Talk:Prince Daniel, Duke of Västergötland/Archive 1

Archive 1

Duke or no

If Westling is indeed already titled duke, the mention of upcoming investiture might be removed from weddinfg plans subsection. Rackham (talk) 13:48, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

• This source says he will assume the title only upon wedding: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090224/ap_on_re_eu/eu_sweden_royal_wedding As does my Finnish source Rackham (talk) 14:15, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

• Wow, guys! What are you talking about? Mr. Westling is NOT a Swedish Duke nor of any other royal or aristocratic background. The royal household has not even declared if he Wwill ever become a duke, yet. This website is up a year too early! Wivictim 18:00, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Hey you calm down. Daniel is about to marry the Crown princess next summer and his official title has already been revealed. so lets calm down and not being hysterical.--Judo112 (talk) 18:09, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

oh and by the way we cant have two articles on Daniel Westling. Dont you see that yourself, why undo a reverted page who already exist?--Judo112 (talk) 18:18, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

He hasn't been given a title yet, this article's title is speculation. It should go back to his given name until such time as he has actually been given the title. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 18:52, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Such is my understanding; he would gain the title at the marriage. Tomas e (talk) 23:06, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Speculation. See WP:CRYSTAL. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 00:13, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Not speculation. The coming title was announced yesterday formally by the Swedish government and is to be given Westling when he marries the princess. That's equally as official as Obama having been President-Elect from last November to January. It would be perfectly correct to call Westling Duke-Designate of Westrogothland, though not Duke yet. If the engagement goes south (up there in the north), so does the title. 217.209.96.84 (talk) 01:50, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

The article should be at the Westling name until he actually becomes a Duke. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 02:10, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

President-Elect is a legal term out of U.S. law books, while "Duke-Designate" is deffinitely inexistant. I wish him all the luck in the world to achieve his dreams, but until the king bestows an official title upon him, by presenting the necessary documents to Mr. Westling, his official passport will still read "Olof Daniel Westling". And if her royal highness the crown princess changes her mind until next year, Mr. Westling may remain "Mr. Westling" until the end of his life. WIKIPEDIA shall not be reduced to a book of fairytales! Wivictim 02:20, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Are we now arguing only for the sake or arguing? The King of Sweden and the government headed by the Prime Miister there officially bestowed the titles on Mr. Westling yesterday, including documentation such as the minutes of their cabinet meeting and press release, his titles to take effect when the couple is married in "early summer of 2010". So no matter if some people might not like legally "inexistant" terms, duke designate is exactly what Mr. Westling is, as well as prince designate. If you wish to argue the point further, I suggest you complain to Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt of Sweden or to the Royal Court there. This is not necessary here. Just a constructive suggestion, in all friendliness. You are right of course that the engagement has to lead to marriage for Westling's bestowed titles to take effect (as announced now) on their wedding day. For now his name is Daniel Westling and he is not yet a legally prince or a duke. 217.209.96.84 (talk) 04:01, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Still in business or no

The removal of Westling's still being in business constitutes vandalism bordering on a BLP violation and is very likely not at all on the agenda until (if?) he assumes royal duties over a year from now. Please do not do things like this on a whim! Please don't jump the gun to the detriment of this encyclopedia! You even told us you haven't read the source you quoted! And while you are at it use the barest of necessities of English terms. VD means venereal disease (Sw: könssjukdom!) in English, not General Manager. More care is needed there too. Just a couple of friendly pointers to someone who probably meant well 217.209.96.84 (talk) 21:45, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Prince consort or no

In Sweden and several other monarchies, a man who marries a princess and becomes Prince himself is also called a prince consort (see the article!) from the monent he marries her and becomes her consort. Note: prince consort, not Prince Consort (there is a difference - see the article again!). Please let's not only use British standards to describe everything in the world always, because that won't always be correct. Just a friendly plea. 217.209.96.84 (talk) 12:54, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

This may well be but the article on prince consort as a definition is not entirely correct. Not because the British model should be leading but for the overall understanding it is recommendable, when writing articles in English, to maintain clarity. As it stands now, the entry on Mr Westling is confusing for non-Swedes. Just a friendly view ;)

193.63.251.229 (talk) 16:28, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Consorts are spouses of monarchs. The Duchess of Cornwall, The Countess of Wessex, The Crown Princess of Norway, The Crown Princess and Princess Marie of Denmark, The Princess of Asturias, and spouses of other prince, are not princesses consort. Wife of The Prince of Liechtenstein, however, is a princess consort. Therefore, Daniel will not become a consort until Victoria ascends (if she ascends after their wedding). Surtsicna (talk) 22:24, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

