Talk:Succession to the Swedish throne

Previous orders of succession
Is it really necessary to list all the previous orders of succession starting from Charles XIV John? A list like this doesn't exist on any of the other countries order of succession pages. So pointless. I'm removing it again. 213.67.244.185 18:09, 16 February 2007

Well, I give up. I just don't think it's necessary to list all these previous orders of succession. 213.67.244.185 18:26, 16 February 2007

Henning Elmberger (af ballongberget) 213.80.45.162 10:56, 19 April 2007


 * I don't see the point of these lists either. I'm more curious about whether the line is limited to the three persons listed, and if not, why they aren't on our list. We don't have to go to 4000 like the British list, but some indication of where the line would go beyond the immediate royal family would be helpful. --Dhartung | Talk 09:02, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Also agree that the historical lists are overkill. As for the limitation, it is true that there are currently only three heirs (a bit of a difference from the British situation!). See Swedish Act of Succession. -- Jao (talk) 14:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah! Thank you for the clarification. A bit like the Spanish situation (or the British situation ca. George I of Great Britain ...) --Dhartung | Talk 09:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It appears that the reform didn't actually disqualify anyone who had previously been in the succession. The list is short because
 * * the dynasty has only existed since 1810;
 * * until the present generation it was agnatic;
 * * some of its members disqualified themselves.
 * Anyway. I've collapsed the repetitive lists into one, which doesn't tell at a glance who was in the queue at a given date, but does unambiguously show the relative positions of any two (since that never changed). —Tamfang (talk) 07:54, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

beginning of the dynasty
Had Bernadotte died after his adoption but before his succession, would Oskar be king or did he only become a dynast when his father became king? I'm wondering whether the list ought to be dated to the adoption rather than the succession. —Tamfang (talk) 16:20, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Very good question! The answer to it is yes. The dynasty was created on September 26 1810 when the Swedish government passed legislation designating Carl John's male heirs as heirs to the Swedish throne and Oscar became Duke of Sudermania. SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:41, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I love it when I can shake the existing order by asking a question. — What happened between 21 August and 26 September 1810? —Tamfang (talk) 21:06, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not 100% certain, but it looks to me like Oscar's father was elected heir first and that it then took a little over a month before they were willing or able to confirm his son and make the monarchy hereditary in his family. SergeWoodzing (talk) 01:14, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Previous order of succession.
What is this? "Has been"? Is this a list of anyone who ever has been in the line of succession? How can that have an order, when different people have been in th eline of sucession at different times? That whole section makes no sense. --OpenFuture (talk) 10:51, 2 June 2010 (UTC)


 * If the list were arranged any other way, the following sentence would not be true: Each person in the list would have become king if he outlived everyone listed above him, without disqualifying himself. Thus the set of past and present dynasts has a unique ordering.  If you want to know what was the order at a given date, you can strike from the list anyone who was born (or qualified, in Victoria's case) after that date, or died or was disqualified earlier; or you can look at the article before I shortened it. —Tamfang (talk) 22:30, 2 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Clarified now, I think. SergeWoodzing (talk) 02:04, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the effort, but I don't think your change addresses the OP's concern. —Tamfang (talk) 04:46, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, getting rid of "in this order" is an improvement. I'm doubtful to the necessity of the section as whole, and I think the hierarchical structure can be confusing, but on the other hand it contains information. Maybe that information could be made explicit, so that the children of each regent gets their own section? --OpenFuture (talk) 06:19, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Tamfang: in that case I am not able to understand what he/she means. Are you?
 * OpenFuture: ??? There are no regents involved. SergeWoodzing (talk) 09:42, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


 * No regents? What a strange statement:
 * Prince Oscar, Duke of Östergötland, born 21 January 1829; succeeded 18 September 1872 as Oscar II of Sweden
 * Prince Gustaf, Duke of Värmland, born 16 June 1858; Crown Prince from 18 September 1872; succeeded 8 December 1907 as Gustaf V of Sweden
 * Prince Gustaf Adolf, Duke of Skåne, born 11 November 1882; Crown Prince from 8 December 1907; succeeded 29 October 1950 as Gustaf VI Adolf of Sweden
 * Prince Gustaf Adolf, Duke of Västerbotten, born 22 April 1906; died 26 January 1947
 * Prince Carl Gustaf, Duke of Jämtland, born 30 April 1946; Crown Prince from 29 October 1950; succeeded 15 September 1973 as Carl XVI Gustaf of Sweden
 * --OpenFuture (talk) 10:20, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Strange statement??? None of them were ever officially regents, they became kings/monarchs/rulers/heads of state, but never regents.
 * Ah, sorry. Turns out "regent" doens't mean "regent". So I meant "ruler" above. :-)


