Talk:Prince Bernadotte

Removal of well-referenced content

I reverted a major rewrite here where well-referenced content had been removed to an extent I felt it bordered on vandalism. Editors can always add new well-referenced material but never at the expense of well-referenced material that is already there. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:32, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

That Sigvard, Carl Johan and Lennart Bernadotte were given the title "Prince Bernadotte" in 1951 is a theory that exists only on Wikipedia and is solely based on a new interpretation of the document from 1951. They themselves never used the title, and it does not appear in any official listings or in any sources concerning them having been created counts in 1951. They are adressed as princes in the luxembourgian document, but to be adressed as prince and to be created one is not same thing. This has been discussed at length on Swedish Wikipedia and the theory, supported only by SergeWoodzing, is heavily disputed.

While I will await further discussion on this topic, I will make some well-needed corrections to other aspects to the article. If there are objections to them, I hope that they can be discussed sparately without everything being reverted. /Elzo 90 (talk) 14:05, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

The article text must not deviate from the cited source. That's all, and on that matter Swedish Wikipedia is entirely irrlevant. I have had, and have still, no "theory" on Swedish Wikipedia anyway, since all I have presented is facts and my interpretation of them, so your accusation about any resistance to a "theory" is false. Let's dicsuss the issues, not each other! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:26, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

The article is better after your latest edits. Still, I think that the sentence "As their Luxemburg titles, however, the younger three of the four normally went by Count of Wisborg (the title also conferred upon their heirs), rather than a personal title of Prince Bernadotte." is too speculative. /Elzo 90 (talk) 11:50, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

If you had read all 3 of their memoires (Lennart wrote 2 books) you probably wouldn't find it speculative. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:40, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

As you very well know from our previous discussions, I have read all of their biographies. The sentence implies that they had "a personal title of Prince Bernadotte" which they chose not to use, and that is the speculation. No other title than Count of Wisborg appears in their biographies or anywhere else. /Elzo 90 (talk) 20:27, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

But Prince Bernadotte appears - 6 times! - as a personal title for each of them (and Princess Bernadotte for each of their wives) in the official document where they were admitted to the nobility of Luxemburg. Would you like me to e-mail you that document in full and a translation to Swedish, or is the cited brief summary notice from the Mémorial enough for you? Perhaps I should post the full text in English here as clarification of the brief notice in Mémorial? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:28, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Source: Princes and Princesses Bernadotte in Luxembourg's Nobility

I have erased the source "Princes and Princesses Bernadotte in Luxembourg's Nobility". It is a paper written of a private person and published on his own organisation "Southerly Club". It was published on the net one day before it was put in this article. If the written things are true then it should be possible to find a source from a notable historian or university, not from a private person. Adville (talk) 20:04, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

The paper contains an image of the original document by the Luxembourg head of state in French and a translation to English with which I (knowing both languages) cannot find fault. That govermental decree is the source re: the arms, not the paper per se. Reversing. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:07, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

That is anyway own research by a private person. How can we know that it is "the original documents"? You must have a better source for this kind of information. A paper or a real book. I erase it again, until a better source has been found. Adville (talk) 13:44, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

I am aware of your personal harassment campaign against me and this author on Swedish Wikipedia. But let's be reasonable! On English WP we try to avoid WP:Edit warring - thus we talk first and revert after consensus, we don't just waltz in from another language project and make changes we'd like to see for personal reasons. Other than that, I stand by my previous comment. Your only argument, as I see it, other than personal bias, is that the government decree was published recently. New sources are very helpful to WP in providing up ro date information. Reinstating until more constructive and neutral talk has been accomplished. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:30, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

As I have stated above, and in many places elsewhere, the section about princely titles and ducal crowns having been conferred in 1951 is speculation. A lot has been written these men and especially their titles. In books, newspaper articles and official lists. Nowhere is there any hint of any princely titles from Luxembourg before it was published on Wikipedia last year.