That is strictly a British interpretation and very rigid. Brits are the world's greatest royalists, yes (or they wouldn't put up with all those nasty divorces), but often too dominant in language. We're in 2009, you guys, not 1609. There is another (perhaps not Great, but talented) Elizabeth on the Throne of England today, but most of her own subjects in all those realms don't even speak the Queen's English anymore. The word consort, in its simplest and longest established form in English, is just a glamorous old term for husband or wife used mainly about royalty. Prince + consort (of a princess) = prince consort (read!) in simple terms and many countries other than the U.K. (?). The matter comes to a head, for example, if somebody asks "What about that Richard, is he really a Prince of Denmark?" Correct answer: "Not really, he's a part of the Danish Royal Family in a way, but only as prince consort to Princess Benedikte". This is factual language. Normal, understandable, regular people's language, just like we love to have in Wikipedia. But you know what? I give in! I'm crying uncle. Uncle! Ridiculous to me to go on and on and on and on and on and on about it. 217.209.96.84 (talk) 06:10, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Strictly, prince consort can refer to any male who happens to be married and happens to be a prince. But in English (not merely the UK) usage, "consort" is usually reserved to describe someone who is the official spouse of a ruler. It is often used in that context to modify "queen" and "empress", as a way of disambiguating those titles from a female who is regnant. But we must be careful in translation. Even if it is true that in Scandinavia Richard, 6th Prince of Sayn-Wittgenstein-Berleburg is referred to as "the prince consort" of Princess Benedikte of Denmark, in English I would simply refer to him as her "consort" -- dropping the "prince". Whereas his brother-in-law, Henri de Laborde de Monpezat, was (unofficially, but grammatically) Queen Margrethe II's prince consort and is now Denmark's official Prince Consort. People come to encyclopedias for correction & clarity. If we confuse readers by confounding terminology, we do a disservice. We need to sort out these subtle differences, rather than mush them up together and act as if they are interchangeable. It is perfectly possible that the Swedish equivalent of "consort" is correctly used for a prince who happens to be married to any princess (although I'm curious to know when prince consort has ever been used as an official title for the husband of a Scandinavian queen regnant or crown princess, as is asserted at the top of this section), but since that is not normal usage in English, it can easily be explained in the article -- once verified.FactStraight (talk) 07:54, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Dear IP, this Wikipedia is written in English so we use only very rigid British interpretation. If the speakers of English recognize consort as spouse of a monarch, then we shouldn't confuse them by confounding terminology. Even if it is verfied that he is considered consort (or whatever the word is in Swedish) in Sweden, it doesn't mean that we have to make up a whole new definition for the word consort just to include Daniel into it. It's far more easier to simply omitt the word. Surtsicna (talk) 09:42, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for all the pointers, but y'all neglected to notice that I have given up on this nitpicking, even if my point about Richard and Benedikte was well taken (but then contradicted, and so forth and so on, world without end, amen!). Maybe the Danes won't mind your "dropping" whatever you please when you speak to them (not with them) in English? Why go on and on and on about it, especially writing as English experts and using gaffs like "more easier" and "omitt". Please feel free to write whatever you like (we'll be glad to try to clean it up for you in the articles if we have time), but people posing as language experts do themselves big favors by showing the knowing. Please try to forgive that I couldn't resist this last comment, if you can find it in your heart of hearts. I am so sorry. Now, I'm unwatching the page, because I'm thrthrthrthrough here (Daffy Duck pronunciation, please!). Ciao! 217.209.96.84 (talk) 13:58, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Please excuse my bad English. After all, English is not my first language. I've never claimed that I'm an expert on English language. As you can see on my userpage, I think that my knowledge of English grammar is on the level 3 (out of 5). Yet you're talking about nitpicking... Surtsicna (talk) 15:40, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I am actually quite shocked at the correspondence on here... is this the way royalists communicate, I ask myself? Where is the respect for each other? Surely, we are global citizens and the English language enables us to communicate? Surely, the aim is to update Wikipedia correctly. It is not about people fighting to proof they are "better" or righteous! Keep smiling everyone and celebrate the Royal Engagement this weekend :) 86.172.37.13 (talk) 23:34, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Factual background on titles

The Swedish law of succession was actually changed in 1979 enabling Princess Victoria as a woman to be an heir to the throne, behind her father King Carl Gustaf and his uncle Prince Bertil. Her four paternal aunts, even Birgitta who was (and is) still a royal Princess of Sweden, were excluded. When Victoria's brother was born that same year he became Crown Prince (first in line after his father), but then a new constitution went into effect on Jan, 1, 1980, and as the eldest child of the head of state Victoria replaced her brother and was Crown Princess (first in line after her father). Carl Philip thus lost the Crown part out of Crown Prince and was moved down one peg. The King has stated in published interviews that he wasn't too happy about that last development.

