Talk:Victoria, Crown Princess of Sweden/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

When she marries...

Does her husband become the Duke of Västergötland? He may be Prince of Sweden uopn marriage to Victoria but does he also gain her dukedom, like Princess Lilian did upon her marriage to Prince Bertil? This might also apply to Princess Madeleine and Prince Carl Philip when they marry? Thanks for any help! --Lyly-Kim

I think when the Crown Princess marries, her husband will be HRH Prince XXXXX of Sweden. Perhaps, he may or may not adopt the title Duke of Vastergotland. When the Crown Princess becomes Queen, she will her husband will be HRH The Prince Consort. But, time will tell. Prince Carl Philip's wife will probably be HRH Princess xxxxxx, Duchess of Varmland. Princess Madeleine's husband will probably receive no titles. Give me your thoughts anyone.

If the Princess marries and then takes the throne, I don't see how you could logically argue that her husband could have a title other than "King." If you are going to eliminate any discrimination based on gender, then if the current King's wife is the Queen, then the future Queen's husband would be King. 75.46.106.222 16:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Nobody has suggested making Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh King of Great Britain. Jess Cully (talk) 14:32, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I so agree with you. However, we are not in a gender blind society...... I think it will take some time before the consort of a Queen will be viewed as "King" because it may put him "above" his wife. Just my thought, but time will tell.

Historically, there have been two kinds of queens: queens regent, women who hold the crown in their own right, and queens consort, women who are married to the King. Both are styled "Queen". Men have had the title "King" if reigning and "Prince Consort" if married to a queen regent—comparatively rare and unknown in some countries. Logic and equity would indicate the men married to the Queen would be called King—perhaps he could be a king consort? But of course, logic has very little to do with this sort of argument. :) /blahedo (t) 02:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it's Queen regnant, not Queen regent. I don't think Victoria's husband will have a title of King. It will downgrade his wife. King Consort would be nice but it's most likely going to be Prince Consort. 87.250.113.209 18:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I know what you mean and I've had the same thoughts, if women and men have the same rights, than what stops a Queen Regnants husband from becoming King? But the answer is quite simple and it's that the title "King" has a higher standard than "Queen", you have to remember that these titles were created in a time where men was considered better than women, which means that when a man was ruling a country, his title as King, Emperor or Tsar was the greatest title to exist. If a woman ruled a country, she still held the title as queen, the only thing different was that now, instead of being a Queen Consort, she was a Queen Regnant, but the title QUEEN still remained. But when a man, who wasn't King, married a Queen Regnant, he became Prince Consort. SO: History shows that the title of Prince Consort was created so that the man didn't have a better title than his ruling wife, which he would have had if he was created King or even King Consort, because the title "King" is manly and therefore better. Which means that if Daniel Westling married Victoria and when she became Queen, he received the titles King or King Consort, he would have a better title than her, which wouldn't make any sense since SHE is the one who's royal and rules the country.

Wedding bells?

Can we have a link to article about the so called "engagment"? Unless/untill the royal court makes an anoucment it's all just speculation.

I have added mention of Westling as well as quotes given by the Crown Princess regarding her relationship with him and romance in general as well as observations of the couple's apparent relationship by reputable news sources. This does not count as speculation or POV in any fashion. They are seen together, she has been interviewed about her relationship with him and her answers, while guarded, have been relatively candid. Therefore, it is news and part of public debate so should be included in the entry. Mowens35 14:22, 22 April 2005 (UTC)

Name

Does anyone know if she is planning to reign under the name Victoria, or might she choose another name so as to avoid confusion/comparison with her great-great-great-grandmother? - Montréalais 04:36, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ruling under a different name than that you are commonly known as as a prince/princess is something very rare in Sweden. I know that in the UK George VI was really called Albert but choose to be styled George as a monarch instead, but I find it very, very unlikely that Victoria would be styled Ingrid, Alice, Desirée, or in fact anything other than Victoria. If she were even considering something like that I'm sure it would be all over the news here in Sweden. —Gabbe 14:37, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

