Wikipedia

Talk:Carl XVI Gustaf/Archive 1

< Talk:Carl XVI Gustaf
Latest comment: 6 years ago by Cthomas3 in topic Denmark 1953 Sweden 1980
Archive 1Archive 2

Untitled

There is much duplicated information in the table to the right here. Leave it, or do something about it? -- Jao 00:11, 28 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Well, I created the House of Bernadotte template to add to the Swedish royals pages, but realised it would look awkward with the tables that are already underneath the images. I suggest maybe incorporating the present info into the introduction paragraph and adding the House template underneath instead? Craigy 02:42, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

The picture

Latest comment: 19 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Why has the picture been changed from the picture with the king in his uniform? --Dahlis 22:28, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

From the edit description "130.235.184.253 (no use in using a copyrighted image when free images exist)". The new picture looks like a mugshot. --Laisak 22:36, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
Exactly it looks horrible.--Dahlis 07:14, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Royal duties and personal interests

Latest comment: 19 years ago12 comments3 people in discussion

"On July 14, 2005 he squeesed the butt of Helena Paparizou when she performed at his daughter's birthday" : wow, now I know why I favour Wikipedia over all other sources of knowledge. It's just so grand, pointing out to the essentials of the subjects it covers. Of course, only royalists would think otherwise. --FvdP 17:19, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

That part should be removed since thats not exactly what happened, its just republican bullshit. --Dahlis 19:45, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
I agree with the removal ;-) Actually, the note about his car accident seems to stem from the same anti-Carlist (or trivia-loving ?) mobile... I've removed it since it's also quite minor (quote from the 2nd cited source: Both cars were slightly damaged in the accident, but no one was injured [...] Police said the king was not suspected of committing a traffic offence.) --FvdP 18:16, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Actually he was suspected, but they didn't perform a drug test on him since he has royal immunity so it would be pointless. Considering the section is called "Royal duties and personal interests" is is ofcourse trivia, but it's the apropiate place to put it. The entire section is for trivia. // Liftarn

Your second source (link) about the accident opens no room for such speculation. (Your 1st and 3rd sources I can't read: the articles have probably disappeared from free viewing.) And overall, I don't think Wikipedia is the place for such trivia, even in dedicated sections. They have no importance outside of gossip. --FvdP 18:27, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
Weel, that second source is wrong. The police decided not to investigate the matter since it was no point in doing so due to his royal immuinity. I see no difference between mention this and his reactions to the culling of baby seals in Norway. I notice it doesn't say anything about that he is fond of hunting moose. // Liftarn
So you are the one adding this republican propaganda? --Dahlis 17:10, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
Liftarn, (1) can you provide any source to support your claims ? (2) I did not delete or propose to delete the sentence stating that Carl XVI was fond of driving cars. So your comparison is irrelevant. --FvdP 20:21, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

It's neither republican, nor propaganda. Sources are provided in the links for each item. // Liftarn

You are only quoting tabloids and rumors, and you seem to be the only one who thinks this kind of information is relevant. --Thomas 10:02, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Considering how much effort some people seem to put into repressing this type of informastion it simply must be important. // Liftarn

Its important because by adding it it gives the article a clear political standpoint. But since this is only rumors it should not be in the article. (tro inte på allt som står i tidningen!) --Dahlis 21:54, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
It has nothing to do with politics. You claim it's only rumours, other claims it's true. Since I have given the sources it's up to the reader to judge who to trust. // Liftarn
Claiming something is true without having evidence (as the porn club rumors) is just what a Rumor is. Quoting Wikipedia: "A rumor (Commonwealth English: rumour) is a piece of purportedly true information that circulates without substantiating evidence.". Even your original wording was "rumors", not "information". Show us some evidence. thonil 08:46, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
It's all in the article. "US lawyer named him as one of the celebrities that have visited the porn club Gold Club in Atlanta when he visited Atlanta in 1996 with his family for the Olympics.[1][2] One of the women mentioned as his conquests is the news anchor Anna Lindmarker.[3]" Just follow the links, they are the sources (or rather the sources I could find online, it's a "public secret" thet the good king likes women). See Wikipedia:Verifiability. "The threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth." // Liftarn

Of the three sources you have given on the accident, two are not working for me and from the third, the event looks of such a minimal signifiance (could happen to anyone who drives a car, brings not a hint of meaningful insight on what kind of person that king is) that the fact it happened to Carl XVI is a non-event and is not worthwhile of inclusion in Wikipedia. --FvdP 20:07, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, they have expired. That often happens with news items, they aren't kept forever. They worked when they were added. It gives an interesting insight on what kind of person that king is. // Liftarn

Your note on Carl "been caught speeding several times" is better, but only marginally so. Who has never been speeding ? If he was caught two times driving 140 km/h on a highway where only 120 km/h were permitted, then again it's no-news. As your source gives no other information on this than that single sentence (!), we can't conclude any signifiance from it. --FvdP 20:07, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I have never been caught speeding. Neither has my SO. The fact is that he likes fast cars and driving them fast. If you find a better way to give a source to that than to note that he for instance drives a BMW M3 and have been caught speeding several times. // Liftarn
I see no problem with mentioning his driving a BMW M3. Bit more reserved about speeding. I might be more acceptable if you gave more context. The fact that he likes driving cars fast (if true, of course) is more significant than his being caught speeding. So go for the more significant first. (A side-effect of not doing that, is that passing-by readers can imagine the worst about your intentions...) --FvdP 19:52, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Bernadotte

Latest comment: 18 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

I might be terribly wrong, but isn't his full name "Carl Gustaf Folke Hubertus Bernadotte"? I suspect the names are sourced from [4]. Those profiles don't seem to indicate any last names, though.

I'm adding it for now.

