Talk:Princess Sofia, Duchess of Värmland

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Additional information Sofia[edit]

Apparently specific information seems to be unconstructive according to other Wikipedia users. But I am wondering what is so constructive about the information already mentioned on the page.......

Additions:

- "... totalling 22.5 credits...." (about Sofia's latest education in Sweden, from her biography on the Official Swedish Royal House website: http://www.kungahuset.se/royalcourt/royalfamily/hrhprincesssofia/biography.4.751c664a14d8a76c833abc.html)

- In New York, Sofia posed nude for photographer Antoine Verglas (http://www.hna.de/leute/liebesgeschichte-paares-storify-carl-philip-heiratet-sofia-5092423.html & bunte.iuznku.org/.../sofia-hellqvist-nackt-im-internet-... - )

- At age 16 Sofia posed semi nude for photographer Lennart Sjöberg. Not that long ago the pictures of Sofia were removed from Sjöbergs website, but are still going around on the internet.

- After the engagement with Carl Philip, Sofia quit as Secretary General of Project Playground. Sofia will leave the mission, but continue to assist Project Playground in a different role. Instead, she will work at the court, with her own work place at the castle. Also according to her biography on the official Swedish Royal House website: "..In 2010, Sofia founded Project Playgroundexternal link, opens in new window together with Frida Vesterberg and remained as Secretary-General until April 2015. Since then, she has played an active role as Project Playground's Honorary Chairman. .."

Great[edit]

Great article so far.94.234.43.11 (talk) 23:46, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lead sentence[edit]