The original document, which SergeWoodzing kindly has made available to us, can be interpreted in several ways. The paper recently published by a private person pushes the questionable theory that hitherto unknown titles and arms where conferred. Since it is original research I agree with Adville that we should await reliable sources. /Elzo 90 (talk) 15:08, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Please, do not try to threaten me. I have no personal vendetta against you. I found out about this source during the discussion about deleting the writers article on Swedish wikipedia. I do not have to explain all that, you are well aware about it and also that I first changed my vote from neutral to keep. When I saw this source I wrote about it on the blocking discussion for you, which led to permanent block on svwp. You know that. I am writing on enwp sometimes, as you can see on my history, and also contributing with medical things from enwp to Swedish, but this is not about you, me or your permanent ban on svwp. This is about a non reliable source. As I stated above we must have reliable sources even on enwp. If I find errors on another wiki I change them, or ask others to do that if I don't skeak the language (ex nlwp). I am talking contructive with you. New sources is not the problem, newspapers are new sources, but not reliable sources are, and if we can not find outer sources about it we have to wait. This is not about a new thing happening it is about old stuff there tons of pages could have been written about this ocer time. There isn't, which must ring a bell. I'm reverting again, according to what I and Elzo 90:s wrote. Adville (talk) 10:22, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Adville and Elzo 90. This "source" is not reliable or credible, thus it should be removed from everywhere it is used, along with all its statements made in the articles. It is a part of a campaign where a person named Jacob Truedson Demitz (Lars Jacob) wants to squeeze personal views and opinions into the encyclopedia (and stuff about himself as well, mainly through the adding of pictures, this "book", and other means trying to create a legacy for himself, for which SW acts like the campaign manager, resulting in a perm. block on Swedish Wikipedia). On the Swedish Wikipedia project the "source" has been studied in deltalj and found faulty and fals. In addition to that, the "source" is self-published in SergeWoodzings personal circuit, and it is not of a higher standard/quality than the work of a high school student. It also refers to Wikipedia discussions where SergeWoodzing been active and encountered resistance to his edits and views, in which the "source" has conveniently given SW some much needed leeway to reach his goals. It is clear that this "source" is created to manipulate the debate and the facts on Wikipedia. Dnm (talk) 11:01, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

This is what the discussion should be is about, in my opinion, no matter who published it or when. the decree by Charlotte of Luxembourg and Pierre Dupong in 1951.

--SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:11, 24 September 2016 (UTC)]]

This, as concerns the article, is not about me and not about the author but about the Luxembourg government's document published in full in the cited paper. Anyone who does not have some sort of irrelevant personal interest in bashing and accusing/outing certain peersons - such as "a part of a campaign where a person named Jacob Truedson Demitz (Lars Jacob) wants to squeeze personal views and opinions into the encyclopedia" or "SergeWoodzings personal circuit" - who reads the original document impartially, will find that the decree is accurately cited here about the coats of arms.

That's what we are supposed to be discussing on this page, and only that.

Reinforcements have now been called in here [1] [2] [3] [third added now SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:14, 24 September 2016 (UTC)]) from Swedish Wikipedia where there are no guidelines against WP:Harassment, no guidelines against outing, no such thing as Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, no mentoring, where, for eaxmple, a Swedish version of WP:3O has been deleted as unwanted, and where people consequently are used to ganging up on each other to get what they want, personally, at the expense of the project. These problems recently led to a huge bruhaha there (all 3 4 users involved here now were heavily involved there, the fourth now having done the latest of 5 reverts here w/o a summary and w/o stopping in to talk) about me, about the this author and about Swedish WP policies, where several overt attempts were made to out me (no rules) and where many ethical users there tried to make progess on behalf of more ethical policies, but failed utterly.

What we are looking for here is neutral input, of which we have had none so far. Reminding everyone again, that we do not WP:Edit war but talk first, revert later, I am reinstating the citation from the Luxembourg source and asking that it be left until neutral opinions have been had.

The source is a new publication. That does not make it unreliable. Neither does any possible WP:COI per se.

If necessary, I will be asking for an RfC, which hopefully then will help us all stick to the facts and avoid all the animated personal issues. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:51, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

One of this trio of Swedish users has reverted this again, without discussing and without waiting for neutral input. I am reinstating it again, and have left a message on that user's talk page. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:24, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Hmm, first you say we shall discuss the article and nothing else, then all you edit is about your anger about svwp? Please let tje unrealoble source be off wikipedia. The document you say is originally from Luxembourg. Find another source for this, not a source that quotes wikipedia discussions... And about reinforcemwnts. Ezno wrote on this page before me, and I guess he can see all changes... Dnm, I think, saw this source during the discussions on svwp... Just like all others on svwp did and reacted. So to the issue. If you want the documents as source find them in a source not created just to be a source here. In that way we will avoid the own research written in that "source" from suddenly enter wikipedia. Adville (talk) 17:25, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