What about the last name "Bernadotte"? Doesn't she bear it any more? -134.176.19.218 23:36, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Formally she never has. Most royalty does not have a surname, and while some cases (for instance the United Kingdom) might be difficult, Sweden is not: Swedish royalty has never had surnames (at least not since mediaeval times, when kings sometimes used their patronymics). It is true that some members of the Royal House have used Bernadotte as if it were a surname (I believe that Prince Carl Philip, Duke of Wermelandia was called "Lieutenant Bernadotte", or whatever rank he had, in the navy), but that is purely a personal choice made for convenience. Their formal names (as registered with the tax and census autorities etc) do not include the name Bernadotte. As a real surname, Bernadotte has been used in Sweden only by family members who lost their royal status and thus needed a normal surname (the Counts Bernadotte af Wisborg and Prince Carl Bernadotte). -- Jao 08:59, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

Actually, her surname is Bernadotte, as is established on the Royal Family's website, the Almanach de Gotha, and other reference books of nobiliary enrollment. The family is descended from a French general surnamed Bernadotte and the royal family has been known as the House of Bernadotte since 1818, having succeeded a previous royal house of Holstein-Gottorp when Marshal Bernadotte was adopted by Karl XIII of Sweden. As all biographies of Marshal Bernadotte (who reigned as Karl XIV Johan) indicate, he did not give up his surname upon his adoption and made it very clear that his descendants would carry his surname. And the Royal Family's website clearly refers to the family as the Bernadotte dynasty. Mowens35 14:29, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have never claimed that the family is not "the Bernadotte dynasty", or that Victoria would not belong to the Royal House of Bernadotte, but there is an important difference between dynasty name and personal surname (as shown, for instance, by the people of the dynasty of Windsor bearing the surname Mountbatten-Windsor). And I have never heard any such thing as that Marshal Bernadotte ever made it clear that his descendants should carry his surname. Do you have a source? -- Jao 21:17, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

I have it on the authority of (a) a Bernadotte I happen to know very well and (b) a biography of Karl XIV Johan (aka Charles XIV) that Bernadotte made it clear in letters to his family that their surname was not to be erased by his elevation to royalty. They remained Bernadottes. (And re the Mountbatten-Windsors, there's a lot of discussion over that; the Queen's order re the family's surname is Windsor for a few, Mountbatten-Windsor for the rest -- but everybody who would normally be Windsor seems to have adopted M-W as their personal surname, regardless of the wording of the QE2's decree.) If there is any further question, I would be happy to email the relevant authorities in Sweden to determine if Bernadotte is the family's actual and continued surname. I'll even be happy to call and get a name to footnote it. Get back to me on this. Mowens35 17:43, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This morning, I called the Press Office of the Royal Palace in Sweden (if you want the phone number, I can provide it). She is officially Her Royal Highness the Crown Princess of Sweden. As the press officer said, "We only have one, so that is the correct way to refer to her." He also noted that it would not be incorrect to call her HRH Crown Princess Victoria of Sweden, but pointed out that, strictly and narrowly speaking, the title she bears is Crown Princess of Sweden (a la the Prince of Wales), not Crown Princess Victoria of Sweden (a la Prince Charles of Wales). He also said that the family surname truly is Bernadotte, though it is only typically used by family members who are not members of the immediate royal family. Given this, I think therefore it is acceptable (a) to have the intro line HRH The Crown Princess of Sweden and (b) to have Bernadotte in parenthesis for the members of the royal family. The former also allows consistency in Wiki (which seems to be very important around here, if I've read the naming conventions closely enough) with titleholders like the Prince of Wales, the Duchess of Cornwall, the Duchess of Hanover, and others. What do you think? Mowens35 08:58, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

My opinion is that in the introductory paragraph, could be mentioned "of the House of Bernadotte", but that it is stupid to write here "Victoria Ingrid Alice Desiree Bernadotte" or "Victoria Bernadotte", nor after a marriage, "née Bernadotte". 217.140.193.123 2 July 2005 11:45 (UTC)

Victoria will most probably rule under the name "Victoria I", "Victoria I of Sweden". I see no reason why she would choose to rule under the names "Ingrid I", "Alice I" or "Désirée I", because none of these names are more "royal" or in any way "better" than "Victoria". "Victoria" is the "most royal" name of the four and after Victoria of the United Kingdom it's seen as one of the most royal names to excist alongside Mary, Catherine, Elizabeth, Anne etc.

