Talk:Gustaf V

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

Early comments[edit]

So everyone who has once had a homosexual affair is bisexual?--Fred-Chess 21:23, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, he was homosexual!-- 06:40, 12 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

He apparently had several times. Actually, the question should be his self-definition re sexuality, as from the facts it could be possible that he was a homosexual (but repressed for a time, and forced himself to live in heterosexual marriage) but it is equally possible that he felt himself natural with both males and females (which would mean he was bisexual). A telling point is that he apparently never had a female lover but several male (which speaks volumes how voluntary he felt). 30 June 2005 19:18 (UTC)

No one have ever presented any evidence to support the theory that Gustav V was bi- or homosexual. Haijby was a small thief, he had been convicted of theft and fraud on several accounts. He was even a convicted murderer. He tried to blackmail the court - saying that he had had an affair with the king- and they payed him a substantial amount of money. But that doesn't prof that there was any truth behind the accusations. 20:59, 30 August 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

eh. So he was homosexual? Or has it been confirmed? Эйрон Кинни 19:05, 8 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The truth is that nobody knows. Haijby was a low-life, he even killed a policeman while escaping from prison and served time for the killing. His story is full of really strange statements. Haijby claimed that he had been seduced by the king when he was just 14 years old. It have been confirmed that Haijby and another boy scout was granted an audience with the king. It is also confirmed that the two boys (naturally) newer were alone with the king. When the accusations arose the other boy was tracked down, he witnessed that nothing strange had happened at the audience. 20 years after the audience Haijby wanted to open a restaurant. As he was a criminal he could not get the permits. In those days any citizen could complain about the authorities by turning to the king directly. Haijby was granted a second audience with the king, but this did not help him.
Haijby then started blackmailing the court - not the king but the court. Some court officials payed Haijby a lot of money over the years. It's not clear why they did it. It might be that they feared that the story was true, but it might also be that they were naive and that they simply were not used to this kind of business. The way these court officials handed over the money in dark alleys, dressed in trenchcoat and floppy hat, indicates that they were plain stupid. There have been a couple of investigations, and everything indicates that Haijby was a lier. There's simply no substance to his allegations.
It is of course possible that Gustav V was homosexual but the plain truth is that there are no evidence that he was - the accusations are all speculations, with nothing but Haijby's story to back them up. 15:28, 10 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I removed the part about the Haijby affair. The affair had nothing to do with the king himself and it's covered in a separate article. 16:43, 31 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In light of Ebervall and Samuelson's newly published "Ers majestäts olycklige Kurt" ("Your Majesty's Unhappy Kurt") reviewed in Dagens Nyheter — see external links for the article — I have restored the section about the Haijby affair, which is if anything too mild, it being clear that Gustaf V was homosexual — and more than a little sympathetic to Germany of the 1930s. — Robert Greer 17:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Ers majestäts olycklige Kurt" is a novel! And, as mentioned, the Haijby affair did not concern the king himself. It was all about Kurt Haijby and the way he was (mis)treated by Swedish authorities. The previous removal of the section was correct. M3926-990031 (talk) 22:42, 3 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I removed the section about the Haijby affair. As pointed out, this affair had nothing to do with the King. And by the way, as far as we know Haijby only met Gustaf V twice and on both occasions there were plenty of other people present. M3926-990031 (talk) 22:09, 15 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
May I ask whether you have read either the "novel" as you call it (it is based on until-recently classified Swedish documents and is better described as non-fiction fiction in the tradition of Truman Capote) or the review in Dagens Nyheter?
I have restored this — again — and have neither the time nor inclination to translate either the book or the review, for which I would need to obtain copyright clearance in any case.
But if the book is to be believed, the Swedish authoritites took the connection between Haijby and Gustav V very seriously, going so far as to ask Hermann Göring to take care of Haijby!
Which he did — for a time.
To remove this section is to censor an unfortunate episode in Swedish history, one in which no lesser personage than the King of Sweden was a key player and which was originally uncovered by no lesser author (and authority) than Wilhelm Moberg. — Robert Greer (talk) 15:53, 16 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The book you are referring to is a novel, it's fiction, it's a made up story, the text is fabricated. The authors themselfs admits that all details are fictional but claims that the frame of the story is based on real facts. However, nowhere do they specify what these facts should be, nor do they give any references. A novel is not a reliable source, but what you do is even worse, you use the reviews of a fictional story as references and that's not OK.
But what's more important is that the Haijby affair did not concern the king. It was not about the king in person, it was not about his relations, it was not abut his sexual orientation or anything else that had to do with the king. The Haijby affair was all about the way Kurt Haijby was treated by Swedish authorities, nothing else! Therefore a section about the Haijby affair should not be included in an article about the king. The affair should of course be mentioned in an article about the king, but that's all. M3926-990031 (talk) 20:54, 16 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Links to reviews of a fictional story about a man that claimed that he had had a sexual relation with the subject of this article are not relevant to said article. And the reviewed book has to be regarded as fictional since its content is unverifiable. M3926-990031 (talk) 03:22, 24 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, Haijby's accusations did not become known to the public because of the investigative journalism of Moberg. Since Moberg was not stupid he did not write about Haijby's strange claims. He focused on the, in his opinion, great injustice done to Haijby. The fact that Haijby's accusations became public was a sideffect of the Haijby affair. M3926-990031 (talk) 07:06, 24 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Gustaf V was not involved in any sex scandal. When the Haijby affair surfaced the king was already dead, and the affair was not a sex scandal. I'm not convinced it even was a scandal, but if it was it was a political or a juridical one. As I, and others, have pointed out the king was not involved in the Haijby affair. It was all about Kurt Haijby and his encounters with Swedish authorities. That's the reason why it's known as the Haijby affair. M3926-990031 (talk) 07:06, 24 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The King and Hermann Göring[edit]