Sweden has had royal rulers for well over a thousand years. From reign to reign, or parts thereof, they have had widely varying powers, but usually considerable ones. Most have had constitutional rights equal to the task of deciding that royals may marry whomever they please. Not since 1568, however, when Eric XIV married an orphaned chambermaid of very ordinary roots, has any Swedish king exercised his rights like the current one has in approving royal marriages, beginning with his own, to everyday people (Queen Silvia allegedly descends from Tibiriçá, a 16th century native Brazilian chief, but that's all in the royal roots department for HM).

The two Princesses of Sweden whose husbands acquired titles through them were:

1. Ingiburga († 1252), last member of the Erican Dynasty, married Birger of the powerful Bielbo Dynasty of Swedish grandees, and he became Duke of Sweden and by her the father of two kings.
2. Catherine (1584-1638) of the Vasas, married John Cazimir who was created Duke of Stegeborg, Sweden, lived there and founded the royal Swedish line of his ancient Wittelsbach Dynasty of Bavaria (called Palatine Dynasty in Sweden for political reasons).

The Queens Regnant of Sweden to date were (according to some more modern sources, such as Norwegian Prof. Grethe Authén Blom and Swedish-American writer Jacob Truedson Demitz):

• Ingiburga (1301-1361), a Norwegian princess, widow of a Swedish prince Eric and Queen Mother of King Magnus IV of Sweden (Magnus VII of Norway), was regent intermittently until her second marriage to a Danish magnate, and can be considered the only de facto ruler of Sweden for one year (1318-1319).
• Margaret (1353-1412), a Danish princess (later Margaret I of Denmark) and widow of Swedish king Hacon (no surviving offspring), became de facto ruler of Sweden, Denmark and Norway without ever being officially proclaimed or crowned Queen Regnant (Swedish reign 1389-1396).
• Christina (1626-1689, rumored from birth to be a hermaphrodite), Vasa Dynasty (above), daughter of Sweden's King Gustav II Adolph, the only princess to ascend officially, having been Heiress Apparent, she never married, abdicated and was buried under St. Peter's Basilica in the Vatican (reigned 1632-1654).
• Ulrica Eleanor (1688-1741), Wittelsbach Dynasty (above), a daughter of Sweden's King Carl XI, she quickly assumed the throne (ahead of a more entitled nephew) when her brother was assassinated, then abdicated two years later in favor of her prince consort who became King Frederick but had no offspring with her (she had reigned alone 1718-1720).

We can assume that all this will be written about more and more during the current long engagement and that such a background as the above will add more and more curiosity and interest to what Mr. Westling's titles and positions will be, even among some people who are not avid royalists, historians, genealogists or Leos. At every new twist and turn, many republicans (of the anti-monarchy type) are also naturally interested, i.e. to see what kind of a case they can make against the Bernadottes this time. 217.209.96.84 (talk) 19:05, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

What "is believed" is not relevant

"It is also believed that he is a close friend of the american underground artist John Nietzsche." removed from article, not relevant as worded. 217.209.96.3 (talk) 13:56, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Groundbreaking titles section

This section is way too long for this article and needs to be cut back significantly. Presumably the detail is in another article somewhere and can be pointed to with a {{main}} template. – ukexpat (talk) 22:48, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Would be interesting to see just a bit more detail in your views why you feel it is "way too long ... and needs to be cut back significantly", i.e. what you have read in it that makes you pass quick judgement that much of it is irrelevant and unneeded to explain this rather unusual subject. There have already been several complaints about a lack of clarity. If you read the content rather carefully, Ukexpat, beginning with Groudbreaking..., possibly you may find that quite a bit of it is a good idea to have there to avoid continued confusion and misinformation, such as you may have seen has been rampant in the article and here on the talk page since the highly unusual news broke on Feb. 24. You may also get an intuitive feeling that the details plausibly are not found anywhere else, as you suspected at first glance. Could you please specify what you feel needs to be removed to make the section fully relevant or encyclopedic or to meet any other qualification you may require? Can/should we move some of it from the article to this page for the background? Can/should we rewrite and move it to a new Princess of Sweden or Titles of Swedish royalty article? The necessary and correct facts are all there now, so a rewrite won't be at all as difficult as it was to get them all straight for English Wikipedia's benefit. Let us know please! Feels a bit thankless, to be frank, to have you breeze in (as it would seem) and condemn the section after all that work that User:Tomas e and User:FactStraight and I just got done doing, trying our damndest to improve and clarify it, and I just put a "now good section comment" in history and worked on the facts with minute care for hours. How foolish do you think I should feel about that? Sincerely, 217.209.96.84 (talk) 23:20, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I think you are overreacting a little. No one owns this article, but obviously some people have put a lot of work into it. And I have not "breezed in" -- I have been watching this one for a few days and have contributed a little to the formatting. OK to the point: I think the second para of this section could be cut down to one sentence; and the fourth para to a sentence or two. Tomorrow I will take a crack at it and post my suggested text here for review. Sound like a plan? – ukexpat (talk) 04:57, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