First Bernadotte Monarch

Though it is entirely accurate to call him Charles XIV, in Sweden, where he reigned, he was known upon his accession and is known now as Carl XIV Johan. I see no reason to have changed it, since it linked to the proper entry, so I have changed it back. If you insist on the change, then we'll have to translate the present king's name as well for continuity's sake. Do you agree? Is Wiki preference to translate all foreign first names into the English equivalent? If so, we have a lot of work ahead of us correcting entries to conform. Mowens35 17:36, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Actually, you didn't change it back. What you previously had written was Karl XIV Gustaf, with an unnecessary redirect through Jean-Baptiste Bernadotte, rather than a link to his royal name.

As for translating names, this is not my invention: the Wikipedia policy is to use the commonly used English names of people. For some strange reason, it has been decided that this is Charles XIV, while a more reasonable solution would be to use Charles XIV John (as the Encyclopaedia Britannica does). In this respect, historical monarchs are treated differently from the living. It is not at all consistent, but as a rule, historical rulers of major European states have commonly used English versions of their names, i.e. English Charles rather than Carlo, Carlos, Carl or Charles-with-French-pronunciation. Look at the disambiguation page for Charles II, for instance. Some more recent monarchs (such as the German emperors Wilhelm I and Wilhelm II) and some rulers of slightly more exotic states retain the original form of their names. There are certainly cases where this anglicization of names is debatable or even gets silly, but I don't think this is one of those. -- up land 18:48, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Is there someone in Wiki who can parse this? It seems ridiculous to have one king of Sweden called "Charles XIV" when his successor in the name uses "Carl XVI" ... after he drops dead, do we immediately rename his page "Charles XVI Gustav"??? (And what exactly is the English equivalent of Gustav/Gustaf??) This is bizarre in the extreme to me and wildly inconsistent, even illogically willful; I could understand in the case of someone like Catalina of Aragon, who became Catherine in England, after marrying an English king. Does Wiki write Nicholas Ceaucescu instead of Nicolae? Any why not then call any of the French kings "Lewis" instead of "Louis", which would be the most correct if Wiki is to be followed precisely. I'm very confused. And think this mode of operation needs to be rethought. I just checked re Ceaucescu; we call him Nicolae; why not Nicholas? Is there a Wiki reason for this? Mowens35 20:21, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It is quite normal to treat names of monarchs and rulers differently from "private" individuals, even presidents and other non-royal leaders. This is done in most history books and reference books (like in the Encyclopaedia Britannica, which I just cited above). There are other categories of people where the same thing is done: Biblical figures are referred to by their names in the English Bible translations, rather than the original names in Hebrew or Greek. Classical authors: Homer, Horace and Virgil. Popes: John Paul II, Benedict XVI, not the Latin form. I really don't understand how you can be so surprised about this. Look at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles) for the Wikipedia policy. -- up land 20:43, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

PS. Gustaf in English is usually Gustavus, with the Latin ending. Gustavus Adolphus is traditionally the way to refer in English to the king called Gustav II Adolf in modern Swedish (and Gustavus for the other Swedish kings with the name Gustaf). It might seem paradoxical to drop the Latin ending from popes called Benedictus, while adding it to non-English and non-Latin names, but that is the way it is. -- up land 20:49, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