Is there really a point in the Göring picture? I would like to see it removed. G5 was no nazi. --Dahlis 19:18, 26 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • He wasn't a Nazi, but he was very Pro-German, during both World War I and World War II. That is an important historical fact, and should be mentioned. -Bronks 26 February 2006
Yes it is but they way that its put forward isnt exactly objective. It was even worse before i edited it. --Dahlis 21:38, 1 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It should not be said that Gustav V or Prince Gustaf Adolf were friendly with the Nazis. Both the King and the Prince had meetings with Nazi leaders, but as far as anyone knows they were simply fulfilling their ceremonial functions as head of state. The Swedish Royal Court denies any connection between Gustaf Adolf and the Nazis, as mentioned in Aftonbladet today. As for Gustav V, it is wrong to say he was friendly with the Nazis, without describing it in the historical context and providing adequate evidence. For instance, he was fulfilling his royal duties when he met with Nazi leaders and gave them honorary orders. It doesnt necessarily reflect his own political views. Also, the royal family had family and cultural ties to the Germans, and strong conservative values as well. I think it should be written in a more nuanced and careful way. --Akseli 04:01, 9 March, 2006

The Swedish Social Democratic Party government and its current leader Göran Persson have been persuing a dedicated quest to enlighten people on the atrocities of the Nazis and how bad the Nazism is to counter xenophobic tendencies and hate-violence of the 1990s. So I'm not surprised the young people of today think it is important to mention the connection the king and prince had with Nazi Germany.
Of course, it is irrelevant -- the Nazi government wasn't that bad at first; they managed to salvage Germany and were regarded as the new wave in the world in the 1930s. They gave themself good press whilst doing it. I'm sure a lot of people were pro-German at the time. It doesn't matter. It's no big deal.
Fred-Chess 10:01, 9 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Aftonbladet is a tabloid with very little credibility (their source in this article is by the way charged with arson). 16:43, 31 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Coffee or Tea[edit]

I read that the king commuted the death sentence of a pair of identical twins on the condition that one drink tea and the other drink coffee three times a day. The imprisoned tea-drinker died first at age 83. It is recorded as the first study done on coffee & tea in regards to its effects. by BB

Interesting storry, but utterly false. 16:43, 31 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Did Gustaf V of Sweden have any illegitimate children?[edit]

All information on this topic is greatly appreciated.

