Talk:Wedding of Victoria, Crown Princess of Sweden, and Daniel Westling/Archive 1

Ground breaking titles - First Prince consort?
The article jumps over the question as to wether Sweden has had a prince consort before or not. Queen Ulrika Eleonora was married during her regin in 1718-1720. It is true that she abdicated in favour of her husband, but it does not change the fact that she was married to him during her reign. The article should clarify this. At present, this fact seem to be ignored in the article. --85.226.44.13 (talk) 14:12, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Get The Names of Guests Right
The correct form of address for Princess Benedikte and Princess Astrid have already been argued on their own Wikipedia pages. You can also look at their official pages: http://kongehuset.dk/publish.php?dogtag=k_en_fam_ben and http://www.monarchie.be/royal-family/princess-astrid If you know a woman prefers to be called by her birthname, it's disrespectful to call her anything else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.157.188.173 (talk) 22:35, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * First of all, the issue hasn't been discussed at Wikipedia pages. Our articles refer to them by their marital titles (even the titles of their articles). The website you've linked to refer to the Duke and Duchess of Brabant as Prince and Princess so that does not prove that the Archduchess of Austria-Este chose not to use that title. Besides, even the list of guests as reported by the news puts Benedikte among German royalty as Princess of Sayn-Wittgenstein-Berleburg!  Surtsicna (talk) 22:40, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Their Wikipedia pages have them principally as Princess Astrid and Princess Benedikte, that's why you had to resort to the pipe symbol to list them by the wrong names in the article. The Swedish guest list was full of mistakes, including saying that the king of Spain was coming when he wasn't. If you're saying that we can't use their own official webpages to prove their names, then default to their birth certificates rather than YOUR preference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.157.188.173 (talk) 22:58, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The title of the article about the Archduchess of Austria-Este is Princess Astrid of Belgium, Archduchess of Austria-Este. You can't seriously claim otherwise. This is not the right place to argue that Astrid is not Archduchess of Austria-Este or that Elisabeth is not Princess of Sayn-Wittgenstein-Berleburg. They hold those titles (at least in the eyes of their own families) and referring to them as such is not wrong. Please don't misquote me. I have never said that we can't use official websites to prove anything. I said that copying the usage of each official website would result in a ridiculous list, with "The Queen of Denmark" and "Queen Paola of Belgium", "The Prince of Asturias" and "Prince Philippe", etc. Besides, a list of guests is more authoritative in this case. Surtsicna (talk) 23:05, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect Commons link
The title of the commons link on the page does not match the Commons category title, which is Category:Wedding of Victoria, Crown Princess of Sweden, and Daniel Westling. I don't see how to correct this, because it seems to be some sort of template. Risker (talk) 00:03, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Name change
Was he really "Prince Daniel, Duke of Västergötland " before the marriage? All the sources I have seen explicitly say that he entered the church as Daniel Westling and left it as a prince. If that is true, the article should be moved back to Wedding of Victoria, Crown Princess of Sweden, and Daniel Westling. If it isn't, several Wiki articles need to be corrected. Even if he was a prince before his marriage, the current title of the article is too long and it can be shorter. Surtsicna (talk) 23:14, 19 June 2010 (UTC)


 * He was prince before he left the church → Aza Toth 23:18, 19 June 2010 (UTC)


 * But he was not prince before he entered the church, i.e. before he married the Crown Princess, right? Surtsicna (talk) 23:20, 19 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I've reverted the page move. My full summary (cut off in the history) was:
 * Reverted move. Per the talk page, that incorrectly conveys that he held the title *before* the wedding.  See Wedding of Charles, Prince of Wales, and Lady Diana Spencer.
 * —David Levy 00:35, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * He was not prince before entering the church. Theleftorium (talk) 08:27, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Threats of media boycott
I saw some headlines in Norwegian newspapers about international news agencies threatening to boycott the event over disagreements about the television rights. This doesn't seem to be mentioned in the article, or did I miss it? __meco (talk) 12:28, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