 * What do you mean by "the children of each [monarch] gets their own section"? Each person in the list has his own article, which should list his children if any.  The succession isn't limited to the children of monarchs; it can go any number of generations in the male line. —Tamfang (talk) 18:56, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

OF's complaint, as I understand it, is that there can be no meaningful ranking between princes who were not in the queue at the same time, such as Gustaf (died September 1852) and Carl Oscar (born December 1852). Removing "in this order" papers over that issue, but then there's nothing to say that the list has a sequence. (Dates of birth are not enough: when the present king was born, he had two living uncles, but took precedence over both of them.) Also, changing "in the succession" to "heirs to the throne" can be misconstrued; the term 'heir' usually means the first in line, and only seven of them have ever been that. — When I collapsed the 43 lists of the old article, I arranged the result as a family tree; at any given date, the monarch is the first person in the list who is alive and not disqualified. —Tamfang (talk) 19:50, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Incidentally, looking again at those 43 lists, I find only three occasions when a complete ordering cannot be inferred from those lists (without knowing anything of the underlying principle), when a newborn dynast was added at the same relative position as someone previously removed: 1852, 1889, 1946. —Tamfang (talk) 20:23, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


 * That was definitely one complaint, yes. Thanks! :-) --OpenFuture (talk) 21:33, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

that list
Before 28 May 2008, there was a list for each time someone was born, disqualified or died. I collapsed them all into this (since deleted), which I repeat here in case anyone's interested and to explain what the above discussion is about. —Tamfang (talk) 19:46, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Prince Oscar, Duke of Södermanland, born 4 July 1799; Crown Prince from 5 February 1818; succeeded 8 March 1844 as Oscar I of Sweden
 * Prince Charles, Duke of Skåne, born 3 May 1826; Crown Prince from 8 March 1844; succeeded 8 July 1859 as Charles XV of Sweden
 * Prince Carl Oscar, Duke of Södermanland, born 14 December 1852; died 13 March 1854
 * Prince Gustaf, Duke of Uppland, born 18 June 1827; died 24 September 1852
 * Prince Oscar, Duke of Östergötland, born 21 January 1829; succeeded 18 September 1872 as Oscar II of Sweden
 * Prince Gustaf, Duke of Värmland, born 16 June 1858; Crown Prince from 18 September 1872; succeeded 8 December 1907 as Gustaf V of Sweden
 * Prince Gustaf Adolf, Duke of Skåne, born 11 November 1882; Crown Prince from 8 December 1907; succeeded 29 October 1950 as Gustaf VI Adolf of Sweden
 * Prince Gustaf Adolf, Duke of Västerbotten, born 22 April 1906; died 26 January 1947
 * Prince Carl Gustaf, Duke of Jämtland, born 30 April 1946; Crown Prince from 29 October 1950; succeeded 15 September 1973 as Carl XVI Gustaf of Sweden
 * Crown Princess Victoria, Duchess of Västergötland, became eligible 1 January 1980
 * Prince Carl Philip, Duke of Värmland, born 13 May 1979 (Crown Prince until 1 January 1980)
 * Princess Madeleine, Duchess of Hälsingland and Gästrikland, born 10 June 1982
 * Prince Sigvard, Duke of Uppland, born 7 June 1907; disqualified 8 March 1934
 * Prince Bertil, Duke of Halland, born 28 February 1912; died 5 January 1997
 * Prince Carl Johan, Duke of Dalarna, born 31 October 1916; disqualified 22 January 1946
 * Prince Wilhelm, Duke of Södermanland, born 17 June 1884; died 5 June 1965
 * Prince Lennart, Duke of Småland, born 8 May 1909; disqualified 11 March 1932
 * Prince Erik, Duke of Västmanland, born 20 April 1889; died 20 September 1918
 * Prince Oscar, Duke of Gotland, born 15 November 1859; disqualified 15 March 1888
 * Prince Carl, Duke of Västergötland, born 27 February 1861; died 24 October 1951
 * Prince Carl, Duke of Östergötland, born 10 January 1911; disqualified 6 July 1937
 * Prince Eugén, Duke of Närke, born 1 August 1865; died 17 August 1947
 * Prince August, Duke of Dalarna, born 24 August 1831; died 4 March 1873

how about this then?
If you don't like the indentations ...