I have heard storys that Gustaf V had one illegitimate son who eventually migrated to Australia and changed his name. KM — 13:35, September 6, 2006

Gustav V to Gustaf V ?[edit]

This page was moved from 'Gustav V of Sweden' to its current title, without any discussion or consent. Why? GoodDay 01:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've moved this page back to 'Gustav V of Sweden', for above reason. GoodDay 23:18, 6 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It should be moved back, Gustaf is the official spelling. See [1]

Please discuss this before any further page moves are made. See Wikipedia:Requested moves
FredJ 14:51, 26 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Gustaf is the correct spelling and Gustaf V the correct title; of Sweden is superfluous (this is not about Tom of Finland afterall.) — Robert Greer 00:02, 12 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's a little more complicated than "Gustaf is the correct spelling", but I certainly won't oppose Gustaf (nor would I oppose Gustav, if used consistently for all the kings). The pre-emptively disambiguating "of Sweden", however, is mandated by Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles)#Sovereigns, so unless you get that changed, you'll have to live with it. — Jao (talk) 08:58, 12 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am not the person who moved the article (nor would I bother to move it one way or the other; though I speak the language, Swedish articles are far from my main area of interest.) While fifty million Frenchmen can't be wrong, fifty million Wikipedians can, especially when writing naming conventions. They may know their computers — a field of which I am not ignorant — but are not necessarily knowledgeable of the subject matter upon which they intend to impose such conventions, especially when it involves foreign languages — and I don't mean COBOL.
There is a stronger argument for spelling the name Gustav as opposed to Gustaf — both of which are pronounced the same in any case — as though they were spelled Gustav — than there is for the of Sweden. The argument in favor of the former spelling is that Gustav is Anglicized, and Gustaf can be left to Swedish Wikipedia.
Google is not the final arbiter of content — nor much of anything else — but does provide a quick check on usage. There are a grand total of nineteen — yes, 19 — Swedish websites that contain Gustaf V av Sverige and Gustav V av Sverige combined vs. 49,800 for Gustaf V and Gustav V (the situation isn't much different for Gustaf V of Sweden and Gustav V ; 2,310 vs. 258,600.)
Wikipedia's naming convetions to the contrary, this page should be — take your pick — Gustaf V or Gustaf V. — Robert Greer 17:16, 12 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't see the case for ignoring all rules here. I appreciate that there are arguments for Gustaf V or Gustav V, but are there any such arguments that would not also apply to Louis XVI of France, Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, Christian VIII of Denmark or Haakon VII of Norway, just to take a few? None of these need disambiguation, all of them are certainly in more common usage without disambiguation. Yet you suggest that we move only this one, without changing the naming conventions (thereby requiring the other ones to be moved as well)? If you want them all to be moved, then that's more reasonable. Such proposals have been made, not quite successfully but also not quite without support. Perhaps it's time to bring it up at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (names and titles) once more? Consensus can change. -- Jao (talk) 18:06, 12 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not at all, I would move all of them to their unabmiguous titular names; Louis XVI, Elizabeth II, Christian VIII and Haakon VII; and would create disambiguation pages for royal names that do present problems, which is how such problems are handled in most other areas (in the cases you mention there are already redirect pages from the short titles to the long; I would merely reverse them.) Men som sagt har jag ingen lust att syssla med sådant!
My sole interest in this article arose from having read Lars Linder's review in DN of Ebervall and Samuelson's Ers majestäts olycklige Kurt while on vacation in Stockholm this summer; I hope to pick up a copy of the book itself when I'm back there in January. For the most part I write about New York City Ballet, George Balanchine and Jerome Robbins' ballets in particular. — Robert Greer 21:06, 12 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I see your standpoint, then. And yes, we all must choose our battles here; or rather, choosing what to do and what not to do is a privilege that comes with our work being voluntary. Lycka till med balettartiklarna! -- Jao (talk) 21:43, 12 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Tack detsamma! — Robert Greer (talk) 20:56, 14 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sexuality redux[edit]

From what I can tell, Gustav's supposed homosexuality is based on the reports of one person and/or event. Unless we can get better sources on his sexuality, he really doesn't belong in Category:LGBT royalty. Thoughts? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 16:08, 7 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree with you fully. / Fred-J 17:06, 8 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This would probably be the view of a person who did not live in Sweden during his reign. Obviously, this is one instance (among many) where Wikipedia and its editors shows their weaknesses. More or less everyone who lived in Sweden during his reign will tell you that he was indeed a closet homosexual. Cheers --Law Lord (talk) 13:51, 26 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
His homosexual "leanings" (so called in those days) were well known but the extent of these leanings is still debated. The recent book Gustav V - En biografi by Stig Hadenius (2005) does not take a definite stand, and only mentions it in a short chapter at the end. To claim with certainty that he was a closeted without proof would be wrong.
Fred-J 16:37, 26 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Whether it's a "weakness" or not, WP policy is that controversial claims must be backed up by reliable sources. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 03:01, 7 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It was not "an official secret that the king was homosexual". Haijby's accusations were of course official, due to the Haijby affair, but beside that there seems to be no contemporary sources mentioning anything about the king's sexual orientation. Except for Haijby there is only one man that have claimed that Gustaf V made any sexual advances toward him. Haijby was committed to psychiatric care because he had a psychic illness. He was not sent to Germany, he went there by his own free will and this has of course nothing to do with Gustaf V. Neither have the fact that Haijby was arrested for two cases of sexual offense in Germany. M3926-990031 (talk) 01:53, 23 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

