Talk:Princess Estelle, Duchess of Östergötland/Archive 1

Archive 1

CoA

I've commented out the CoA for now. Although it is likely the correct CoA until an official version (with blazon) is made it's original research. This is why I marked the image as a draft for a potential CoA. /Lokal_Profil 21:50, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Wrong "first"

This statement is wrong:

• She is the first female in the history of Sweden to be born to ascend the throne

So were Queen (regnant) Christina and the eldest daughter of King Carl XI.

Have tried to correct this a few times but it keeps getting put back in. SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:28, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

What is meant here by "to ascend the throne" is that Estelle is Apparent, while Christine and Hedvig Sophia were Presumptive. СЛУЖБА (talk) 11:31, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

As quoted - "born to ascend the throne" - that is not at all clear to the reader, nor is it correct English for that. SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:34, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

What do You propose? "Apparent" was discarded because "Apparent" is a position held by Victoria. I propose "born expected to ascend the throne" or "born in the direct line for the throne". СЛУЖБА (talk) 11:41, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanx for trying too! So were Christina and Hedwig Sophia, though. There were no other male heirs when they were born, and they were the only legal heirs to the throne then. SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:44, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Maybe "born with rights for the throne that can not be superceded by the birth of anyone"? СЛУЖБА (talk) 11:52, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Sounds kind of contrived, though correct. I'll try something else. SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:57, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Things we agree about as incorrect should hardly be restored to article space! Anyway, I think the latest wording will do it. SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:08, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Serge, the expression "born to ascend the throne" means that the person will eventually ascend the throne, regardless of the possibility of a younger brother being born later. This means that you can't count heiresses presumptive, whether they ascended the throne or not. Christina ascended the throne, but only because she didn't have a younger brother. This does not make her born to ascend the throne, as a younger brother would have superseded her. Hedwig Sophia did not ascend the throne, just because a younger brother was born later. Similar to Christina, she was "only" heiress presumptive. In fact, not even Estelle's mother was born to ascend the throne, as she was only heiress presumptive until the constitution was changed in 1980, making her heiress apparent.

So there was nothing wrong with the wording, which is why I restored it.

HandsomeFella (talk) 15:09, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Your English and mine are not the same in this case. Christina was born to ascend the throne and remained so until she did, HS was born to ascend the throne and remained so until her brother was born. The current wording is the clearest and most accurate.

And btw, the current king's sisters were never eligible, women weren't then. One of them could/would/should have been eligible when women became so with the changes made 40 years ago, but she was then excluded constitutuonally. SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:02, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Your logic is faulty. If HS was "born to ascend the throne", then why didn't she, when her father died? If a person is "born to", that doesn't change, unless he/she dies prematurely – or the laws change (like in Sweden in 1980). Ergo: neither HS nor Christina was "born to" ascend the throne, though Christina eventually did, but only by default.

HandsomeFella (talk) 18:12, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

As an English teacher, I cannot see your point. And you needn't brush with insults by faulting my logic in some more or less patronizing manner. Hedwig Sophia was born to ascend the throne and she would have done so if her brother Carl wouldn't have been born, since all her other 4 brothers died before her. Of course, a princess born to a kingdom where there are no princes to ascend the throne, is born to ascend it herself as long as female succession is legal. That's clear English. All I can understand here is that you are trying to coin a new expression that doesn't exist. Let's not do that, please! SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:21, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

You need to grow a thicker skin, if you're insulted by the faulty logic remark. At present, the wording is ok, as it does not claim that C or HS were born to ascend the throne (like Estelle is).

HandsomeFella (talk) 18:37, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I have added this talk page to WP:DR, so let's see if the shit has finally hit the fan. HandsomeFella (talk) 18:47, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Hey, guys, I'm here from the 3O board. FULL DISCLOSURE: I've done one of Serge's 3O requests before, but I really don't think it'll bias me (I had to do a lot of digging to even figure out what topic it was about.) If either of you disagree, just let me know; I'll recuse myself and put the 3O post back up. On to the show:

Now, from what I can tell, the dispute seems to be about whether Estelle was the first person who was born as an heiress apparent. There have been other women who have ascended the throne, and others who have become heir apparent through succession law changes, but she is the first to be born with that right (i.e. since the primogeniture law change). I'm assuming that this is correct; they seem not to be in dispute, but please tell me if they're not. So, why don't we just say "Estelle is the first to be born an heiress apparent"? Or, to emphasize the point a little more, "Estelle is the first woman to be born an heir apparent." I do agree with HandsomeFella's distinction between Estelle and the other people Serge has quoted (again if my initial assumptions are correct). Thanks, Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:18, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, Writ. A slight correction: the DR request was about the expression "born to ascend the throne", not whether or not Estelle is the first person to be born as an heiress apparent. She isn't, because she isn't heiress apparent at all, as there can be only one at a time, in this case her mother. You wouldn't say that Prince William is the heir apparent, would you? Estelle is however the first person to be born to an heiress apparent.