The table ought not to be sortable, as the order needs to be preserved. (Dates do NOT tell the whole story!) —Tamfang (talk) 18:56, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


 * It's a massive improvement, IMO. --OpenFuture (talk) 19:27, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I like the indentations, but I am used to such in genealogical lists, so I may be prejudiced. But with the indentations the generations are clear, as they are not at all when everyone is all boxed in. I'm going to take a stab at something simpler, maintaining the indentations. SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:40, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

another tabular version
—Tamfang (talk) 21:27, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Crown Princess
The Swedish crown princess is never called listed just as "The Crown Princess" but always "Crown Princess Victoria" or "Crown Princess Victoria, Duchess of Västergötland". I have recently corrected this once and will now do so again, asking cordially that this error not be repeated again. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:54, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * That is not true. See official website for one instance of "The Crown Princess" + a bonus one also on official website. In fact, take a look at the entire news section. Headlines routinely refer to her as "The Crown Princess". In this part of her official biography, she is exclusively referred to as "The Crown Princess" and never by name. Referring to her as "The Crown Princess" is as correct as referring to her father as "The King" and to her brother as "The Duke of Värmland". There is absolutely no difference, neither grammar-wise nor usage-wise. Surtsicna (talk) 00:09, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, my mistake in wording. She is never listed (as here) as only "The Crown Princess" and is only ever referred to in text as such. I thought that would seem obvious. The same website you are referring to shows it quite clearly. She is always listed as "Crown Princess Victoria" or "Crown Princess Victoria, Duchess of Västergötland". Your listing her as "The Crown Princess" is a Wikipedia invention. Pls revert your revert! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:02, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * That's not true either. See this entry on the official website, which lists members of the bride's family as "The King", "The Queen" and "The Crown Princess". This text on the official website refers to her as "H.R.H. The Crown Princess", much like this article. There is no Wikipedia invention here. She is called "Crown Princess Victoria" when her father is called "King Carl XVI Gustaf"; to claim that it is correct to list him as "The King" but incorrect to list her as "The Crown Princess" is absurd. Surtsicna (talk) 14:40, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * You seem to have misunderstood the difference between a person's name being listed and the name being mentioned in text. Last time I wrote I admitted I had used the wrong term. Nevertheless, this woman is always listed as "Crown Princess Victoria" or "Crown Princess Victoria, Duchess of Västergötland". Yes, her father is often listed as Konungen (the King). She is never listed as Kronprinsessan (the Crown Princess) without her personal name. Please try to understand this! Your listing her as "The Crown Princess" is indeed a Wikipedia invention. Pls revert your revert! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:52, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * No, I understand the difference and I've provided at least one official list that proves that your assertion is evidently incorrect. I am certain that I could also disprove your assertion that she is "never listed as Kronprinsessan", but for the purposes of this article, disproving the claim that she is "never listed as The Crown Princess" is enough. Listing her as "The Crown Princess" is perfectly normal and common, and simply natural and expected in cases where her father is listed as "The King" and her mother as "The Queen". Surtsicna (talk) 10:47, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I see both your points, and in the case of the Crown Princess you could argue for both ways of listing her in this list. However, the problem with the current listing is evident when we look at Princess Estelle, Prince Carl Philip and Princess Madeleine. They are never (or at least very seldom) referred to only by their Duke/Duchess titles, and, more importantly, it is not the Duke/Duchess titles that makes them eligible for the throne - it is their relationship with the King. The King has the right to give Duke/Duchess titles for whichever region he chooses. It is not automatic that the heir/heiress apparent is given the title Duke/Duchess of Västergötland. Therefore it is wrong in this type of list to list them only by their Duke/Duchess titles. They should be listed as Crown Princess Victoria, Duchess of Västergötland; Princess Estelle, Duchess of Östergötland; Prince Carl Philip, Duke of Värmland and Princess Madeleine, Duchess of Hälsingland and Gästrikland. Marbe166 (talk) 09:00, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Third opinion by Martin Hogbin
It seems to me that 'The Crown Princess' refers to a position rather than a specific person. If referring to the current holder of the position, whoever that may be then 'The Crown Princess'  might be in order but if we are specifying an individual person then I believe that we must say 'Crown Princess Victoria'. Does this help? Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:47, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for stepping in, Martin Hogbin. When capitalized, "the Crown Princess" refers to a specific person, most often the incumbent holder of the title. "The crown princess" would refer to a position. Compare with "the King", which refers to a person (in this case, the incumbent), and "the king", which refers to a position. In this article, we list people. We've got "The King" and no-one is arguing about that. The only issue with listing the Crown Princess as "The Crown Princess" is that, supposedly, she is never listed as such - which is not true, since she is frequently listed as such. It's a non-issue, really, but if it has to be elaborated, so be it. Compare also with other articles about the line of succession - Line of succession to the Norwegian throne, for example. It lists "The King" and then, naturally and consistently, "The Crown Prince". Surtsicna (talk) 12:01, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I do not think that is quite right. I think the title is capitalised, for example, Prince of Wales refers to the the title.  The current incumbent is Charles, Prince of Wales. