Talk:Victoria, Crown Princess of Sweden

Succession
I wonder if the anon user who objects to accuracy and neutrality could explain the reason for his reverts here. His edit summaries are unclear. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  04:33, 11 January 2011 (UTC)


 * There is no "anon user who objects to accuracy and neutrality", because there have been no such objections. I suppose you mean me, though.  The edit-summaries, "stick to the topic", "Stick to topic & avoid pedantry", and "better writing", seem quite self-explanatory, taken together with the edits themselves.  Perhaps if you explained your seeming confusion, I could help you to understand.  64.180.177.195 (talk) 06:17, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Reverting accurate, clear, and neutral edits, as you did, would indicate an objection to them. As my edits were also on topic - namely the Princess' place in lines of succession - and "pedantry" is a subjective opinion, your summaries didn't clarify anything at all, other than perhaps a misunderstanding of the subject matter, on your part. Is that the case? -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  06:38, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that it has been a bit confusing to try to follow recent edits, the reasons for them and some of the unnecessarily masterful language in the summaries. Condescension from anonymous IP users can get on anybody's nerves. In any case, there is nothing non-neutral or POV-y about the British succession here. All legitimate Swedish royalty descending from the current king's grandmother Margaret of Connaught are in that succession. That is such common knowledge and so well-documented elswehere that I don't even see any urgent reason to source it here. SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:13, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It's the old British monarchy vs 16 Commonwealth monarchies argument, all over again. GoodDay (talk) 17:15, 11 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Condescension from anonymous IPs who follow one around Wikipedia to revert one's edits is particularly bad for the nerves.
 * Regardless, the singular focus on the British succession is biased because it excludes the other fifteen lines of succession in which Victoria holds a place. This pro-British point of view can be neutralised by the most minor rewording (though, additional work may need to be done to rectify the anon's other edits that didn't improve the sentence structure). I propose the following:
 * Through her father, a third cousin of Queen Elizabeth II, she is also in the line of succession to the thrones of the Commonwealth realms; unlike in Sweden, however, that line is governed by male preference primogeniture, meaning it places Victoria behind her younger brother, Carl Philip. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  18:23, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Cool. GoodDay (talk) 19:30, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Her father is related to E2R through Margaret - those are not separate heritages. SergeWoodzing (talk) 01:01, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Can anyone explain why there is a tag now that questions whether or not V is in line for the British throne (she is!), notwithstanding male or female precedence or the thrones of other countries? Shouldn't the reason for the tag be clear enough to show why it's there? SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:10, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I assume it's because the argument is being made that Vicky is in line for the British, Canadian, Australian, New Zealand etc etc thrones. GoodDay (talk) 23:19, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That would hardly be clear to a reader who sees a tag that looks like her heritage itself is in question, not how many thrones - or the gender issues. Can it be done so that we don't have that problem? If not, I'd like to remove the tag and let the discussion suffice. SergeWoodzing (talk) 01:01, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Remove the tag, since there's nobody disputing that Vicky is in the succession for the British throne. GoodDay (talk) 01:39, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅. SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:09, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why everyone here is speaking about a tag as though it were a  tag. There's a big difference. Victoria's place in the succession isn't questioned, it's the exclusion of the realms other than Britain that's at issue. Is there any objection to my proposed sentence above? --  Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  18:41, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The tag, where it was and how it looked, could only be interpreted by a regular reader as a tag questioning the neutrality of her heritage itself, not of how many thrones are involved or whether or not men go before women. That's why I removed it the first time and that's why I removed it again.
 * As to the question you want discussed, I see no way, in this article, to cover everything about all those thrones and all the gender issuses. It's not for an article about just one of the hundred's of heirs to cover that. It needs to be addressed in some other way, more generally.
 * What I do think is that only the first 20-30 people in line for Elizabeth's thrones should have any of this in their articles at all. It becomes rather irrelevant when you are the two-hundred-and-eleventh in line or so. That specialty knowledge can be looked up by especially interested readears in special articles about that heritage. SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:44, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * (See below) Are you planning on making changes in the British throne succession box, too? GoodDay (talk) 19:46, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not planning anything with that. Just giving my opinions. Would love to see the British succession removed from any bio page where a person is over 20th-30th in line or so. But I'm not going to do anything about it myself. 19:51, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Question meant for Mies. GoodDay (talk) 20:12, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I've introduced a compromise. I think it is silly to expect the average reader to know what the Commonwealth thrones are without mentioning the UK. As such, I've changed it to "British and other Commonwealth thrones". While Elizabeth is clearly as much Queen of Canada as she is Queen of the UK, most people best understand her has the latter, so the writing should reflect that. After all, writing is about conveying information to readers; if we want the best way to convey who she is distantly in line to succeed, we should make sure we include the information most likely to fill in that blank. -Rrius (talk) 22:29, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That's an acceptable compromise for this article & other bios articles of people in that line of succession. The British throne succession boxes should get similiar 'pipe-linking' too. GoodDay (talk) 22:35, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, well done. SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:43, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

