Talk:Carl Johan Bernadotte

message: Is he still Duke of Dalecarlia? john k 05:48, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, because of his "unequal" first marriage.  —Tamfang 05:30, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Dalarna

message: All (recent) Swedish princes who marry unequally, it seems, have the title Count Bernadotte of Visborg.  Why does the article say the grand duchess of Luxemburg gave him that title?!  —Tamfang 05:30, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since 1868, Swedish princes who have lost their succession rights have received noble titles conferred by other reigning monarchs. So other monarchs can bestow the title on them, and probably it began with the Luxembourg dukes because they were relatives. Morhange 06:55, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Visborg

message: I 'googled' my name and find myself in the midst of Swedish Nobility....
That feels good.
Sincerely yours,
Johan van Sweden  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.161.92.69 (talk) 10:12, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Johan van Sweden 

message: Please note that the first name (of address) of the Count's second wife is spelled Gunnila (not Gunilla) which is quite unusual. SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:47, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 
The result of the move request was: page moved. SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:48, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spelling first name wife #2 

message: :Count Carl Johan Bernadotte of Wisborg →  — Using title is superfluous here. And he himself gives his name only as Carl Johan Bernadotte.Stockholm phone book by Eniro 2007 p. 164 No reason to use another name format for this article than for his brother Sigvard Bernadotte or nephew 1st cousin Lennart Bernadotte who bore the exact same tiles for the exact same reasons. The  use of of Wisborg (actually af Wisborg) has only been in very formal context. SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:16, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This was uncontested for over 10 days, so I moved it myself. SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:48, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

text: Favonian (talk) 17:26, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 

message: How relevant are all those details about his adopted sons, and particularly their in-laws and children? Name-dropping? SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:18, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: While I haven't thought this through (and didn't insert the original details), I'm inclined to agree. I've already deleted Cuyahoga and Fulton counties (Cleveland & Atlanta), since they're as useful to outsiders as knowing that Nice is in Alpes-Maritimes. My current guess is that we should keep the adopted children and their offspring, for those who want to follow those threads (they'd be great-great-grandchildren and great-great-great-grandchildren of V&A by adoption), but need not keep every detail about their original parents (e.g. their birthdates & birthplaces). —— Shakescene (talk) 03:14, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing notable about the adoptive grandchildren. I say delete them and leave only the 2 adopted children and their wives. The rest is specialty knowldege and irrelevant to WP. SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:13, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't want to do the work right now, but should we just merge the marriages and adoptive children into a semi-standard table like the ones used for other Swedish and British royalty (e.g. at Folke Bernadotte, Count Lennart Bernadotte and Grandchildren of Victoria and Albert)? Of the adoptive children's children, we could just say "3 children (1 son, 2 daughters)" (and vice-versa for the other marriage). —— Shakescene (talk) 18:36, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relevance of children? 

message: *Oppose  - I do oppose a move of the Gunnila Bernadotte article into this article. She is notable in her own right, through being a part of the "royal click" in Sweden. The article was originally redirected on the basis that someone claiming that "how can an article be notable if it was created after death" basically, that is irrelevant.BabbaQ (talk) 18:00, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agree While I agree that the "not notable if article was created after death" is not a valid argument, in this case she doesn't warrant an article of her own due to being a very peripheral person in the Swedish "royal click". Mentioning her in this article is sufficient. --Marbe166 (talk) 18:40, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: You can not agree to an oppose rationale if you want it moved. also, IDONTLIKEIT is irrelevant as, either you are nobility or you are not, she is nobility. and her death has been mentioned plenty in swedish media. --BabbaQ (talk) 18:43, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agreed on the proposed merge, as in all move discussions you bold your stance on the original question (in this case, the merge). It's not a case of IDONTLIKEIT, it is a case of you have to draw the line somewhere. She is not a descendant of a former (or current) Swedish monarch, she was married to one such descendant, who himself had been deprived of his right to the throne long before their marriage.  --Marbe166 (talk) 18:55, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