King and Queen of Bulgaria?
I know this a royal-themed page, but it seems very odd to list Simeon Saxe-Coburg-Gotha and his wife (whom he married long after his deposition) as "King and Queen of Bulgaria" without any sort of qualification. I know Simeon has never formally renounced his throne, but he also served as Prime Minister of Bulgaria and swore an oath to uphold the current (republican) constitution. And if we're going to use royal styles at all, shouldn't it be "tsar"? --Jfruh (talk) 01:41, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The guest list referred to them as King and Queen of Bulgaria. I wouldn't oppose "Tsar and Tsaritsa" but I would oppose "Mr and Mrs Sakskoburggotski" simply because the official guest list referred to them as King and Queen, and because they were invited as such, not as "the former Prime Minister and his wife". Surtsicna (talk) 10:43, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Is Wikipedia allowing the formal wedding invitations issued by royal families to define reality now? --Jfruh (talk) 13:37, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * What do you suggest? Should we mention them as "Mr and Mrs Sakskoburggotski" even though they were invited as King and Queen of Bulgaria? Surtsicna (talk) 13:46, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * With all due respect to royal protocol and to the not quite irrefutable defense that Wikipedia is merely regurgitating the official wedding list, the un-asterisked monarchist titulature here does seem POV at worst and slightly absurd at best. What's wrong with that time-honored euphemism "sometime"? As in "The (sometime) King and Queen of Bulgaria, or "Constantine II and Anne-Marie, (sometime) King and Queen of Greece" (yes, I know it should be "of the Hellenes", but...) If used, though, this should apply to any other deposed monarchs/consorts/crown princes. FactStraight (talk) 20:27, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't hesitate to answer "Yes!" to that question. -- Henriok (talk) 19:41, 20 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I also think that given names and/or countries are needed when the title obscures more than it reveals, e.g. "King and Queen of Jordan" (there are several Hashemite queens living and, even if there weren't the average reader -- interested in royalty only on the rare grand occasion -- shouldn't be expected to look them all up). Also, use of The sounds didactic. "The Prince and Princess of Preslav" could be "(Kyril and Rosario of Bulgaria), Prince and Princess of Preslav". The omission of their given names unjustifiably (in Wikipedia) values protocol over encyclopedic informativeness and ease of use. I'd also ditch the "(representing Queen Elizabeth II)" as Anglocentric, but would substitute their prefix (to distinguish "TRH Earl and Countess of Wessex" from any non-royal counts. If TRH also sounds Anglocentric, let's do it for all titleholders in the list -- as a one-off exception to Wiki's ban on use of honorifics. FactStraight (talk) 20:27, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Official designations (titles only in some cases) linked correctly to the right bios, and the standard Ex-King ... etc wherever that is factual is what I would like to see. No one who never really was Crown Prince should be called that (if any such are included here). Footnotes are not enough for the latter problem, and no, we should not repeat polite court guest lists, which are not factual information. SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:52, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Is referring to anyone as His/Her Royal Highness or His/Her Majesty less POV than referring to Simeon and Margarita as King and Queen of Bulgaria? I wouldn't say so. TRH doesn't sound Anglocentric, but if it is to be used (against MoS), it should be used for everyone. Anyway, I agree, including names wouldn't hurt, but only if names of all guests are included. As for Simeon and Margarita, perhaps the "The King and Queen of Bulgaria" format should be altered, but they should nevertheless be mentioned as King and Queen of Bulgaria in one way or another. They were invited as such and they were invited because of Simeon's position as former monarch; I don't see other European Prime Ministers on the list. Surtsicna (talk) 21:03, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

How about...


 * Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands
 * King Abdullah II and Queen Rania of Jordan
 * ex-King Constantine and ex-Queen Anne-Marie of Greece
 * The Prince and Princess Edward, Earl and Countess of Wessex

Or...