British throne succession box
Actually, if we go with Mies' argument, the British throne succession box of this article & a few other articles, would have to be re-named. See Frederik, Crown Prince of Denmark & Haakon, Crown Prince of Norway (for 2 examples). GoodDay (talk) 23:26, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * How meticulously detailed and how complicated do we have to get? Can't we just link to an article such as Commonwealth realms, that shows how many thrones are involved? SergeWoodzing (talk) 01:01, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd rather stick with British. GoodDay (talk) 01:38, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Succession rights to the British throne disputed
An anonymous commentator argued on one of the Wikipedia's talk pages that, since the King Carl Gustaf's mother, Princess Sybilla of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, married without asking the consent of the British monarch, her marriage is legally invalid in the UK under the Royal Marriages Act. Therefore, the King and his subsequent descendants, including Princess Victoria, would be illegitimate issue under British law and, thus, excluded from the line of succession to the UK throne. What does Wikipedia have to say about that ? 161.24.19.112 (talk) 16:16, 11 November 2013 (UTC)


 * the rule only apply to the first 6 in line for throne (2601:40:C001:8713:8876:8F3B:AC90:E57B (talk) 23:00, 15 August 2015 (UTC))


 * I think that's true now, with the recent change in the British Commonwealth Realms succession law, but it wasn't true then. —Tamfang (talk) 03:13, 3 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Exactly. The marriage of Margaret of Connaught to Gustaf VI Adolf of Sweden obtained the required approval of Edward VII. But that of their son to Princess Sybilla of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha did not. Therefore the marriage never existed in British law, thus Carl XVI Gustaf of Sweden and his sisters were born outside of marriage, are not lawful descendants of Margaret of Connaught, and Crown Princess Victoria, though twice descended from Britain's Queen Victoria, is not in the line of succession to the UK throne. Ironically, this is not the case for Margaret's descendants through morganatic marriages, nor is Margrethe II of Denmark's claim to the British throne impaired even though her place in the line of British succession derives from her Connaught ancestress. FactStraight (talk) 06:38, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * So the son of Sigvard Prince Bernadotte (Luxembourg title) is in line? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:10, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

The Royal Marriages Act 1772 had an exception for issue of princesses who had married or might thereafter marry "into foreign families".47.139.41.212 (talk) 01:39, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Motherhood

 * On 17 August 2011, the Swedish royal court announced that Crown Princess Victoria was pregnant and expecting the couple's first child in March 2012. On 23 February 2012 at 04:26 CET, Victoria gave birth to Princess Estelle [...]
 * On 4 September 2015, the royal court announced that Crown Princess Victoria was expecting her second child in March 2016. On 2 March 2016, she gave birth to a son.