A plan and a good one at that! Look forward to it. 217.209.96.250 (talk) 16:32, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

It's not clear what his title will be after Victoria becomes queen. Theoretically she could even make him a king consort (ie he's be King of Sweden only in the same sense that her mother is Queen of Sweden). Alphaboi867 (talk) 22:07, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

That would be logical, now that they have equal primogeniture. If wives of kings are queens consort, then husbands of queens regnant should be kings consort - otherwise, the equal primogeniture is not so equal after all. Surtsicna (talk) 22:25, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, though you are right in principle (kingiple?) a constitutional problem there: the Head of State is described in the Swedish constitution as the King or (if there is no King) the Queen, the Queen then having the same rights as if she were the King. There is no sharing of the position either. 217.209.96.249 (talk) 02:29, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

The Swedes don't mind changing their constitution every once in a while. I doubt that there would be any opposition to replacing "King" with "monarch". The constitution was changed to allow Victoria to ascend. If they want gender equality, then spouses of monarchs should be treated equally. I'm not proposing to make Daniel co-sovereign. I'm proposing to make him a consort with the title of king (i.e. king consort). It is still presumed that queen in inferior to king and that the queen's husband shouldn't be king because of that. Isn't that discrimination? Surtsicna (talk) 09:28, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Of course it is. And why not do your good idea? But priorities for women in Sweden might include legislation against (rampant) discrimination in wages first - much talked about for decades - nothing done. But that's another subject, we'd better not pursue it here. 217.209.96.249 (talk) 23:42, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Why should Swedish women fight against this one tiny area in which men are discriminated against? If men want Daniel Westling to become King Consort, then men should organize and work towards that. Feminists are overburdened enough as it is, without taking on some other group's fight as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.100.203.245 (talk) 00:49, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Not giving Daniel the title of king is in fact a discrimination of women, not men. Daniel would not get the title because the title of king is thought to be higher than the title of queen. Why would a queen (regnant) be inferior to a king? If they want equality, they should presume that the feminine title of queen (regnant) is equal to the masculine title of king. Thus, spouses of female monarchs should be treated like spouses of male monarchs. Surtsicna (talk) 11:38, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Crown Prince?

When he marries The Crown Princess, will he not become Crown Prince ?

(in Denmark , for example, Mary Donaldson became Crown Princess when she married the Crown Prince.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.46.62.180 (talk) 14:37, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Probably not, the "Crown" part entails inheriting the throne as Head of State. Victoria only. It has been announced that he will be Prince, not Crown Prince. SergeWoodzing (talk) 08:33, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunatly not. The IP is right; if the wife of a crown prince gets to be a crown princess, why shouldn't a husband of a crown princess become a crown prince? After all, the aim of the Swedish monarchy is to be as "equal" as possible. Well, the truth is that it is not so equal. The current king's wife is a queen, but will Victoria's husband share her title when they marry? I'm sure he won't, because they still assume that the title of queen is inferior to the title of king - so much about equality. Yet again, I'm sure that the wife of Victoria's son (assuming he is her eldest child) will be queen. This equal primogeniture thing simply doesn't make the monarchy gender-equal, let alone the fact that monarchy is all about inequality among people.

The "Crown" part may entail inheriting the crown and becoming head of state, but Victoria's great-grandmother was Crown Princess of Sweden and I'm sure that everyone was aware that she would never inherit the Swedish crown and become head of state of Sweden despite her title. So, what (other than the spouse's gender) makes Daniel different than his future great-grandmother-in-law? Surtsicna (talk) 11:26, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

This is indeed very interesting. The female spouse of a Crown Prince is called Crown Princess, despite the fact that she will never inherit the throne. Then in that case, why is the male spouse of a Crown Princess (a female heir) not called Crown Prince in the same way? There is no real difference, but it is made to be different artificially. I suppose this is something which is simply nothing people think about, because they are used to the idea, but it would be interesting to know how it is justified. --85.226.44.238 (talk) 11:33, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