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:26, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * There might be a misunderstanding here, but please take a look at MoS for what I was trying to say. In official lists, Charles is always listed as "HRH The Prince of Wales". "The Prince of Wales" is the correct way to address him. Anyway, my point is that listing Victoria as "The Crown Princess" is as correct and as natural as listing Carl XVI Gustaf as "The King". I suppose you share that opinion, Martin Hogbin, though you might be persuaded that both are unsuitable. Surtsicna (talk) 12:42, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * My argument would be that a line of succession refers to people not the positions or titles of people, thus the first in line for the British throne should be Charles, Prince of Wales not 'The Prince of Wales', however, I note that this nomenclature is not used in this article or in Line of succession to the British throne. To be consistent with the way that this and other article have been written, I guess 'The Crown Princess' should be used (assuming this title is unique to one individual) but personally I think that 'Crown Princess Victoria' or  'Victoria, The Crown Princess' would be better.  I am sorry that this does not help you very much. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:13, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you! You were asked for a neutral 3O and I see no need for you to apologize for giving it. You were very helpful to the solution of the issue, and that, I assume, was your main intention. You helped both of us resolve it, and I now hope that your valued opinion will be respected. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:55, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * As do I. Surtsicna (talk) 14:17, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I see no consensus here to support the coninued listing of Victoria simply as "The Crown Princess", which I still contend, in this particular case, is a Wikipedia invention. I do see 3 to 1 against using that invention. ---SergeWoodzing (talk) 02:55, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I've reverted your revert to "Crown Princess Victoria" because you justify it on the grounds of: 1stly, a "3 to 1" consensus that I cannot see (the 3O ends by supporting the alternative, "To be consistent with the way that this and other article have been written, I guess 'The Crown Princess' should be used (assuming this title is unique to one individual)...)", and Marbe166, while initially agreeing with you above, most recently prefers a compromise as noted in this edit summary which you have reverted, so I count 3 to 1 opinions expressed against "Crown Princess Victoria": Surtsicna, the 3O and Marbe166 versus you alone in support. 2ndly, while you are entitled to adhere to your opinion regardless, I cannot see how you have established here that "The Crown Princess" is "a Wikipedia invention", since two reputable links have been cited refuting that assertion. At this point you appear to be editing against consensus. FactStraight (talk) 05:29, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * You seem to have missed that "I think that 'Crown Princess Victoria' or 'Victoria, The Crown Princess' would be better" (Martin Hogbin) and "They should be listed as Crown Princess Victoria, Duchess of Västergötland ..." (Marbe166) are what I was going by, not having seen anything on this talk page where they changed those final opinions of theirs.
 * I find it inappropriate to argue any issue in edit summaries when such argument has begun, and should continue, on a talk page - don't you?
 * I have also not seen one single source (such as you claim there is) where Victoria is mentioned on any kind of a list (except here as a Wikipedia invention) as "The Crown Princess" only. Where have you seen that? Please! If I'm wrong about that, I'll be glad to apologize. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:03, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Because I have still seen no reference whatsoever where Victoria is listed simply as "The Crown Princess", I have to correct this Wikipedia invention again soon. And I respectfullly ask that the way her name is given on lists (not in text or section titles or anywhere else) be discussed here, since that is the only thing that this entire thread is supposed to be about and that is the only change made to the article - the way Victoria's name is given on a list. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 01:07, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Please don't be disruptive and respect the consensus. I've presented a number of instances in which she is called "The Crown Princess" on the official website, including this list. I can hardly believe we are discussing something this obvious. Surtsicna (talk) 07:58, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Please stop making personal accusations and dramatic personal outbursts!
 * The only list on that page is at the bottom of it where she clearly is listed as "Crown Princess Victoria".
 * That's what I've been saying now over and over.
 * Please provide a reference where there is a list on which she is called only "The Crown Princess" as she is in the Wikipedia invention here! Unless you do, or someone else does, the Wikipedia invention must be removed. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:59, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * "Personal accusations and dramatic personal outbursts"? "LOL" appears to be the best response to this fit of absurdity. I'd advise you not to make such claims in cases where it's plain and obvious that what you are saying is ridiculous. Asking you not to be disruptive, after your announcement that you would soon resume editing against the consensus (despite having been warned about that by FactStraight), hardly qualifies as "personal accusations and dramatic personal outbursts". The links I provided were sufficient to three people; you obviously have no intention of accepting anything as a proof that you are wrong, and therefore I don't see why I should bother beating this dead horse anymore. Surtsicna (talk) 14:13, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Editors, please note: There has in fact not been one single reference given here that shows Victoria on any list anywhere given as just "The Crown Princess". The claims made that such links and references have been given are all incorrect - every single one of them. They all show that she - obviously, sometimes! - is named as "the Crown Princess" in text, but never once on any list. My complaint here was and is still that she should not be on a list in this article either, named in such a format. Thus I am reverting this again to remove the Wikipedia invention in this article. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:51, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