Any objection to deleting the first sentence of each of these paragraphs? —Tamfang (talk) 03:09, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Victoria, Crown Princess 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/20130718130621/http://www.radiohjalpen.se/kronprinsessan-victorias-fond-1 to http://www.radiohjalpen.se/kronprinsessan-victorias-fond-1
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.kungahuset.se/pressrum/pressmeddelanden/2011/kronprinsessparetvantarbarnthecrownprincesscoupleisexpectingachild.5.70e7de59130bc8da54e80002337.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160205212300/http://falkadb.forseti.is/orduskra/fal03.php?term=Victoria&sub= to http://falkadb.forseti.is/orduskra/fal03.php?term=Victoria&sub=
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120402202945/http://svt.se/svt/jsp/Crosslink.jsp?d=36100 to http://svt.se/svt/jsp/Crosslink.jsp?d=36100

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) 23:03, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Ancestry
Leave this here until there are better sources Sheila1988 (talk) 10:33, 23 April 2019 (UTC) On her father's side, Victoria is descended from the House of Bernadotte (Swedish royal family); the House of Windsor (British royal family), including her namesake Queen Victoria; and the House of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg (Danish royal family). Her mother, Queen Silvia, is descended from German Brazilians.

I don't see the relevance of this chart. The only notable ancestors on her mother's side are her grandparents. Why we need random names such as Sophie Schmidt is beyond me. Surtsicna (talk) 16:30, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The chart isn't of important ancestors. The chart is just of ancestors. The relative obscurity of some of the ancestors is itself notable.Flyte35 (talk) 16:39, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * We don't need the names to inform the readers that here ancestors are obscure. "Victoria's mother descends from upper middle class Germans and Brazilians" does that perfectly. Surtsicna (talk) 11:44, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Again, the chart isn't of important ancestors. The chart is just of ancestors. We could also say that her "father descends from European royalty" and it would be perfectly accurate, but it wouldn't convey as much information as the ancestry chart. The relevance of ancestry charts is that they convey information about people's ancestors. That's the only relevancy that matters. Flyte35 (talk) 15:40, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Her father's descent is what makes her the future head of state of Sweden. This chart does not convey any information about her mother's ancestors. That her mother's mother's father's mother was called Maria Julia de Toledo Barros is of no relevance at all; it does not convey any information about that person or about the subject of this article. Surtsicna (talk) 16:18, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * That's an argument about the importance of genealogy itself. Perhaps you believe that only notable ancestors should be included in genealogical charts in Wikipedia. But that's a more general discussion about Wikipedia content. For this article the relevance of this chart is that it provides information about the ancestors of this subject. As you know, because we have discussed this exact same thing before, it's standard to include these charts for royalty and ruling families, whose chief notability lies in their kinships rather than their individual deeds. These charts are included because readers expect to find some background on ancestry that indicates the person's status, origin, order in the succession, multi-nationality, familial rise, degree of pedigree collapse, etc. If you believe that should not be the case, it would probably be more effective for you to discuss that in a more general forum. Flyte35 (talk) 19:17, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, this chart provides information about the subject's ancestors, but people like Emiliano Batista Soares and Johann Friedrich Waldau are irrelevant to the topic of this article, which makes that information irrelevant. "It's standard to include" because somebody spread these charts without any discussion. They are certainly not standard in biographies outside Wikipedia. Victoria's origin, order in the succession, multi-nationality, familial rise, etc, are impossible to deduce from mere names. And I strongly disagree with your suggestion that the chief notability of Crown Princess Victoria, a woman who has spent her entire life in service to Sweden, lies in her kinship to some Brazilian bourgeoisie rather than in her own deeds. Surtsicna (talk) 20:08, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * It's standard to include this sort of information in these sorts of articles. If you don't think that should be the case I recommend you start a discussion in a more general forum. Flyte35 (talk) 21:29, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Where does it say it's the standard? Where is the discussion that led to the standard? Surtsicna (talk) 21:45, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The fact that so many royalty-related articles have such charts, and so often defend their retention when removed, has made them standard and means that they have been compiled and included deliberately by individual Wikipedia editors who thought the data important enough to edit in -- just like every other edit to this encyclopedia. Far more contributors have added or corrected them than objected to them. That reflects the fact that ancestry is among the kinds of information that those who look up royalty -- persons whose familial kinships contribute substantially to their notability -- seek, far more than is true for people who are of interest for other reasons. That observation is supported and reflected in the fact that ancestry charts are only exceptionally included in the biographies of non-royal, non-noble persons. I concur with the point expressed above by Flyte35 that the relative obscurity, as well as diversity, of some of the ancestors of this royal are notable and of interest, reflecting a pattern historically unlike those of most of her predecessors as heirs apparent. While it is duly noted that you find such information and some persons included therein irrelevant -- which is why it is accessible to you only if you actively choose to see it -- others of us