My point is, that if you are born to ascend the throne, that means that you, from birth, are pre-destined to ascend the throne, and the only thing that can alter that outcome is premature death or a law change. Not the birth of a younger brother (or another addition to the family tree, depending on the rules).

HandsomeFella (talk) 19:35, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Ah, okay, thanks for the clarification (although, purely observationally, I could've gone without the "you wouldn't say that Prince William" bit, but that's just me, no worries). Let me take a deeper look at the question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Writ Keeper (talk • contribs) 19:49, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

---

Okay, given the clarifications, I'm tending to agree with Serge on this one; "born to ascend the throne," while it does have the literal meaning that HandsomeFella is going for, is a bit vague and misleading (it misled me), so on the whole I think I prefer Serge's wording, which makes it a little more explicit, although perhaps a little too verbose. Handsome's version is not wrong, per se, but it's not a good way of wording it. That said, I don't agree with Serge's later additions of Christina and Hedwig Sophia; the point here is not that Estelle is in the direct line of succession, but that she cannot be displaced by a younger sibling, which makes her situation not comparable to Christina and Hedwig Sophia. This is another reason why we need to forget about the whole "born to ascend the throne" business; we need to make it clear that it's not just that she's first in line; it's that she can't be displaced by the birth of anyone else. Given that the point of the paragraph is that she can't be superseded, and Christina and Hedwig Sophia could've been (and one of them was), they seem to be out of place.

Serge, any thoughts/comments? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:13, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for helping! This sentence:

• The only princesses of Sweden before Estelle to be born in the direct line of succession were Christina (later queen regnant) and Hedwig Sophia (superceded by a younger brother).

may not be highly relevant to Estelle's short life story, but I added it to shed light on how extremely rare it has been in Sweden that any woman ever has been eligible for the throne, and how complicated the whole issue was up until 1980. I won't be upset if you feel is has to be removed. SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:53, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Serge. I see your point in wanting to emphasize the rarity of her eligibility, but, if it goes in that paragraph, it needs to be framed as such, with some kind of "There have only been x princesses who were even eligible to inherit the throne in the history of Sweden, etc. etc." Otherwise, the connection to Estelle might not be clear enough. I still think the wording of the paragraph is a little clunky, and it doesn't explain *why* she's the first, so I've tried to retool it a bit. How about something like this:

She is the first royal heiress to be born under the new Swedish primogeniture laws enacted in 1980; as such, she is the first Swedish princess who has never been able to be superseded by the birth of a male sibling. She is also the first person in the history of Sweden to be born to an heiress apparent. (possible Christina/Hedwig Sophia sentence here)

What do you think? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 22:10, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I still think that "born to ascend the throne" would be perfect – and definitely less clunky than everything I've seen so far – however a clarification note explaining the difference between Estelle and Christina and Hedwig Sophia could be in place.

As I understand him, Serge (without wording it that way) seems to mean that if you were, at least at some point (starting from your birth), first in line in your generation (i.e. eldest child to the eldest child, etc), and you ascended the throne, you were born to ascend the throne. But that would be kind of like putting these two things together (regarding for instance Christina):

1. She had no living elder siblings at the time of her birth,
2. she eventually ascended the throne.

It isn't as simple as that. To me, being "born to ascend the throne" means that nobody will ever be able to displace you from that position – unless the law changes. And had Gustavus Adolphus fathered a legitimate son before he croaked in Lützen, that son would have displaced Christina. Ergo: she wasn't born to ascend the throne, even if she eventually did. And, obviously, neither was Hedwig Sophia.

HandsomeFella (talk) 22:51, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, short of further developments (particularly any more comments from Serge), I'm going to go ahead and add an explanatory clause to the front of the third sentence; the rest I'll leave, since we haven't really come to a consensus on what to do. Feel free to edit what I put up. Let me know if either of you have any more thoughts/ideas/concerns; I'll keep this on my watchlist. Thanks. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 23:19, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't see how things that take place after the birth of someone who was born to ascend a throne can change what was the absolute truth when that person was born. There is no special idiom born to ascend a throne that has any such special meaning in normal English. The words just mean what they mean - no specialist insight or personal phrase-coining necessary.