The truth is that every monarchy is inequal and must be inequal no matter how equal they try to make it. They can adopt "equal" primogeniture but for as long as the law favours one child over another (be it due to sex or age), the monarchy cannot be "equal". Let alone the age discrimination, a hereditary monarchy cannot be equal at all because it favours people of a specific descent over all the other people. But very few citizens of Sweden mind that, right? People make such a fuss about gender inequality that they ignore age discrimination and discrimination based on one's ancestry. If they want equality, why don't they abolish monarchies and have more equality? I like monarchies but I only like them when they are as inequal as they are supposed to be. Daniel will probably never be Crown Prince or King of Sweden because the masculine form of a royal title is supposedly higher than the feminine form of the same title (allegedly, a king ouutranks a queen) - what's equal about that? Surtsicna (talk) 23:36, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Daniel not the first prince consort

Actually, Victoria will not be the first married female monarch in Sweden. Margaret may have been a widow, Christina may have been unmarried, but Ulrika Eleonora was married during her reign 1718-1720, and the fact that she abdicated in favour of her spouse does not change that. The text kind of jumps over that. So, Daniel will not be the first prince consort, but the second. The difference may be, that Frederick had his own title, Prince of Hesse, and did not need to be given the title of prince - the council did not wish to give him the title of king (consort), but granted him the style "Royal Highness". --85.226.46.85 (talk) 11:46, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Source for your last assertion here? Never heard of any discussion of his title in all the literature I have read on them. He was certainly never called prince consort at any time. And I never knew anybody suggested he should be called king (consort) before he was king regnant. Very interesting this, if you have a reliable source for it. SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:53, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

"Ground breaking titles"

The article claim that there were no clear precedence for a prince consort in Sweden. Queen Ulrika Eleonora was married during her reign 1718-1720. The fact that she abdicated in favour of her husband, does not in any way change this fact. The article was phrased to sound as if the fact that Ulrika Eleonora abdicated in favour of her husband had any significance in the matter; it does not, of course, as this issue is about prince consorts. I have therefore re-phrased it. --85.226.45.47 (talk) 19:15, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Coat of Arms

I've constructed a free version of his coat of arms which can be included in the article after the wedding (which is when he officially receives it). /Lokal_Profil 01:17, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Ancestors

Moved this here from the article's page. None of these people, except Westling himself, are notable or relevant by name. Swedish WP has removed it completely long ago. And "known" was not correct. A lot more of them are known. SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:12, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Westling's known ancestors (2009) are:

Anders Andersson (1863-1942), crofter

Anders Westling (1900-1980)

Brita Westling (1868-1965)

Olle Gunnar Westling (1945-), retired manager of social services

Anders Erik Borg (1879-1937), building contractor

Frida Berta Elisabet Borg (1913-1998)

Anna Båth (1879-1953)

Olof Daniel Westling (1973-)

Johan Gregorius Westring (1879-1959), farm foreman

John Einar Westring (1913-2000)

Anna Samuelsdotter (1887-1975)

Anna Kristina Eva Westring (1944-), retired employee at Postgirot

Johan Teodor Hugg (1884-1970)

Nanny Birgitta Hugg (1916-1993)

Kristina Jonsdotter (1876-1962)

References

requesting move

i am requesting move from Prince Daniel of Sweden, Duke of Västergötland to Prince Daniel, Duke of Västergötland. I am unable to move it to the page as it already exist. w.tanoto-soegiri (talk) 14:16, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Please take a look at #Requested move. Surtsicna (talk) 14:32, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved DrKiernan (talk) 11:06, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

---

Daniel Westling → Prince Daniel, Duke of Västergötland — Marriage on June 19 2010 (this coming Saturday) entails name change as preannounced. SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:25, 15 June 2010 (UTC) PS I added this move request to give other editors a chance to comment. Please note that the intent is that the move should be done on Saturday, June 19, 2010 when the wedding has been performed. SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:56, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support, of course. Surtsicna (talk) 11:28, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I have notified User:Arbitrarily0, an administrator who seems to deal with requested moves, about this case. It takes at least seven days (and sometimes much more) for a requested move to be performed. Since the move should be performed tomorrow, the seven-days-rule will have to be ignored and to do that, we need an administrator. Surtsicna (talk) 11:35, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Assuming there is no opposition by tomorrow, I see no reason keep this move request open after the wedding has taken place. The ideal time to move is about Saturday 16:00 UTC then? Cheers, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 11:54, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Around 16:00 UTC+01, please. That would be the ideal time. Thank you once again. Surtsicna (talk) 12:26, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support. I moved it to "of Sweden" as the page already exists. w.tanoto-soegiri (talk) 14:38, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
• Isn't it supposed to be "Daniel, Prince of Sweden"? __meco (talk) 14:57, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Supposed to be that for "royals by marriage", as far as I know (for British Royals, at least - such as Diana, Princess of Wales). For Sweden, the official press mentioned him to be "Prince Daniel". So, I think we should stick to that. w.tanoto-soegiri (talk) 16:01, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Prince of Sweden is not a substantive title. Princess of Wales is a substantive title. There is a difference between substantive titles and non-substantive titles. It's incorrect to refer to "Princess Diana of Wales", but it's correct to refer to "Prince Daniel of Sweden". Surtsicna (talk) 10:55, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Surname

