Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:21, 1 January 2011

Sweden Stub‑class High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sweden, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sweden-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SwedenWikipedia:WikiProject SwedenTemplate:WikiProject SwedenSweden Stub This article has been rated as Stub-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

When Princesses of Sweden contract unequal marriage they lose the Royal Highness prefix but retain the title of Princess , Mrs . How would verbally address this type of princess. Normally it would be Your Royal Highness but since they don't have that style. I am not sure what the correct title of address would be.

Probabely, one would address them Prinsessan (literally: "the Princess"). TV reporters and such are normally heard addressing the king Kungen ("the king"), the queen Drottningen ("the queen") and the children Kronrinsessan ("the Crown Princess"), Prinsen ("the Prince") and Prinsessan ("the Princess"). If I´m not mistaking, some reporters have already broken the barrier and addressed the Crown Princess with the ordinary second person singular pronoun "du". Pemer (talk) 23:22, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Queens

What does "since women only acquired that right in 1979" mean? There were queens prior to 1979. Please clarify.

The main point is still that, in 1979, Sweden simplified the law of primogeniture by providing that the oldest child of the royal family becomes monarch regardless of sex. Sweden may have been the world's first well known monarchy to make such a change, which was adopted over the objection of the king and queen. But consider the constitutional crisis which the British would have faced if, after her assuming the throne in 1952, Elizabeth II had been presented with a little brother, the Queen Mother being, at the time, likely but not entirely beyond childbearing possibility.

Rammer (talk) 23:35, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Recent mischief

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

Could someone with rollback rights please restore the article as it was before 3 recent mischief edits? I don't know how. SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:59, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

 Done Thanks! Favonian (talk) 21:17, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Pruning

I removed all the pre-1818 stuff. It does not have much to do with the subject of this article. Also, it seems to be a coatrack for Woodzing's made-up anglicizations, like "Steinchetellian Dynasty". /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:38, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

A lot of valuable sourced information seems to have been removed here by an editor with a personal agenda making several unsubstantiated accusations which can be seen as personal attacks, not constructive editing for the benefit of WP. Of course the article can be edited regarding some matters of terminology, if necessary, but the entire obliteration of my many hours of work can be questioned, I think. I am reverting it and asking for a Third opinion. SergeWoodzing (talk) 08:52, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

I would be inclined to retain the information if properly cited sources would be used, both independent and reliable. As this is an English language site, anglicizations are unavoidable. However, as the information (existing in the last edit containing it) does not cite any sources, I would say leave it out. For this information, I think something more substantive than Wikilinks need to be used to document the facts. To bottom line it, my opinion is 100% based on the ability to cite reliable sources for this information and to use Misplaced Pages's templates on this page to document it. It has nothing to do with the concept of anglicizations, which I don't have a problem with if it's conventional (actually used by most, if not all, English-speakers), or your previous history with one another.—Bark (talk) 15:03, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! I have now restored all the deleted information minus the only controversial exonyms (such as Steinchetel in English for Swedish Stenkil; or Alstan in English for Swedish Hallsten) that I have seen objections to lately, objections that have even gone so far as to nominate helpful redirects for deletion. I know these names are legitimate in older English literature, however (just as Wolferic is English for Swedish Ulrik), and will restore them when I can find reliable sources that they exist. SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:17, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

• Stub-Class Sweden articles
• High-importance Sweden articles
• All WikiProject Sweden pages