Christina, Hedwig Sophia and Estelle were all born to ascend a throne, the only Swedish girls to date.

Those three girls were not in any way less born to ascend that throne than Christina's paternal granduncle Eric was, or King Lazlow IV of Poland was, or Hedwig Sophia's brother Carl was or the only son of Crown Prince Carl (XV) was or Estelle's maternal grandfather Carl Gustaf was. No difference whatsoever. Frankly, I'd feel sexist if I said anything else.

Other than that, I really appreciate the time and work you g's (guys/gals) are putting into this. I think the wording is fine now. Please don't change it, except if there clearly is smoother language which means exactly the same thing, without any personal interpretations outside of standard English! Most readers don't get specialist terms lite primogeniture. I try never to use specialist terminology on WP even if additional study is readily available through blue links. To me there's usually a big difference between providing clear, smooth information to readers and forcing unexpected lessons on them.

Hey you g's, why not let's do something else now? SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:56, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Fine by me. :) Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 00:16, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Quote from Serge: "I don't see how things that take place after the birth of someone who was born to ascend a throne can change what was the absolute truth when that person was born."

Serge, your reasoning is assuming what is to be proved. I'm not saying that C and HS were born to ascend the throne, and that that changed later. Quite the contrary: what I am saying, and have been saying all the time, is that they were not born to ascend the throne, since both of them were heiresses presumptive. As such, they were not expected to ascend the throne. They would do that if, and only if, no legitimate son was born later, superseding them in the line of succession.

This is how "presumptive" works. They both could ascend the throne (and one of them eventually did), but it is not expected that they would. In general, it is assumed that more heirs can be produced. (See last para in Heir apparent#Heir apparent versus heir presumptive: "The possibility of a fertile octogenarian, though slim in reality, is never ruled out.")

The fact that her younger brother superseded HS and ascended the throne as Charles XII proves that she wasn't born to ascend it. How can you say that she was born to ascend the throne, and then, once her father died, she didn't? That just doesn't add up.

HandsomeFella (talk) 19:37, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Simple: I have never discussed those terms , nor do I intend to (nor care much for specialist terminology on WP), since the article text, it that spot, then did not say "presumptive" or "apparent" or schmesumptive och or schmapparent or the like. It only said "born to ascend the throne" and that isn't even in the article anymore!

We are supposed to be discussing the actual article here, not going on and on and on and on and on and on about personal semantics, but to try to be polite, one last time: when both C and HS were born, there was no male heir of any kind. Until a male heir was born (as in HS's case) or appointed (as with C) both girls had been born to ascend the throne, in no less of a degree than the examples of males that I gave above.

On the day each was born, there was no question whasoever as to whether or not they would each ascend the throne, and were born to do so, according to status quo. (With HS there was some concern since she had 6 fingers in each hand.) Nobody looked for, wished for, counted on, crystal-balled about, debated, nominated or made any reservations about any boys or men.

Nobody was interested in Engish terminoligy used in royal genealogies, in English, or took any note of such things either. There were no Swedish terms or attitudes separating girls from boys at birth in such matters. If there were no other boys eligible when the girls were born, they were it. Period. (C began to be brought up to succeed her father from day one.)

Though Lazlo was born to ascend the throne of Sweden, his uncle threw his father out so that didn't happen. Same difference when Carl was born and superseded HS. Pardon me, HandsomeFella, but I really feel uncomfortable (perhaps overly so?) about the thought of applying some sort of exclusionary sexist thinking to that. Regular English solves the problem smoothly, and that was my objective.

Note: I am talking about "born to ascend the throne" not any other terms!

Your knowledge of specialist terms is valuable of course, and I sincerely respect it where appropriate, but it does not apply to the regular English we're using in this case. Others have also worked on the article text and it's just fine now. Why not let's do something else? SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:55, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Serge, working collaboratively means that edit wars should be avoided, and that discussions should take place at article talk pages, where and when opinions differ. That is why we're having this discussion, and why I'm not re-adding the wording to the article. Now you don't want to discuss the wording – because it's not in the article! Now, isn't that just wonderful?