Obli (Talk) 17:35, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

He is the king he has no last name. Bernadotte is the name of the dynasty its only used as a last name by those members of the family who has lost their royal stauts in some way. Im removing it. --Dahlis 13:03, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Most likely (but not with any certainty) is that his legal names is as is stated above (Carl Gustaf Folke Hubertus Bernadotte), but for honorary purposes a royal title is assumed (and should be used). I can imagine the same applies to all royal houses and to the pope who also assumes a different name upon assuming his position, that in this age of bureaucracy and computers life without a last name would be a little difficult? --Oden 03:33, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
According to the Swedish Tax Authorities his name is de facto "Carl Gustaf Folke Hubertus" with an * placed instead of a surname in that line.RicJac 00:14, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

The Paparizou remark

Latest comment: 18 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

This edit war has slowly gone on for over a year now, without much attempts to resolve the matter (there was a little discussion last autumn). It's getting a bit silly, really. For those who haven't followed, User:Liftarn is repeatedly adding the following text to the "Royal duties and personal interests" section:

His alleged interest in women sometime gets the attention of the media. On July 14, 2005 the King placed his hand a bit lower on the back side of singer Elena Paparizou than is socially acceptable. It happened when she performed at his daughter's birthday. According to the royal court his hand slipped. [5]

which is just as repeatedly removed by another user, most often User:Slarre. The text is properly sourced, and as for its factual accuracy it's for anyone to decide from the image in the linked article. Relevance and NPOV are more tricky. The text certainly reads a bit tabloidish to me, but perhaps it could be rewritten to suit both parties? If the main disagreement is however over whether the fact is relevant to the article at all, RFC could be a useful tool, of course. (PS. I'm not an admin or anything, just a regular editor who thinks one year is a very long time for something like this to be going on...) -- Jao 21:51, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

The king has an alleged interest in women, nudge, nudge, wink, wink, you know what I mean? you know what I mean? 128.240.229.6 12:24, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
This "issue" has no relevance in an encyklopedia at all. The only large paper who wrote anyting about it (afaik) was the tabloid Aftonbladet. If we should put everything that Aftonbladet writes about the Swedish king in this article then the article would be like a cillion times longer. /Slarre 12:49, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Why is it not an issue? If the king sleeps around and we have sources for it why should it be hidden? // Liftarn
Sleeps around? If you have any proof that the king "sleeps around" then you're welcome to present it, however that's not what we're discussing here... /Slarre 21:28, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
There have been persistent reports about mistresses and visits to porn clubs for many years. However, the Paparizou incident (and that Anna Lindmarker is named as one of his mistresses[6] (one of many I might add)) is the only ones that are online now. The Times mentioned a visit to a porn club[7], but that article is so old it has been taken offline by now and we only have a tertiary source[8]. Oh, wait. I googled a bit and found a few sources to the porn club visit.[9][10] // Liftarn
You are not sticking to the topic here. This discussion is about whether the Paparizou remark is relevant to the article or not. Unconfirmed rumours in the tabloid press are not always the best sources... /Slarre 15:45, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Is's a reliable and verifiable source even if you want to call it "tabloid press". Is it relevant? Perhaps not, but if he grabs ass in public, in front of his family then what is he doing when he not in the spotlight? // Liftarn

A majority of editors seem to think it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. I'm deleting it and if it gets reverted again I'll call in a mediator so we can get this settled. - TexMurphy 07:44, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
A majority of one? // Liftarn
One? I count seven different editors deleting that particular section through the page's history. As far as I can see you are the only one who insists on putting it back.
I say again, if the text makes it back to the article again I think it's best for everyone if we have someone with a more objective view have a look at it. - TexMurphy 19:47, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Westboro Baptist Church

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I don't know how to create a new header, so I am making comment here. My apologies. Is the Westboro Baptist Church section really necessary? It's listed under "Controversy" but I don't think that the nature of the WBC's arguments are terribly controversial. In fact, they're pretty outlandish and don't seem to merit their inclusion. If it *is* deemed to necessitate inclusion, then should not other biographical pages include WBC criticisms? I'm fairly certain that they've criticized U.S. Presidents Bush and Clinton more often than they have the Swedish monarchy, yet their entries do not include a section dedicated soley to the WBC's concerns (hate mongering). Certainly there exists more legitimate, and relevant, controversies regarding the monarchy other than those originating from American fringe groups who critisize what is widely becoming the European norm. Discussion? Also, feel free to create a new header for this, and move my comments, if anyone would like. Joe in Seattle —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.227.219.0 (talk • contribs) 19:58, 10 December 2006.

I agree, the information belongs in the article on the Westboro Baptist Church. If it is to be included at all in this article, then one sentence is enough. --Oden 20:23, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Dyslexia?

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

From the info given in the article, I think he rather had dysgraphia than dyslexia. Timur lenk 23:46, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Military rank

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

What is his rank? The english version of this article mentions Captain in the Army, and Liutenant in the Navy, while the swedish version does not mention this, but instead mentions that he holds the ranks of General/Admiral in the army resp. the navy. 217.210.224.224 13:54, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

His Majesty was given separate commissions in the three branchs of the Swedish Armed Forces in 1968. He would eventually be promoted to the rank of Captain in 1972 ('Kapten' in Swedish: which is equal to a Lieutenant if using the standard Royal Navy terminology), before succeding his grandfather, King Gustaf VI Adolf, thereby ex officio holding the highest ranks in the three branches of the Swedish Armed Forces.RicJac 23:21, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Infobox

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Someone should change "consort to=Silvia" to "consort=Silvia", because he is not her consort, she is his consort. Surtsicna (talk) 18:19, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Carl XVI Gustaf to Charles XVI Gustav

Latest comment: 15 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

I'm thinking of 'moving' this page to 'Charles XVI Gustav', in order to match the similar names to previous Swedish Kings, like Gustav V, Gustav VI Adolf & Charles XIV John, Charles XV etc. What is the community's opinon? GoodDay 23:16, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, it is the contemporary norm not to transliterate names of living monarchs and as far as I know other living European monarchs have pages on Wikipedia with their native spelling.RicJac 16:49, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
It's not even the same name, the closest in english would be 'Charl' 194.237.188.194 (talk) 12:32, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Of course it's the same name. Charles (English)= Charles (French)= Karl (German)= Carl (Swedish)= Karlo (Bosnian)= Carolus (Latin)= Carlos (Spanish)= ... There is no name "Charl". Surtsicna (talk) 18:24, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Matrilineal descent