PS the latest version, before I just corrected this again now, was even worse "The Crown Princess, Duchess of Västergötland". Totally unheard of anywhere. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:56, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

List reference has not been given
I have tried to correct a Wikipedia invention in this article where Crown Princess Victoria now is listed as "The Crown Princess, Duchess of Västergötland". (See previous section!) It is unheard of to list her that way. One editor, who invented this, keeps reverting my correction - last with this edit Summary: ''You've already been asked by two users not to disrupt. I am asking you again. Please don't. The evidence is there, and it was deemed sufficient by three people. Please do not edit against the consensus, as that's clearly disruptive.''

The issue has now changed from whether or not it is appropriate to list Victoria merely as The Crown Princess" or (even more far-fetched) as "The Crown Princess, Duchess of Västergötland", to whether or not it has been shown at all that she is listed thus elsewhere. My standpoint is this:
 * 1) No reference has been given which shows on any list anywhere that Victoria has ever been listed merely as "The Crown Princess" or (even more far-fetched) as "The Crown Princess, Duchess of Västergötland";
 * 2) I have not been disruptive in trying to get this corrected, only steadfastly factual (and no other editors have warned me about being disruptive or called me that);
 * 3) There is actually no evidence whatsoever to support an incorrect assumption that Victoria should be listed here in a totally different way than she has ever been listed anywhere else.