text:  By that argument we should have articles on English Wikipedia on every member of the Swedish nobility, not really feasible, is it? --Marbe166 (talk) 18:55, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:NOTPAPER. We should have articles on every notable topic, no matter what part of the world it concerns. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:15, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is irrelevant in comparison to notability. BabbaQ (talk) 19:18, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed merge of [[Gunnila Bernadotte]]

message: Recent changes have corrupted a source in that it now looks like a Luxembourg Government gazette of 1951 is a source for a marriage 37 years later. I am going to try to correct that and reinstate what the source (that gazette) was for. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:05, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Source corrupted

message: Swedish editors want "friend with" in this article, which I think is a bit slangy or a bit Swenglish. I'd prefer "friend of" which I think is more normal English. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:16, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: In the way the sentence is written right now it should be "with", they became friends with Garbo, the native English speakers (Brits and Australians) in my office agrees with me. However, if the sentence would say "they were friends [of/with] Garbo", either of the words would be fine by me. --Marbe166 (talk) 15:27, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: They became friends of Garbo's, or they made friends with Garbo. Your office mates are just being polite, which is 100% normal for Brits and Australians in Sweden. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:32, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  We're in Germany, but that is beside the point. However, I think this is a case of British English vs. American English. --Marbe166 (talk) 15:37, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Why? 2A00:23C8:8700:3301:9878:C8E2:E9FF:5C8C (talk) 23:18, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Friend ''of''

message: >and in that conferral was also called Carl Johan Arthur Prince Bernadotte.[5] Counts of Wisborg are considered to be part of a non-official Swedish unintroduced nobility.[4]
I don't get this. Was he only called prince and then decided he had been conferred the title with arms? How does anyone who is just called prince gain princely arms? Did he appropriate the title?
Also "non-official" what does that even say. The link goes to talk about unintroduced mobility and some club which is a subset of that. Why call them non official when they they hold foreign titles?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.234.37.240 (talk) 08:06, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the 1951 decree, Bernadotte was given 2 titles, Prince Bernadotte (personal, non-hereditary) and Count of Wisborg (hereditary for his descendants) . His Luxembourg arms as Prince Bernadotte were clearly differentiated in the decree from the comital title. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:14, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

text: The non-official status of the unintroduced folks pertains to Sweden, where they hold no official Swedish titles. Of course, titles given by other governments are official. The Swedish club of unintroduced folks is of negligeable importance to anyone who is not a member of it. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:28, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Question

message: I'm not sure if this information about Carl Johan's grandson (edit: son, sorry, silly mistake) would be useful or not:
https://my.clevelandclinic.org/patient-stories/252-businessman-celebrates-new-heart-with-the-cardiologists
https://www.linkedin.com/in/christian-bernadotte-85832236
Even if the heart attack itself isn't, perhaps his occupation and current location is?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2angelgoats (talk • contribs) 10:18, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for asking! Unless the grandson is notable enough for an article of his own, I should think not. And the sources don't look 100% reliable anyway. Btw Prince/Count Carl Johan Bernadotte had no biological children, but I suppose adoptions should be treated equally. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:35, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, cool! I agree re: adoptions. 2angelgoats (talk) 17:48, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Christian Bernadotte

message: i do not think that married morganatically, that is not possibly neither in Sweden nor in USA. The problem was that they married equally and thus he had to leave his position as prince, duke and heir. When marrying morganatically the person with high social status keep all their titles and rights but do not transfer them to the partner or the children. The reason why the children was without right to inherit his later Luxembourgian title count af wisborg was due to the fact that they were adopted and had no relation by blood to him. His wifes held the title of countess af wisborg transferred by marriage signalling the marriages were not morganatic indeed. 83.254.98.237 (talk) 06:19, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: --SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:00, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  morganatic marriage?