Talk:Charles XIV John

message: In the Bernadotte article, it's Ponto Corvo.  Here it's Pontecorvo.  Which is correct? RickK 03:05, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pontecorvo? 

message: Why was Deu Pouey altered to Bernadotte? Did one of his ancestors inherit the property of a relation with that surname? --Anglius 04:00, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Jeandou deu Pouey married Germaine de Bernadotte 1615, she got her name from a property in Pau, and they changed to that name. Idon't know why, but a likely guess was that the Bernadottes were higher nobility than the Poueys. Their son Pierre Bernadotte was Jean-Baptiste's great-great-grandfather. --BluePlatypus 08:13, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I thank you, sir. I apologise for having not responded earlier. I did not notice your reply.--06:09, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Surname

message: Surely Bernadotte took no part in this since it happened in 1940...
--Actarus000 (talk) 20:36, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Good catch! It used to read Battle of Fleurus (which makes very much more sense!) before the paragraph was partly amended and partly obfuscated in this IP edit on March 4, 2008. How much of that edit is legitimate and how much is vandalism? -- Jao (talk) 22:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I think I misread the changelog. Isn't that edit just a removal of all the text between "Battle of" and "France"? It's not undoable anymore though, so I guess it has to be done manually? -- Jao (talk) 22:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Battle of France 

message: This infobox, besides looking like a gaudy wine label, doesn't have any practical use in the biography. It's a bit silly (and not at all reverent) to address a Swedish monarch in English, especially when he has been in his tomb for a long time. I'm going to remove it, as happened on the Christian VIII of Denmark page. Glatisant (talk) 15:28, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Monarchical Styles Infobox

message: Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that :File:Jean-Baptiste-Jules Bernadotte, Prince de Ponte-Corvo, roi de Suède, Maréchal de France (1763-1844).jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on October 20, 2010. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2010-10-20. 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! P. S. Burton  (talk) 00:54, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: [[:File:Jean-Baptiste-Jules Bernadotte, Prince de Ponte-Corvo, roi de Suède, Maréchal de France (1763-1844).jpg]] to appear as POTD

message: According to the accounts in sources used in main article Jean Baptiste-Bernadotte was captured in the failed French assault on 25th June 1783 at the Siege of Cuddalore in India as corporal or sergeant in the marines  and was looked after by the Hanoverian Colonel Waggenheim whom he would later meet him again in an interesting reunion when France annexed Hanover in 1804. Here is an example  'Napoleon and His Marshals - Vol. II Chapter XX'  MARSHAL BERNADOTTE and I quote: Serving here two years he was sent to the East Indies, where, in a sortie, at Cuddalore, he was wounded and taken prisoner. Some have questioned this as a fable as it shows in this Napoleonic website Bernadotte-sahoib?  Wondering if anyone could shed any more light on the matter. Bruich (Bruich) 19:57, 18 August 2010 (GMT)
Hello, Bernadotte was never posted to India. Every biography denies that he had been to India. In Barton's "The Amazing Career of Bernadotte," the author relates the genesis of the India rumor.
It goes as follows:  While hosting a ball in Hannover in 1804, Bernadotte encountered a certain General von Gonheim, who had served with the British at the Siege of Cuddalore, where an element of Bernadotte's old regiment, the Royal-la-Marine, had served. The general asked Bernadotte if he had served in India, as he recalled the service of the Royal-la-Marine, and remembered that he had nursed a French prisoner, a young sergeant, back to health in his own tent. General von Gonheim was disappointed that the man had never contacted him afterwards, to thank him. The man was old and Bernadotte humored him be claiming to be the prisoner and thanked the old man for his kindness, and over the next year, showered him with marks of favor and distinction. Afterwards, an ADC asked Bernadotte if had actually served in India. Bernadotte laughed and said no, but he was repaying the man's kindness on behalf of his fellow regimental soldier. Barton, Dubar. (1921). Bernadotte and Napoleon 1799-1810. Pp. 95-96.
--User:SJCReecy (talk) 23:39, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: His capture at Cuddalore 1783?

