Talk:List of Swedish monarchs

message: : I guess this is a list of ancient kings over Suiones? Rogper 20:46, 16 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  I added Erik and Björn i Birka (Björn from Birca). // Rogper 20:46, 16 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Suiones]] kings

message: Wouldn't it be appropriate to merge this list into King of Sweden? --Jao 06:18, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger? 

message: What spelling should be used. Should consistent spelling be used and if not why.
*Gustav I of Sweden
*Gustav II Adolph of Sweden (Latin Gustavus Adolphus or Swedish Gustaf II Adolf)
*Charles X Gustav of Sweden
*Gustav III of Sweden
*Gustav IV Adolf of Sweden
*Gustaf V of Sweden
*Gustaf VI Adolf of Sweden
::I have renamed the articles on Gustaf V and Gustaf VI Adolf to use the native Swedish spelling ("Gustaf") rather than any other form, per Wikipedia:Proper names#Personal names. Someone more acquainted with the earlier monarchs' given names in Swedish may care to move them as well. To quote from the aforementioned document, "As proper nouns these names are always first-letter capitalized, and transliterated into English spelling but generally not Anglicized or translated between languages." Since these are relatively recent names, this seems more clearcut to me than with the earlier monarchs, but I tend to feel that if the native Swedish form is known for certain, it should be used. — JonRoma 23:53, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'v reverted those page moves. Having some Swedish royals as 'Gustav' & others as 'Gustaf', is simply an eye sore. GoodDay 23:30, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Gustavus, Gustav or Gustaf 

message: Should the English form Charles be used, should the Swedish konvention Karl be used or should the form Carl, commonly preferred by the monarchs themselves, be used. Should consistent spelling be used and if not why.
*Charles IX of Sweden
*Charles X of Sweden
*Charles XI of Sweden
*Charles XII of Sweden
*Charles XIII of Sweden
*Charles XIV of Sweden
*Charles XV of Sweden
Charles. This is english Wikipedia.
213.243.157.114 01:35, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Charles, Carl or Karl 

message: Should consistent spelling be used and if not why.
This is an English Wikipedia material. Thus, English name variants. Consistently.
Gustav xx Adolph.
Adolph Frederick.
Any other page to redirect to the chief page.
213.243.157.114 01:34, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Adolphus, Adolph or Adolf 

message: These also affects naming conventions for other thrones.
*Margaret I of Sweden (also a Danish and Norwegian monarch)
Many of the problems are solved by redirect pages, all imaginable versions of the name. As chief page for this monarch, I recommend "Queen Margaret". Simply. (Only one worry: that MIGHT be needed as an ambig.page.) After all, she was the most important of that name. 213.243.157.114 01:31, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Not only a Swedish monarch (naming/number problem) 

message: Does the infobox used for the Swedish monarchs exist as a template anywhere? Fornadan (t) 13:22, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Infobox template

message: The House of Folkung is actually the House of Bjällbo since the folkung is modern reconstruction of the name of the House. Filled in a few missing regents. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.47.254.240 (talk) 
:In either case, these "names" for medieval dynasties and other families are not contemporary but given by later scholars, and thus always somewhat arbitrary. But Folkungaätten, despite possibly being historically incorrect, is actually the name used by modern historians. Can you cite any major reference work calling the family anything else?  up◦land 07:59, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Folkung vs Bjälbo

message: The article says:
:There are lists of Swedish pagan monarchs with dates far older than these. These records contain the early kings, of the House of Yngling, and give an explanation to the numbering of the monarchs, particularly the names Erik and Karl (Eric and Charles)
This is correct for "Erik" but not for "Karl"; the lists of Semi-legendary kings of Sweden and Mythological kings of Sweden include no Karls. So why do the Karls start at VII? A note on Talk:Charles VII of Sweden suggests that Charles IX of Sweden deliberately inflated his regnal number. Is this right? This article should explain the anomaly. Gdr 19:30, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Both Eric XIV and Charles IX took numbers influenced by the pseudohistorical work of Johannes Magnus, but I don't remember the details. I should add that serious historians of medieval Sweden never use these numbers. I don't like their use here, but don't feel like trying to modify the naming standard right now. I hope somebody else will do something about this eventually... up◦land 19:54, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

