only that Moberg and Ebervall-Samuelson made that assessment, just like Wikipedia ought to state that two judicial courts and seemingly every involved official came to the opposite conclusion, although all of them started out assuming that there actually had been an affair.

Kind regards!

-- 85.24.240.44 (talk) 22:28, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gestapo torture[edit]

Is there any evidence that "most Gestapo prisoners" were tortured? This sounds like anti-German propagandaRoyalcourtier (talk) 01:57, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Haijby affair. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:53, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]