message: In the article Treaty of Kiel it is mentioned that Norway defied its annexation by Sweden, and instead Norway rose up as an independent state and fought Sweden (in the last war involving Sweden to date) in 1814. Only after both sides suffered from the strains of the war, they sought a compromise which changed the original annexation to a personal union. In this article, however, there is no mention of all that. Also, it is not entirely clear from this article that Charles XIV John was not actually the ruler of Sweden at the time of the unification with Norway. --ComradeMicha (talk) 20:49, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too smooth description of how he unified Sweden and Norway 

message: Jean Henri Bernadotte, the father of Marshal Bernadotte/King of Sweden and Norway, was magistrate at Pau as PROSECUTOR (translated by the word "PROCUREUR" in French) and not PROCURATOR !!!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.192.53.52 (talk) 22:48, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Marshal Bernadotte's father 

message: Bernadotte's wife is never mentioned in the article.  She was Joseph Bonaparte's wife's sister.  Please add info about their marriage.71.206.203.88 (talk) 13:20, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about his wife, Desiree? 

message: I rolled back 3 unsourced name adjustments. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:20, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Name problems

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Charles XIV John 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/20151117015734/http://www.ambafrance-se.org/IMG/pdf/Olof_Sjostrom-_Karl_XIV_Johan_laid_the_foundations_for_modern_Sweden.pdf?3087%2F3254855707f4a3e86da124e202b60fc92f7fe1db to http://www.ambafrance-se.org/IMG/pdf/Olof_Sjostrom-_Karl_XIV_Johan_laid_the_foundations_for_modern_Sweden.pdf?3087%2F3254855707f4a3e86da124e202b60fc92f7fe1db
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) 14:29, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: There have been two (reverted) moves here.  I think the current title is clearly correct by the MOS, so I will not be procedurally starting a move proposal unless technical assistance to do so is specifically requested.  Please discuss on the talk page before moving this page again. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:27, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moves? 

message: I rolled back 3 edits which contradicted the sources on his name. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:49, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Rollback re: names

message: One user accused it of being a "blog" in a recent edit summary I suggest you refrain using such slander and allow reliable book resources to displayed.68.47.64.121 (talk) 23:08, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Interesting book about his ties to Napoleon

message: The part on his military career is full of positive spins. The content on his failures as a commander even looked apologetic on his behalf. A mediocre commander is made to look like a hero that is wronged and received injustice here. What a joke of a biased article.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.140.160.148 (talk) 20:09, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV?

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Franz Joseph I of Austria which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 14:30, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move discussion in progress 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 
The result of the move request was: Consensus to move   (t · c) buidhe 05:45, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Charles XIV John of Sweden →  – Consistency with other articles recently moved following discussion at Talk:Carl XVI Gustaf#Requested move 9 June 2020. Opera hat (talk) 22:44, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Same problem with Charles XV. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:39, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

text: I do not see how keeping the article at Charles XIV John of Sweden takes that into account. He is far more commonly known in English as the Fourteenth, which also happens to be the only ordinal he used and endorsed. Charles III John is virtually unheard of in English-language literature. Surtsicna (talk) 14:11, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

text: If I may, Charlie Jack was/is better known as a Swedish monarch. Sweden was the dominant partner in that union, though this may have irked (actually it kinda did, see 1905 events) Norwegians. GoodDay (talk) 15:18, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

text: Your reasoning is "obscure" as pertains to my valid comments. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:39, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:COMMONNAME—the basis of the previous discussion in which you abstained—makes what he is known is in Norway, or Burkina Faso, irrelevant. Your oppose here is therefore "obscure" because you are arguing against COMMONNAME when you did not do so previously. Fyi. ——Serial # 13:59, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

text: WP guidelines generally frown upon citing other WP articles as reasons for changes. See essay WP:OTHER. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:12, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: What about WP:CONSISTENT? Allan Rice (talk) 14:23, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. WP:OTHER is an essay; CONSISTENT is policy. I sometimes wonder, more broadly, if the editors who cite WP:OTHER have ever read as far as the third sentence. Iit doesn't say what they would presumably like it to say:  ——Serial # 14:32, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Consistent would be not (not) to move articles about monarchs who ruled in different countries under different handles. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:04, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure I'd attempt to argue that it's more consistent to have articles scattered over different styles of page naming, but. ——Serial # 15:21, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: What we are dealing with here is only one problem: a monarch called different things in different countries of their reign. Nothing else is intended in my opposition. Why do on ignoring the only issue there is? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:38, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: But he was not called different things. He was officially Charles XIV John in both kingdoms (despite not being the fourteenth King Charles in either). And more importantly, he is almost exclusively called XIV in English-language sources. His name in modern lists of Norwegian kings can (and should) be stated in the article but it need not have any effect on the title. Surtsicna (talk) 15:49, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Wrong. Is (not was) called different things is enough to take into consideration in this discussion. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:13, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: What exactly do you think you are disproving by citing this? What he is called in Norway today has no effect on what he is called in English-language historiography. WP:Article titles policy does not require us to consider what Norwegian people call something or someone. Surtsicna (talk) 16:23, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: And also, Norwegian Wikipedia is not a reliable source. See WP:CIRCULAR. Opera hat (talk) 18:25, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

