Talk:Charles Edward, Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha/Archive 1

Archive 1

Prince Arthur

"Arthur's son, Prince Arthur of Connaught, was attending school at Eton with Prince Charles, and threatened to beat his cousin up if Charles did not accept the dukedom"- what is the source of this claim? Astrotrain 19:15, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps worded indelicately, but it's in the ODNB bio of Prince Arthur: In 1899 the death of his cousin Prince Alfred of Coburg raised the question of the succession to the dukedom of Coburg. The duke of Connaught was now heir apparent to this title, with Prince Arthur next in line. Connaught saw some merit in his son taking on the German title since as a prince of the United Kingdom he would receive no civil list income and yet be debarred from earning a living. Queen Victoria did not want him to leave his family, while the Kaiser objected to Connaught, his uncle. Young Prince Arthur refused to leave Eton. He threatened his cousin Charles Edward, duke of Albany, with a thrashing if he did not offer himself as a candidate. Under pressure, Albany surrendered his English nationality and duly succeeded as duke of Coburg, with lamentable consequences for himself when war broke out between England and Germany. john k 20:56, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Recent TV programme

Tabloid write-up:

http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=498894&in_page_id=1770

Open4D 07:36, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

the is article isn't netural —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.87.193.40 (talk • contribs)

Properties

"Most of his properties in Saxony and Coburg were seized by the Soviet army" can't be true with respect to Coburg since Coburg was never under soviet occupation (it forms part of Bavaria since 1920, which was under American occupation). The family has property there till now (plus property in Austria plus property in Thuringia they got back after 1990). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.137.113.174 (talk) 00:17, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

The Duchy consisted of several different pieces of territory. Coburg ended up under American control after the war, and thus part of the future West Germany; while Gotha ended up in the Soviet Zone, and thus became part of East Germany. I think the person who wrote that must have used 'Coburg' as a generic term for the whole Duchy (as historians and writers often do). I've amnded the sentance to reflect this. Indisciplined (talk) 22:27, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but your change was wrong. The separation of Coburg and Gotha happened in 1920, when Coburg joined Bavaria. Your sentence suggests this was somehow done after WW II by the allies. I change this again.--193.62.198.90 (talk) 16:59, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

T4

It is perhaps not critical, except to the victims, but T4 was a euthanasia program for the mentally disabled, not an experimentation programme. Experimentation certainly occurred, but I do not think there was a specific action number applied to it. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 22:35, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Uniform

Charles Edward, former Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, 1933, as SA-Gruppenführer

Rank insignia of a gruppenführer not an Obergruppenführer ? Regards Gryphonis (talk) 08:22, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Correct; but he held the rank of Obergruppenführer later. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 22:32, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I have changed the caption.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 22:37, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Argh!

I just noticed that the ref I used yesterday in turn references the German WP article. This has only a few inline cits. I will try to find RS for the content.Drow69 (talk) 09:47, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Army or SA-uniform?

The article states: "He attended the funeral of his first cousin George V as Hitler's representative[30] in the uniform of a Stormtrooper (SA) general[31] of the German army (...)" There must be something wrong with this sentence as the SA (Sturmabteilung, "Stormtrooper unit") was part of the Nazi-party, the NSDAP. It was never part of the German army. So he must have either used the uniform of the army, or that of the SA. As the article says that he was member of the party and the SA, I suggest that the four words "of the German army" should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:810B:1040:2494:C51C:744:6879:E612 (talk) 20:24, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

You are right. In addition, the mentioned source (Nigel Graddon, The Mystery of U-33: Hitler's Secret Envoy) says: "A Nazi Party member, Charles Edward brazenly attended the funeral of George V in is Sturmabteilung (SA) uniform." Hence we can remove five words: "general of the German army". --Dodeeric (talk) 10:50, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

I made the changes: a) removed "general of the German army" and changed "Stormtrooper" by "Sturmabteilung" (as stated in the source). --Dodeeric (talk) 12:05, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Wrong Arthur Benson?

"According to his sister, after Lyndhurst he went to Eton, where he was in Arthur Benson's House." The Arthur Benson to whom this links was 23 years younger. An alternate candidate might be AC Benson who taught at Eton during the time Charles Edward was there, but I have no access to the reference. Cross Reference (talk) 04:35, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Bruxton talk 19:18, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Charles Edward, Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha in 1933

• ... that the leader (pictured) of the German Red Cross under the Nazi regime had lived in the UK until he was fifteen years old? Source:"Biografie Karl Eduard (German)". Bayerische Nationalbibliothek.
• ALT1: ... that the leader (pictured) of the German Red Cross under the Nazi regime had lived in the UK until he was fifteen years old and was a grandson of Queen Victoria?
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Emelia Quinn

Created by Llewee (talk). Self-nominated at 12:43, 11 December 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Charles Edward, Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

• GTG. Fascinating GA, well-written. But various things should be capitalized, & some pics are fixed much too small. Hook checks out (there are various other possibilities....) Johnbod (talk) 23:17, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

I added ALT1 after the review. Llewee (talk) 11:48, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Also ok, but the hyphens in the age aren't needed. Johnbod (talk) 16:24, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

OK Llewee (talk) 14:43, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Ideas towards FAC

Per the invitation on my talk (last year), I'll read the article as an informal peer review, lead and infobox details last.

