Talk:Victoria, Crown Princess of Sweden

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as b-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
WikiProject Lutheranism Victoria, Crown Princess of Sweden is part of WikiProject Lutheranism, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Lutheranism on Wikipedia. This includes but is not limited to Lutheran churches, Lutheran theology and worship, and biographies of notable Lutherans. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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 Apr 2005 (UTC)


[edit] 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 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 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).

[edit] "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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)