It is my opinion that this source, the Luxembuorg document published in full in that paper, is reliable and that there is no reason to doubt its authenticity. We need neutral input now. Let's wait for that. And let's stop the accusations such as "your anger". --SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:28, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

@SergeWoodzing: No, that is correct. It is not the age of the source that determines its reliability, it is determined by whom has written it, how it is published, if it has been peer-reviewed, and the standard of it. In this case the text is written by a non-historian, published by himself, it has not been peer-reviewed, and the quality is equivalent to an essay by a secondary shool/high school student. Furthermore the text seems to have been written to support the claims you are making on SwWP and EnWP, to help inserting the opinions you have about the royals into Wikipedia's articles.

And about the other stuff you are saying trying to discredit criticism of your source:

1. I have not been called in as reinforcement. I do edit EnWP from time to time, and we have met each other before here on a EnWP, as you are well aware of. And from the added contribution lists one can easy see that that is the case.
2. The statements you are making right now about all three of us being heavily involved in the debate about you is simply not true. For one, Adville made 5 contributions to the debate about you and your acts on Wikipedia. Elzo 90 made 6 contributions out of well over 200 debate contributions in total. I made 11, most of them where answers to one other users questions or remarks. If taken to account all the other discussions about your article of Jacob Truedson Demitz the ratio drops even lower. The debate engaged lots of wikipedians and to illustrate the outcome one can summarize like this: After the debate, there was only one administrator on Swedish Wikipedia that was against blocking you, and all but one favoured perm block (the last one favoured a long-term block). So, by the logic you are presenting, there is no one with insight that could say anything on EnWP without being classified as "heavily involved".

I have nothing personally against you (and i guess that goes for everyone, even though you always seems to think everyone is out to get you all the time), but i disapprove of your conduct and behaviour, and that is why i was in favour of you being perm blocked. Dnm (talk) 17:37, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Most of your input here is personal and does not address the article's content. Personalized disputes from other projects should not be continued on English Wikipedia. Most people here cannot read that Swedish discussion, nor see how many users in it who tried to defend me, and on what grounds (more similar to ethical enWP principles that those [lacking] on svWP).

You are still discussing the paper - I am only willing to discuss the Luxembourg decree published in the paper, because that's the only thing that effects the article.

Let's wait for neutral input now! (third time I've asked you guys). --SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:48, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

(PS: The article on Swedish Wikipedia - totally irrelevant here - which has been brought up here several times, was created there by a user there called Pontuz, whom I do not know, not by me. I never touched it. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:08, 24 September 2016 (UTC))

Good. Now you have asked others from enwp to see if the source is ok or not (on two places). Let the source be off wiki untill others have said what yhey think. Remember this is about the source, and I think enwp thinks te same as me that while discussing if a source is good or not it should not be published as if it is ok. Any doubts about bad sources shoud not be in articles. Thats why I reverted your edits, and the others too did. That is common sense.. Adville (talk) 18:12, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, you have made your point, I've made mine and the other non-neutral users have made theirs. Let's wait for neutral input now! (fourth time I've asked you guys). --SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:13, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Guys, calm down:) I have a likely better source here HERE

Avis. Titres de Noblesse. Par extension des dispositions de l´arrêté grand-ducal du 2 avril 1892, S.A.R. Madame la Grande-Duchesse a, selon décision du 2 juillet 1951 et par identité de raisons, admis dans la noblesse du Grand-Duché de Luxembourg les fils de S.M. Gustave-Adolphe Roi de Suède, Sigvard Oscar Frederik Prince Bernadotte, né le 7 juin 1907, Carl Johan Arthur Prince Bernadotte, né le 31 octobre 1916, le neveu de S.M. le Roi Gustave-Adolphe, Gustaf Lennart Nicolas Paul Prince Bernadotte, né le 8 mai 1909, leurs épouses ainsi que leurs descendants des deux sexes, nés et à naître de mariage légitime. Par la même décision le titre de Comte et Comtesse de Wisborg a été conféré pour être porté par les prénommés et par tous leurs descendants légitimes, en tous lieux et en tous actes, conformément aux lettres patentes données au Palais de Luxembourg le 2 juillet 1951. 18 juillet 1951.