Latest comment: 14 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

While the King's matrilineal descent is (without doubt) much more illustrious and more interesting than his patrilineal descent, I have to question the relevancy of including it. His patrilineal descent is relevant because it shows why he belongs to the House of Bernadotte, why he inherited the Swedish throne, etc. I don't see why his matrilineal descent is relevant. Surtsicna (talk) 21:02, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I would to the contrary claim that the matrilineal descent is relevant, notwithstanding his rather unusually short patrilineal line, as it clearly shows him to be part of the historically limited social group, or “royal caste” if you so will, that historically ruled over the Lands of Europe. The matrilineal line does not of course hold the same significance in terms of historical succession to the Swedish throne as the male counterpart do, but it does give an insight into the historical importance of arranged marriages that were clearly an essential part of the foreign policy in times past and it should in my humble opinion not merely be limited to the wikipage for Carl XVI Gustaf, but to his contemporary colleagues as well on their respective pages.RicJac (talk) 09:08, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
His matrilineal descent is not the only thing that shows him to be part of the historically limited social group. If you trace his paternal grandmother's matrilineal or patrilineal descent or his maternal grandfather's patrilineal or matrilineal descent, you'll come to the same conclusion. His entire ancestry (not only his matrilineal descent) gives an insight into the historical importance of arranged marriages that were clearly an essential part of the foreign policy in times past. In that aspect, his matrilineal descent is no more relevant than any other part of his ancestry. While it is interesting, I believe we cannot add irrelevant information no matter how interesting they are because they are... irrelevant. Wikipedia is not a genealogical database. Surtsicna (talk) 19:00, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
I certainly agree with you that there has to be a limit as to which specific ancestral lines you chose to include. It would be absurd, if not ridiculous, to even suggest the inclusion of his paternal grandmother’s male line of descent, or that of any other relative not in the straight ancestral lines in terms of sex, as it would be too big and difficult to draw a line where to begin and where to stop. I do subscribe to the wikipolicy link included in your last entry that biographical pages should not be too heavily focused on matters of genealogy. However one can certainly argue that most of the ancestors on the matrilineal side are notable by themselves as most of them have their own wikipages, and that such a listing is not irrelevant, if not only to balance the more traditional male-line listing and 4th generation chart but also in order to bring yet another perspective on the ancestry of the subject at hand. Another point is that if we limit ourselves to only include the line of patrilineal descent – that is in it self is not a neutral point of view as gives a gender-based preference to the male-line ancestry, regardless of the historical succession to the Swedish throne which clearly is a topic noteworthy in its own right on Wikipedia. I suggest as a compromise a move of both the male- and female line ancestry lists to the already existing page named Ancestors of Carl XVI Gustaf of Sweden.RicJac (talk) 16:07, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Lover's race

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Unless someone else thinks it is particularly important to mention Ms. Henemark's "mixed Nigerian and Swedish descent" in the section on his alleged lovers, I think that should be removed. The link to the article about Henemark seems sufficient, and I find the mention of her ethnics here a bit racist-sensationalist - in any case rather irrelevant. Unless it is important to note here that this king might be willing to sleep with black people? SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:08, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Porn star's book intro relevant?

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I am removing this again:

Fail to see how a brief encounter with a woman mainly known for exhibiting her huge breasts, and a bit of sensationalist gossip in her book, can be relevant in this bio. Plus sloppy language (what "castle" - the Swedish royals do not use a singel one? what are "girs"?) I am very knowledgeable about Alexandra Charles's nightclub in the 1970's, and the bit about a permanent table for Carl Gustaf is pure fiction. He was only an occasional guest there. The rest is also likely to be fiction, and an attempt to coatrack this relatively insignificant woman into a mentionable position in the king's life story. SergeWoodzing (talk) 08:51, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Death of his father

Latest comment: 12 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

According to the site Aviation Safety Network, the plane crash that killed Gustaf Adolf occurred on January 26 1947, not January 16. I have changed the date accordingly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.227.33.52 (talk) 22:04, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Well done! Now see if you can find any published info about the rumors then that the many "errors" made, causing the accident, were less than purely accidental. I have never been able to. SergeWoodzing (talk) 01:50, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

All credible sources that I have come across, including Aviation Safety Network, describe this plane crash as purely accidental. Someone failed to remove the locking pins for the plane´s elevator, and the captain didn´t notice this, probably because the checklist wasn´t performed properly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.227.33.52 (talk) 14:50, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

And those two fatal "mistakes" are what have been rumored as less that purely accidental. It has, as far as I know, never been proven beyond a doubt that they were accidental rather than murderous. Nobody knows who made the "mistakes". Nobody knows why. How can that be deemed an "accident" with 100% certainty? I'm not sayin', just askin'. SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:11, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

King mocked by counterfeit coins

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

"Fake krona coin mocks 'whorer' Swedish king" is one of many concurrent news stories about newly discovered counterfeit krona coins that are being circulated in Sweden with the inscription "VÅR HORKARL TILL KUNG." Even though this is obviously and shockingly defamatory, I suggest this needs to be covered by the present article at some time. The nature of this being such that this story is going to linger and not be forgotten any time soon makes this clearly more substantive than any other ephemeral scandal. __meco (talk) 14:59, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

A minor prank of that type (1-2 altered coins) hardly would be a good idea to mention here. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 08:37, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Conflicting Information About Style & Title.

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

At the top of the article, in the second paragraph, it says:

Unlike many other European monarchs who have extensive styles, King Carl Gustaf's formal and complete style is simply His Majesty Carl XVI Gustaf, King of Sweden.

Then, at the bottom under Titles, styles, honours and arms, it says:

His Majesty's full title is: His Majesty King Carl the sixteenth Gustaf, by the Grace of God of Sweden, Duke of Jämtland, Defender of the Faith, Head of The Church in Sweden Grand Master and Knight with Collar of the Most Ancient, Noble and Honourable Order of The Seraphim, Lord, Grand Master and Commander Grand Cross with Collar of the Most Ancient and Noble Order of the Sword, Grand Master and Commander Grand Cross with Collar of the most Honourable Order of The Polar Star, Lord, Grand Master and Commander Grand Cross with collar of the Most Noble order of The Order of the Vasa, Lord, Grand Master and Knight of the Most Honourable Order of His Majesty The late King Charles XIII, High Protector and Knight of The Order of ST John in Sweden, Admiral Supreme Commander of the Swedish Royal Armed Forces.

Therefore, I'm removing the first passage, which is presumably simply a reference to his not using the style that's mentioned in the section King: "By the Grace of God King of the Swedes, the Goths and the Wends (med Guds Nåde Sveriges, Götes och Wendes Konung)".

JO 24 (talk) 19:01, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

That is not correct. The king is not head of the Church of Sweden, he does not use the prefix "By the Grace of God", he is not "Defender of the Faith", he is not Supreme Commander etc, etc. He is of course Grand Master of hte royal orders of knighthood, but that title is only used in direct connection with the orders. By the way, the swedish orders are not styled as "Most Ancient" etc. The king holds the rank of admiral in the navy, general in the army and general in the airforce, but is never styled as admiral or general. /B****n (talk) 23:16, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Duke of...?