Qoute: "On the day each was born, there was no question whasoever as to whether or not they would each ascend the throne, and were born to do so, according to status quo". Yes, there were absolutely such questions, because at any time, a legitimate son could be born, superseding the girls in the line of succession. In the case of HS, that's exactly what happened. One cannot, and does not, assume that "status quo" will be forever. Heir/ess presumptive means that, "presuming that no male heir is born, X will ascend the throne". But one is generally not presuming that, which is why I linked to the "apparent vs. presumptive" section.

Of course I know that there were no male heirs at the time of C's and HS's births. That's what we're talking about ("to try to be polite"). Now, as male primogenture was the heritage system in place, and they were girls, they by definition could not be born to ascend the throne (whether they were being brought up that way or not). To be born to ascend the throne, you must 1) have no living elder sibling outranking you in the order of primogeniture at the time of your birth, 2) be of the preferred gender (if any) in the order of primogeniture, so that you can't be superseded by a younger sibling of the preferred gender. You can of course become heir apparent later than at the time of your birth, such as George V (when his elder brother Albert Victor died). Like C and HS, George V was not born to ascend the throne, but in his case due to having an elder brother before him in the line of succession at the time of his birth. I assume you are noting the recurring expression "at the time of *** birth" in relation to the expression "be born to the throne".

Why am I getting the feeling that you are trying to dismiss my input? Maybe the slightly patronizing "Your knowledge of specialist terms is valuable of course..." and "schmesumptive och schmapparent" would explain that? Where are "specialist terms" in the right place if not in an encyclopedia?

HandsomeFella (talk) 22:18, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Okay, guys, there comes a time when we just need to drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. Working collaboratively also means that sometimes you have to make concessions to people who disagree with you. HandsomeFella, I personally am still unconvinced by "born to ascend the throne." While, again, I agree that it has the literal meaning that you're intending, and it is nicely concise, I think that it's not specific enough to easily convey to readers our meaning, which is of course the paramount concern that we should have in writing articles. Serge agrees (or at least, he agrees to disagree). Either way, we have come up with a compromise wording. If you have specific issues with the compromise wording, please address them here and we'll try to work on them. If you still strongly prefer your wording, then you should escalate it to the next rung of dispute resolution; the dispute resolution noticeboard is probably a good next step, as it will provide a little more structure than our talk page discussion. Just keep in mind that, at some point if people keep disagreeing with you, then you'll just have to drop it. I think we're just going to grind our gears uselessly if we keep going at it here.

As far as the whole "technical terms" thing, the relevant link to the MoS is here. Sometimes it's unavoidable, but when possible, we should try to avoid them. An encyclopedia is only supposed to give relatively broad outlines on subjects. Wikipedia is uniquely blessed with practically unlimited storage space, so we have room for a lot more technical, in-depth articles, but that doesn't change the basic function of us as an encyclopedia. To answer your rhetorical question: a better place than an encyclopedia article for technical terms would be a textbook, technical manual, scholarly article or publication, etc. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 02:49, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

In Line to the British Throne?

Does Estelle really hold a distant position in line to the british throne.

Although she is a descendent of Margaret of connaught she is also a decendent of her son Gustav and his wife Sybylla of Saxe- Coburg-Gotha.

Now Gustav had exemption from the Royal Marriages act by virtue of being a descendent of a prncess who married into a foreign house. However Sibylla did not. She was a descendent of Charles Eduard Duke of Albamy. Charles Edward applied for permission to marry and it was granted, but because of the First World War and the position Charles Edward took he was stripped of his english titles and all his children failed to seek permission.

Just because Gustave had exemption does not mean that Sibylla did not require permission. There are examples of Princesses marrying Princes of foreign houses who had exemption because they were descended from princesses who married into foreign houses. Her majesty Quenn Elizabeths marriage is one such example. She sought permission and it was given.

Sibyllas mariage to gustave was therefore invalid "under British Law" It is of course perfectly legal everywhere else. Therefore Sybillas descendents like those of her siblings have no place in the British line of succession.

Now I know not everyone will agree so surely the best thing to do is to remove all mention of her having a pkace in the British Line of succession.