So what you are saying, basically, is that when Carl XVI Gustaf drops dead, his entry will be moved to Charles XVI Gustavus. And my surprise is that Wiki policy regarding this is illogical to my mind. And you still haven't explained Lewis versus Louis to me. Got any ideas about that one? I think the Wiki stylebook needs some finetuning. And I've just looked at Wiki's entry on Alfonso XIII of Spain; by yours and Wiki's reckoning, it should be something closer to Alphonse. And will Juan Carlos I, the present king, be shifted to John Charles I when he dies? Actually, by my reading of the Wiki guidelines, he should be John Charles I right now, as his entry heading, and his son should be Philip, Prince of Asturias. Should I go ahead and change these and other entries to conform with Wiki's policy, which does clearly state that we are to use the most common form of the name used in English . . . Mowens35 22:21, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't have a crystal ball and can't tell you what Wikipedia will do with the article on the present Swedish king whenever he dies. (In the particular case of the present Swedish king vs earlier monarchs, Wikipedia seems to be no more inconsistent than the Encyclopaedia Britannica.) In any case, I think it would be better if you discussed this general issue on the policy talk page (Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (names and titles)). It is not relevant to this article in particular. -- up land 06:37, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Alfonso is such an exotic name that the English have not usually bothered to translate it. After all, Edward I of England had a son prince Alfonso - which apparently is the accepted English name version. Louis seems to be at least as English version as Lewis (compare all those guys named Louis in US and in England), thus no significant need of translation. Actually, Louis seems to be the accepted English translation of king Louis I of Spain who in Spain was of course Luis I.
I feel that those -us -phus endings in Adolphus and Gustavus are at least archaic, obsoleted and not current, if ever even were seriously English.
Our current era's monarchs and princes are allowed more native versions - and that does not affect to established versions of historical figures. Thus, we will now have here king Charles XIV, king Charles XV, and king Carl XVI. As Jan Carlos is the only one of that precise name in Spanish history, I believe he stays as Juan Carlos I in English history books even when he is pushing daisies (sometimes things are not so consistent) - my crystal ball estimates to me. More difficult to say about Carl Gustav. You can always put the anglicized version on display to the text of the article - for information to those who may wonder has "Carl" something to do with "Charles". 217.140.193.123 2 July 2005 12:01 (UTC)

Title of Article

I have moved page from "Crown Princess Victoria of Sweden" to "Victoria, Crown Princess of Sweden," per Wiki convention of examples re "Charles, Prince of Wales" and "Felipe, Prince of Asturias." Have also rewritten intro line to conform to further Wiki convention, ie "Her Royal Highness Victoria, Crown Princess of Sweden ..." as per Wiki convention of "His Royal Highness Felipe, Prince of Asturias" and "His Royal Highness The Prince Charles, Prince of Wales." However, I will call the Swedish Royal press office on Monday to determine more precisely her official title per intro though I think the way it is now, per my edit, is best, as it follows established Wiki convention. Though the Swedish royal website lists all of the CP's birth names, followed by her titles, I do not believe this is correct per Wiki nor per her precise titular distinction ... unless Sweden is wildly different than other monarchies per namings. Note that the king's sisters' official titles do not include the entire roster of their birth and christening names but merely utilize their royal title (Princess), the name they are known by (ie Jane) and their married style (ie Mrs. Doohickey).Mowens35 12:22, 24 April 2005 (UTC)

Ask the press office...

What position they hold about her changing the dysnasty name to her future husbands name, and that of her potential children and heirs. Personally, and in a compleatly Non point of View, I would have her retain her dynasty name and the children retain her dynasty name as is,Drachenfyre

Until she's decided to marry, that question's a moot point. It likely will be as you said, which appears to be the usual situation in such cases, a la Denmark, where Prince Consort Henrik's original French surname does not appear to be used by or for his children, who are members of the royal family of S-H-S-Glucksborg (abbreviation). The princely house of Monaco remains Grimaldi, though Prince Rainier's father was a Polignac by birth (he adopted Grimaldi as a condition of marriage), et cetera, et cetera. Only in the UK has the surname issue with regard to a queen regnant or heiress apparent -- ie Windsor, Mountbatten, and Mountbatten-Windsor -- appeared controversial and/or complicated. Mowens35 07:44, 28 April 2005 (UTC)

When Prince Philip married Elizabeth II they kept her lastname, Windsor, and I can with almost 100% certainty say that Victoria will do the same and keep Bernadotte, for the simply reason that her name is the royal one, while Westling is not. She will rule the country, Daniel will not, which means that the rulers lastname is the one that their children will have.

