Talk:Carl XVI Gustaf

Untitled

There is much duplicated information in the table to the right here. Leave it, or do something about it? -- Jao 00:11, 28 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Well, I created the House of Bernadotte template to add to the Swedish royals pages, but realised it would look awkward with the tables that are already underneath the images. I suggest maybe incorporating the present info into the introduction paragraph and adding the House template underneath instead? Craigy 02:42, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

King of Sweden with a capital k

Please see and discuss the principle here. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:50, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Reference WP:JOBTITLES. Mechanical Keyboarder (talk) 19:07, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

He is referencing JOBTITLES & thus in this article's case, we go with capitalization. GoodDay (talk) 20:10, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Removal of most of "Use of remaining power" section

I see no reason to remove a list which is helpful in defining the few rights this man still has, and all of which is sourced in the articles of those mentioned. Should be reinstated. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:19, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, he may have the right to grant his family members titles and dukedoms, yet we shouldn't make a huge list out of every single decision that he has made. Even though you argued on my talk page that he has more freedom with giving these titles away without the government interfering unlike other monarchies, I still can draw similarities between his actions and those of Elizabeth II, Margrethe II, and many other kings and queens. Obviously, we haven't dedicated a huge chunk of their articles into making a list that says which grandchild has which title, and we shouldn't do so. However, if you insist on having such a section, use prose instead, and incorporate the available info into paragraphs that give specific useful examples that are sourced. References are important because another Wikipedia article cannot be a source for this article, even if it's linked to it. Keivan.f^Talk 04:21, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

What's essential here is not that the Swedish government does not interfere with all that titling, but that it does not officially sanction any of it & that Carl Gustaf has done all that on his own using his own extraconstitutional (house) powers, meaning that the titles are accepted by the Swedish establishment and the royalist majority of the population, out of respect, but may or may mot be legally valid. I think it's more educational to show all that in a matter-of-fact list rather than in tiresome & unavoidably repetitive prose. If anyone else wants each item on the list sourced, that time-consuming project certainly can be done, but at the expense, in my case, of very limited minutes. never hours anymore, that I have to spend on Wiki projects nowadays. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:10, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

PS If we are to rewrite the section as prose anyway (I'm beginning to see a possibility), it would be nice to finish talking here before we add any box to the article about what we'd like to see there. I think that's what we do. Talk pages, and consensus there, are normally for what we'd like to see, while it is being discussed, not primarily slapping template boxes on an article. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:50, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Is there a specific sentence or phrase in that section at this point which shows that he has the absolute power to bestow titles upon whomever he wants regardless of what the government says? Because if that's the case it needs to be mentioned in the body of the article with a valid source since it seems to be a power that is given to him by the constitution (I guess!). Regarding the references, we don't need to use a source for every single sentence, but for example I would like to see a credible reference regarding the manner in which his wife became queen. Were there any consorts before her that were not created queen once they married a king, or is it up to the monarch to give away this title to his wife? Some sentences are really vague and need more clarification. Keivan.f^Talk 19:51, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

The Bramstång reference (current #22) clarifies his house powers & that the Swedish government grants no titles. Lilian, Princess of Réthy is one of several examples where a woman married a king w/o becoming queen (she replaced C16G's paternal grandfather's first cousin Astrid of Sweden when Astrid was killed). I will try to return here soon re: the rest. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:52, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

names of scandinavian monarchs

A number of Scandinavian monarchs, past and present, have a regnal number between two given names, such as Kenneth III William. I am guessing (by all means tell me if I'm wrong) that that means that the individual is the third named Kenneth to have the throne. Would William be a patronymic? I've not seen this pattern outside of Scandinavia. I assume that there are some interesting tales of how it evolved, but so far google hasn't been of any use. But I bet Wikipedia can!!! PurpleChez (talk) 12:18, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Many Swedes have double given names which, together, either hyphenated or not, are used as their names of address (meaning they are addressed by them, not that they received snail mail with them - the English language lacks a good common version of sv:Tilltalsnamn). The first known Swede to use such a double name was King Anwynd James in the 11th century. When the first Gustav Adolph became king in 1604 he was also the first since Anwynd James with a double name and decided that, counting Gustav for his numeral, not Adolph or the full Gustav Adolph, but still including both names, he was to be called Gustav II Adolph. Later kings named Gustav Adolph (after 1900 legally spelled Gustaf Adolf) and Carl Gustav (as of the 20th century legally spelled Carl Gustaf) have followed suit. I have used normal established English exonyms in this reply. The second name, your William, is by no means a surname. Thank you for asking! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:36, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Just to clarify, in your fictive example, William would not be a patronymic, and this practice has been followed by all monarchs with double given names after Gustaf II Adolf, such as, for example Karl XIV Johan, except for the ones who were the first ones of their first given name, such as Adolf Fredrik and Ulrika Eleonora.