General:

Lead

• The lead seems on the short side for a FA, and the infobox on the long side. The article was probably written when we had a TOC. With the current layout, the images of early life - and both valuable - sandwich the text. Does the infobox really need all these issue details? World War I and II seems not surprising given the period of his life.

   Done The end of the infobox and the start of the early life section is now more or less lined up.--Llewee (talk) 13:26, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Images

• For FA quality (and really also otherwise), images should have alt= text, describing what the image shows briefly for someone who can't see it, for example being blind.

   Done

Foreign text

• Texts in German and other foreign languages, marked by template lang, should use {{langr}} instead for names and other items that should not be italic.

   Done I think I have caught all instances of this.--Llewee (talk) 18:38, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Urbach

• please decide if what Urbach thinks should be past tense or present tense.

   Done The tenses the historians are referred to in here should now be consistent.--Llewee (talk) 22:50, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

History

• World War I, World War II, Weimar Republic, East Germany, West Germany, Nazi Party - all common but informal. - Please check what other articles do. When the 1914 war happened there was no other world war, needing a numbering. The country was Germany, for example, no passport would say East Germany, and to say that East Germany later became Germany sounds a bit misleading. (I fixed that one by a pipe.)

  Gerda Arendt I have taken out all instances of "Weimar republic" and "Nazi Germany". Apart from that I don't agree. The term "Nazi" is very widely used on Wikipedia (see Nazism, Nazi Germany and Nazi Party) and is the common English language term. I've never seen the world wars be referred to by period terms and I don't think that would be helpful for the reader. I'm aware that the use of the terms east and west Germany are somewhat controversial but I think there the most widely known shorthand for two separate political entities. I believe whenever there used in this article its to distinguish from other versions of the German state.--Llewee (talk) 21:47, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

  I do understand Nazi, and use "Nazi regime", and would understand "Nazi party" better than "Nazi Party", but can only repeat: look what other articles do ;) - I use "First World War", or just "War", once established. - Practical advice for a real peer review: please keep bullets when replying, and don't use template done. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:40, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

  Apologies if I was patronising. I appreciate I'm a juvenile Anglo-Saxon/Celt sticking my oar in on your country. :) I've changed the capitalisation which you referenced. I think I have responded to each of your concerns now. Are their any other problems you have noticed?--Llewee (talk) 23:05, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you, all fine for me. I'd like to take a closer look at the lead, but that typically changes the most during PR and FAC. Next week perhaps. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:17, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

  OK, take as long as you like Llewee (talk) 23:20, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

His name

• I am not comfortable naming him Charles Edward throughout, - I bet for the longest time, while trying soo hard to be German, he was Carl Eduard, no? For the longest time also, he was no nobleman. How should that be reflected in text and infobox? We don't speak of women by simply using there given names, - should we for this person? - The German title Herzog (printed on an image, and in references) needs to be mentioned and explained.

Thank you for all this! Here I believe his given name is appropriate throughout since he was a British prince by birth. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:35, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

That should probably depend on the usage in English-language sources. If sources refer to him as Charles Edward throughout his life, so should we. If they switch names depending on context, so should we. The article should make it clear that he was no longer a ruler after 1918 but otherwise he remained a nobleman in practice; the article notes that he was seen by the people of his former duchy as essentially still the duke, and this status is the only thing that set him apart in his Nazi era. I do not think he was ever commonly known as Mr Saxe-Coburg-Gotha or that English-language sources commonly call him anything other than Charles Edward. Surtsicna (talk) 21:56, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Interesting. For Clara Schumann, some sources say just "Clara" throughout, and others don't, and we decided to follow Wikipedia style to not call a woman by just given name, - not the sources. To read "Charles Edward" in the image caption of a photo that has "Herzog Carl Eduard" printed on it looks strange to me. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:28, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt Leaving aside the German language sources, the two academic sources by what I assume are British and American authors use Charles Edward throughout. Urbach (who is German) uses "Carl Eduard" and occasionally "Coburg" after he is sent to Germany. The Scotsman article from 1953 quotes him signing his name as Charles Edward in English even that late in his life. Llewee (talk) 13:08, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, - then I suggest to mention this last fact in the article, + perhaps make a footnote when the short name first appears that it will be used throughout. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:33, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

 Done

Emperor's name

• either German, Wilhelm II., or English, William II

  Unless I have missed an example otherwise the name Wilhelm is used throughout the article, it's his common name in English. Llewee (talk) 17:27, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, Wilhelm, but - as said - in German there's a dot following II.: "Wilhelm II." --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:33, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

  I don't think English language sources use that dot.--Llewee (talk) 17:49, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Details

Early life ...

• The first image displaces the first sentence under the header, - consider putting it after the first sentence. The caption should should have a piped link to the place, for readers looking at the image first. (What a house!)

