Talk:Astrid of Sweden

Objectivity.
This page comes across as sorta subjective, and contains quite a few ... Biased... or whatever, terms and descriptions. Yeah. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.64.216.236 (talk) 12:01, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Norway relevant?
An edit today inserted info about Norway which I do not find relevant here. Also claimed that Astrid was the "first" to be princess of Sweden only, not Sweden and Norway. That is not correct. SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:40, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Reliable source?
Is this supposed to be a reliable source? I removed it. SergeWoodzing (talk) 02:20, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It was a happy and devoted marriage.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Astrid of Sweden. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110706133707/http://www.cegesoma.be/docs/media/chtp_beg/chtp_03/008_schwarzenbach_chtp3.pdf to http://www.cegesoma.be/docs/media/chtp_beg/chtp_03/008_schwarzenbach_chtp3.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:22, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Name
As far as I know, the name that appears in the begging of the article should be Astrid of Sweden and not Princess Astrid of Sweden, should it be changed? Duke of Somewhere (talk) 08:24, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
 * You are ½ right. I'd prefer Astrid of Belgium (1926).
 * To some users here, it is very important not only that all female royals must be labelled by their maiden names/geography (as if Wikipedia were a genealogy blog) but also that we are to use their unmarried, usually lower, titles in the article names, such as Princess, never their higher titles, often Queen. I've wondered for decades what that almost fanatic attitude is all about. Perhaps those users think they are acting as feminists of some kind by declining to admit name-change-by-marriage status? Perhaps they do not realize that denying a woman a higher title and current name, under which her major achievements are listed, is the opposite of what feminism is all about? Perhaps it makes them feel more important than the people we are writing about when they can decide what the royal women are to be labelled as & get together and push these things through with consensus (whether or not it's more like nonsensus). Countess Georgina von Wilczek (not Georgina of Liechtenstein (1943) - see that talk page & learn!) is one of the most flabbergasting examples of this nutsiness. I'll never get it. You go figure! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:46, 3 January 2023 (UTC)