The infobox to the side of the article gives the prince's name as Olof Daniel Westling. Does the prince have the surname Westling or with his marriage is he now surnameless like the crown princess? Seven Letters 00:27, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

He is surnameless now, the moment they were married he became a Prince and lost his surname. (There was much made of this on TV) chandler 08:51, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Apparently the Metro newspaper (Swedish version) yesterday questioned the legality of this. There is no legal precedent allowing a resident citizen of Sweden to remove his surname. No Swedish resident citizen has become royal since 1585 (Queen Gunnilda). The only comparable people have been Queen Silvia (immigrant) and Princess Lilian (resident alien) in the 1970's. Interesting to see what happens in the next few weeks. If the Swedish tax authority'sExpressen census Folkbokföringen ends up replacoing his surname with an asterisk - * - that will mean, as it does for the other royals (including Silvia and Lilian) that he is surnameless. No need to change anything yet here until the tax people catch up after the very recent wedding. SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:09, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

We could be assumingly incorrectly now that his surname is Westling when it could very well be nothing at all. The very fact that Victoria's "surname" is "blank" and the fact that Sweden generally has gender equality, is lending me to believe that he assumed her surname, which is to say he has none. Is it wrong to omit rather than leave it and possibly be wrong? Without explicitly stating he is surnameless, that is. Seven Letters 13:28, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree, simply leaving Christian names is better than stating that he has no surname, at least until we get a reference for the claim. As for Swedish monarchy's gender equality, the fact that Daniel is not Crown Prince tells me that we shouldn't rely on it too much. Besides, this is a BLP and must not contain unsourced information. Surtsicna (talk) 13:57, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I should have clarified, I place the royal succession and titles in a different category, I believe that the legal names however are purely civil. Seven Letters 14:29, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to an IP, the dispute is resolved. The Duke of Västergötland's surname is Westling Bernadotte, which is odd because no other member of the royal family is given a surname. Neither the Queen nor the Duchess of Halland, the other two commoners who married into the family. I wonder why... Surtsicna (talk) 14:59, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Very strange! Although this may change in the future we should leave it for now. Seven Letters 15:23, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

You know what's more strange? The English language version of the official website refers to him as Olof Daniel, Prince of Sweden, Duke of Västergötland,[1] while the Swedish language version refers to him as Olof Daniel Westling Bernadotte, Prins av Sverige, Hertig av Västergötland. That is why I have removed both surnames; we should still play safe as we decided to few days ago. Surtsicna (talk) 14:30, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

All major swedish newspapers report today that Prince Daniel's new name, Olof Daniel Westling Bernadotte, was entered into the civil registry by the Tax Agency this weekend (Aftonbladet, DN, Expressen, Svd). His surename is Bernadotte and Westling is his new middle name. Althrough the royal court has not explained why this was done, the change has been confirmed by the website (the english version has not yet been updated). Elzo 90 23:00, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

His name should be prince Olof Daniel of the house Westling. There is no reason for why the name Bernadotte should be mentioned. A swedish women takes the name of the man when she marries. The practice of double names doesn't exist in sweden. The name of the coming dynasty is Westling, not Bernadotte. All previous Swedish royal dynasties has been named after the dynasty of the man, none after the dynasty of the women. The prince is a nobleman and the naming of a nobleman follows the rules & procedures of the house of nobility. These rules can't be changed. When King Karl X Gustav brought the dynasty Pflaz to Sweden, the old name Vasa wasn't kept. When Fredrik I brought the dynasty Hessen to Sweden, the old name Pflaz wasn't kept (despite that he married princess Ulrika Elenora, born Pflaz). When Adolf Fredrik brought the dynasty Holstein-Gottorp to Sweden, the old name Hessen wasn't kept. When Karl XIV Johan brought the name Bernadotte to Sweden, the old name Holstein-Gottorp wasn't kept. To name Olof Daniel of the house/dynasty Westling, Olof Daniel Westling Bernadotte is a deliberate attempt to falsify history. The real name, according to swedish tradtion and the rules & procedures of the house of nobility is prince Olof Daniel of the house/dynasty Westling. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.214.16.209 (talk) 08:46, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