Latest comment: 11 years ago7 comments6 people in discussion

While he was still a child, what was he Duke of? I might not have looked hard enough in the article, but I couldn't find it. His father and uncles were all created Duke of XX at birth or in childhood, but I can't find what the King was known as when he was little. Morhange 19:46, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

It says here that his title was Duke of Jämtland I have seen it elsewhere as Duke of Jemtia, but I can't remember where at the moment. Maybe we should add that information to the article, all the others have it listed.   Prsgoddess187 20:29, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

It was the Wikipedia standard a while back to use the latinized province names, so it may well be here you saw Jemtia. As conventions stand now, Duke of Jämtland is the correct one. -- Jao 20:58, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

He is still the duke of Jämtland, "Jemtia". In Sweden, ducial titles are personal and you carry them til the day you die. Which means that Victoria will still be duchess of Västergötland when she becomes queen.

No he isn't. If an heir to the throne possesses a ducal title and then ascends to the throne, that title merges into the crown on their accession, just as they do with any other monarchy, as it is impossible for a monarch to hold any dignity below that of the sovereign title. For example, King Willem-Alexander of the Netherlands is no longer Prince of Orange, Elizabeth II is no longer Duchess of Edinburgh, and so on. So Crown Princess Victoria will not still be Duchess of Västergötland after her accession, and neither is her father 'still' Duke of Jamtland either.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 09:04, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Both statements are unsourced and neither is more credible. Why would Swedish system of honours function the same way the British one does? Elizabeth II is, for example, Duke of Lancaster, and Juan Carlos is Count of Barcelona. Even if they were not, that would have little to nothing to do with Carl XVI Gustaf. Surtsicna (talk) 11:50, 9 July 2013 (UTC)


Only Elizabeth II isn't the 'Duke of Lancaster'- that title became merged in the Crown on the Accession of Henry V to the throne. The English/British monarch has held the Duchy (the lands) separately from the rest of the crown lands, but the Dukedom (the title) has not been recreated since 1413, and even if it were, the British monarch could not legally hold it.

Please see here:

http://www.heraldica.org/topics/britain/royalstyle_uk.htm#Duke_of_Lancaster

And even if she had held that title at any time during her life, she would be Duchess, not Duke, as 'Duchess' is the correct title in the British Peerage for a woman who holds a Dukedom in her own right (just like a female Earl is a Countess, a female Viscount is a Viscountess, a female Baron a Baroness...you get the picture.)

Yes, there is a Loyal Toast in Lancashire to 'The Queen, our Duke', and there is a Duke of Lancaster's regiment, but that really is it. That doesn't mean she is their 'Duke' any more than the Prince Phillip doesn't become a God just because some inhabitants of Vanuatu say he is-such gestures are a sign of local loyalty-often with some royal sanction, but that's as far as it goes.

The title is not used officially, in any legal capacity, e.g. on Letters Patent, etc. in Lancashire, or anywhere else for that matter. In every inch of the United Kingdom and also in the British Overseas Territories, the Queen is 'just' "By the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of her other Realms and Territories Queen, Defender of the Faith, Head of the Commonwealth" -Nothing more, nothing less as far as the UK is concerned.

The continuing separate existence of the Duchy of Lancaster does not automatically mean there is a Duke of Lancaster (or Duchess for that matter) just like the fact the Duchy of Cornwall has continued to exist continuously from 1377 does not mean there has always been a Duke of Cornwall to go with it.


Why would the Swedish system of honours function the same way as the British one?

-well; why not? All European honours systems derive from the same system: the feudal system. And under that system, a monarch could not hold any lands from himself-a monarch could not be his/her own feudal superior, which is something that continued into the systems of peerages and nobility in Europe. For example, Albert II of Belgiumis no longer Prince of Liege, and his son Philippe will no longer be Duke of Brabant after his father's accession to the throne. King Willem-Alexander is no longer Prince of Orange like he was before his accession, Charles, Prince of Wales will cease to be Prince of Wales, Duke of Cornwall, etc. the instant he becomes King, and this was true of defunct European monarchies that gave a particular title to the Heir-Apparent: King Michael I of Romania was no longer Grand Prince of Alba Iulia after he became King, King Simeon II of Bulgaria was no longer Prince of Turnovo after he became King, King Constantine I of Greece ceased to be Duke of Sparta after his accession, the Kings/Queens of Portugal ceased to hold the various titles the held before their accession, such as Duke of Braganza or Prince of Brazil, and so on. Looking at it Europe-wide, it would seem that if the Swedish monarch were to hold their Ducal title after their accession (and there is no evidence that they do), they would very much be the exception.

Can you give me a verifiable reference to a Swedish monarch continuing to hold the ducal title they held before their accession to the throne? Did Oscar I continue to be Duke of Sodermanland after his accession? Did Carl XV continue to be Duke of Skåne? Did Gustaf V continue to be Duke of Varmland? And so on.

As regards Juan Carlos, that's different. The title 'Count of Barcelona' (along with many others) is part of the (rarely used) extended titulary the Spanish monarch is entitled to-it is not a separate title, peerage or otherwise. More to the point, his father, Juan, Count of Barcelona, was granted that title as a title of nobility from shortly after his renunciation of his claims in favour of his son (who was by that time King anyway) to his death in 1993.

JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 13:53, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't agree that all European honours systems derive from the the feudal system. In Sweden the feudal system has not been as strong as in some other countries, but that is hardly relevant when it comes to whether the King of Sweden also is duke of one of the Swedish provinces.
No Swedish King, who was duke of a Swedish province as heir to the throne, used such a ducal title as monarch. Swedish monarchs has used ducal titles corresponding to territories outside "Sweden proper", that is territories that were not fully integrated into the Kingdom of Sweden (note that the kingdom included Finland up to 1809). But that was not as vassals to the Swedish king, but as monarchs (e.g. as dukes in Estonia) or as vassals to another monarch (e.g. as dukes of Pomerania). When it comes to Carl XVI Gustaf, he has not used the title Duke of Jämtland since he became King of Sweden. /B****n (talk) 20:23, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Kinship with European counterparts

Latest comment: 11 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

How Carl XVI Gustaf of Sweden and prince Hans-Adam II of Liechtenstein are fifth cousins:
King Carl XVI Gustaf of Sweden's mother's mother's mother's mother's father's parents prince Charles Louis of Hohenlohe-Langenburg and countess Amalie Henriette of Solms-Baruth were
prince Hans-Adam II of Liechtenstein's father's mother's mother's mother's mother's parents. Svensson1 (talk) 08:58, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