text: User:SergeWoodzing I'm afraid I don't understand your reasoning. You aren't arguing that the article should be moved to Charles III John. So why do you care whether "of Sweden" is included or not? I would have thought removing the "of Sweden" gave more recognition to the fact that he was also King of Norway, not less (particularly as he was also known as Charles XIV John in Norway). If I remember rightly, the move from Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom to Elizabeth II was done to placate Canadian monarchists on Wikipedia who insisted that she was equally Elizabeth II of Canada. Opera hat (talk) 18:25, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

text: Please at least read my opposition motive? Not a good one? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:36, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Would a compromise version like Charles XIV & III John be acceptable? I'm taking note that we have James VI and I, even though England was the dominant partner in that union. GoodDay (talk) 15:40, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:13, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

text: Considering that it would be a Wikipedia invention, no. James VI and I, in contrast, is frequently called so. Surtsicna (talk) 16:23, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

text: Definitely not. Opera hat (talk) 18:25, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

text: Conciseness is an advantage. And GoodDay seems to have just come full circle! In 2010 he wrote: "the Monarch # of country style is archaic." Surtsicna (talk) 19:14, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia has affected me that much over the years? GoodDay (talk) 23:07, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

text:  You're disappointed in my reasoning? Jeez, I can't seem to do anything right this month. I've been warned for pushing consistency across groups of articles & then for mentioning a certain word on British politics related articles. Gotta be my 'name' :( GoodDay (talk) 01:02, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, it's because you say that you agree with the wording convention but you're not going to oppose because you want to go along with everyone else. That's not a good reason, is it? Deb (talk) 07:36, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm just a bit weary. Anyways, a discussion should be taking place at WP:NCROY, as too many of these RMs are popping up, in the last few days. GoodDay (talk) 11:47, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 19 June 2020 

message: You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(royalty_and_nobility)#Request_for_comment.  Interstellarity (talk) 13:31, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion at [[Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(royalty_and_nobility)#Request_for_comment]]

message: I rolled back 2 edits by an IP who would like us to treat "Karl Johan" as English. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:40, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Rollback of Norwegian name version as English

message: The article says "son of Baron Gustav Mörner, a commander of the Swedish force captured by Bernadotte at Lübeck". However, the article Battle of Lübeck states that the commander captured was named Carl Carlsson Mörner. A mistake? --Jbaranao (talk) 18:00, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Carl Carlsson Mörner or Baron Gustav Mörner?

message: (non-automated message) Greetings! I have opened an RfC on WT:ROYALTY that may be of interest to users following this article talk page! You are encouraged to contribute to this discussion here! Hurricane Andrew (444) 19:36, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC of interest 

message: Hi there, Since the current image is good. However, I feel that this this image from 1841/1843 is better at representing King Charles XIV John. SpartanMazda (talk) 12:24, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: OK by me. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:05, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Purposal for new infobox image 

message: I am far too much the Wikipedia novice to undertake a change of the magnitude I'm suggesting here, but here goes anyway: To my mind, this article is mis-titled and should be moved to effect a title change to Jean-Baptiste Jules Bernadotte with Charles XIV John redirecting to the new page.  Bernadotte is known to history as Bernadotte, and the name Charles XIV John comes as a complete surprise to anyone who searches for Bernadotte.  (And nobody is going to search for Charles XIV John.)
Such a move would probably violate a Wikipedia standard that monarchs are listed by the name taken at time of coronation, but Bernadotte, the historical figure, is known far more for his pre-coronation adventuring than for anything that happened after his accession. He is no Charles III.  The Wikipedia Page for Napoleon Bonaparte is titled Napoleon, Not Napoleon-I his name as emperor.  And most other sources about Napoleon are titled Napoleon Bonaparte, not Napoleon-I.  
The use of coronation names makes sense when, as in the case of Charles III, the monarch is known for nothing more than his royal role. Camdenmaine (talk) 21:30, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Not an improvement. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:56, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move needed