The Grand Duchess seems to recognise both titles. Deamonpen (talk) 06:24, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

The documents has never been interpreted to mean that they were created princes. A lot has been written in official, genealogical and heraldic literature about the former Swedish princes that were ennobled in 1892 and 1951 Luxembourg. There is absolute consensus that they were created counts and nothing more. That they are styled as princes in the documents have several possible explanations. That they were created princes is the most far-fetched one, and one that contradicts everything written on the subject the last 60 years.

Sadly, this theory is aggressively pushed on WP. The dubious "paper" has already been mentioned, but the coats of arms displayed have been equipped with the wrong coronets to further support it. There are many more examples. It remains original research. /Elzo 90 (talk) 10:16, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

See, I don't even understand why this is that important. So we even have theories for this, and lengthy debates that apparently have got SergeWoodzing into troubles in swwp? But imho, fact is such an official document recognises them as such. How about, to satisfy all parties involved, we either quote the passage in full, or write that the Duchess recognized/referred to them as Princes Bernadotte in the memorial/act, and let the readers interpret it the way they want? Like the way on Margaret I of Denmark's page we mention that the Pope called her Queen (Regnant) and contemporary people called her King (while the titles Queen of Denmark and fuldmægtig frue og husbonde were only used by herself for a short period of time, and there are generally many ambiguities regarding her titles). Also apparently this was the latest case in which this title Prince Bernadotte was used for somebody in the 20th century at all, in a justified way or not.

13:04, 25 September 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deamonpen (talk • contribs)

Outside view

Hi, I was asked to look at this page by SergeWoodzing, presumable to offer an outside view. Is the issue now resolved after the finding of this source? --Tóraí (talk) 07:11, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

I was invited to look at this page by SergeWoodzing as well. Also perhaps this can be used for the source of the 1892 ennoblement of Oscar.

Deamonpen (talk) 07:49, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you both for your neutral input! I do not understand either why it is so important to a few Swedish users that the exact text of the Grand Duchess's decrees, which recently became known to the general public, should not be cited.

The document discussed here is the full text, of which the sources you accurately have cited only are summaries published in the Luxembourg government's gazette 1892 and 1951. The publication of the full text is meant to reinforce what is already clearly given in the gazette, and only in that full text do we have details of the coats of arms for the Princes and Princesses Bernadotte, as well as for the Counts and Countesses of Wisborg, excplictly dictated (ergo not given in the gazette).

Accuracy in drawing coats of arms, according to decrees by heads of state and their governments, should be of interest to all of us.

The full text (see image posted further up here) has been published by Ristesson, and it is my objective here only to assert that the document can be cited as a source, regarding the coats of arms, no matter who published it, and that there is no reason to doubt it's authenticity, since the authour of the Ristesson paper has never been suspected or convicted of forgery. For those of you who do not read French, this is what the full decree (image posted here) says about the coats of arms (page 2, end of 2nd paragraph)

• And so that said Princes and Princesses Bernadotte and Their descendants enjoy without disorder in the dignity of Nobles of Our Grand Duchy of Luxembourg and the title of Count and Countess of Wisborg which We have conferred upon them, they use a coat of arms as described and fashioned in the aforementioned order of 2 April 1892: ... [heraldic desriptions] ... the escutcheon surmounted by the ducal coronet such as it actually is borne by the Princes and Princesses Bernadotte, which for their descendants shall be replaced by a coronet of a Count

The 3rd paragraph on that page is also of interest to us:

• We ask all Sovereigns and Princes and hereby summon and enjoin the Courts and Tribunals, authorities and public officials and officers of Our Grand Duchy, both for the present and the future, to recognize the said Princes and Princesses Bernadotte as well as Their legitimate descendants as belonging to the nobility of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg and to attribute Them the titles and qualifications which they own by virtue of this.

Respectfully, --SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:29, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

I thank you for your input. I think it is clear Serge missunderstands us all. We are not against showing the complete decree for the public, but we do not want it to be shown on Wikipedia in a text that contains a lot of own research and ideas from a private person. Ideas that is not according to main stream historians (as Elzo 90 writes). If he wants all of the decrees to be cited I'm sure he can find other good sources that heve them, if they now are "known for the public". My objections are against the specific source, not the decrees. Best regards, Adville (talk) 18:19, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

The discussion continues to be personalized by name - "I think it is clear Serge missunderstands us all. ..." - and I wish it wouldn't, having asked several times for it not to be.

I find it unreasonable to expect that something that was published as recently as this decree could be covered already in other "mainstream" sources, and that argument is thus not relevant. Something unkown before 2015 can hardly be covered in any writings before 2015, and the subject is hardly of sufficient general interest and importance - except to this particular article! - that "mainstream" writers can be expected to rush and cover it as a high priority item, now or in the future.