How Carl XVI Gustaf of Sweden and prince Albert II of Monaco are sixth cousins:
King Carl XVI Gustaf of Sweden's father's father's mother's father's mother's mother's parents hereditary prince Charles Louis of Baden and landgravine Amalie of Hesse-Darmstadt were
prince Albert II of Monaco's father's mother's father's mother's mother's father's parents. Svensson1 (talk) 08:58, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Editor Svensson1 changed the article using this talk-page section as a reference to justify the change. The facts presented here may be correct. I don't know. I can't confirm these stated facts because Editor Svensson1 has not provided a reliable source supporting these facts. I have reverted Editor Svensson1's change to the article.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 12:00, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Trappist the monk, you have now reverted corrections I have done in the article twice and also removed links I have added. As you have seen, I have not changed the names of the closest common ancesters in the article. I have only described exactly how Carl XVI Gustaf of Sweden, prince Hans-Adam II of Liechtenstein and prince Albert II of Monaco are related to those persons. In this way I have showed that the earlier used terms of the kinship where wrong and corrected them. Trappist the monk, you do know of course how to click on the father and mother links in the information box on the right side in each article that is concerned. It is therefore very strange that you say that you don't can confirm what I have written. Below is a full list of the articles that is shown when you click on the father and mother links described above:
Carl XVI Gustaf of Sweden (kinship with prince Hans-Adam II of Liechtenstein):

  1. Carl XVI Gustaf of Sweden
  2. Princess Sibylla of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha
  3. Princess Victoria Adelaide of Schleswig-Holstein
  4. Princess Karoline Mathilde of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Augustenburg
  5. Princess Adelheid of Hohenlohe-Langenburg
  6. Ernst I, Prince of Hohenlohe-Langenburg
  7. Charles Louis, Prince of Hohenlohe-Langenburg/Karl Ludwig

Prince Hans-Adam II of Liechtenstein:

  1. Hans-Adam II, Prince of Liechtenstein
  2. Franz Joseph II, Prince of Liechtenstein
  3. Archduchess Elisabeth Amalie of Austria
  4. Infanta Maria Theresa of Portugal
  5. Princess Adelaide of Löwenstein-Wertheim-Rosenberg
  6. Princess Agnes of Hohenlohe-Langenburg
  7. Charles Louis, Prince of Hohenlohe-Langenburg/Karl Ludwig

Carl XVI Gustaf of Sweden (kinship with prince Albert II of Monaco):

  1. Carl XVI Gustaf of Sweden
  2. Prince Gustav Adolf, Duke of Västerbotten
  3. Gustaf VI Adolf of Sweden
  4. Victoria of Baden
  5. Frederick I, Grand Duke of Baden
  6. Sophie of Sweden
  7. Frederica of Baden
  8. Charles Louis, Hereditary Prince of Baden/Margrave Charles Louis of Baden/Karl Ludwig of Baden

Prince Albert II of Monaco:

  1. Albert II, Prince of Monaco
  2. Rainier III, Prince of Monaco
  3. Princess Charlotte, Duchess of Valentinois
  4. Louis II, Prince of Monaco
  5. Mary Victoria Hamilton
  6. Princess Marie of Baden (1817–1888)
  7. Karl, Grand Duke of Baden
  8. Charles Louis, Hereditary Prince of Baden/Margrave Charles Louis of Baden/Karl Ludwig of Baden

Svensson1 (talk) 18:54, 3 November 2012 (UTC) Svensson1 (talk) 19:01, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

None of these edits have reliable sources. Referring to Wikipedia doesn't count because that is self-referential referencing. Researching and placing information in a Wikipedia article or, as in this case, in an article talk page, for use as a reference doesn't count because that is original research (and self-referential). What is needed is information referenced to independently published third-party sources (secondary sources preferred).
Because nothing in §Kinship with European counterparts is referenced to reliable sources, the section should be deleted.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 12:50, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
It is a waste of space. I deleted it because there is no need for these kind of stuff on this article.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 20:55, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Carl XVI Gustaf of Sweden. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:48, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Order of the Amaranth

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

For several times it has been inserted in the article that Carl XVI Gustaf holds the national honour or award of Grand Cross of the Social Order of the Amaranth. This is incorrect in two ways. There is a Swedish Order of the Amaranth of wich the king is a member. This society is however a kind of fraternal order, a society wich today hosts high-society balls. It is not an order of chivalry or merit, a national honour or an award. Secondly, the linked article about the Order of the Amaranth deals with an American Masonic-affiliated organization wich has no connection to the Swedish order. /B****n (talk) 23:55, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Commander in Chief

Latest comment: 8 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

The king's former role as commander in chief did not give him any command authority. The statement "since he no longer has any military command authority, except over his military staff at his court" is completely wrong. Like virtually all heads of state, including the USA, the king was commander in chief in a nominal sense only. He had no military command authority, and nor does the US president.101.98.74.13 (talk) 07:25, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Incorrect as far as the U.S. president goes. The U.S. president (who is both head of state and head of government) most definitely has military command authority--that's kind of the point of civilian control over the military. See U.S. Constitution, Art. II, Sect. 2. Are you also wrong about Sweden pre-1975? Biblioteqa (talk) 21:18, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
This depends on how you define command authority. The King was supreme commander, but in order for him to exercise his authority the Minister for Defence needed to participate (§ 16 of the Swedish instrument of government of 1809). If by command authority you mean the right to independently issue orders to military personnel, then I doubt that the King ever had it. /Elzo 90 (talk) 06:50, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Several kings of Sweden pre-1809 were absolute monarchs, and obviously those had command authority. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 09:40, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Image replacement

Latest comment: 8 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

The current image is licenced under fair use, but there is a free equivalent, if a bit uglier. Why is a fair use image used when there is a free image? I'm replacing the image, but earlier when I have replaced fair use images with free images the fair use image has been put back because "it looks better"... What's more important, that the image is free or that it looks good? If so, we could as well steal any image we could find instead... Fair use loses its purpose when it isn't needed to illustrate an article. /Grillo 06:21, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

I noticed now that I had changed the image in this article earlier (I used to have ip 130.235.184.253 before I moved). As I said, if the beauty of the photo counts, we could as well steal any image from anywhere on the web and claim "fair use" for everyone of them. This image serves the purpose of illustrating the person in question. No, it's not the best picture, but isn't it better to have a free image than a copyrighted one, that will probably be deleted in time anyway? And isn't Wikipedia the free encyclopedia, not the "free with a million of exceptions encyclopedia"? /Grillo 06:40, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
The "high-profile" article Tony Blair has got this Image:Blairconf04.jpg fair use image. Is it needed to illustrate the article? - no! I would argue that this image Image:Kinggus.jpg is needed to illustrate the article because it shows his royal status (admiral uniform, decorations...) and I am therefore inserting it into the article again. That the articles have appropriate images is [way more] important than that all images are "free" (what about logos?). 83.252.72.10 23:37, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Actually, no, it's not. Ask Jimbo Wales if you don't believe me. I won't continue some petty edit war, but it's pretty obvious that you don't realize the importance of Wikipedia being the free encyclopedia. /Grillo 06:33, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
I think that. Good luck finding a free corporate logo, or do you want to ban them?
The photograph in dispute (kinggus) was provided by the royal court, one could always contact them and ask them to license it under the GFDL? As for corporate logos, fair use is the only option and in this case there are alternatives. It also illustrates the freedom which americans enjoy, a photograph taken by a government employee in the course of his or her work is copyrighted to the government agency and/or photographer. Enjoy the fruits that the tree of liberty provides you!
As for my personal opinion I strongly dislike seeing any leader in a military uniform, regardless of the fact that His Royal Highness has no military or political power. But I don't want to start a editing war.--Oden 03:49, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Name