do find it relevant for the reasons stated. FactStraight (talk) 03:40, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * There's actually a discussion, in which Surtsicna is involved, going on about precisely how to present genealogy over here, FactStraight. I think that's probably the place to have the most productive discussion. Flyte35 (talk) 04:11, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * So many royalty-related articles have such charts because they were copy-pasted without discussion and in many cases against vehement opposition (e.g. Talk:Louis V of France). The mere name of Victoria's mother's father's father's mother tells us nothing about Victoria. Surtsicna (talk) 08:57, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * So many royalty-related articles now lack such charts because they are being deleted without discussion and in some cases against express interest (e.g. Talk:Prince Edward, Duke of Kent). The name of Victoria's mother's father's father's mother tells you nothing about Victoria. It tells me and others ancestral information we value and seek in Wikipedia bios. FactStraight (talk) 14:49, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * So what does the name Johann Friedrich Waldau tell you about Victoria? Surtsicna (talk) 20:37, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * It tells me that he was a relatively recent ancestor of the Crown Princess, that this ancestor himself did not belong to the royal class to which most recent royal ancestors belong -- let alone to one of the dynasties most connected to the House of Bernadotte, nor to Sweden's significant nobility or prominent families, nor to any other notable family, all of which is information I care about and look to Wikipedia's Ahnentafels to allude to. FactStraight (talk) 19:19, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The name itself does not tell you any of that unless you know by heart all the royal families of the world and all the noble and prominent families in Sweden. I dare say that you do not and that our readers do not either. All you get from "Johann Friedrich Waldau" is that the man's name was Johann Friedrich and that his last name was Waldau. Surtsicna (talk) 22:41, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * It's clearly too detailed and irrelevant. If the purpose is to show the ordinariness of her maternal relations and the royal connections through her paternal relations, then that's done simply by saying who her grandparents are. Great-grandparents might be reasonable, to show Gustaf VI Adolf and the first four unlinked commoners. But great-great-grandparents? Obvious overkill. Celia Homeford (talk) 14:08, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The contentions that ancestry table content under discussion is "clearly" too detailed and irrelevant, and "obvious" overkill contradict facts evident in this discussion, inasmuch as experienced editors express interest in retaining that content in this article and explain why. Such assertions are dismissive of the views of fellow editors and are unhelpful in resolving content disagreements. FactStraight (talk) 14:49, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I recommend that other editors leave this alone here and participate in the more general discussion about policy over at the Template: Ahnentafel talk page.Flyte35 (talk) 15:26, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Found no such discussion when I followed that link. What this is all about, in essence, is whether or not Wikipedia should be allowed to be used as a genealogy site for name-dropping of a large amount of non-notable persons, not only in so-called Ahnentafel (isn't there an English word?) but in may other places. I am a firm believer that it should not. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:40, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Ancestry and kinship are of unique importance for royalty and nobility, wherein positions of historical importance and/or power, and territory or possessions that contribute to their notability are entirely or partially allocated on the basis of heredity. I seek allusions to that background as of historical. political and/or social interest, and find Ahnentafels a compact, inobtrusive and useful way to guide me toward that info. I agree that detailed ancestral information is much less likely to be documented or of interest for notable individuals who are not royal or noble. But since the vast majority of Wikipedia bios are not about such persons, including this info is adding such material to a small percentage of articles. FactStraight (talk) 19:19, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Victoria's descent from Johann Friedrich Waldau and Emiliano Batista Soares has nothing to do with her royal status, "historical importance and/or power, and territory or possessions". Surtsicna (talk) 22:41, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The fact that Victoria's descent through this maternal ancestor and others is not a source of her royal status her royal status, "historical importance and/or power, and territory or possessions" makes her exceptional among royal heirs apparent, and learning of such exceptions is not only of interest in itself, but also tells me what I do not see a need to research for evidence of such factors. Information about who her recent ancestors are, tells me who they are not, and I find that guidance helpful. FactStraight (talk) 20:34, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The names themselves do not tell you that. That her mother's father's mother's father was a Johann Friedrich Waldau does not tell you that Victoria is any kind of exception nor does it tell you who he was or who he was not. Surtsicna (talk) 18:34, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