To me, it is also unreasonable that English Wikipedia should delay the inclusion of vital and relevant information, such as the full decree gives to this article, only because of where the information was published first. Ristesson History has a huge and very valuable historical library - mainstream! - that already has been of considerable benefit to English Wikipedia for many years in documenting details such as this. I am very fortunate to have access to it from time to time.

The self-publication aspect also would seem to be moot here, since the discussion concerns the decree, which was issued by the Government of Luxemburg, not by the Ristesson writer.

There has also been a claim here that no mainstream writers ever have asserted that these Princes and Princesses Bernadotte had those titles. That is certainly incorrect, since the most qualified expert ever, Professor Gunnar Bramstång of Lund University did a whole paper on the subject, published as late as 1990 by Juristförlaget (law publisher) in that town ISBN 91-544-2081-3. He didn't know of the full text of this decree either, at that time (he does today), and thus based his assertions on Swedish and international law, but to say that nobody ever has recognized these titles for those people is highly misleading. (Bramstång's paper is one of several reliable sources given as bibliography "Källor" in the Swedish version of the Ristesson paper.)

Since there seems to be no objection to the drecree itself, and no doubt as to whether or not is is authentic, I cannot see any reason not to cite it, nothwithstanding the method in which it quite recently was discovered and published. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:48, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

PS The decree in full is now "known to the general public" because of the recent Ristesson paper's inclusion this year in the collections of several important reasearch libraries, such as Kungliga biblioteket and the Library of Congress. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:04, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

No one is objecting to citing the decrees. But as have been pointed out in the recent warning to SergeWoodzing, the decrees are primary sources. Interpretations of a primary source must be supported by a reliable secondary source according to Wikipedia:No original research. In this case, secondary sources oppose the interpretation that any Bernadotte was given the title Prince in Luxembourg, or was granted arms with the coronets presented in the article. Bramstång writes about Swedish princely titles. /Elzo 90 (talk) 12:34, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

"secondary sources oppose the interpretation" (my Italics) is not fully correct. Secondary sources have never been aware of any of this before would be fully correct. No one (other than a few Swedish Wikipedians) has ever asserted or suggested that these people did not have princely titles in the Luxembourgish nobility.

We nay need to make I have now made this a WP:RSN matter, as suggested in the WP:ANEW section that has that warning, to which this is a more complete link. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:25, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

As a neutral observer, my 2c is that this source is self-published and so unreliable.

Primary sources are usable as references on Wikipedia. However, care must be taken with them. In this case, there appears to be a question about the providence of the claimed primary source. Therefore I suggest caution.

The world will not end tomorrow. Therefore, we can take our time and a better source for this statement will turn up. --Tóraí (talk) 19:53, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:31, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Concede wrong

Thanx to valuable neutral input here and at WP:RSN I concede that it was wrong to add the information as sourced, and I'm sorry i did so. This was a good discussion, in all the parts of it that did not contain personalized animosity. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:37, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Thoughtful and helpful comment, bound to move this discussion toward a consensus resolution. FactStraight (talk) 15:53, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

But I do not understand why you think I made it personilazed. Obviously you missunderstood our arguments, because you thought we were after you, while I tried to talk about the source. You understood tje orhers, that said the same thing. I will not discuss this more, but hope you'll remember this last post from me, so you won't be affected negativelly again if someone thinks you are wrong. We discuss the topics. Adville (talk) 16:31, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

To me, every time any user mentions another user's name in an article talk page discussion, the discussion becomes personalized. For years now, I've always try to avoid mentioning anybody's name in that context and try to stick to the topic. When it looks to me like a group of users (especially unexpected drop-ins) are ganging up on another user, or otherwise acting as a group, I might mention the group per se (leaving it up to others to judge that part), but even then I try to avoid mentioning their names. Way way way too many discussions quickly get polluted by personalization, and much much much too long because of it, with certain users pouncing on other users by name, and other users feeling they need to defend themselves personally, which defensiveness especially pertains to users who are well known by user alias or (at worst) by their real names.

I've also begun, during the last few years, to try very hard to remember never to personally reply to comments directed at me personally on such talk pages, and try instead to divert that personal comment back to the actual subject being discussed.