Latest comment: 8 years ago7 comments5 people in discussion

Is his name actually pronounced as "Carl the sixteenth Gustav"? Because it seems odd to me to put an ordinal between two given names. Zacwill16 (talk) 21:00, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Odd or not, that's how Swedish kings uses regnal numbers. /B****n (talk) 00:10, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Seems odd yes, but here's the explanation: the first Gustav Adolph king and the first Carl Gustav king were huge military heroes. Rather than dropping the second half of their names when subsequent princes, also thus double-named, became kings, they honored the previous Gustavs (solos) and the previous Carls (solos) by numbering their ordinals from their single names and honored the huge military heroes by not dropping the second parts. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 05:41, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Not completly true. The 16th century bishop and historian Johannes Magnus created a line of swedish kings back (Historia de omnibus Gothorum Sveonomque regibus) into time imemorial. That is, he used both fact and fiction. That is why we have Erik XIV, although in reality only 7 or 8 of the Eric's before him are historically accurate. Since Eric's time almost all kings have been given numerals according to this made up list; Johan III, Gustav II Adolf, Carl X Gustav, etc. We must probably differentiate between regnal name and personal name. Both Gustaf Adolf and Carl Gustaf called themselvs by their full name, and signed their letters with their name ending with a capital R (rex=king), this is also true today when the present King signes his name, "Carl Gustaf R". The regnal name i something different, you do not call Carl XVI Gustaf by that to his face, he is simply "The King". The listing and numbering of kings is probably an old way of keeping track of time, periods, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.216.95.42 (talk) 11:28, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
OK, I read all that and was not able to find what you claim is "not completly true" in what I wrote just above, upon which you did (?) comment. I wrote about the double name tradition, not the numerals. Please explain!
As for your further comments, the numbering of Gustavs has no relation whatsoever to Johannes Magnus's stories (there have been 6); we do not know how many Erics there were before Eric XIV; and we do know for certain that "Charles VII" and "Charles VIII" actually were Carl I and Carl II.
"the present King signes his name Carl Gustaf R": I think you made that up. Have never seen the R and I've seen lots of his autograph (see the illustration in our article - no "R").
The numbering of kings is a way to differeniate one man with a certain name from another with the same name. Nothing else. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:34, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
The King signed his condolences to the Italian president "Carl Gustaf R" as recently as last week. /Elzo 90 (talk) 08:49, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 
No "R" in there --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:57, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

French descent

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Carl Gustaf's French descent is negligeable. Rolled back 4 entries. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:39, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Controversy regarding the King's personal life

Latest comment: 8 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

Why has mention of any controversy in his personal life (such as the allegations published by Aftonbladet regarding a relationship with one Ms. Henemark) been removed? I was doing research about the relative popularity of European monarchies, and this seems like highly relevant information that is missing. These controversies are quite popularly known and were also cited by the Economist and other sources as having contributed to a significant decline in the popularity of the Swedish monarchy some decades past. Let me know if you have an issue with me adding a couple lines. Thanks!

Sophrosune (talk) 17:23, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Go for it! I agree. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:39, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
I agree as well, just add it thanks!Jeppiz (talk) 17:47, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Why has this not been done? 98.10.165.90 (talk) 17:03, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Carl XVI Gustaf of Sweden. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 10:36, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Children

Latest comment: 7 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

Prince Carl Philip was born heir apparent in 1979, however enacted constitutional reform awaiting promulgation created his older sister, Victoria, heir on January 1, 1980, according to the principles of full cognatic primogeniture.

Wow. Am I the only one who finds this very obfuscated?--Lucky13pjn 02:07, Nov 6, 2004 (UTC)

I have no clue what that means. Thanx 68.39.174.150 04:37, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • In Sweden, any law changing the Laws of Succession must be passed by two different parliaments, separated by a general election. One parliament had already passed the law, and Carl Philip was born before the second parliament could. SO in truth, he was Crown Prince, but only for a short time. I agree that the wording is not the greatest.Prsgoddess187 19:28, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
Basically what it means is that the constitution was changed so that the law permitted the first-born child to be the heir apperent, no matter what sex it happened to be. However, his Highness the Prince was born after the law was accepted, but before it came into effect. His older sister is the heir apperent because Sweden is the only country to have this law take effect retro-actively. DannyBoy2k 23:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
All the world's other Heirs Apparent will now be wondering about their future. Heir Apparent is supposed to be the title that cannot be removed. Heir Presumptive is the one that can. Valetude (talk) 02:47, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
That is a misunderstanding. A Heir Apparent can not be removed by the birth of another member of the royal house. The Swedish monarchy, as most monarchies today, operates under the law. Hence it is possible to change the designated Heir Apparent through an alteration of the law of succession. /B****n (talk) 08:07, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Ancestors in doubt?

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I see no need for this big ugly box, which lowers the quality of the article, when it is quite simple for anyone to follow the links to articles on all those ancestors - every one of them - and verify his ancestry through all (all) those well sourced articles. Fixing to remove it again, but will wait a few days for neutral input. This is WP:Overzealous I think. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 09:58, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Agree. --Marbe166 (talk) 10:11, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

King's relations with other nobles

Latest comment: 7 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion
irrelevant user discussion

Kindly build consensus here, DrKay, than using repeated reversions to the article. Your tactics are tiresome and put you at risk of being blocked for edit-warring. GetSomeUtah (talk) 22:54, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

This page is for discussing improvements to the article not for attacking other editors. DrKay (talk) 08:11, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
It's not an attack to point out edit-warring. Let's please try to discuss the substance of your reversions. You deleted the section of your talk page (here) where I attempted to broach this with you. It appears that you want to simply revert rather than discuss and build consensus.