I like the old picture

I like the old picture. She looked better. Not that it matters, however. Эрон Кинней 11:44, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I do too, but if it is not a 'fair use' picture, than it had to go. Prsgoddess187 15:09, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Imo a free image is always better than a fair use one. If there is a free image available, there's no reason to use a fair use one, also, the fair use law fails if it's possible to illustrate the article in another way. Additionally, this image seems much more natural than an official governmental portrait. /Grillo 00:43, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Imo a free image is always better than a fair use one - I sincerely disagree with you. Which image gives the most 'encyclopedic' impression: the 'mugshot' Image:Carl XVI Gustaf of Sweden.jpg or the official Image:Kinggus.jpg? And the free images doesn't even give a hint about their royal status. 83.252.72.10 19:14, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

You don't get the point. It's not about the best illustration, it's about following laws. Also, fair use will not be applicable for Wikipedia if we are to follow GFDL. Non-commercial only licences are normally not accepted, fair use is an exception, for how long? No one knows. In any case, if there is a way to illustrate something or someone with a free image, it's always better to do so than using a copyrighted image, since fair use is not applicable when a free image is available. /Grillo 20:38, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Why not use the picture that is on the Swedish wikipedia? There you at least see her face. User?:? 13 May 2007 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.225.67.102 (talk) 23:06, 12 May 2007 (UTC).

I'm not good at "computer stuff" so I don't know how to put in a picture of Victoria here in Wikipedia but for those of you who know, please take one where she has her tiara on, she looks so beautiful when she's dressed up, especially during important events like the Nobel Ceremony.

"heir" apparent?

The article refers to her as an "heir apparent" throughout, and at one point makes reference to "female heirs apparent". Is there any reason why this should not be "heiress apparent"? --Jfruh (talk) 01:47, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I doubt it. Probably the authors mother tongue is Swedish, English being a second language, and thus he/she might not have been aware of the 'correct' way to put it. --HJV 02:57, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

King's objection to the changes made to the order of succession

Can anybody provide link or the source that he objects to the changes?

--217.211.143.21 20:41, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree that that would be a useful addition, but I have heard it repeated many times over the years, and I think it is generally accepted.

I've seen peaces of the interview where the king says that, yes. I don't remember exactly what he said so I'm not gonna claim anything if I'm not 100% sure, but the fact that he said that he thought Carl Philip should've remained Crown prince is true.

absolute primogeniture?

In the article, it says that Sweden was the first country to adopt absolute primogeniture. But in the Netherlands, there was already a queen in 1890, Queen Wilhelmina. After her, two other Queens followed. So why is Sweden still the first counrty with absolyte primogeniture? Gwynn Shadow 20:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Absolute primogeniture doesn't simply mean that women can be monarchs, it means the line of succession is processed without regard to gender. In the 1890s Netherlands, presumably any other immediate male heir, even if they were younger than her, would have become King before she became Queen. — ceejayoz ^talk 01:12, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Only female heir to a royal throne

Princess Ingrid Alexandra of Norway born 2004, is currently second after her father in the line of succession to the Norwegian throne. Wouldn't that make the Victoria, Crown Princess of Sweden one of only two instead of the only current female in line for a royal throne? --Sandahl 23:32, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

• Princess Ingrid Alexandra is the second in line to the throne of Norway, Haakon, Crown Prince of Norway, her father, is first in line, and as such, The Crown Prince. Once Crown Prince Haakon becomes king, Ingrid will become Crown Princess and then be the heiress apparent to the throne. They are not saying that there are no other females in line for royal thrones (Princess Catharina-Amalia of the Netherlands and Infanta Leonor of Spain, presumptive for now), but as of right now, Victoria is the only heiress apparent. Once Ingrid's father (or Amalia's) father becomes king, they are only second in line. Prsgoddess187 13:17, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm also interessted in this topic and question. I hope, that Victoria can marry the man, she like and became lots of children. Her father also married in his thirthies, so it's ok for her to marry later. --AndreaMimi (talk) 13:16, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

But Victoria is not the only heiress apparent in history; Queen Anne of Great Britain was heiress apparent of King William III of England because of Act of Settlement 1701. Surtsicna (talk) 19:15, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

not in history! just today! Happy138 (talk) 19:21, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

She is not the only current female heir-apparent in the world currently. Princess Caroline is heir presumptive to the throne of Monaco. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cristip (talk • contribs) 11:49, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Just like you said, the Princess of Hanover is heir presumptive, while the Crown Princess of Sweden is currently the only female heir apparent in the world. Surtsicna (talk) 11:55, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

orders, honours, titles, style?