I doubt we could find an authoratitive reference source that says she does either.Lewisdl (talk) 15:32, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Hadn't given thought to this previously, but I quite agree that Princess Estelle, her mother, and maternal grandfather, King Carl XVI Gustaf, were excluded from the British succession by Sibylla's failure to obtain the required permission to marry (even though her husband, Prince Gustaf Adolf, was independently in the British succession through Margaret of Connaught). Ironically, it is still possible that Sibylla and Gustaf Adolf will have descendants who grow up in the British line of succession because their second daughter, Princess Birgitta (b. 1937) in 1961 wed Prince Johann Georg of Hohenzollern and they have three children, all of whom also now have children. Although Johann Georg is Roman Catholic, he is also a direct descendant (in the 9th generation) of King George II of Great Britain. Since Johann Georg's descent from George II is through the marriage of a British princess (George's daughter, Anne) into a "foreign family" (she wed William IV, Prince of Orange), he did not need Elizabeth II's permission to marry Birgitta according to the Royal Marriages Act 1772, so each of their descendants, until confirmed into the Roman Catholic Church, is born into Britain's line of succession. FactStraight (talk) 07:15, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I say we should leave it as it is until there is verifiable confirmation that she either did or did not seek permission.RicJac (talk) 01:21, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually, it's better to be silent on the issue than to claim that she is in the line when it's very likely that she isn't. Surtsicna (talk) 12:16, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

The law requires that permission be obtained from the Sovereign via an Order in Council. No such order is on record for Sibylla's marriage, so no such permission was obtained -- whether "sought" or not -- and so Princess Estelle is not in Britain's line of succession. Contrast this with the case of the Duke of Edinburgh's sister, Princess Sophie of Greece and Denmark, whose fiance did request authorisation in April 1946 but, on Government "advice", not only was George VI not allowed to grant consent, he was refused permission to privately inform his cousin the groom (Prince George William of Hanover) that the official silence was due to the War rather than to any personal objection to George William's choice of a wife! FactStraight (talk) 02:17, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Position

/* second in line to the throne and expected to become monarchs: Princess Ingrid Alexandra of Norway, Princess Elisabeth of Belgium, Princess Catharina-Amalia of the Netherlands and Infanta Leonor of Spain.*/ All above except infanta Leoner expect to be monarch one day if not succession rule changed or predeceased their predecessors, but Infanta Leoner have not such expectation because she would not accend the throne if her father's legitimate son born even posthomus according to present succession rules. And Princess of Asturias is yet in child bearing age and even if she die or divorce Prince of Asturias have ability to get another young wife can produce a male heir.Chamika1990 (talk) 06:00, 25 July 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chamika1990 (talk • contribs) 16:43, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Princess Estellses mother who is now crown princess wasn't born as heiress presumptive. Sweden practised Agnatic Primogeniture before 1980, which females and there blood lines are excluded from inheriting throne untill end of all the male line male heirs(of an ancester king). On present kings grand fathers reign, Prince Carl Gustav who is now king was crown prince as eldest son of the eldest son of king(King Gustav VI Adolf's eldest son died leaving four daughters and one son). Carl Gustavs all four elder sisters and their blood lines were excluded and 2nd in line to the succession was Prince Bertil, third son(second son renounced his rights due to unequal marriage) of Gustav VI Adolf who was reigning King. That Prince became heir presumptive after accession af Carl VI Gustav and he didn't lost the place even after princess Victorias birth. He became second after birth of Prince Carl Philip who was then Crown prince. After 1980 Princess Victoria became crown princess. It means if the king Carl VI Gustaf died after princess Victorias birth and before Prince Carl Philips arrival to his mothers womb, Prince Bertil would suceeded as King of Sweden displacing the kings own daughter Princess VIctoriaChamika1990 (talk) 15:46, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

But at some point decisions must be made about educating the eldest daughter and any future eldest son of Felipe, Prince of Asturias, for their future roles. If the change from male-preference primogeniture to absolute primogeniture is delayed much longer, the preparation of the selected heir is hampered to the point of unintended sabotage. In such a case, the Spaniards may want to look at the solution chosen by certain other monarchies making the transition to absolute primogeniture: only impose the new succession rules on dynasts born after a specific date, so that those born and reared prior to that date have some reasonable degree of certainty about the role their country expects them to play so that they can properly prepare for it. Most Western monarchies in executing this transition have left adult female dynasts in their prior status, so that their public role continues to reflect the expectations in place for them when their educational curriculum was designed. If Spain doesn't change to absolute primogeniture soon, they should be fair to their Royal Family and let it wait to the next generation. FactStraight (talk) 02:42, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Princess Estelle, Duchess of Östergötland. 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:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130923224522/http://www.thelocal.se:80/39868/20120324 to http://www.thelocal.se/39868/20120324/

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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:27, 26 February 2016 (UTC)