 * If you don't find that learning the name of Crown Princess Victoria's "mother's father's mother's father" indicates to you who that person was, who he could not have been and, if that person was "Johann Friedrich Waldau", how her ancestry is atypical of Europe's crown princesses, alas, I cannot help you. FactStraight (talk) 03:41, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The link is wrong. The discussion is actually at Template talk:Ahnentafel. You are right, this name-dropping does not concern only extensive lists of non-notable ancestors but also extensive lists of non-notable descendants such as this or this. Simply put, WP:NOTGENEALOGY applies. Surtsicna (talk) 20:37, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Your views are inexplicably inflexible. It is virtually impossible that five generations are what's needed in every article. It is virtually impossible that no biography requires that a sixth-generation ancestor be named and that no biography needs only four generations. Your views on this topic go against the essence of Wikipedia. Your views go against standard biographical practice since this 5-generation-ahnentafel format is not normally used by biographers. In this particular case, no reputable publication on Victoria mentions any Johann Friedrich Waldau. That's what makes the ahnentafel "clearly too detailed and irrelevant". Surtsicna (talk) 20:37, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * No one contends that exactly five generations of ancestral information is needed in every royal biography, because no specific datum is ever needed or required in any article if unavailable, other than evidence of notability. But there is no ban on additional information, and when available and considered contributory to understanding the subject's notability, it often is included and few articles lack some such details. Ancestral information on royalty is of interest and assistive in contextualizing most royalty at least to me, to those who enter it in articles, to some of those who correct or update it, and to others who in several recent discussions on this issue have expressed that they find it suitable and of value. There is no requirement that it be of interest to specific editors or to everyone: that is not the criterion of inclusion for information. Five generations has become typical in Wikipedia biographies of royalty, except in those recently, unilaterally truncated in spite of this ongoing discussion of the matter, suggesting that five generations garners a level of interest that has been editorially expressed by the editor who uploaded it, and which Flyte35 and I, at the least, find useful, standard and therefore support. As we have both agreed to different numbers of generations in specific cases following discussion, we have demonstrated appropriate flexibility. FactStraight (talk) 19:19, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * That Victoria's mother's father's mother's father was someone named Johann Friedrich Waldau does not contribute to "understanding the subject's notability". That much is evident from the fact that no reputable publication on Victoria even mentions a Johann Friedrich Waldau. There is no requirement that information be of interest to someone or to everyone but there is a requirement that all data be put "in context with explanations referenced to independent sources". The ahnentafeln never provide this context. The names are merely dropped. That five generations has become typical is due to template creep, not due to objective benefits of having five rather than six or four generations. Surtsicna (talk) 22:41, 28 April 2019 (UTC)g
 * I don't see convincing evidence that template creep is the source of that standard, rather than its reflection of a common level of interest in such information when expressed in the Ahnentafel format. It certainly suggests that to me as seen in Wikipedia for several years now. No precise number of generations is either prescribed or proscribed, but I find five generations a typical, reasonable, useful and appropriate number to include for Wikipedia articles on royalty, given that the information is included compactly and discreetly. If you would prefer more, I would support your recommendation because I would prefer more, but in a spirit of compromise I accept five generations as an acceptable compromise with those who prefer fewer. FactStraight (talk) 20:34, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * This information is included compactly and discreetly because it's not reasonable and useful. Useful information is not hidden on Wikipedia. Five generations is appropriate in some cases but not in all, and there should be a good reasoning behind the inclusion of the template and of each generation. Since these articles are biographies, this good reasoning should come from high quality biographical sources. If no biography of Victoria includes an ahnentafel or mentions Johann Friedrich Waldau, neither should we. It really is that simple. Surtsicna (talk) 18:34, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
 * If you prefer that the information not be hidden from readers as it is now, except for those who click on the "Ancestry" section, I am willing to support you on that. I and others have provided good reasoning for the inclusion of ancestral information on royalty in this format at these levels. That you disagree doesn't establish that it is not good reasoning, but that there is not unanimity about what "good reasoning" is for Wikipedia content. Surprise, surprise. Wikipedia includes information about topics that is included in other sources, including print sources which is the form in which most "high quality biography" has been published, but Wikipedia's formats allow for more information to be made available and targeted to interested readers. Ancestry tables for royalty is a good example of that which I and others appreciate and utilize. FactStraight (talk) 01:48, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * No, I prefer information to be included if it is found in reliable biographies of the subject. If it is not, it should not be hidden but excluded. This may sound harsh, but what you and "others" appreciate and utilize is significant only if some of you are published authors. If biographers provide a family tree that includes uncles, aunts, cousins, etc, but no great-great-grandparent, it means that an ahnentafel is not warranted. We are not here to assemble articles from whatever some of us find intriguing. Surtsicna (talk) 09:22, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Again, that isn't about this particular entry. That's about the template itself. If you think we should eliminate the template you can go make that argument.Flyte35 (talk) 03:43, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * My previous comment is very much about this entry (the subject is explicitly mentioned twice). Surtsicna (talk) 21:35, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Info box portrait
I just love the current info box photo. Let's not ever change it. It really shows her as she is. SergeWoodzing (talk) 07:04, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