text: (from Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities) The answer is that Charles VII (Sverkersson) was the first historical king named "Karl" according to tradition. The other 6 were inventions of Johannes Magnus (not Charles IX) according to Nordisk Familjebok (1955 edition). They aren't included in the mythological and semi-legendary kings since those either existed or had at least been invented early enough to not be disprovable. The fact that Johannes Magnus is responsible for the numbering scheme is mentioned on the Swedish version of the list. Consider merging that into the english version. --BluePlatypus 00:26, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing Karls 

message: It's Gustav I to Gustav IV Adolph, then Gustaf V and Gustaf VI Adolf. What? Not to get into Linguistic arguments, but these monarch names should be spelt the same (either all 'Gustav' or 'Gustaf'). Plus Gustaf V and Gustaf VI Adolf articles should've had discussions first, before there movements from 'Gustav V' and 'Gustav VI Adolph'. GoodDay 01:14, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've restored the pages Gustav V and Gustav VI Adolf. Since the particular pages had no discussions on the 'name' change. GoodDay 00:58, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The convention in Sweden is that a living king bearing this name is called Gustaf but after death, in historical writing and so on (including encyclopaedias, literature on royal buildings and decorations and, I think, tombs) they are referred to as Gustav. Thus Gustav Vasa, Gustav V but Carl XVI Gustaf. Same with Karl vs Carl. Queen Christina is referred to both as Kristina and Christina, but more often Kristina. This of course is slightly confusing when the names are posted in a foreign encyclopaedia, and I'm fine with Gustaf (and a redirect on Gustavus and perhaps Gustav) for the kings concerned, as that is how they were known in their lifetime and we shouldn't make it more complicated than it is. Swedish books referring to the kings of other European copuntries freely change their names into the Swedish forms: Vilhelm Erövraren (William the Conqueror), Frans I (Francois I), Ludvig XIV (Louis XIV) and so on; don't most languages? Strausszek (talk) 23:21, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Gustav & Gustaf (again)

message: I rewrote the list using a table, in the same way as for example the english monarchs are listed. It helps to distingush different king if you have a pictures in the list too. I hope I've got all the facts right too. 
I didn't search too thoroughly for the birth and death facts so one can possibly find more info. Also I copied the info straight of other wikipages so for example the dates are written in a variety of formats.
The red/yellow markings of Erik/Sverker -family might be a little bit screamy, although I thought it's good to have some clear marker as of what family each king belonged to. Magnus Andersson (talk) 08:59, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well done! But, I think Anund Gårdske should be coloured as Christian.--Berig (talk) 10:06, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you, Yes you are right. It'll be better to just mark those who belong to House of Stenkil instead, Magnus Andersson (talk) 11:12, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Table 