For other royalty I see a section for their honors, styles, titles, etc. Why does not Victoria have such a section? I see that she is put in the category of Knights Grand Cross for the Order of St Olav, but this is not her only order.--Ashley Rovira (talk) 05:15, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes its true quite a lot of royals have these sections. As for her honours I have know Idea what she has, if you know perhaps you could a start a section. - dwc lr (talk) 12:17, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

If you want to know more about Victorias orders and honours I think you can find facts about it on the swedish royal courts website, royalcourt.se.

I found some info. on what orders she has on the royal forums which I don't know if it is an encyclopedic source but maybe we can find confirmation on another more appropriate source. Here is what TRF had to say anyway: Victoria is member of the seraphim order, the Amaranther order and the order of innocence Royal Order of the Seraphim Order of the Amaranth --ACRSM 17:47, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Last name as married - dynasty change?

Which last name will Victoria have after she is married? Nowadays, it is allowed for a woman to keep her own name after marriage, and pass it to her children. If Victoria keeps her own name Bernadotte after she is married, and give it to her children, then it will be the first time in history (?), when a dynasty will not end just because of a female monarch! Will she do this? Does anyone know? I have no idea, but its an interesting thought! --85.226.43.6 (talk) 20:18, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

She doesn't have a last name, and I'm pretty sure she, or her eventual children, wouldn't acquire one on marriage. As for the name of her children's dynasty, it's difficult to say what someone will do, but it seems popular nowadays to retain the mother's dynasty name (such as the House of Nassau-Weilburg for the descendants of Charlotte of Luxembourg or the House of Windsor for the descendants of Elizabeth II). -- Jao (talk) 20:43, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I suppose I really did mean the dynasty name. It will be interesting to find out! --85.226.43.6 (talk) 20:55, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

They WILL keep the Bernadotte dynasty, just like Elizabeth II kept Windsor, Margrethe II kept Oldenburg and so on. If she didn't, the people of Sweden would most probably go nuts, so she would really have no choice anyway. I think Daniel would keep his last name (if not, he would'nt be included as a Bernadotte anyway), but their children would belong to the Bernadotte dynasty.

The Frederik, Crown Prince of Denmark, son of Queen Margrethe II (House of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg, shortened to House of Glücksburg) seem to be taking the dynasty name of their father, House of Laborde de Monpezat, at least according to his artical here..

Personally I wouldnt mind further hyphonating the name to House of Laborde de Monpezat-Shleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg.

Perhaps Victoria's decendents will hyphonate their dynasty name to Westling-Bernadotte?♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 01:37, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

That's just his article here. Wikipedia is notorious for screwing up royal titles and names. Frederik will rule as a member of the House of Glücksburg, Charles as a member of the House of Windsor, and Victoria's children as members of the House of Bernadotte. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.101.123.204 (talk) 15:08, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Question

How could she be predominantly of German descent, if her father is Swedish and her mother is of German and Brazilian descent? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.58.125.222 (talk) 23:42, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

It all depends on how far back you look. Sure, her father was born in Sweden, but of his great-grandparents, 5 were born in (what is now) Germany, 2 in the UK and only 1 in Sweden. Of course, how far back to look is a judgement call, or we would all be predominantly of African descent. —JAO • T • C 07:49, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Victoria day

There is no section of her birthday witch is called the Victoria day (Victoriadagen) on Öland I was thinking adding how many years it has been a celebration on Öland and about the sport prize the Victoria scholarship (Victoriastipendiet) —Preceding unsigned comment added by LollofromSweden (talk • contribs) 10:05, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

The Crown Princess's Household

Crown Princess Victoria was given her own household in October 2004. The Crown Princess's household is headed by the Marshal of the Court, there is also a secretary and a study guidance (studie vägledare) in the staff for The Crown Princess. The Crown Princess's households task is to coordinates the official engagements of The Crown Princess. Will her household be renamed after she gets married? Will it then be the Crown princess couple household? On November 11, 2009 was the first time Victoria and Daniel were referred as Crown princess couple in a press release from the royal court website

--LollofromSweden (talk) 15:01, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

role as Duchess of Västergötaland

I think a section about her dukedom could be a part of the biography but how could it be written?

Though the princess was not born as duchess of Västergötland but got the title as she also became the Crown princess of Sweden (1 January 1980). Victoria is also the first female in Sweden to have the title in her own right and not as the wife of a duke. The only previous holder of this specific title was Prince Carl. Her role as duchess is not prominent and does not belong with the task as heir to the Swedish throne.

