Talk:Swedish royal family

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

"Family Tree" added

A new "family tree" has been added. It

  • claims that the current king is the grandson of a king who was deposed in 1809!
  • also claims he is the grandson one of of Sweden's Queens Margaret - one died in 1298, one in 1412 and the latest in 1551!
  • omitted Queen Ingrid of Denmark, though including all 4 three of her brothers.
  • against
    WP:CBALL
    includes one person scheduled to be married months from now in a family where engagements have been broken off before.
  • against
    WP:CBALL
    includes one fetus which may or may not be born and may or may not be royal if so (father is not).

Writing to the contributor now about fixing this up. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:06, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing out the mistakes. They should be fixed, now. I apologize for the
British Royal Family page, show the relationships of the current, living members of the Royal Family…the only deceased members included are those who are common ancestors of current members or those necessary to connect current members to the tree (ie. Countesses Marianne and Gunnila would not be members of the family if not for their marriages to Counts Sigvard and Carl Johan, respectively). Lastly, "Queen Margaret", while incorrectly titled, was always linked to Princess Margaret of Connaught. ~ Iamthecheese44 (talk) 16:52, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Thank you! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:01, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An IP tried to add the new Prince Alexander but it didn't work. Needs to be added & I don't know how to do it. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:53, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What happened to the archive?

There used to be more stuff in it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:23, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see it. There's Talk:Swedish Royal Family/Archive 1 and Talk:Swedish royal family/Archive 1. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:47, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Link to father's article

I do not believe this revert is constructive. Better to have a

piped link on the names of the little princes than no link at all. We are here to inform readers as facilely as possible, not to limit their ready access to naturally relevant information. Will revert again unless something convincing is written here. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:19, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply
]