Now, why are you so opposed to providing contextual information on his relations with other nobels? We do this for other notable people. Amy Schumer is related to Chuck Schumer -- distantly, by your standards, but it's still included. Thank you. GetSomeUtah (talk) 10:21, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

For what its worth, the dynastic connections concerned don't seem to me to be significant enough to need to be mentioned in this biographical article. Hchc2009 (talk) 11:42, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
I object. It provides relevant context. Chicbyaccident (talk) 11:52, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
He is related to every royal family in Europe. Every European royal is related to every other one through multiple connections. These relationships are no more notable than the many other thousands of such relationships. Some unknown fourth cousin does not deserve special mention, which is why reliable sources (which are necessary on the biography of a living person) do not place any emphasis on it. DrKay (talk) 17:50, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

The Vatican

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Vatican is a soverign state, it is not a part of Italy. The IP user who keeps putting the Vatican under Italy has been reported for edit-warring. --Marbe166 (talk) 19:25, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Article protected — please discuss the Reluctant Monarch material here

Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

User:Raskrask has added a paragraph based on the 2010 book Carl XVI Gustaf – Den motvillige monarken,[11] which is now being edit warred about. Criticism of the subject is not as such inappropriate in a biography, and there is certainly no reason to call the paragraph "vandalism". Whether it belongs in the article and/or whether the wording is appropriate can be discussed here, because I have now protected the article. Bishonen | talk 23:26, 9 January 2017 (UTC).

That wasn't the vandalism, the vandalism was the "Swedistan" changes made by an IP vandal. I just removed it simultaneously as reverting the vandalism, as the book is controversial and considered as gossip and poorly sourced, hence not meeting the requirements of BLP. On Swedish wikipedia the book has it's own article, and it is linked from the King's article, but the contents of the book are not mentioned. --Marbe166 (talk) 00:02, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
@Marbe166 and Raskrask: Just because a book is controversial does not mean it cannot be used as a source. The book exists and has a reputable publisher, so there is a prima facie case for making use of it. However, that doesn't mean it can be used in an uncritical fashion. I assume that Marbe166 will bring sources here that criticise the book for a lack of analysis and for uncritical repeating of rumour, and I expect Raskrask to counter that with some of the sources that describe the book as "one of the most important pieces of investigative journalism in the last 25 years" (Scoop).
So please, would you each look again at the sources and at the text Raskrask added:

The 2010 book sv:Carl XVI Gustaf – Den motvillige monarken (Carl XVI Gustaf – The reluctant monarch) alleged that the king has engaged in alcohol-fueled orgies and naked jaccuzzi parties with models.[1] The king allegedly had a year-long affair with fashion model and singer Camilla Henemark in the late 1990's, as a time when he had been married for over 20 years. In response, the King did not deny the allegations, saying "I have spoken with my family and the Queen and we choose to turn the page ... and move forward because, as I understand, these are things that happened a long time ago".[2]

References

  1. ^ "Swedes in shock at King Carl Gustaf sex scandal". The Telegraph. 6 November 2010. Retrieved 4 January 2016. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  2. ^ Levy, Geoffrey (8 November 2010). "Revealed: How the King of Sweden enjoyed wild sex parties with strippers - and a lengthy affair with a buxom model". Daily Mail. Retrieved 4 January 2017.
and see if you can agree something that reports the disputed status of the book and tones down the uncritical acceptance of the story that the book relates? There ought to be a middle ground where due weight is given to the contents of the book in the context of Carl Gustav's biography, while respecting our policy requirement to "avoid stating opinions as facts". --RexxS (talk) 12:34, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Section on the only actual power he still has

Latest comment: 7 years ago10 comments4 people in discussion

I am reinstating a section I recently added to this article which I strongly feel is relevant. I was just rm by a one-time IP user with what I'd say is a rather flimsy argument "These facts should instead be included in the articles for each person. The text also confuses dukedom with duchy." The last part of that is incomprehensible to me. Let's discuss, not just delete whole sections! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:10, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