 * Beatrix, Queen of the Netherlands
 * Abdullah II and Rania, King and Queen of Jordan
 * Constantine and Anne-Marie, former King and Queen of the Hellenes
 * The Prince Edward, Earl of Wessex and The Princess Edward, Countess of Wessex (I can't think of any way of mentioning the Countess of Wessex with her name and princely title) Surtsicna (talk) 21:08, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thoughtful response, thanks! HRH & HM for reigning royalty is not POV; one way to distinguish them from deposed royals, in fact, is to omit the latter's -- which I'm fine with for purposes of this list. We may not have names of all guests, even if all were notable. Whereas, the presence of royalty on royal occasions is notable, and need not be "balanced off" by calling every ambassador "Excellency" & every commissioner "Honourable": it's seemly for us to pick & choose here so long as we do so for obviously rational reasons. That said, I dislike "ex-King" as colloquial (and ahistoric: traditionally, once one wears the crown royal/imperial -- always royal/imperial, unless one renounces, a la the Dutch queens). But I'd rather use "ex" than leave the impression Constantine II still reigns in Athens. I prefer "sometime" precisely because its ambiguity should offend none, and it has historically been deployed for this purpose. "Formerly" is more POV and lengthier than "sometime", less grating than "ex-", but also better than no disambig at all. The Wessexes are proving vexing: If not "TRH Earl and Countess of Wessex" than "(Prince Edward and Sophie) Earl and Countess of Wessex". Finally, I don't care much about the K&Q of B, so long as they're not made to look as if reigning. However, I do consider "King Simeon and Queen Margarita" alone or with "sometime of Bulgaria" as suitable. I've seen royal lists omit Constantine II's suffix. FactStraight (talk) 21:50, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Great! I'm glad we are coming to an agreement. Regarding "ex", "sometime" and "former", I'd be happy with each, though "sometime" is my least favourite because it is used rarely. "Former" seems much more common (www.formerkingofgreece.org?). But all of them amount to the same. As for the Wessexes, we shouldn't treat them differently than their peers and we shouldn't imply that Sophie is not a princess. Yet again, we should mention her name. How about "The Prince Edward, Earl of Wessex and The Princess Edward (née Sophie), Countess of Wessex"? Surtsicna (talk) 22:41, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, I concur with all of the above. FactStraight (talk) 23:02, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I too agree now, except for "née Sophie". Her name is still Sophie, so making it look like a maiden name that she no longer uses would not be a good idea. Isn't Sophie, Countess of Essex reasonably correct? Is The Princess Edward ever used elsewhere without all the rest of his given names? Is she ever actually called princess at all? Why must we add that if no one else ever does? I don't think they do. SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:35, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * She is called "HRH The Countess of Wessex". She is not called "The Princess Edward" because her husband holds an earldom. Had he not been granted a peerage title, she would've been "The Princess Edward" (cf. Princess Michael of Kent), which is still part of her full title. Since we've decided to mention names, we can't use "The Countess of Wessex", but she is still a princess and we shouldn't deny her that title. How about simply "The Prince Edward, Earl of Wessex and The Princess Edward (Sophie), Countess of Wessex"? Surtsicna (talk) 10:37, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Can't we drop "The"? Only in the UK is it inserted to distinguish one kind of prince/peer from another. FactStraight (talk) 11:28, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * If it is a problem, why not? Surtsicna (talk) 13:52, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Escorted by father?
There was quite a controversy about Victoria's decision to be escorted to the altar by her father. Consequently, the King escorted the Crown Princess only half way. There are plenty sources to confirm this. Have I missed it? Is it already mentioned somewhere in the article? Surtsicna (talk) 14:03, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Article name length!
P-p-please shorten the article name. Electron9 (talk) 13:37, 20 June 2010 (UTC)


 * What title do you suggest? Wedding of Victoria of Sweden and Daniel Westling? Surtsicna (talk) 13:47, 20 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Stockholm royal wedding of June 2010. SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:59, 20 June 2010 (UTC)


 * My understanding is that the current title follows our standard naming format for articles about royal weddings. (See Wedding of Charles, Prince of Wales, and Lady Diana Spencer and Wedding of Charles, Prince of Wales and Camilla Parker Bowles; I see no other examples, so I don't know whether we have any additional articles of this nature.)
 * It would make more sense to propose changing that format than to focus on a specific article. —David Levy 15:21, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes! SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:46, 20 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The second comma should be omitted, in my opinion. Note the title difference also in the two articles for Charles' weddings. Seven Letters 16:56, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

All done
Can we drop the now? Bo Lindbergh (talk) 11:56, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Notability
Surely this has no notability outside of Hello magazine. Mtaylor848 (talk) 12:00, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


 * It appeared on CNN and attracted half a million people in the streets of Stockholm as well as millions of TV viewers in Europe and abroad. It was also attended by representatives of all of Europe's reigning royal families as well as representatives of prominent former reigning dynasties. Notable. Seven Letters 14:27, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * A brief article covering the occurrance and highlights would be warranted. Most of it now is like magazine reports, I agree, and is not encyclopaedically relevant to enWP. SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:56, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Guest list lopsided
Surely the guest list, if there is one, should include some of the bride's immediate family members, such as her aunts, royal siblings, granduncle, all of whom are at least as noteworthy as many of the others on the list? SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:08, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe the guest list should include only those who are notable enough to have Wikipedia articles about themselves. For example, Victoria's maternal uncles and aunts probably have no place in the article. Surtsicna (talk) 09:14, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry: I meant siblings and paternal aunts and granduncle only, of course. SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:46, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

The list is also inaccurate. The Greek, Yugoslav, Bulgarian & Romanian monarchies were abolished long ago. GoodDay (talk) 00:03, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Royal Wedding Stockholm 2010-Slottsbacken-05 edit.jpg to appear as POTD soon
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Royal Wedding Stockholm 2010-Slottsbacken-05 edit.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on June 19, 2012. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2012-06-19. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks! — howcheng  {chat} 17:14, 15 June 2012 (UTC)