That would be traditional. However, had they not discarded tradition, Victoria wouldn't even be Crown Princess. Unfortunatly, monarchies are becoming less and less serious. Surtsicna (talk) 09:34, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Prince Daniel's new name follows swedish laws and practices where either spouse may take the other one's surname and keep his/her old surname as a middle name. Monarchies today are becoming modern and agnatic succession is hopelessly outdated. Prince Daniel and all of his issue will be members of the House of Bernadotte. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.224.245.82 (talk) 18:12, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I can only agree about this being strange. Very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very strange! The experts at Stockholkm Palace and the family (they are) in charge (of) are doing an excellent job at undoing themselves as far as anything that has been unique and interesting about royalty. A good Swedish expression for this is is blaha blaha!, another one is bläää. SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:30, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

It's amusing that the "traditionalists" are arguing for Brita Westling's surname to become the new name of the dynasty. Westling comes from a woman too, so either way... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.157.188.173 (talk) 05:58, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I would love to see the Andersson Dynasty ! SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:26, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I would have loved to seen "Westling-Bernadotte" or "of Sweden" as the family's name! Seven Letters 14:37, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

"of Sweden" (in Swedish, of course) would probably be the best choice, as more female sovereigns are likely to come. That way, they would avoid changing the title every now and then. And how about "House of Vastergotland"? Surtsicna (talk) 14:45, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

That would have been nice as well. Bernadotte is a patrilineally organized house. Every Bernadotte of Sweden owes being a Bernadotte to having a father of that house. Since Victoria will be the Head of the House of [i]Sweden[/i] it makes sense that that name should be used. Would have been nice if their relations in the UK could have settled on Oldcastle/Oldenburg or Edinburgh as a house name... Seven Letters 15:31, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Now Bernadotte will be a cognatically organized house. Every Bernadotte of Sweden will owe being a Bernadotte to having a parent of that house. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.157.188.173 (talk) 07:20, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Which would make little sense because it would make every descendant of Charles XIV John a Berndaotte, including the King of Norway and the Queen of Denmark. If Victoria's children can be Bernadottes, why can't the King's nephews and nieces also be Bernadottes? Surtsicna (talk) 08:33, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Sutsicna has got a good point. Dynasties must be paternal or maternal or entirely done away with as a concept. I'm going to say that Daniel and his future kids belong to the Andersson Dynasty. Nobody's going to be able to stop me. SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:22, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

There's an element of choice to last names now. The king's nieces and nephews aren't Bernadottes because their parents chose to put a different name on their birth certificates. Also, with technology and gay marriage (which will happen in royal families eventually), we're at a time where a child can have two mothers or two fathers. If Victoria had married a woman, there's no reason Victoria's biological children couldn't have inherited the throne. So what surname would you put on the dynasty then? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.157.188.173 (talk) 14:28, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Origin of surname

As far as I understand Prince Daniel's paternal grandfather's name was Anders Andersson and he decided as an adult to adopt his mother's (Anders Andersson's mother's) surname Westling. Small children were not able to "receive" any other surname but their fathers' at that time (during Anders Andersson's childhood 1900-1918). There were no exceptions to that then, except if the father was unknown, which is not the case here. As an adult, Andersson was able to apply for his mother's surname and to adopt it after approval by the authorities. SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:51, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

arms

is there any information about his arms? 98.206.155.53 (talk) 17:39, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Information as to what's what in the shield already in the article, or what do you mean? SergeWoodzing (talk)

Christen

A member of the swedes royal femely must been a member of the swedish chursh.Wolfmann (talk) 15:35, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Are you sure about that? I was under the impression only the King (or Queen) has to be a Protestant in the Church of Sweden. chandler 15:54, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I think the Christian entry should be removed from the infobox, unless there is a reliable reference describing him as a Christian. As a regular Swede, he is more likely not to be religious than to be (though he may very well be nominally Christian nonetheless). Since I think it is a WP:BLP violation to incorrectly label somebody with a religion, it should go. /Coffeeshivers (talk) 16:33, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