She has taken on specific duties for her dukedom but is most often called crown princess Victoria on such events.

The traditional dress she sometimes wears when representing as the duchess of Västergötaland is from the province Töreboda. This dress she got at the age of 20.

--LollofromSweden (talk) 11:50, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Residences

what do you think about a section on Residences

The crown princess lived with her family at the royal palace in Stockholm up to 1981 when they moved to Drottningholm palace. Victoria has remained on the palace grounds and lived since 2003? in one of the wings called sjöflygeln (lake wing of the palace).

On 23 April 2009 it was made public that Haga palace/castle? will be used by Crown Princess Victoria and her fiancée Daniel Westling as their official residence after their wedding in 2010.

--LollofromSweden (talk) 12:30, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Website fraud

Removed this today from External links:

• VictoriaBernadotte.com

An initiated person need only glance at it to recognize that it is a fraud, claiming to be copyrighted by Victoria herself, but containing uneducated material that she could not possibly support or be aware of as legitimate. The name of the site is enough to reveal that is is a fraud. Her name has never been Victoria Bernadotte. Her name since birth has been (given names:) Victoria Ingrid Alice Désirée (surname:) *, as registered since then with the Swedish Tax Agency census bureau, which determines the legal names of all residents. The "*" stands for the person has no surname as legitimate royalty does not (regardless of dynasty name). A de facto surname which is appropriate to use for filing purposes would be of Sweden, but that only. SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:55, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Coat of Arms

There is also a version without the Order of the Seraphim

I've constructed a free version of her coat of arms which can be included in the article in a suitable place. /Lokal_Profil 01:22, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Just wondering if it should be round or not? What decides that?

Gender decides.(Talk about gender equality...) Ladies bear theirs on a cartouche, while gentlemen bear theirs on a shield. Surtsicna (talk) 23:19, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Gender?

The sentence, "This constitutional reform meant that the throne would be inherited by the monarch's eldest child without regard to gender", is peculiar here, since the noun genders of the Swedish language are common and neuter, not masculine and feminine as the author may have supposed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.237.131.205 (talk) 21:57, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me... what? The sentence is quite clear: the Swedish crown would be inherited by the monarch's eldest [legitimate] child, whether male or female. I don't see what "noun genders of the Swedish language" have to do with that. Surtsicna (talk) 22:26, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Why be so dramatic? Why not just reply calmly, assuming good faith? What I think 24.237.131.205 may have meant is that, in h. opinion, "without regard to gender" might be superfluous, as the meaning actually is the same without that (basically true). I do not agree, if so. In this case it is a good idea to specify that gender is not an issue, for maximal clarity. SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:22, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I have a feeling the basis for the editor's comment is that "gender" refers to the whether a noun or adjective is male, feminine, or neuter, and "sex" refers to whether a human or creature is male or female. -Rrius (talk) 23:29, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

As far as I know, being an American, it is just as correct to use gender as sex here, in English. Webster, at least, seems to agree. The latter is a bit less colloquial. The former prevents any possible giggliness on the part of less sophisticated readers. No biggy. SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:43, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Using "gender" to mean "sex" has definitely become standard, but I figure if its actually tripping an editor up, we may as well switch. Hell, everyone wins: pedants get "sex" and the puerile get giggles! -Rrius (talk) 23:48, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Dutch descent???

There is a category at the bottom of the page 'Swedish people of Dutch descent'. How is this proven and from what ancestor? It's the first i've seen of them having Dutch ancestry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaelic Rules (talk • contribs) 04:35, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

The only information I could find is that she is a great-great-granddaughter of Princess Helena of Waldeck and Pyrmont (sister of Emma of the Netherlands), who herself is a great-great-granddaughter of Princess Carolina of Orange-Nassau and Charles Christian, Prince of Nassau-Weilburg. Princess Carolina was born in Leeuwarden and was the daughter of William IV, Prince of Orange, the Stadtholder of the Netherlands. Mr. D. E. Mophon (talk) 06:15, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Crownprincess Victoria of Sweden Skultuna 2007.jpg Nominated for Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:Crownprincess Victoria of Sweden Skultuna 2007.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 5 August 2011 What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 09:20, 5 August 2011 (UTC)