Talk:Marianne Bernadotte

Extended royal family

It has twice been added recently that Bernadotte belongs to the extended royal family of Sweden. That information is redundant, as it is quite clear anyway, and it looks unecessarily promotional in my opinion. I have twice removed it. SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:07, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

You shouldnt remove it. It belongs here. SheldonReloaded (talk) 11:56, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

You are replying to a comment of mine that is almost 5 years old. Since then, I have changed by opinion about the item per se. It belongs here, but the wording is important. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:00, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 12 October 2015

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move. Consensus is that the proposed title is the WP:COMMONNAME, and otherwise preferable. Cúchullain ^t/c 17:59, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

---

Countess Marianne Bernadotte of Wisborg → Marianne Bernadotte – Simplest solution is what she uses herself, as known at svWP; confusion about her names & titles recently cleared up with best government sources now published online; name "Bernadotte of Wisborg" does not actually exist anywhere legally, she is countess of Wisborg, also legally has title in the Luxembourg nobility as Princess Bernadotte but rarely uses it. SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:38, 12 October 2015 (UTC) --Relisted. George Ho (talk) 04:49, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

• Support per nom. DrKay (talk) 18:21, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose this seems a "solution" to a non-existent problem. This is is the first time I've seen it asserted that someone has been confirmed as entitled to a higher title than has been attributed to that person in the past, while seeking to strip the titleholder of any title in article name space. The primary criterion for naming articles is how the person is prevalently referred to in English language reliable sources, not how the person refers to him/herself. The major such sources do not show that, like Otto von Habsburg, there has been any requested non-use of title, nor any expression of refusal of public attribution of title -- and Otto's titles were no longer legally recognized as valid as are Marianne's. Nor does the Swedish court refer to her without title. It is common, in some cases traditional, for royalty and titled nobility, in giving their own names, to not include their titles -- but that is never interpreted as evidence that no title is rightfully borne nor rightfully used in other contexts. Rather, Marianne is invariably introduced in the most authoritative English-language sources with her maiden name (Lindberg) and/or that of her first husband (Tchang) -- neither of which has she been known by since marrying "Sigvard, Count Bernadottet of Wisborg" (Hugh Montgomery-Massingberd's "Burke’s Royal Families of the World: Volume I Europe & Latin America, p. 515; Marlene Eilers' Queen Victoria's Descendants, 1997, pp. 158, 179; Daniel Willis' "The Descendants of King George I of Great Britain, 2002, pp. 117-118) and it is as his consort she is best known in English, however she is referred to in most Swedish contexts. FactStraight (talk) 18:07, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Sigvard has been dead for 13 years and it is obsolete to refer only to him as pertains to what she is called today. Furthermore, he is known in English almost exclusively as Sigvard Bernadotte (no titles at all), and his article should be next to be moved, as should all those whose article names that include the contrived name Bernadotte of Wisborg (which is like Windsor of Cornwall). Burke's has misquoted (p 1135) Grand Duchess Charlotte in that regard. I see no evidence given here as to what Marianne is or is not called in English. Regardless, it seems logical to me that we avoid the quagmire of current discussions on the Internet - even in English - as to what she and her sister-in-law should be called (countess, princess, princess Bernadotte etc.) by using the logical solution referred to in my nomination. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:30, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

• Support WP:PRECISE and the the pagename is wrong anyways, since it would be Marianne Bernadotte, Countess of Wisborg and not the way it is currently written; but it's also longer than needed, so just Marianne Bernadotte works -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 05:46, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Not according to NCRAN #1, where royal and noble titles are normally used for legal hereditary titleholders instead of or in addition to their surnames. NCRAN #2 also notes that for wives of noblemen the title is placed before the rest of the name/territorial designation: Marianne is not the Countess of Wisborg, but a countess of Wisborg because the title does not descend by primogeniture to only one member of the family. FactStraight (talk) 14:01, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