I am now reverting this again until a specific link has been provided to show her mentioned on a list anywhere else as "The Crown Princess" or (even more far-fetched) as "The Crown Princess, Duchess of Västergötland". --SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:44, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Your standpoint has been duly noted. Mine is:
 * Yes, a reference has been given, even though this is as plain and simple as listing her parents as "The King" and "The Queen".
 * Yes, you have been, and yes, you have been warned and told not to be disruptive by two other users.
 * Yes, there is. The fact that three users have reverted your edits, with another one agreeing with that, means that there are four people who believe the presented "evidence" is sufficient. Surtsicna (talk) 19:04, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Since no link, reference of otherwise applicable info has been given yet which shows Victoria elsewhere on any kind of list while called "The Crown Princess" or "The Crown Princess, Duchess of Västergötland", I am asking again that such info be specifically provided here. References in Swedish, in that case, need to show her on such a list as "Kronprinsessan" or "Kronprinsessan, hertiginnan av Västergötland" without her name Victoria mentioned. I am convinced that no such list (other than the Wikipedia invention here) exists. That's why I am unwilling to let the invention stand. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:03, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd prefer not to have to revert this error again without additional input from neutral editors. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 01:20, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Unless a source is provided within a day or two that shows Victoria on any other list anywhere named as "The Crown Princess, Duchess of Västergötland" I will be correcting that WP invention again. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:52, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Ambiguity in the Act of Succession that affects the Wikipedia article
The Swedish Act of Succession says (Art.1) that all legitimate (male or female) descendants of King Carl XVI Gustaf are in the line of succession to the throne. However, the criteria for exclusion from the line of succession mentioned in the article, i.e. marrying without the government's consent or becoming the sovereign ruler of a foreign country without the King's consent, strictly speaking apply only to a "prince or princess of the Royal House of Sweden". Similarly, again taking the text of the act literally, the exclusion of individuals who do not profess the Lutheran faith applies only to a "member of the Royal Family".

As of today, that distinction is moot since all people currently in the line of succession happen to be also princes or princesses of Sweden and members of the Royal Family. However, in the future, unless we assume that all descendants of King Carl XVI Gustaf are ad infinitum automatically members of the Royal House or Royal Family (which would be absurd), a situation will arise when there might be people in the line of succession who might not be princes/princesses of Sweden. It will be unclear then if those people can be non-Lutherans for example and still be in the line of succession.

That unsolved legal question might actually come up earlier than previously thought when Princess Madeleine gives birth to her first child. If the child becomes an HRH as the Royal House appears to be indicating now, then I assume Art.4 of the Act of Succession applies and the child forfeits his/her succession rights if he/she is not brought up in the Lutheran faith and in Sweden, which is also a controversial point based on the text of law only, but apparently is the understanding of the King's attorney. However, if the child is not created a prince/princess of Sweden and remains untitled like his/her father, does Art.4 cease to apply ? 161.24.19.112 (talk) 20:49, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Astute observation, except that the "ambiguity" is potential, not real, and therefore addressing it in this article would be speculative. The King has forestalled the issue becoming a real constitutional conundrum by announcing prior to his younger daughter's delivery that the grandchild will enjoy a royal title (the style of "HRH" itself, is irrelevant since European dynasties have not invariably restricted it to princely dynasts -- e.g., Alfonso, Duke of Anjou and Cadiz, or Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh between the day before his wedding on 20 November 1947 and 22 February 1957). Madeleine's baby, it has been declared, will be a prince or princess of Sweden, and therefore fully subject to all the legal restrictions on dynasts, i.e., must marry with the Sovereign's prior consent, must be "of pure evangelical faith" (Swedish Lutheran), must be raised in Sweden, etc. While I agree that making all descendants of every monarch princes and princesses ad infinitum would be overkill, that is the reductio ad absurdum their subjects have set the Bernadottes by broadening male to absolute primogeniture in succession to the crown: That principle will  greatly expand royal families just as their governments (and critics) are bent on shrinking them. Let us hope they don't resolve it by adopting such labyrinthine and ever-changing formulae for titulature and succession rights as the Netherlands has resorted to for the poor Orange-Nassau progeny! Meanwhile, until the Swedes do restrict the royal princely title somehow, I don't see any doubt about the applicability of the laws' intrusive restrictions to an ever-widening pool of Carl XVI Gustaf's descendants -- nowadays, it's hard out here for a Prince! LOL.  FactStraight (talk) 04:27, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Dispute resolution alternatives
I have taken the listing off of the WP:3O page because a 3O was already provided. I suggest you post a WP:RFC on the question and advertise same on the Sweden and Royalty Project talk pages. – S. Rich (talk) 02:05, 14 October 2013 (UTC) PS: In the meantime, I've added this article to my watchlist. I'll opine when I see the RfC. Thanks. 02:16, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I am doing so now, but feel uncertain as to whether or not I'm doing it correctly, never having done this before in all these years. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:43, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