A nominal Christian is as much a Christian as any Christian, as long as he makes no statements himself concerning his religiousness. We are not the Rota Romana (and neither justitial vicar), so we may not "excommunicate" anyone on the grounds of our judgment of the amount of religiousness. Even the Rota Romana, by the way, doesn't. --84.154.86.57 (talk) 10:29, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Neither may we, without reason and backing, do the opposite. To groundlessly call somebody a Christian can definitely be considered offensive, and should not be done "as long as he makes no statements himself concerning his religiousness". You claim that "A nominal Christian is as much a Christian as any Christian". Would you have any of the millions of unwillingly baptised children of the world responsible for the views of Christianity in the same way as adults who wilfully joined at an age when they could have reasonable grasp of the principles of monotheistic religion? Granted, considering the age of the Prince, he has had many years to leave the church if he wanted to. If there is a record of him being a church member, I will not attempt to argue the difference between nominal and practicing in his case. Also, what the Rota Romana considers of Prince Daniel is as relevant as what the NFL Commissioner does. Thankfully, nobody has yet accused the Prince of being a Roman Catholic. /Coffeeshivers (talk) 13:56, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

The question then, I believe, is whether or not Daniel is a member of the (Lutheran) Church of Sweden, which one can leave (and avoid the taxation that goes to it) if one does not want to be called a Lutheran, here at WP or elewhere. I believe he has to be to marry the heiress to the throne, according to the Swedish constitution. In any case, he definitely has to be once she ascends to the throne as projected. Can we reasonably assume he has officially left that church only to rejoin in the future? And that that would have escaped the press? I think not. SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:27, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

PS What I do think is that this obvious constitutional breach in freedom of religion will be held against the Swedish monarchy in the near future. SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:29, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the constitution it doesn't say anything about those in Daniels position. It only talks about the King and the princes and princesses born in the royal family (that they should be brought up in the same faith). It says those who don't profess that faith are expelled from the succession line. Since Daniel isn't in the succession line, him being a Muslim, Jew, Hindu or without religion wouldn't matter. chandler 18:30, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh, OK, I don't have it right here today. But a big deal has been made several times in the past, officially, about spouses for Swedish royals having to be Lutherans.

By "in the same faith" I assume you menat Lutherans?

Seems Swedish church records need to be checked, in any case, to see if Daniel is a registered member. SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:54, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Yea the specified faith is described as "the true evangelical doctrine [google translate word] as it is in the unchanged Augsburg Confession from the year 1593" (1593 was the year and version that was accepted in Sweden at the Uppsala Synod)

I'm trying to remember having heard about the spouses having to be Lutherans, I know there were some newspapers just a few weeks ago as almost trying to stir up tensions printed headlines like "Crown Princess Victoria has to condemn Islam and all Muslims..." because of the constitutional demand to be a Lutheran or something like that. But I can't remember if it said "The King and the Crown Princess" or "The Crown Princess and Daniel Westling", I'll try and find it chandler 20:21, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Found it. "Constitution: The Royal Family must condemn Islam", in there they seem to interpret the constitution as that Prince Daniel has to be part of the Church of Sweden. Though I can only see references to those in the succession line. chandler 20:26, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Just for the record: that the monarch and the heir of the throne have to be Lutheran is one thing, but there have been several examples that their spouses did not: Desirée Clary and Josephine of Leuchtenberg were Catholics and continued to be so, and they were not only crown princesses, but queens.--85.226.45.47 (talk) 17:02, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

@Coffeeshivers: Given that I quite decidedly believe in child baptism, I do want to call the millions of baptized children Christians the very same as adult Christians. My remark about the Rota Romana was somewhat figurative and should say something like this: There are two ways a Christian can make known he wishes to cease being one: a) by publicly (!) saying so himself, b) if he is proved guilty of apostasy by a competent authority, which we are not. The Rota Romana is probably neither, but the Pope himself would be; the Catholic Church claims theoretical jurisdiction over seperated Christians without making practical use of it, but let's leave that aside.--77.4.47.28 (talk) 20:44, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

How nice for you to believe that. The rest of us live in the real world where children (like adults) thankfully, at least in the free world, are assumed innocent until proven guilty. I suggest you have a look at http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/UN_Convention_on_the_Rights_of_the_Child. I'd hardly say that labelling a child as a "christian" at a few days of age is consistent with the evolving capacities of the child/Coffeeshivers (talk) 21:35, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

You are all arguing the wrong points. labeling a person in wikipedia, or any encyclopedia, does not infer ultimate responsibility. You all seem to be making very interesting theological and legal points, but this is wikipedia. What matters here is wikipedia policy. If you can find a valid source that says he is a Christian, Lutheran or jedi knight, cite it and add it in, otherwise anything has to remain out. 98.206.155.53 (talk) 17:44, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Shouldn't be that hard to find a public record of his Confirmation through whatever Lutheran church he probably belonged to when that ceremony probably took place. SergeWoodzing (talk)