Talk:Carl XVI Gustaf of Sweden

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia The spoken word version of this article is part of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, an attempt to produce recordings of Wikipedia articles. To participate, visit the project page.

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)

Contents

[edit] Children

Prince Carl Philip was born heir apparent in 1979, however enacted constitutional reform awaiting promulgation created his older sister, Victoria, heir on January 1, 1980, according to the principles of full cognatic primogeniture.

Wow. Am I the only one who finds this very obfuscated?--Lucky13pjn 02:07, Nov 6, 2004 (UTC)

I have no clue what that means. Thanx 68.39.174.150 04:37, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • In Sweden, any law changing the Laws of Succession must be passed by two different parliaments, separated by a general election. One parliament had already passed the law, and Carl Philip was born before the second parliament could. SO in truth, he was Crown Prince, but only for a short time. I agree that the wording is not the greatest.Prsgoddess187 19:28, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
Basically what it means is that the constitution was changed so that the law permitted the first-born child to be the heir apperent, no matter what sex it happened to be. However, his Highness the Prince was born after the law was accepted, but before it came into effect. His older sister is the heir apperent because Sweden is the only country to have this law take effect retro-actively. DannyBoy2k 23:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The picture

Why has the picture been changed from the picture with the king in his uniform? --Dahlis 22:28, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

From the edit description "130.235.184.253 (no use in using a copyrighted image when free images exist)". The new picture looks like a mugshot. --Laisak 22:36, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
Exactly it looks horrible.--Dahlis 07:14, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Royal duties and personal interests

"On July 14, 2005 he squeesed the butt of Helena Paparizou when she performed at his daughter's birthday" : wow, now I know why I favour Wikipedia over all other sources of knowledge. It's just so grand, pointing out to the essentials of the subjects it covers. Of course, only royalists would think otherwise. --FvdP 17:19, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

That part should be removed since thats not exactly what happened, its just republican bullshit. --Dahlis 19:45, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
I agree with the removal ;-) Actually, the note about his car accident seems to stem from the same anti-Carlist (or trivia-loving ?) mobile... I've removed it since it's also quite minor (quote from the 2nd cited source: Both cars were slightly damaged in the accident, but no one was injured [...] Police said the king was not suspected of committing a traffic offence.) --FvdP 18:16, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Actually he was suspected, but they didn't perform a drug test on him since he has royal immunity so it would be pointless. Considering the section is called "Royal duties and personal interests" is is ofcourse trivia, but it's the apropiate place to put it. The entire section is for trivia. // Liftarn

Your second source (link) about the accident opens no room for such speculation. (Your 1st and 3rd sources I can't read: the articles have probably disappeared from free viewing.) And overall, I don't think Wikipedia is the place for such trivia, even in dedicated sections. They have no importance outside of gossip. --FvdP 18:27, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
Weel, that second source is wrong. The police decided not to investigate the matter since it was no point in doing so due to his royal immuinity. I see no difference between mention this and his reactions to the culling of baby seals in Norway. I notice it doesn't say anything about that he is fond of hunting moose. // Liftarn
So you are the one adding this republican propaganda? --Dahlis 17:10, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
Liftarn, (1) can you provide any source to support your claims ? (2) I did not delete or propose to delete the sentence stating that Carl XVI was fond of driving cars. So your comparison is irrelevant. --FvdP 20:21, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

It's neither republican, nor propaganda. Sources are provided in the links for each item. // Liftarn

You are only quoting tabloids and rumors, and you seem to be the only one who thinks this kind of information is relevant. --Thomas 10:02, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Considering how much effort some people seem to put into repressing this type of informastion it simply must be important. // Liftarn

Its important because by adding it it gives the article a clear political standpoint. But since this is only rumors it should not be in the article. (tro inte på allt som står i tidningen!) --Dahlis 21:54, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
It has nothing to do with politics. You claim it's only rumours, other claims it's true. Since I have given the sources it's up to the reader to judge who to trust. // Liftarn
Claiming something is true without having evidence (as the porn club rumors) is just what a Rumor is. Quoting Wikipedia: "A rumor (Commonwealth English: rumour) is a piece of purportedly true information that circulates without substantiating evidence.". Even your original wording was "rumors", not "information". Show us some evidence. thonil 08:46, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
It's all in the article. "US lawyer named him as one of the celebrities that have visited the porn club Gold Club in Atlanta when he visited Atlanta in 1996 with his family for the Olympics.[1][2] One of the women mentioned as his conquests is the news anchor Anna Lindmarker.[3]" Just follow the links, they are the sources (or rather the sources I could find online, it's a "public secret" thet the good king likes women). See Wikipedia:Verifiability. "The threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth." // Liftarn

Of the three sources you have given on the accident, two are not working for me and from the third, the event looks of such a minimal signifiance (could happen to anyone who drives a car, brings not a hint of meaningful insight on what kind of person that king is) that the fact it happened to Carl XVI is a non-event and is not worthwhile of inclusion in Wikipedia. --FvdP 20:07, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, they have expired. That often happens with news items, they aren't kept forever. They worked when they were added. It gives an interesting insight on what kind of person that king is. // Liftarn