Right Marbe (you forgot to sign your entry), not a patronymic or any other kind of surname. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:55, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

PS Marbe: while we're clarifying, we are not talking merely about given names, as I explained, but about a double name of address. Gustaf VI Adolf of Sweden had six given names, not just a double given name. Carl XIV John had 4 even after his adoption, as clearly stated in the Swedish Constitution. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:44, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Indeed, correct you are on all counts, and I apologise for the missing signature. --Marbe166 (talk) 16:48, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Shortening the article title

Requested move 9 June 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved all. (closed by non-admin page mover) Mdaniels5757 (talk) 16:51, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

---

• Carl XVI Gustaf of Sweden → Carl XVI Gustaf
• Gustaf VI Adolf of Sweden → Gustaf VI Adolf
• Gustaf V of Sweden → Gustaf V
• Oscar II of Sweden → Oscar II
• Charles XV of Sweden → Charles XV
• Charles XIII of Sweden → Charles XIII
• Gustav IV Adolf of Sweden → Gustav IV Adolf
• Gustav III of Sweden → Gustav III

– There has been a trend in the past years to shorten titles of articles about monarchs by removing the unnecessary disambiguation, so I wanted to gauge support for doing the same for the recent (Bernadotte and Oldenburg) monarchs of Sweden. Such changes are in the spirit of Wikipedia policy, namely WP:COMMONNAME, WP:CONCISE and WP:PRECISE. It has been 9 years since the shortening of titles of articles about contemporary British monarchs (Elizabeth II, George VI, Edward VIII, George V, and Edward VII). We have also had moves such as Maria Theresa of Austria→Maria Theresa, Napoleon I of France→Napoleon, Napoleon III of France→Napoleon III, Louis Philippe I of France→Louis Philippe I, and recently Elizabeth I of England→Elizabeth I. The title Carl XVI Gustaf of Sweden is unnecessarily chunky, especially considering that it is pronounced "Carl the Sixteenth Gustaf of Sweden". No other country has had a Carl XVI Gustaf so the disambiguation is pointless. There is also the issue of some of the kings being kings of Norway too, likening this to the case of the British/Commonwealth monarchs.

I left out Oscar I of Sweden because, since 2018, he has not been treated as the primary meaning of Oscar I. I thought that should be handled by a separate discussion if the community agrees to these changes. Surtsicna (talk) 10:48, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support. "Other encyclopedias are among the sources that may be helpful in deciding what titles are in an encyclopedic register, as well as what names are most frequently used," according to WP:TITLE. No published encyclopedia uses this "of [country]" format. Allan Rice (talk) 16:07, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Indeed. Britannica has the present king under Carl XVI Gustaf. Thank you for citing a policy. Surtsicna (talk) 16:11, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support as per explanations and norms ~ Amkgp 💬 17:25, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. I object to change without some clear benefit and none of the reasons given constitute a clear benefit. OTOH, if we were going the other way, I would argue that adding the country does provide some clear benefits, in that it helps to clarify that the title refers to the monarch of a specific country and it provides more consistency in article naming. Fabrickator (talk) 18:14, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

The benefit is that we would be using a concise title that corresponds to what these people are normally called in other articles and templates, thus eliminating the need for redirects and piping. "of Sweden" does not really mark anyone as a monarch of Sweden; Marie Fredriksson is "of Sweden" as much as Carl XVI Gustaf is. Surtsicna (talk) 22:00, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose - any moves that favour removing the 'country' from a monarch's article title. GoodDay (talk) 23:30, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

You are contributing nothing to the discussion if you do not provide arguments. Surtsicna (talk) 09:09, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

• Abstain is all I can do, because I feel strongly that our naming principles need a thorough overhaul for simplification, clarity & consistency when it comes to still legitimate kings, queens, princes & princesses as well as all the people using defunct titles, most of them illegitimate since 1918. In lieu of such, I dasn't opine here lest I get embroiled in another dramatic & taxing debate. Consistency seems now like a utopian dream, since we are to go by newspapers & magazines calling one person an apple, another a banana and another a turnip, so to speak. If I live long enough and find more time, spunk & courage, I may propose that overhaul. Till then, trying to work on chronically inconsistent Wikipedia, Goodness save us all! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:12, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

I think the simplification proposed here will eventually lead to greater consistency: the titles of articles about monarchs with unambiguous regnal names would consist of the said regnal names (e.g. Carl XVI Gustaf) while others would follow the already established "X, King of Sweden" format (e.g. Valdemar, King of Sweden, Ulrika Eleonora, Queen of Sweden, Adolf Frederick, King of Sweden, etc). The comma makes it clear that the title is there for disambiguation; while in the present nomenclature, it is not clear why some are "of Sweden" and others "King of Sweden". Surtsicna (talk) 14:31, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

There used to be consistency in this area, with Monarch of country as the standard. GoodDay (talk) 21:04, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, but that standard was untenable, which is why it was eroded years ago. It was never going to work for Roman, Byzantine and East Asian rulers, for example, none of whom have ever been titled "[Name] of [Country]". If supported, this format will create consistency. Articles about all monarchs would eventually consist of regnal names only, unless a title is needed for disambiguation. That would essentially mean having only one main formulation and one alternative instead of three or four. There will never be a better shot at consistency. Surtsicna (talk) 23:17, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support per WP:CONCISE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:241:301:4360:F4DB:3E2B:899F:3848 (talk) 16:01, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support all. Not really much I can add to what Surtsicna has already said, except my agreement. Opera hat (talk) 20:38, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support, shorter is better when possible.--Bob not snob (talk) 07:44, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support all, on the grounds of the policies mentioned, and the lack of a specific need for "of Sweden" to avoid ambiguity in any of the articles listed. Sam Sailor 13:30, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.