RFC
Has a reference been given to refute a claim that a Wikipedia invention has been added to a list in the article or has no such reference been given? Since I have seen no link, reference of otherwise applicable info yet which clearly shows that Victoria appears elsewhere on any kind of list in any language called only "The Crown Princess" or "The Crown Princess, Duchess of Västergötland", I am asking again that such info be specifically provided here. References in Swedish, in that case, need to show her on such a list as "Kronprinsessan" or "Kronprinsessan, hertiginnan av Västergötland" without her name Victoria mentioned in the primary listing. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:43, 23 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't see such a reference, and finding one (or even several) such, IMAO, would not settle the issue, as that reference could be erroneous. Translating and/or transliterating titles and styles between countries and languages and dictionaries and encyclopedias is fraught with difficulties. There is, I am sure, a proper way (or perhaps several proper ways) to do this in Swedish; and I am also sure that those in Sweden who know such things have an opinion as to how to correctly say this in English (they may not know Wikipedia's rules.) There's even a handy place to ask them -- the Swedish Wikipedia. I would invite editors from there to participate here, in this discussion, but don't know how. htom (talk) 18:38, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I participate there and also have invited others who do to comment here. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:50, 23 October 2013 (UTC)


 * The official website of the Swedish monarchy lists her as "H.R.H. Crown Princess Victoria" in English and "H.K.H. Kronprinsessan Victoria" in Swedish . I think we should follow them, so I agree with SergeWoodzing. Neljack (talk) 06:10, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that her name, Victoria, should definitely be included per WP:RS, so I agree with SergeWoodzing. I could live with "Duchess..." being added, or being kept out, but it might be best to go with RS and leave it out. As an explanation, there is no tradition in Sweden for the heir apparent or first born to always be the Duke or Duchess of a particular province; it is a bit more of a rotating scheme where a province that hasn't had one for a long time get a royal child attached. Thus, the Duke/Duchess [of something] doesn't in any way influence the order of succession and is thus not very important for the subject of this article. Tomas e (talk) 12:31, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I see that this RfC was generated from an edit war between the nominator and User:Surtsicna over a matter of a stylistic listing. WP:BRD isn't just a good idea folks, it's the law.  In any case, it appears Neljack has provided an answer.  Please add the appropriate references and close this RfC.  Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 02:10, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ (edit) but I don't know how to close this RFC. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:40, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi SergeWoodzing, it's quite a simple task. Please Read: WP:RfC. I will do that for You, in the next Edit. Thanks !! ← Abstruce  07:28, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Princess Leonore
The name and titles of Princess Leonore has been published and referenced. She does not yet have a biography page on the royalcourt.se web page, but her position in the order of succession is not determined by any text on that web site. It is determined by the Act of Succession. This says in Article 1:

The right of succession to the throne of Sweden is vested in the male and female descendants of King Carl XVI Gustaf, Crown Prince Johan Baptist Julii, later King Karl XIV Johan’s, issue in direct line of descent. In this connection, older siblings and their descendants have precedence over younger siblings and their descendants.

