Talk:Prince Eugen, Duke of Närke

What's this re: Dukedom?
This was added today: - the Prince's legal name was Eugen - not Eugén; and his dukedom in English is Nericia not "Narke". SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:38, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * This may be the case — in which case this article should be moved to Prince Eugen, Duke of Nericia, which presently redirects here — but a quick Google search suggests that Prince Eugén was the name of the Swedish artist while Prince Eugen was the name of a duke of Savoy — and a German cruiser. A second set of searches yields 1,220 results for "Duke of" Nericia -Närke versus 9,650 for "Duke of" Närke -Nericia. Google searches are by no means the final arbiter of such matters but Statemaster and other websites are in agreement as to Eugén. So the current title appears to be correct after all; it is, by the way, common for Swedish surnames to end in –én; Frantzén, Lundén, Norén, etc. — Robert Greer (talk) 15:28, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You are so right about Swedish surnames (I have a number of friends and relatives thus named) but that practice is not at all relevant to this discussion. Here is the way Eugen's own family lists him in English and in Swedish. So does every respectable Swedish encyclopaedia and biography. Perhaps we should list him by his correct name, notwithstanding the frequency of errors (a principle of mine, as you may have noticed on my user page)? I would strongly support a move.
 * Narke is nothing for nothing: Swedish for nothing, English for nothing, and is phonetically horrendous in English. Nericia is English for Närke. Correct so called telex English would be Naerke, not Narke. Cordially, SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:37, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Prince Eugen, yes; Duke of Nericia, no. Nericia is not English, it is Latin and appears to be a neologism at that (it does not appear in any medieval manuscript that I know of, as does, for example, Suecia.) With respect to usage, there are 273,000 Google results from English language pages for Närke and 11,600 for Nericia. Perhaps this page should be moved to Prince Eugen, Duke of Närke; doing so will automatically leave behind a redirect (and I am familiar with the use of aa, ae and oe instead of a med ring, a med prickar and o med prickar, particularly with 7-bit e-mail systems which mangle any characters above ASCII 127.) — Robert Greer (talk) 18:29, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * As you may have seen, I don't care about frequency of usage. Never did, never will. And I don't care if WP cares. Much more more important: phonetics are a part of this - or should be. Naerke would be phonetically acceptable, Narke is just horrendous, I strongly feel. SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:15, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Not Narke, Närke, thank you.
 * I don't know whether Wikipedia has a stand concerning usage, but rejecting it outright is as foolish as being a slave to it.
 * And Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a textbook; the former reflects (correct) usage, the latter the opinions of schoolmarms.
 * But the question here is more subtle, as neither Nericia nor Närke is demonstrably incorrect.
 * So I pose you a challenge; what is the earliest document in which you find Nericia?
 * If from later than the time of Charles IX of Sweden I am hard pressed to accept the usage. — Robert Greer (talk) 15:48, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Frequency of usage should have no bearing on reliable sources combined with common sense and phonetic pliability. Many things are distorted by the frequency of nonsense and garbage.
 * You have now called my behavior "foolish" (did you notice?) and are being increasingly condescending and overly instructive. Pardon me, but I am losing interest in discussing anything with you, lest your masterful tone really get on my nerves!
 * I suggest Naerke or Nericia. All I objected to was this and this using Narke, especially the latter addition to the article by you. I didn't expect to get bashed because of that. So do what you want with this, I care even less about accepting a "challenge" by a less-than-civil user than I do about frequency of usage. That's just how "foolish" I am in my behavior. SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:14, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * PS Thank you for your latest actions! Sincerely, SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:44, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The site should include some of his paintings. For example, his murals in the Stockholm City Hall.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.239.152.174 (talk) 05:54, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Prince Eugen, Duke of Närke. 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://archive.is/20130418151452/http://www.museibutiken.se/pothistory.asp?AvdID=1 to http://www.museibutiken.se/pothistory.asp?AvdID=1

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:45, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Suspect fact in the background: RE the prince having a son
On 20 May 2020, Elenawirne edited the article inserting a "little known fact" about the prince having had a son at the age of nearly 60. The assertion is attributed to a New York Times travel story about Waldemarsudde that was said to have been retrieved in 2013 — seven years before the Wikipedia edit was made. Following the provided link takes you to the New York Times website, where a search of their archive finds no such article. (There are six articles mentioning Waldemarsudde, but none of them is specifically about Waldemarsudde.) My wife and I have had an interest in Prince Eugen for years and had never heard this fact. We moved from the US to Sweden last year, and even in the US owned copies of several of his books (and books about him and his gallery/studio). I'm not saying that it's impossible that a 59-year-old gay man fathered a child in the 1920s; I'm just saying that it's news to me, and that the provenance of the citation is at best suspect. – B.Tice
 * Sad that so many dishonest so-called genealogists make money on hoaxes like that and that their stuff at times gets into Wikipedia for a time. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:45, 11 June 2020 (UTC)