recent research[edit]

Cross-posted from the Haijby affair talk page.

Lars Linder's review from April 9th in Dagens Nyheter is of course in Swedish, as is its subject, Ebervall and Samuelson's Ers majestäts olycklige Kurt. DN, as it is known, is very high quality newspaper, it's only competition for the title of newpaper of record in Sweden being Svenska Dagbladet, called SvD. I have read only the review, not the book yet, but it is based previously classified Swedish documents and reveals far more than Wilhelm Moberg was able to find. — Robert Greer 00:32, 12 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

But the new book isn't a history book, it is written as a novel.
Påståendena i verklighetens affär var många och beläggen ofta osäkra. Men romanformen tystar bekvämt alla följdfrågor.
If so, the stories in the book can hardly be used as reference material.
Fred-J 11:17, 12 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The headline in DN reads:
Lena Ebervall och Per E Samuelson: 'Ers majestäts olycklige Kurt'
Dokument eller roman? Vad är egentligen sant i Lena Ebervall och Per E Samuelsons kittlande bok om Haijby­affären?
Lars Linder anser att händelsen bör tas på större allvar [emphasis added].
Or, for the benefit of those who do not read Swedish:
... the events [described in this book] need to be taken in utter earnest.
My bedtime reading while on vacation in Stockholm this summer was Vilhelm Moberg's Min svenska historia (My Swedish History).
In the foreward to which he explains that his novels were based on historical research and that he is using the same materials for a nonfiction work.
I would suggest that Ebervall and Samuelson's work is similar to Moberg's or to Truman Capote's nonfiction fiction.
More generally that one can write a wholly false work in a scholarly format, Holocaust deniers being an extreme but apt example.
And that one can write perfectly factual material in the format of fiction, of which Capote's In Cold Blood is a prime specimen.
Robert Greer (talk) 04:06, 22 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, but större allvar doesn't mean utter earnest, it means more earnest.
I suppose some part of the book could be used as reference though, depending on how those sections are written and what can be established as historically verifiable.
Fred-J 21:06, 26 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, I don't agree that Ebervall and Samuelson's novel could be regarded as "research". And where have you found the information that the novel "is based [on] previously classified Swedish documents"? I guess that could be true if you by previously classified means a decade or so ago de-classified, but otherwise I doubt it. Ebervall and Samuelson's book is a novel, and it lacks references, period. Lars Linder's opinion about this novel is subsequently of less interest to Wikipedia than the novel itself. But for your information, Lars Linder strongly dislikes the monarchy and have in DN expressed the opinion that the present king is almost an idiot. By the way, Vilhelm Moberg was a vivid republican too. M3926-990031 (talk) 22:05, 3 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
From the review in Sydsvenskan: Den här berättelsen har allt som en riktigt smaskig skandal ska ha. Dessutom bygger den på en sann historia.... ”Ers majestäts olycklige Kurt” är en sannsaga späckad med kandelaberbögar, kungligheter, förräderi och mygel. Här uppträder Karl Gerhard och Gestapo och en hoper parfymdoftande direktörer och, inte att förglömma, stjärtarna på både små och stora gossar. [I believe that this quotation, fifty words from a book review in a month-old newspaper, is within the limits of fair use.]
Translation: This story has all that a really delicious scandal should have. Despite which it builds on a true story.... Your Majesty's Unhappy Kurt is a true-story larded with candelabra gays, royalty, treachery and finagling. Here appear Karl Gerhard and the Gestapo and a [whole] crowd of perfumed directors and, not to be forgotten, the backsides of both small and large boys [emphasis added.]Robert Greer (talk) 17:15, 16 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
P.S. I have added two additional book reviews to the article and am taking the liberty of cross-posting this section to the talk page for Gustaf V. — Robert Greer 17:15, 16 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The book "Ers majestäts olycklige Kurt" is still a novel! But, yes it is based on a true story, the Haijby affair. The Haijby affair did occur, that's common knowledge. What's also common knowledge is that the Haijby affair is about the authorities treatment of Kurt Haijby, it's not about Haijby's alleged sexual affair with the king!
And you still haven't answered the question about where you got the information that the novel "is based [on] previously classified Swedish documents". M3926-990031 (talk) 21:33, 16 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Kurt Haijby's mistreatment cannot be explained without or seperated from his connection to Gustaf V; scoundrel that he was (and I most emphatically do not find him charming) there was no justification for placing Haijby in the hands of the Gestapo nor can doing so be justified by arguments that one needs to view the Swedish government's actions in the context of the times.
I intend to buy a copy of Ers majestäts olycklige Kurt when I'm in Stockholm at Christmas; all I read prior to the edit war you've begun is the review in DN — which you dismiss out of hand — when I was there in August, so it must have been in that review, which you are free to read at your leisure.
I skimmed the Expressen and Sydsvenskan reviews before adding them to the External links and chose them for solely for variety, omitting Svenska Dagbladet and Aftonbladet not wanting Stockholm papers to dominate and not wanting to list more than three external links (some Wikipedians criticize excessively long lists of the same); and could have added Göteborgs-Posten instead of Sydsvenskan but the latter came up near the top in a quick Google search.
And I have other fish to fry: this is not a matter of enought interest to me to do more than restore See also Haijby affair to the Gustaf V article, which I will thank you not to remove. — Robert Greer (talk) 17:32, 17 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