"Mother: Silvia Sommerlath"
It is not in keeping with good encyclopedic work to mislead a reader into thinking that her parents were not married when she was born. The practice of always using a woman's maiden name in such context is a very poor one, no matter how unreasonably the policies of genealogical websites have influenced Wikipedia in such matters. SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:18, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Fully agree. The name at the birth should be used, it's a no-brainer. --Marbe166 (talk) 11:19, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Look at all her siblings. Their mother is listed as Silvia Sommerlath. Same for Haakon, Crown Prince of Norway and Princess Märtha Louise of Norway, their mother is listed as Sonja Haraldsen. In Denmark, the mother Christian, Crown Prince of Denmark and his siblings is listed as Mary Donaldson in their infoboxes. The mother of Elizabeth II and Princess Margaret, Countess of Snowdon This isn't limited to royalty either: George W. Bush's mother is listed in his infobox as Barbara Pierce. Beyoncé's mother is listed as Tina Lawson. All of that is it has existed for years and no concerns about confusion as to the parents' marital status have been brought up.
 * That being said, this is the sort of wide-ranging topic is best discussed elsewhere than on the relatively rarely-visited talk page of one article. estar8806 (talk) ★ 22:27, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Many wrongs don't make a right. However, you are right, it should be discussed on a higher level than on one single talkpage, but such a place is hard to find... --Marbe166 (talk) 12:42, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The argument about all those other gals is completely irrelevant as per WP:OTHERCONTENT. Most users with years of WP experience wouldn't even try that. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:55, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * You have to look at it from a genealogical perspective. Silvia Sommerlath is the only name that she has had of her own accord and not via marriage. Each individual is listed in the infobox with the highest title they held in their own right regardless of their gender. estar8806's examples are absolutely relevant. Keivan.f  Talk 22:53, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * This is about her name when Victoria was born. It was not Silvia Sommerlarth then. It's mainly about misleading readers to think that the mother was unmarried. The wording about a "highest title" is incomprehensible. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:57, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
 * For what it’s worth, her father, the current king, has his mother listed in his template as Princess Sibylla of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, not Princess Sibylla, Duchess of Västerbotten. 66.99.15.163 (talk) 15:40, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks to the IP for providing another example. We are under no obligation to change thousands of articles so that parents are listed by the names when their children were born. So what are you gonna do now? List Prince William's father as Charles, Prince of Wales since that was his name when the former was born, etc.? Yeah, this is actually the incomprehensible part; good luck getting consensus for that. Keivan.f  Talk 19:35, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I firmly believe that WP:OTHERCONTENT still is Wikipedia policy, not to be ignored at will. I also believe in our policy to comment on article content, not on othner editors, on article talk pages. SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:47, 10 May 2024 (UTC)