• Support. These Bernadottes "af Wisborg" are, as individuals, usually known only as "Bernadotte". That Sigvard should be plain "Sigvard Bernadotte" is also obvious. That's the way he is known and was known during his lifetime and professional career once he had renounced his royal titles through his first marriage. --Hegvald (talk) 15:28, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Sigvard claimed the princely title denied him by the Swedish court, but no one disputed his countly title -- indeed, the Swedish royal family is alleged to have first requested conferral of the countly title in 1892 from Queen Sofia's brother, Adolphe, Grand Duke of Luxembourg, because Swedish custom no longer included conferral of noble titles; that conferral became a tradition when subsequent Bernadotte princes married non-dynastically. Professionally, Sigvard used no title (as many nobles don't who, nonetheless, are accorded their titles in Wikipedia articles) and since his princely title was contested, he did not use the lesser comital title, but however he was known to the Swedish general media, he was accorded the comital title in English-language works which enjoy reputations for accuracy in matters of titulature, and is Count Sigvard Bernadotte of Wisborg in English Wikipedia in conformity with NCRAN. Marianne did not retain nor revert to use of her maiden name, but uses the name derived from her late husband, and in that context she is accorded her countly title both in English sources which mention her and at the Swedish court. FactStraight (talk) 01:07, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Nowadays, she is more and more frequently called Princess Bernadotte, no Wisborg at all, even in texts recently edited, where she was called Countess at first. Also most frequently called just Marianne Bernadotte today. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:00, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

And here, for once, is her name with the actual titles 100% properly given. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:29, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Which brings us back to the point I first raised above. I don't object to moving this article to her correct title as a widow, now that we've documented what that is and it's used in her English-language website, nor to leaving it where it is, with the countly title most English sources accorded her husband during his lifetime when the Swedish court denied recognition of any princely title for him. I do object to violating NCRAN to strip her article name of any title when English Wikipedia accords most female titleholders (e.g. British peeresses) the title which is theirs by legal right. FactStraight (talk) 17:31, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

• Support Why do we have Estelle Bernadotte if we are going to have inconsistent articles.--Hipposcrashed (talk) 16:47, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. It is common practice, and a good idea, to use aristocratic and courtesy titles on articles for living people, as & if commonly used in reliable sources. Only after death do we strip the titles and adhere more tightly to WP:NCROY. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:29, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Problem with that is that is "Bernadotte of Wisborg" is a fake name that she never has used. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:59, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

A.k.a.

As well referenced under Prince Bernadotte is is relevant here that she often is known by her late husband's title as declared by him in 1983. I've added that to the lede and to one image caption today. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:34, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Year and and town of birth referenced

Among the sources for this article are a major biography and her autobiography. Both clearly give her date of birth and where she was born. Seems odd to me to have to dispute that in edit summaries. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:58, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Assessment

Generally, I do not believe it is constructive or appropriate for Wikipedia users to assess importance of biographies, especially not those of living persons. Thus, I do not agree with this reversal. To assess the importance of a life story to Wikipedia, one must be an expert on that person, at least as far as reading the article and sources given such as fairly recent scholarly books about her or him. In this case, the importance of this person's bio is an ambiguous matter and better left unassessed than assessed with limited qualification. I will remove it again unless someone not involved can give me a good reason not to. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:30, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Inappropriate tag

I do not agree with this reversal. A "no sources" tag has inapprpriately been added to this article recently, though three reliable sources are given under Comprehensive sources. One of those books is a complete biography by 4 respected authors. An in-line citation tag might have been appropriate, but not a tag which alludes to the article being unsourced. I will remove that again soon, unless someone can come up with a good reason to consider this article to be completely without reliable sources. The wording of any ugly box at the top of any article must be relevant and accurate, if any tag is to be placed there at all. SergeWoodzing (talk) 03:39, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't say "no sources". It says "needs additional citations for verification", which is consistent with what you're saying about a lack of in-line cites. DrKay (talk) 08:40, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Found the right tag. Thank you! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:23, 19 November 2024 (UTC)