End of cross-posting.

I think it is pretty shocking that so much of the content of this discussion is about his sexual orientation and so little about his support for Germany in WWII. Contrary to Fredchessplayer, supporting the Nazis in their war of aggression is a VERY big deal and they WERE that bad right from the start as their immediate introduction of concentration camps shows. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Gustav V[edit]

545 English language books (published after 1990) refer to him as Gustav V, while 438 books refer to him as Gustaf V. This article and the article about his successor should be consistent with the articles about their namesakes (Gustav IV Adolf of Sweden, Gustav III of Sweden, Gustav II Adolf of Sweden and Gustav I of Sweden). It is perfectly normal for some names to be translated; Gustav VI Adolf's British contemporary is known as Georg VI av Storbritannien in Swedish. Surtsicna (talk) 19:55, 14 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oppose - See same discussion at Talk:Gustaf VI Adolf of Sweden and let's do this there, not on two pages! SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:41, 14 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You oppose what? I haven't proposed anything :) Surtsicna (talk) 17:52, 15 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

They should be moved back. GoodDay (talk) 19:47, 15 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oppose, as above. SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:39, 15 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Olympic reference[edit]

Between the references and the succession boxes, there's a single note about opening the 1912 Olympic Games. Since it's preceded by a #, that begins a numbered list of one. Is there a good place for this? While there are succession boxes, I think, for successive Olympic Games, I don't think there's one for the openers of each Games (e.g. the Governor-General of Canada at the Winter Olympic Games of 2010 in Vancouver). —— Shakescene (talk) 10:48, 20 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Long lede[edit]

Recent edits have made the lede of the article (now 2 paragraphs) excessively long as compared to the bulk. Anyone know what to do about that? SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:29, 14 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gustaf V 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:19, 26 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gustaf V 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:03, 26 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Why are some Swedish kings' names spelled with a v (Gustav I, Gustavus Adolphus, Charles X Gustav, Gustav III) and some with an f (Gustaf V, Gustaf VI Adolf, Carl XVI Gustaf)? Which is the correct spelling? --Pjoona11 (talk) 16:59, 24 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Until 1900 or so all kings by this name were traditionally spelled Gustav in officialdom. After that, legal names began to be registered and those who were legally spelled Gustaf have retained that spelling. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:22, 25 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Carl XVI Gustaf of Sweden which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 11:15, 9 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:54, 15 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Strongest monarch?[edit]

Was he the strongest monarch in Western Europe following the Portuguese and Monegasque revolutions (or even earlier) and up to 1917? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:27, 22 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RfC of interest[edit]

(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) 19:39, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]