This article is biographic. Facts about the powers of the Swedish king should be included in the article about the Monarchy of Sweden. No biographic article present a complete list of decision made whitin a certain area. The decisions are more relevant to the persons affected by them, than the person who made them. And, to put it simple, a dukedom is a title and a dignity but a duchy is an area controlled by a duke. No Swedish have had a duchy since the beginning of the 17th century. /81.224.232.163 (talk) 07:48, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
Your own personal opinions on what goes into a biography, and what does not, are not Wikipedian. You'd probably have learned that, as I have over the years, if you had conbtributed more. Of course, any sole power that a certain person has left, in an office which had great power for centuries, belongs in his biography, and specified with a list as exactly as possible to how he has used that power.
Your own personal opinions about the words duchy and dukedom, in an attempt to juxtapose them against each other in some manner, are also not Wikipedian. Nor do any English-language dictionaries coincide with those opinions of yours. I have seen a very strage discussion in Swedish about the word hertig, and how a Swedish Wikipedian has opined (alone I think?) as to how it may apply or not apply to people who have held that title and hold it today. Perhaps that's a debate you're are trying to start here too? However, we are here, on pages like this, to discuss facts and improve articles, not to take up each other's time with 100% unsubstantiated, personal opinions. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:20, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
Facts that are more connected with the office than the holder of the office, should be treated in the article about the office, in this case the article about the Monarchy of Sweden. This is the encyclopedic – thus wikipedian – way to do it.
The article is biographic. Such articles usualy does not include extensive lists of decisions made by the subject of the article. E.g. compare with the article about Elizabeth II. There is no list of people raised to peerage by her in that article, not even royal peers.
Duchy/dukedom : According to the Wikipedia articles linked above, a duchy "is a country, territory, fief, or domain ruled by a duke or duchess". A dukedom could refer to a duchy, but also to "the title and office of a duke", which is not the same as a duchy. No swedish duke has held a duchy since the beginning of the 17th century. That is not a personal opinion, but facts.
I will remove the section and ask any user who want to include it again to give good reasons for that, not just argumentum ad hominem aut ad verecundiam. /83.227.115.112 (talk) 17:29, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
You are still not presenting anything other than your personal opinions. What may or may not be in articles about other monarchs is irrelevant here because, as I wrote, and you ignored, this is a unique case of remaining power. What you want to say about duchy as opposed to dukedom does not make any sense to me. I wrote that too, before, and you ignored that too. Obviously, the article on the monarchy cannot and should not go into detail as to what each one has done with h powers. Such personalized info, as standard WP policy, belongs in the articles about the persons (otherwise President of the United States would be a very very long article).
We don't know you or any past work you've done, and you showed up only to do this. Do you have a conflict of interest here?
As often as you remove the section, I will reinstate it, unless you can give any viable grounds to substantiate why it should be removed. None (0) so far. We may need to open an RfC about this if you persist in pushing it. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:56, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
In general I am with @SergeWoodzing: on this, and I think it should be it's own section called "Authority" or "Power" or something to that extent, and the wording needs to be revised to cohere with the rest of the article. I also invite the IP user to create an account. --Marbe166 (talk) 18:10, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for neutral input! Always fine to get.
Seems we are dealing with one user but two different IPs in this case. Hard to keep track. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:14, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
I have taken your good advice and moved the list of actions to a section called "Use of remaining power". --SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:19, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
It is not my "personal opinion" that other biographical articles does not include this kind of lists. It is a fact. And it is not correct that the right to bestow royal titles is the "sole power" of the King of Sweden.
It is the editor who wants to include something in an article who has the primary burden-of-proof. The only argument SergeWoozding has given (except that he/she is a more expeienced editor, so he/she is right and I am wrong) is that it is about the sole power of the King, which it is not.
The creation of royal dukes is nothing new and it can be presented in a more relevant article. That the King did not respond to the fact that his paternal uncle Sigvard assumed the title of prince is not relevant to this article but to the article about Sigvard Bernadotte. The fact that the King did recognize the title of Prince Carl Bernadotte is not relevant. The King has recognized many titles and the Belgian title of Prince Carl Bernadotte was never disputed.
The distinction between duchy and dukedom is not my personal opinion. According to Oxford Dictionary a duchy is the "territory of a duke or duchess" and a dukedom is the "territory ruled by a duke" or the "rank of duke". Hence a duke who holds the rank and title of duke without a territory, holds at dukedom but has no duchy. --83.227.115.112 (talk) 21:25, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
The term "sole power" is not in the article, so I don't know why you mentioned it.
If you think C16G has other powers, according to the latest constitution, perhaps you should read (1) this article and (2) the constitution of Sweden, or at least add to the article, reliably referenced, whatever other powers he has.
What other articles include or don't include is irrelevant.
All the titles that C16G has officially recognized or declined to recognize, as supported by the government, and noted in the articles of all concerned persons, without exception are included in the list. (Sigvard did not "assume" a title, with the support of 4 lawyers, he announced what his title was. Carl's and Kristine's Belgian titles were used courteously by C16G and his court, but they were never included by the Hoiuse of Nobles in Sweden, and were officially acknowledged & documented for history in Sweden only by the gravestone application which C16G allowed.)
A factual presentation of the way C16G has dealt with his relatives and family members in his official work is obviously relevant to his biography, and as it is all well sourced in the articles of those persons, it is also Wikipedian.
Your interpretation of English dictionaries is inaccurate in this case, and "Hence a duke who holds the rank and title of duke without a territory, holds at dukedom but has no duchy" is your own invention and irrelevant here. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:16, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

IPA

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

@CFCF: Don't tell me you 'questioned' something when you provide no arguments for your reverts. Also, the first time you didn't remove it because it was unsourced, so you're just being dishonest. Please tell me how exactly is that transcription wrong. Mr KEBAB (talk) 19:18, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

You were right concerning the transcription. I was just used to different lettering. Archiving this. Carl Fredrik talk 19:22, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Carl XVI Gustaf of Sweden. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 10:37, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Carl XVI Gustaf of Sweden. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 01:22, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

'Regal Assurance'

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The quotation box which contains the 'Regal Assurance" (accession declaration), has been taken from the Swedish site, and put through some sort of mechanical translator. It is not idiomatic English (any more than the Swedish version is idiomatic Swedish), it follows Swedish word order, it misuses words. Example: 'seek to by Our utmost ability to advocate the veritable interests and welfare of the Realm and that of each of its inhabitants' 'Veritable interests' might mean 'true interests'. 'and that of': the reference is compound, 'interests and welfare' and then it is followed by 'that of' (plural/singular). Someone with a knowledge of Swedish needs to revise the 'unofficial translation'.

It seems to me that the quotation box belongs with the section 'Reign', not the section 'Titles, styles'.

--Vicedomino (talk) 03:28, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you!   Done --SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:24, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Carl XVI Gustaf of Sweden. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 04:20, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

The name of the article

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Why is this article titled "Carl XVI Gustaf" instead of "Charles XVI Gustaf"? All the previous Swedish kings named Carl are called Charles in English; e.g. Charles XV. --Pjoona11 (talk) 19:06, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

From ca 1900 onwards the Swedish names are used, see his predecessors Gustaf VI Adolf of Sweden and Gustaf V of Sweden, who were not called "Gustavus". In modern times, their names have not been anglicised in daily use. --Marbe166 (talk) 20:18, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
Yes. There were no legal spellings of personal names before 1900 or so, thus it was common to use exonyms & translate the personal names of royalty, originally & usually to facilitate pronunciation. Since then, the registered legal spellings are appropriate to use, for everyone. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:51, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Delete Section on Use of remaining power

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I don't think this whole long list is needed for an article about King Carl Gustaf. Can we delete it? Arg Matey (talk) 22:14, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

No. The list is essential to his reign and accomplishments. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:52, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

"Automobile" versus "car"

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

In the context used, under his interests, the use ofthe word automobile is perfect in my opinion, right there where it is. The word car is used subsequently enough in the section. I have seen reverts & a few arguments against the word automobile on principle, none of which I agree with. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:57, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Denmark 1953 Sweden 1980

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I was asked on my talk page why I reverted this. As I understand it, Denmark created new legislation in 1953 to enable their king's daughter to be heir apparent, because he had no sons. After that legislation was passed, a son of his, had one been born, would still have become heir apparent ahead of his sisters. Swedish legislation from 1980 was the first in Europe to grant such a position to the oldest child of a monarch regardless of gender. Please correct me if I'm wrong! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:47, 27 September 2018 (UTC

It looks like you are correct. Based upon what I am finding, the 1953 Danish Act of Succession changed Denmark from agnatic progeniture to male-preference primogeniture, allowing Princess Margrethe to become heir presumptive (not even heir apparent; as you point out, a son of Frederick IX born after the act was passed would still have become king over her). Prior to the act passing, it does not appear that she was in the line of succession at all, and the crown would has passed to the king's younger brother. Denmark didn't introduce absolute primogeniture until its referendum in 2009. See also Succession to the Danish throne. I don't know if any other European nation can claim an earlier law, but it definitely appears that Denmark cannot. CThomas3 (talk) 22:34, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Carl_XVI_Gustaf/Archive_1&oldid=1175571868"