Each and every discussion on article talk pages benefits greatly from not being personalized, and hardly ever suffers from avoiding that. English Wikipedia's WP:TPG is a very helpful page. I am posting this also on Adville's talk page so that we can continue discussiing it there, if necessary, not here. Don't think I'll have to much to add tho. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:35, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

I was in no way involved in this edit, made by someone completely unknown to me. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:46, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

So, I would appreciate it very much if User:Dnm and other Swedish Wikipedians with whom he often collaborates, and who I feel have been harassing me for years, would cease, one and for all in making irrelevant comnents about me, as well as baseless accusations like this. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:51, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Slightly off-topic question

It's not 100% clear to me whether or not the decree is considered relevant per se. Would other neutral users be opposed to, or in favor of, adding the image of the decree to the article (see above here) with a caption that reads no more than thus: "Decree of 1951 by Charlotte of Luxembourg and Pierre Dupong"? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:06, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

What is a neutral user?Adville (talk) 18:10, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

To me, any user is neutral whom other users (other than I) would consider uninvolved personally in the issue and in personalized debates about it. You decide if you qualify. I can't do that for you or for anyone else. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:17, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

I have added a bunch of secondary sources, and kept the document as a reference for the specific fact that the title "Prince Bernadotte" appears in it. Which is true but anecdotal. I cannot see what value an image of the decree would add. /Elzo 90 (talk) 21:38, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Would anyone neutral have an opinion? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:33, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

More thorough sourcing

Since more through sourcing now has been done to support Prince Sigvard Bernadotte's overt use of that title from 1983, I believe it is time to adandon what has come to look like Swedish censorship, balance the imaging of the article and add the arms described in the Luxembourg decree of 1892 and again in detail in 1951. A total of 11 persons, male and female, have had the right to use those arms since 1892 (though they have all been very discreet about it), whereas only a total of 4 have ever used the Belgian arms (and only 1 used them at all, and then only the coronet - without the shield - on his stationery). --SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:31, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

PS The Pontecorvo arms of the first Prince Bernadotte could also be added. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:45, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Not a single one of the added references mentions the title Prince Bernadotte. They only support the well-known fact that Sigvard Bernadotte used the title "Prince" after 1983, and that many people thereafter referred to him as "Prince Sigvard" or "Prince Sigvard Bernadotte". There is no mention of him using the title that is the subject of this article.

Prince Bernadotte as a title of nobility has always, in each and every case been used with the given name: Prince Jean-Baptiste Bernadotte, Prince Carl Bernadotte, Prince Oscar Pernadotte, Prince Sigvard Bernadotte. That's how that kind of title always (always) is given, in this case and every other throughout history. Reading references one comments on is a good idea. In each and every one of them "Prince Sigvard Berndotte" or "Princess Marianne Bernadotte" or both is how that couple is named. In his statement of 1983 that is what he stated he was to be called "Prince Sigvard Bernadotte" nothing else, and in subsequent well published statements from him and his lawyers that title "Prince Sigvard Bernadotte" was tied directly to his granduncle's legitimate title of "Prince Oscar Bernadotte", which was legitimate as a real title of nobility only in the Luxembourgish version. Whether or not some people in error have called any of them Prince Carl, Prince Oscar, Prince Sigvard, Princess Marianne, without the noble surname, is irrelevant. Reliable sources such as George Jensen or Dagens Industri would never do that because they know better. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:25, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

I have added clarification and another source here to substantiate the fact that the specific title Prince Bernadotte is what Sigvard Bernadotte wanted acknowledged and used as of 1983 when he was to be known as Prince Sigvard Bernadotte even in Sweden. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:24, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

The book by Roger Lundgren supports that Sigvard claimed the title Prince Bernadotte, and that is relevant for the article, but it makes no connection between that claim and the ennoblement documents from Luxemburg. Rather, it telates to Oscars II's decision in 1888 to give his son that title, which Sigvard argued that he also was entitled to. There is no support for the assertion, which is presently made in this article, that Sigvards claim had anything to do with Luxemburg. /Elzo 90 (talk) 16:27, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

As the source clearly points out, the only legitimate title as Prince Bernadotte that Oscar Bernadotte had was the one from Luxembourg, the Swedish one having been merely a courtesy gesture 1888-1892 which had no official status as noble or anything else. Neither Sigvard nor his biographers, such as George Jensen and Dagens Industri, have ever needed to mention Luxembourg for that to be unquestionable as linked to Oscar's title, to which Sigvard and his biographers have referred. The fact that they have not mentioned Luxembourg does not negate the governmental decree of 2 July 1951 where the title was granted and is repeated no less that 4 times, with the princely arms specified as differing from the comital arms. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:46, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