message: Currently the article says that Sweden has been a constitutional monarchy since 1974. This is in my mind clearly erroneous. The article on constitutional monarchy defines it as "a form of government in which a monarch acts as head of state within the parameters of a constitution, whether it be a written, uncodified or blended constitution. This form of government differs from absolute monarchy in which an absolute monarch serves as the sole source of political power in the state and is not legally bound by any constitution."
It is arguable that, with the exception of the Caroline and Gustavian absolutisms, Sweden has been a constitutional monarchy for a very long time. The very earliest national law, that of King Magnus Eriksson, specifies that the king is to be elected by representatives of the provinces, and that he is bound by oath to carry out a list of duties. Certainly by the Age of Liberty, there is a written constitution which specifies a division of powers between King and Parliament in the same way as a modern-day constitution.
What has happened here (which is not an uncommon mistake) is that the concept of a constitutional monarchy has become confused with that of a ceremonial monarchy. The development of the Swedish monarchy from a form of government where the King was very much in the driving seat, personally leading the political development (as under Charles XIV John during the early-to-mid 19th century) to the present-day situation was gradual, but the year 1917, when the King finally had to accept that the government was to be held accountable to Parliament (instead of to the King personally) is generally regarded as a watershed moment. From that moment on, the King did not exercise any significant degree of political power. However, it wasn't until 1974 that the King lost his de jure powers to appoint ministers and make political decisions. David ekstrand (talk) 21:49, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, I am not sure whether it is correct to say that the Swedish kings have "opted" to adhere to parliamentarianism since 1917. It wasn't like Gustaf V one day woke up and decided to let his government be accountable to Parliament rather than to himself. Rather, he was compelled to, because of the political situation. I decided to rewrite the section on the modern history of the Swedish monarchy. One could of course question the layout of the "History" section as it stands: the only time it goes into any detail about what the Swedish kings have been able to do or not is for the 20th century. There is plenty of history not included, to say the least. But the 20th century marks such a fundamental transformation in both the political and the constitutional position of the Swedish monarchs that it may well be worth mentioning. David ekstrand (talk) 22:05, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Constitutional monarchy 

message: I was doing research on Olof (II) Bjornsson. I found his page and there was a link to this page. His page says he reigned c.970 -975. However, he is not on the list for this page. I don't know much about Swedish History and leave it to a better historian to determine if he should be added to this list or the link should be removed from his page. I am leaving a similar comment on its talk page. Its talk page from 2010 states he was "not recognized officially as king." But nothing has been changed since.Mellie107 (talk) 07:02, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Olof II Bjornsson 

message: The image currently used in the info box for this article, although technically correct, is almost exclusively used by the Swedish National Police. Why isn't the great coat of arms, normally used for the royalty, use here? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:52, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image 

message: This help request has been answered. If you need more help, please place a new  request on this page followed by your questions, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page.
Would someone please revert all the vandalism done on 23 January 2013, i.e. all the edits of that date, and warn the IP and the user? Thanx! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 03:38, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I've reverted and warned the user. Any reason for not doing so yourself? Huon (talk) 04:21, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you! I don't have rollback rights, or whatever its called. SergeWoodzing (talk) 09:19, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

text: Doesn't look as if any were missed, it seems Huon got them all. Yunshui 雲‍水 09:54, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: For the record, you don't need rollback rights for something like this. You can have a look at the relevant diff (here this one) and will find that on the right it says something like: "Revision as of 05:57, January 23, 2013 (edit) (undo)". "Undo" works as advertised - well, not any more since by now there is an intervening edit, namely my own, but it would have worked when the vandalism wasn't reverted yet. Huon (talk) 12:39, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you again! Is it preferred that I do something like this 1 by 1, 7 edits in all, rather than someone doing all 7 at once? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 02:59, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say revert all vandalism at once to the last good version; in fact, that's precisely what I did. Do whatever is faster for you; there's no need to spend more time on reverting vandalism than absolutely necessary. Huon (talk) 03:08, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 23 January 2013 

message: Table columns other than the first and last are wrongly titled, as follows:
* Name: contains the name and (when there is one) the number for that name, as well as the dates of reign
* Number: contains the portrait, or sometimes an empty cell
* Portrait: contains the birth date
* Coronation: contains the spouse's name
* Death: contains the death date, and often the age at death and/or the cause of death
Since these headers come from a template I don't dare change the template for fear of introducing errors in other pages using it. — Tonymec (talk) 00:31, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong table headers 

message: I rolled back 2 edits with excessive gegealogical info not needed there. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:02, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Rollback

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:52, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:54, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: I am rolling back 3 edits by Rheskouporis, mainly to get at the first of them, a major change to the article which added many fantasy images of kings which should not be used, especially not without their being acknowledged as such. Will also notify the user. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:17, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Large rollback