That Princess Leonore as Princess Madeleine's first borne child comes after her in the order of succession is quite clear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.72.127.173 (talk) 17:44, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Certainly, but what goes into this article is determined by what sources say. See WP:Verifiability. Surtsicna (talk) 18:38, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I would think that the burdon of proof is on the side that claims that she is not in the order of succession, in contradiction of the law. Or is the law not a verifiable source?  Anyway, here is a source that says she is in the order of succession:  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.72.127.173 (talk) 21:15, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * What you're doing is called Synthesis WP:SYN and we don't do that. Not listing her yet is not removing her from the order of succession, it's just not listing her yet. htom (talk) 04:26, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't agree that it is synthesis. The law states that all descendants of King Carl XVI Gustaf are in the succession. It is also stated in numerous articles of which I originally referenced one that Princess Leonore is Princess Madeleine's daughter. The WP:SYN states that "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources". That Princess Leonore is in the order of succession is not an independent conclusion based on two sources. It is in fact stated in one of the sources, the Act of Succession. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.72.127.173 (talk) 05:56, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The Act does not say that Leonore is in the line. It says that legitimate descendants of Carl XVI Gustaf are in the line. It does not mention Leonore anywhere. You have a source that says that Leonore is the daughter of Madeleine, and a source that says Madeleine is the daughter of Carl XVI Gustaf, and a source that says Carl XVI Gustaf's descendants are in the line. You are combining two or even three sources to come up with the conclusion that she is in the line. I have no idea how that is not a breach of WP:SYNTHESIS to you, given that it is a textbook example of synthesis. Surtsicna (talk) 16:04, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, in What SYNTH is not point 19 it is also stated that what is disallowed is original research by synthesis. If I had stated for instance that descendants of King Carl XVI Gustaf must be raised in Sweden to remain in the succession and that Princess Leonore is a descendant of the King, this means that she must be raised in Sweden. That would be an incorrect assertion. Here however we have no gray area no new information being inferred.78.72.127.173 (talk) 19:43, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * You are wrong - plain and simple. If you insist that you are not, take it to Wikipedia talk:No original research or ask someone knowledgeable (TransporterMan?). Surtsicna (talk) 20:32, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I am not advancing a position, or making a debatable statement. I am stating a fact that follows from the wording of a law. It does not even matter if Princess Leonore received a title or not, she would be in the order of succession regardless if she was a plain Miss O'Neill. I occasionally update Wikipedia articles when I discover something that is not correct or when, as in this case, a current event means the text in the article is outdated. I agree that debatable statements has no place in an article. This however, is not a debatable statement. It is sad when Wikipedia Policy is driven to extremes such that it deters occasional editors from contributing. I don't think we will get any further in this, I know that I can't be bothered to state the obvious repeatedly to no avail.78.72.127.173 (talk) 21:12, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Princess Leonore's status is still unclear IMHO. As a legitimate descendant of King Carl XVI Gustaf, she is currently in the line of succession to the throne under the terms of the Act of Succession. The fact that the King chose to grant her the title of "Princess of Sweden" and a royal duchy seems to confirm that. However, under the same Act of Succession, as a princess of the Royal House, she will lose her succession rights if she is not raised as a Lutheran and in Sweden. I expect her to be baptized in the Lutheran church (even though Chris O'Neill is Catholic), but the O'Neill couple has indicated they have no plans to move back to Sweden anytime soon. It is hard to imagine then that Princess Leonore will be "raised in Sweden" as required by Swedish law. 161.24.19.112 (talk) 14:45, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with you on everything but your position on WP:Synthesis. In that regard, you are wrong. Imagine what would happen if all editors took it upon themselves to interpret laws. Otherwise, you have a valid point. Surtsicna (talk) 23:11, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually the text that i referenced from SVT states that Princess Leonore will be going to Swedish school and that is deemed enough to satisfy the raised in Sweden requirement.78.72.127.173 (talk) 19:43, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Princess Leonore's status is not at all unclear. She is a descendant of the King so she is currently in line. That however does not mean that she cannot lose her status if the requirements are not met. It is certainly not unheard of or even uncommon, two of the current king's uncles lost their succession rights under the previous Act of Succession for marrying without the consent of the king.78.72.127.173 (talk) 21:12, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The plan has been announced now by the court that she will live in Sweden by the age of 6 and attend Swedish schools. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 03:34, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Repeated additon of lengthy history of line of succession
This keeps getting removed and rightly so for 2 reasons (1) there is WP:Undue weight given to the that recent history as opposed to history from 1809 or even further back for that matter, and (2) the English used is so substandard that it would need lots of work to correct. I am removing it again now and asking that it not be added again, especally not with all kinds of grammatical errors. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:56, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Minority of Monarch?
What happens when the current King and Crown Princess Victoria should both die? And at what age would Princess Estelle assume the crown?

An administrative government ("förmyndarregering") would be appointed. Estelle would assume full regnal duties on her 18th birthday. --Marbe166 (talk) 16:32, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Broken link to act of succession
The first reference link doesn't work. I assume it was functional but has changed. There's this but it's in swedish. Anyone know where an english copy of the act of succession can be gotten? Of course we can in the meantime use a swedish link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EpicR (talk • contribs) 21:00, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Succession beyond the current King's descendants
This article is a little unclear as where the succession goes beyond the immediate Royal Family. Is the succession limited by law to the current King's descendants, is it the case that every other sibling, uncle/aunt, cousin etc either had no children or were removed for "unequal marriages" or is there an heir beyond the immediate family in case of a King Ralph style tragedy? Timrollpickering (talk) 13:38, 22 April 2024 (UTC)