The coat of arms you propose to add has never been depicted with that coronet. That is also true for the arms of Carl Bernadotte currently in the article. /Elzo 90 (talk) 22:52, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Prince Carl Bernadotte's arms, with this exact coronet, have been published in several places and hung in Riddarholm Church. One editor alone, fighting h own battle against the very existence of the Lux title at all, despite all those sources, has insisted that the cap must be included inside the coronet for the arms to be acceptable, though several of us have opposed that position. The Luxembourg arms were published by the Government of Luxembourg in 1951, with that same coronet specified as the only coronet allowed to be used for the title. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:25, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

PS If we are to be reasonable and assume that arms do exist for the legitimate Luxembourgish title of Prince Bernadotte, as there unquestionably are for the Belgian and Napoleonic versions of the title, which other arms would it reasonable to use than the ones specifically described by the Government of Luxembourg when the title was granted there? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:44, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

The ennoblement documents of 1892 and 1951 includes the words "Prince Bernadotte", but the interpretation that this means that there is a separate Luxembourgish version of the title has no support in the sources. As for the arms of Carl Bernadotte, you cannot remove the red cap and olden tassel of a coronet of rank and claim that it is still the same coronet.

You need to read Lundgren more carefully (p. 62) about Prince Bernadotte as a specific title of nobility granted by Luxembourg. You opinion that a cap and tassel cannot be removed is unsubstatiated, against several other opinions that it can. What is your source for that POV? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:46, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Lastly, I would greatly prefer that you leave my posts intact in the future. /Elzo 90 (talk) 16:27, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

I have no idea what you mean by that. Show me what I've done, please! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:46, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

I am doing further research on the only remaining argued question of cap or no cap in the coronet of these Belgian and Luxembourgish arms and hope to find reliable sources soon for that detail. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:25, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Having now forwarded some experts' e-mails to my only opponent here, about the cap-or-no-cap coronet issue, I hope that will resolve the matter convincingly and constructively. Thus, it looks like the Luxembourgish arms, as detailed in the 1951 decree, should be able to be added from Commons, as well as the Napoleonic arms from 1806, which would fully balance the article image-wise. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:22, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

 Done --SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:32, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Morganantic marriages, no such thing in Swedish law

The article has one major error of an albeit minor point: the marriages of the five once-dynastic Bernadotte princes were not morganatic and has never been described as such in reputable sources, as the concept was always as alien to Swedish jurisprudence as it was to English law.

This misconception of terminology is likely due to the poor understanding on SergeWoodzing’s part of the legal concept of a morganatic marriage (it necessitates that the prince keeps his original style/title/rank in full or in part, and more importantly that the lesser ranked wife and descendants are granted a lesser style/title/rank by the sovereign head of the house her princely husband belongs to) as to how it differentiates to being merely an unequal marriage, as it was defined in the applicable statutory constitutional law, i.e. the readings of the 1809 Instrument of Government and the 1810 Act of Succession at the time of their respective first marriages, which strictly mandated the sanction of the princely perpetrator to forfeit his right in the line of succession for himself and his descendants; this irrespective of whether the King approved it or not. While, it did not mandate the loss of titles, state orders of chivalry (as seen in the first case of Prince Oscar, Duke of Gotland), it was a merely the creation of new a precedent, made in the sole and plenary discretion of the King-in-Council, by the then-Crown Prince Gustaf Adolf, in his capacity as Regent ad interim standing in for the temporary absence of his father, after the marriage of his second son was contracted in 1934. The King (not the natural persons, but the institution, i.e. the permanent body of the King’s two bodies according to the arcane but useful medieval political theology) was always bound by the provisions of black letter constitutional law but nothing prevented him from being even harsher on the black sheep’s of the family.