Your note on Carl "been caught speeding several times" is better, but only marginally so. Who has never been speeding ? If he was caught two times driving 140 km/h on a highway where only 120 km/h were permitted, then again it's no-news. As your source gives no other information on this than that single sentence (!), we can't conclude any signifiance from it. --FvdP 20:07, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I have never been caught speeding. Neither has my SO. The fact is that he likes fast cars and driving them fast. If you find a better way to give a source to that than to note that he for instance drives a BMW M3 and have been caught speeding several times. // Liftarn
I see no problem with mentioning his driving a BMW M3. Bit more reserved about speeding. I might be more acceptable if you gave more context. The fact that he likes driving cars fast (if true, of course) is more significant than his being caught speeding. So go for the more significant first. (A side-effect of not doing that, is that passing-by readers can imagine the worst about your intentions...) --FvdP 19:52, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Image replacement

The current image is licenced under fair use, but there is a free equivalent, if a bit uglier. Why is a fair use image used when there is a free image? I'm replacing the image, but earlier when I have replaced fair use images with free images the fair use image has been put back because "it looks better"... What's more important, that the image is free or that it looks good? If so, we could as well steal any image we could find instead... Fair use loses its purpose when it isn't needed to illustrate an article. /Grillo 06:21, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

I noticed now that I had changed the image in this article earlier (I used to have ip 130.235.184.253 before I moved). As I said, if the beauty of the photo counts, we could as well steal any image from anywhere on the web and claim "fair use" for everyone of them. This image serves the purpose of illustrating the person in question. No, it's not the best picture, but isn't it better to have a free image than a copyrighted one, that will probably be deleted in time anyway? And isn't Wikipedia the free encyclopedia, not the "free with a million of exceptions encyclopedia"? /Grillo 06:40, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
The "high-profile" article Tony Blair has got this Image:Blairconf04.jpg fair use image. Is it needed to illustrate the article? - no! I would argue that this image Image:Kinggus.jpg is needed to illustrate the article because it shows his royal status (admiral uniform, decorations...) and I am therefore inserting it into the article again. That the articles have appropriate images is [way more] important than that all images are "free" (what about logos?). 83.252.72.10 23:37, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Actually, no, it's not. Ask Jimbo Wales if you don't believe me. I won't continue some petty edit war, but it's pretty obvious that you don't realize the importance of Wikipedia being the free encyclopedia. /Grillo 06:33, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
I think that. Good luck finding a free corporate logo, or do you want to ban them?
The photograph in dispute (kinggus) was provided by the royal court, one could always contact them and ask them to license it under the GFDL? As for corporate logos, fair use is the only option and in this case there are alternatives. It also illustrates the freedom which americans enjoy, a photograph taken by a government employee in the course of his or her work is copyrighted to the government agency and/or photographer. Enjoy the fruits that the tree of liberty provides you!
As for my personal opinion I strongly dislike seeing any leader in a military uniform, regardless of the fact that His Royal Highness has no military or political power. But I don't want to start a editing war.--Oden 03:49, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bernadotte

I might be terribly wrong, but isn't his full name "Carl Gustaf Folke Hubertus Bernadotte"? I suspect the names are sourced from [4]. Those profiles don't seem to indicate any last names, though.

I'm adding it for now.

Obli (Talk) 17:35, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

He is the king he has no last name. Bernadotte is the name of the dynasty its only used as a last name by those members of the family who has lost their royal stauts in some way. Im removing it. --Dahlis 13:03, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Most likely (but not with any certainty) is that his legal names is as is stated above (Carl Gustaf Folke Hubertus Bernadotte), but for honorary purposes a royal title is assumed (and should be used). I can imagine the same applies to all royal houses and to the pope who also assumes a different name upon assuming his position, that in this age of bureaucracy and computers life without a last name would be a little difficult? --Oden 03:33, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
According to the Swedish Tax Authorities his name is de facto "Carl Gustaf Folke Hubertus" with an * placed instead of a surname in that line.RicJac 00:14, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Duke of...?

While he was still a child, what was he Duke of? I might not have looked hard enough in the article, but I couldn't find it. His father and uncles were all created Duke of XX at birth or in childhood, but I can't find what the King was known as when he was little. Morhange 19:46, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

It says here that his title was Duke of Jämtland I have seen it elsewhere as Duke of Jemtia, but I can't remember where at the moment. Maybe we should add that information to the article, all the others have it listed. Prsgoddess187 20:29, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

It was the Wikipedia standard a while back to use the latinized province names, so it may well be here you saw Jemtia. As conventions stand now, Duke of Jämtland is the correct one. -- Jao 20:58, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Paparizou remark

This edit war has slowly gone on for over a year now, without much attempts to resolve the matter (there was a little discussion last autumn). It's getting a bit silly, really. For those who haven't followed, User:Liftarn is repeatedly adding the following text to the "Royal duties and personal interests" section:

His alleged interest in women sometime gets the attention of the media. On July 14, 2005 the King placed his hand a bit lower on the back side of singer Elena Paparizou than is socially acceptable. It happened when she performed at his daughter's birthday. According to the royal court his hand slipped. [5]

which is just as repeatedly removed by another user, most often User:Slarre. The text is properly sourced, and as for its factual accuracy it's for anyone to decide from the image in the linked article. Relevance and NPOV are more tricky. The text certainly reads a bit tabloidish to me, but perhaps it could be rewritten to suit both parties? If the main disagreement is however over whether the fact is relevant to the article at all, RFC could be a useful tool, of course. (PS. I'm not an admin or anything, just a regular editor who thinks one year is a very long time for something like this to be going on...) -- Jao 21:51, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

The king has an alleged interest in women, nudge, nudge, wink, wink, you know what I mean? you know what I mean? 128.240.229.6 12:24, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
This "issue" has no relevance in an encyklopedia at all. The only large paper who wrote anyting about it (afaik) was the tabloid Aftonbladet. If we should put everything that Aftonbladet writes about the Swedish king in this article then the article would be like a cillion times longer. /Slarre 12:49, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Why is it not an issue? If the king sleeps around and we have sources for it why should it be hidden? // Liftarn
Sleeps around? If you have any proof that the king "sleeps around" then you're welcome to present it, however that's not what we're discussing here... /Slarre 21:28, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
There have been persistent reports about mistresses and visits to porn clubs for many years. However, the Paparizou incident (and that Anna Lindmarker is named as one of his mistresses[6] (one of many I might add)) is the only ones that are online now. The Times mentioned a visit to a porn club[7], but that article is so old it has been taken offline by now and we only have a tertiary source[8]. Oh, wait. I googled a bit and found a few sources to the porn club visit.[9][10] // Liftarn
You are not sticking to the topic here. This discussion is about whether the Paparizou remark is relevant to the article or not. Unconfirmed rumours in the tabloid press are not always the best sources... /Slarre 15:45, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Is's a reliable and verifiable source even if you want to call it "tabloid press". Is it relevant? Perhaps not, but if he grabs ass in public, in front of his family then what is he doing when he not in the spotlight? // Liftarn

A majority of editors seem to think it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. I'm deleting it and if it gets reverted again I'll call in a mediator so we can get this settled. - TexMurphy 07:44, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
A majority of one? // Liftarn
One? I count seven different editors deleting that particular section through the page's history. As far as I can see you are the only one who insists on putting it back.
I say again, if the text makes it back to the article again I think it's best for everyone if we have someone with a more objective view have a look at it. - TexMurphy 19:47, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Westboro Baptist Church

I don't know how to create a new header, so I am making comment here. My apologies. Is the Westboro Baptist Church section really necessary? It's listed under "Controversy" but I don't think that the nature of the WBC's arguments are terribly controversial. In fact, they're pretty outlandish and don't seem to merit their inclusion. If it *is* deemed to necessitate inclusion, then should not other biographical pages include WBC criticisms? I'm fairly certain that they've criticized U.S. Presidents Bush and Clinton more often than they have the Swedish monarchy, yet their entries do not include a section dedicated soley to the WBC's concerns (hate mongering). Certainly there exists more legitimate, and relevant, controversies regarding the monarchy other than those originating from American fringe groups who critisize what is widely becoming the European norm. Discussion? Also, feel free to create a new header for this, and move my comments, if anyone would like. Joe in Seattle —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.227.219.0 (talk • contribs) 19:58, 10 December 2006.

I agree, the information belongs in the article on the Westboro Baptist Church. If it is to be included at all in this article, then one sentence is enough. --Oden 20:23, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dyslexia?

From the info given in the article, I think he rather had dysgraphia than dyslexia. Timur lenk 23:46, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Carl XVI Gustaf to Charles XVI Gustav

I'm thinking of 'moving' this page to 'Charles XVI Gustav', in order to match the similar names to previous Swedish Kings, like Gustav V, Gustav VI Adolf & Charles XIV John, Charles XV etc. What is the community's opinon? GoodDay 23:16, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, it is the contemporary norm not to transliterate names of living monarchs and as far as I know other living European monarchs have pages on Wikipedia with their native spelling.RicJac 16:49, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Military rank

What is his rank? The english version of this article mentions Captain in the Army, and Liutenant in the Navy, while the swedish version does not mention this, but instead mentions that he holds the ranks of General/Admiral in the army resp. the navy. 217.210.224.224 13:54, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

His Majesty was given separate commissions in the three branchs of the Swedish Armed Forces in 1968. He would eventually be promoted to the rank of Captain in 1972 ('Kapten' in Swedish: which is equal to a Lieutenant if using the standard Royal Navy terminology), before succeding his grandfather, King Gustaf VI Adolf, thereby ex officio holding the highest ranks in the three branches of the Swedish Armed Forces.RicJac 23:21, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox

Someone should change "consort to=Silvia" to "consort=Silvia", because he is not her consort, she is his consort. Surtsicna (talk) 18:19, 30 March 2008 (UTC)