Upon marrying Prince Carl Philip, "Miss Sofia Helqvist" became "Princess Sofia, Duchess of Värmland". That much was announced by the riksmarskalk, the highest official of the royal court. Furthermore, the article is titled "Princess Sofia, Duchess of Värmland" and it defines Sofia as a member of the Swedish royal family in the lead sentence. That said, I do not see why the lead sentence should name her "Princess Sofia of Sweden, Duchess of Värmland" when that formulation a) introduces a pleonasm, b) contradicts the royal court, c) contradicts MOS:LEADSENTENCE. Surtsicna (talk) 18:57, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This was discussed on your talk page back in 2016 (please re-read). As I wrote then about Estelle, which applies by analogy to Sofia: she is primarily princess of Sweden and secondarily Duchess of Värmland, and that is why the lead should express that, in the same way as it is done for all other Swedish princes and princesses, for coherence (i.e. in bold). It can be argued that the text "and becoming a princess of Sweden" in the second sentence of this article should be removed as it would be repeating. --Marbe166 (talk) 19:35, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, she is primarily a princess, which is why she is called Princess Sofia. The riksmarskalk announced that she would be known as "Princess Sofia, Duchess of Värmland", which is also the title of the article. So it's not "Princess Sofia of Sweden, Duchess of Värmland"; that formulation is a Wikipedia invention. The royal court employs the same format for Estelle: the press release at the time of her birth named her Princess Estelle Silvia Ewa Mary, Duchess of Östergötland. Nowhere does the official website mention either "Princess Sofia of Sweden" or "Princess Estelle of Sweden". Nowhere, not once. On the other hand, there is an absolutely clear announcement from the highest-ranking officials that the subject would be known as "Princess Sofia, Duchess of Värmland". Surtsicna (talk) 19:56, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
...primarily a princess of Sweden, something that goes without saying in an announcement from the Riskmarskalk of Sweden. However, Wikipedia is not a Sweden-centric website (in any language, including Swedish btw), and therefore the distinction of the realm of a princess needs to be as clear on that as possible. --Marbe166 (talk) 20:04, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And yet the announcement of the riskmarskalk is in English, a language which is not official in Sweden, which strongly suggests that the announcement was not meant to be Sweden-centric. As for this article, the realm is made perfectly clear by defining her as a member of the Swedish royal family. There is absolutely no need or excuse to deviate from an authoritative and unequivocally clear source by inventing a formulation that is never used by that source. Surtsicna (talk) 20:13, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The announcement is just a translation of the same text in Swedish. It is still coming from the Swedish royal house and is of course Sweden-centric. Why would the Swedish royal house announce anything such as this about an non-Swedish royal? Come on...
The English version of the website of the royal house mentions Estelle as "Estelle Silvia Ewa Mary, Princess of Sweden, Duchess of Östergötland". The English version of the website is not as well kept as the Swedish version, however the Swedish version has Sofia as "Sofia Kristina, Prinsessa av Sverige, Hertiginna av Värmland", which translated becomes "Sofia Kristina, Princess of Sweden, Duchess of Värmland". So there is official use of the term princess of Sweden, and the bolded lead of the article should reflect that. This is a strong argument for renaming the article, but that is a separate discussion, which, if needed, should be held for all current Swedish princes and princesses. --Marbe166 (talk) 20:49, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, the current version of the royalcourt website states that her title includes "princess of Sweden", and a current (October 2019) version of the website takes precedent over an announcement from 2015. --Marbe166 (talk) 20:57, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The bolded name first in a Wikipedia biography should have the exact same wording as the article's title. Thus, a princess of Sweden, as given later in the lead, should suffice on that detail.
In passing, I might mention that the only legitimate titles which certain members of the Swedish royal house have by law are specfically given in that country's constitution, i.e. "Princes and Princesses of the Royal House": those women, men, girls and boys who are in line for the throne and (note: and) who are listed as members of the royal house by the Swedish government, i.e. the king in his role as head of state and CEO of the royal court. This excludes in-laws and, remarkably, also the five grandchildren recently removed by the king's decree from the royal house (those five can now be brought up outside of Sweden and still inherit the throne, but they must remain Lutherans to do so). All the other titles, princes and princess by marriage, dukes and duchesses, even the queen's style and title, have been assigned by the king as head of his family, but without any official government sanction or basis in law whatsoever. Previous Swedish legislation guaranteeing every Swedish woman the equivalent title of her husband was recinded long ago. Thus, Sofia, for example, is a princess in the minds and hearts of anyone who desires to support the king in his appointments, as a courtesy, but without any legal foundation of any kind. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:29, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
PS The Swedish Marshal of the Realm (Riksmarskalken) is an employee of the king, not a government official. He may make statements for the king and make lists of members of the royal family for their website, but the appointments are made by the king. When they are covered neither by constitutional wording nor by law, they are the king's personal pronouncements on family matters, not governmental officialdom. The Swedish head of state has no legal powers which are not specified in the constitution. The constitution does not define who belongs to the "Royal House" and who does not. Everyone assumes that king has the right to make such decisions, but that is by no means obvious legally. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:34, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"The bolded name first in a Wikipedia biography should have the exact same wording as the article's title." Not neccessarily. From WP:REDUNDANCY: "While a commonly recognisable form of name will be used as the title of biographical articles, fuller forms of name may be used in the introduction to the lead. For instance, in the article Paul McCartney, the text of the lead begins: "Sir James Paul McCartney ..."." --Marbe166 (talk) 20:42, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't write "must", I wrote "should". If there is a compelling reason or the first bolded mention of the name to be different than the article name, that would be understandable. I see no such compelling reason here, when "a princess of Sweden"comes in just below. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:54, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The reasons in my view are 1) she is primarly "princess of Sweden" which takes precedence over being "Duchess of Värmland", so removing "of Sweden" from the bolded lead would give undue weight to the "Duchess of Värmland" part of her title; and 2) Coherence with article leads of the other current princes and princesses in Sweden. 1) is also a strong argument for renaming the article to "Princess Sofia of Sweden, Duchess of Värmland", but that is a different discussion that should be held across the articles on all current princes and princesses in Sweden, for coherence. --Marbe166 (talk) 21:05, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I might agree with you and join you in such an effort, but the way the article is named now, I stand by my opinion about the bolding. While you're at it, if you start a good effort also to always bold "Queen of Sweden as married to [Name of king]" in the lead of all queen consorts (where all we usually have bold is is their maiden geography), that would be an effort (combined? that I'd be very glad to see. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:46, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So to sum up, we have a guideline that says the bolded name in the lead should reflect the title of the article and we have the most authoritative source that says the subject should be called "Princess Sofia, Duchess of Värmland", which also happens to be the title of the article, yet the article should use a formulation invented by a Wikipedian because..? Surtsicna (talk) 21:03, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh...so I repeat myself:
1. the current version of the royalcourt website states that her title includes "princess of Sweden", and a current (October 2019) version of the website takes precedent over an announcement from 2015;
2. she is primarly "princess of Sweden" which takes precedence over being "Duchess of Värmland", so removing "of Sweden" from the bolded lead would give undue weight to the "Duchess of Värmland" part of her title;
3. Coherence with article leads of the other current princes and princesses of Sweden;
4. The guideline gives possibility for the bolded lead to differ from the title of the article. --Marbe166 (talk) 21:12, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No version of the royal court website mentions "Princess Sofia of Sweden, Duchess of Värmland". The announcement made by the riskmarskalk (stating that the subject is to be known as "Princess Sofia, Duchess of Värmland") can only be superseded by another announcement, not by a web designer.
Removing "of Sweden" does not give undue weight to the ducal title; otherwise we would be referring to "Prince Andrew of the United Kingdom, Duke of York" rather than Prince Andrew, Duke of York. The lead sections of other articles should also conform to WP:Lead sentence, which says: "If possible, the page title should be the subject of the first sentence." In this case, it certainly is possible. The guideline also says: "Keep redundancy to a minimum in the first sentence." Surtsicna (talk) 01:09, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Full protection[edit]

I have fully protected the page for a week. All parties are invited to build consensus, and invite more participants...a 3rd opinion and more eyes would be useful imho. Lectonar (talk) 07:27, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are already three opinions. Surtsicna (talk) 09:39, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Essentially, 2 opinions collide, with the 3rd party chiming in and trying to get a move towards consensus...and I actually meant WP:Third Opinion. Regards. Lectonar (talk) 13:07, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I understand. What I meant was that WP:Third opinion requests are turned down when there are already three or more people involved in a discussion. Surtsicna (talk) 18:30, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Prince Carl Philip, Duke of Värmland which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 18:16, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Princess_Sofia,_Duchess_of_Värmland&oldid=1162376631"