It also fails to mention that Sigvard Bernadotte took his case all the way to the ECHR, but that he died before the court could render a permanent judgement (which would not rule in favor of his case, as the preliminary judgement shows, not because he was not wronged in the past in a moral sense, but for the lack of a justiciable ECHR violation, which does not encompass the possession and loss of a royal style/title/rank).RicJac (talk) 22:07, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm not 100% sure that I deserve being personally criticized in this regard, since I do not remember if it was I who added the term here and am too lazy today (& too old & too under-the-weather & too impatient) to search the entire edit history to try to find a culprit. In any case, I see no real need to single out anyone and attack h for "poor understanding" of anything at all. Guideline says we are supposed to use these talk pages to opine on article content not on other editors, Nevertheless, anyone looking at the top text of morganatic marriage could feasibly deduce that that is exactly what happened here. Perhaps reading the whole article would support the assertion that the term is inapproriate in this context? (There again, my laziness, etc etc etc.). Re: Sigvard, wouldn't it be enough that the court case is mentioned in his article? I'm not in a position to judge that, nor to judge Sigvard's case ("not because he was not wronged in the past in a moral sense, but for the lack of a justiciable ECHR violation, which does not encompass the possession and loss of a royal style/title/rank"). What I know is that he announced what his correct title was in 1983 and that subsequent documentation, discovered/published long after his death, proves him right, whether or not he chose to cite the very clear 1951 decree and throw the Government of Luxemburg in the face of his obstinate nephew. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 08:08, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Removal of relevant info & good source

This removal surprises me.

1. The source us is a highly respected Swedish newspaper in English by Englishmen living in Sweden. No American writers involved.
2. The subject has not a thing to do with Swedish succession but with this king's stubborn refusal to address his elderly uncle as desired & by a title specified by the government of another country.
3. The source is excellent - there are several more. Shall I bombard the arcticle article with them when I reverse this?
4. The information is highly relevant. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 09:20, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

This removal surprises me.

Your surprise is duly noted.

1. The source [i]s a highly respected Swedish newspaper ...

The source as such has not been questioned.

... No American writers involved.

The author is Scott Ritcher, born in Louisville, Kentucky, USA.

2. The subject has not a thing to do with Swedish succession ...

Not entirely correct. The prince was deprived of his right to succession under the Swedish Act of succession, and as a consequence also deprived of his royal titles.

... but with this king's stubborn refusal ...

To describe the present king as "stubborn" indicates that you don't have a neutral attitude to this subject.

3. ... Shall I bombard the arcticle with them when I reverse this?

A threat to "bombard" the article is childish and hardly in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

4. The information is highly relevant.

I don't agree. Just saying something is relevant doesn't make it relevant. /B****n (talk) 17:37, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

To claim that the king has been criticized, without stating by whom, implies that he has been more widely criticized, and there is no source that supports such a claim. If criticism from individual persons is to be mentioned in the article, it should be a person who can be considered to be more relevant to the subject, like a member of the royal house or a prominent politician, or if criticism from an indivdual has received a lot of media attention. /B****n (talk) 06:57, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Please accept my apologies for a mistaken nationality and a typo or two! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:34, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Main issue here: The subject has not a thing to do with Swedish succession. "The prince was deprived of his right to succession under the Swedish Act of succession, and as a consequence also deprived of his royal titles." - nor of royal titles. The king has not been criticized for anything else but refusing to use his uncle's desired style as Prince Sigvard Bernadotte. That is clearly not a royal title, nor does it pertain in any way to the succession. The Local published the criticism of the king, not Scott Richter, whether or not the one you linked to is the same Scott Richter as the one who wrote it. (I described the king's refusal as stubborn, not him, and many people who absolutely adore Carl Gustaf cannot understand his behavior on this one issue - please try to focus on topic without attacking anyone else with twisted accusations.) --SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:05, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

The main issue is whether the Swedish king has been criticized for not recognizing Sigvard Bernadotte as a prince and if it is relevant to this article. The article is written from a personal perspective by Mr Ritcher (who most certainly is the very same Richter I linked to, since both are writing for journals and magazines, are from Louisville KY USA and moved to Sweden in about 2009). As far as I can see, beside the opinions of Sigvard Bernadotte and his counsellors, it is only the personal criticism by Mr Richter that is presented in the article. Is that relevant? No!

As I stated above, the relevance of the criticism must be judged on the basis of the person who has come up with the critique and the attention it has received. You fail to comment on both counts.

I am not attacking you, only pointing out that you appear to be biased when you use a value-charged word as "stubborn" to describe the behavior of the king. /B****n (talk) 12:11, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Generally I take issue when I see another editor dislike a well-sourced item in an article and attack the good source as a method of trying to remove that irritating item. I'm sure that's not what happened here, but the thought did enter my mind. Don't know if I should apologize. Current version is fine with me. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:45, 30 March 2021 (UTC)