   Done I think I would be reluctant to let my grandmother send me abroad if that was my house but maybe half a dozen castles could sway me.--Llewee (talk) 17:35, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

• "Prince Leopold" - I had already forgotten that it was his father, but that may be just me ;)
• "had one sister" vs. "had a sister"?

Correct me if I'm wrong but I think the text your referencing here has been taken out now.--Llewee (talk) 18:23, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

• "He was not expected to grow up to be a particularly prominent person." - leaves me wondering who thought so.

Good point. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:35, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Urbach says it in a slightly vague way

As one of Queen Victoria’s many grandsons, Charles Edward was expected to lead a privileged and unspectacular life. Had he stayed in England, he could have joined one of the fighting services, or he could have lived as a gentleman of leisure.

--Llewee (talk) 17:56, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Accession ...

• refs should be listed in ascending order, 3 10, not 10 3.

   Done

• "1st Garderegiment zu Fuß" vs. "1. Garderegiment zu Fuß", not to mix English and German. A translation might help.

   Done

German Red Cross

• Translate to Deutsches Rotes Kreuz (DRK)

  I do not agree. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:35, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

  In case I wasn't clear: I don't mean to use only the German name, but supply the translation, to match some sources and to explain the (used) abbreviation DRK. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:38, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

  OK. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:43, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

   Done

Unofficial diplomat

• image caption too long - some in footnote, perhaps?

   Done

That's it for today, - no more time for more detail. Feel free to discuss each bullet right there, with short signatures. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:42, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for following. I fixed indenting: replies to a bullet should repeat the bullet. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:11, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Lead

I finally had time to read the lead again, and am happy with its expansion towards more detail. Minor things:

• I don't known if there's a solution to avoid the litany of names before we even get to his dates of birth.

• I've put the German versions into the note. Llewee (talk) 00:03, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

• Here - and possibly in the article - you may want to reduce the calls of "Charles Edward", which could sometimes be replaced by "his" or "his son", - be inventive. Take for example "Leopold died before Charles's Edward birth. Charles Edward's mother was ...". Perhaps introduce the mother before his father dies?
• I find it too much of a jump from the 1920s to the Nazi regime.

See you at PR. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:42, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Surtsicna's interjection

Very good work. I have some suggestions too:

• Alfred is not properly introduced. He is first mentioned only in the 9th paragraph and his relationship to Charles Edward only in the 12th, the very last time he appears. Ditto for Edward VII, who is also only vaguely described as "uncle" in the 12th paragraph, and Wilhelm II, whom the article fails to promptly identify as Charles Edward's first cousin. These are vital relationships and should be set up as soon as possible, possibly already in the first section of "Early life" by naming Princes Edward, Alfred, and Arthur as well as Empress Victoria as his father's elder siblings. Edward VII's succession to Victoria should also be referenced.
• We should not go through the entire "Early life" section and then the entire "Accession and education in Germany" without being educated on what Saxe-Coburg and Gotha is and how the German Empire was divided. And then, Saxe-Coburg and Gotha should be defined as a state, not a royal house.
• Similarly to the first two points, the article fails to set up the Saxe-Coburg and Gotha inheritance. It just pops up out of the blue. What's the British royal family got to do with a German statelet? Did it come from the boy's paternal or maternal family? Who is this uncle Alfred? How did Alfred end up as duke?

That's it for now. Surtsicna (talk) 17:33, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Surtsicna, I have created a background section which I'm not sure is ideal for a biography but which should hopefully give some context.--Llewee (talk) 11:58, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Llewee, while some FA biographies do indeed have such Background sections, I agree that it is not ideal. See if you like this solution. If you do, please ensure that I moved the references correctly and that otherwise everything now added is referenced. Surtsicna (talk) 14:34, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Surtsicna, I have tried to add a bit more context but I'm happy with the overall structure you suggested.--Llewee (talk) 15:33, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Llewee, the article should name the son and son-in-law who were killed in action. Links cannot replace names. Who is the son-in-law? Judging by the dates of deaths of his various sons-in-law, it can be either Caroline Mathilde's ex-husband, Friedrich Wolfgang Otto Graf zu Castell-Rüdenhausen, or second husband, Max Schnirring. Surtsicna (talk) 18:54, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

The source does not mention his name. It might just be best to take it out. Llewee (talk) 21:11, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

It might indeed be for the best because one of them was actually former son-in-law and the other, as far as I could tell, was a military pilot but died in an accident, not combat. Surtsicna (talk) 00:25, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Emperor's name

I think that in English he is now known as "(Kaiser) Wilhelm (II)"—keeping "William II" for a Norman king of England. Errantios (talk) 14:00, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Children

I think it is essential that a reader of this article have easy access to info about his children, more than just their linked names. Now that all that has been removed when the table on it was blitzed, should one really have to follow a number of links to find out e.g. that this man was the maternal grandfather of the current king of Sweden? At least in that country, it's rather a big deal due to his political involvement. SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:52, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

The reader does not have to follow any links to find out that Carl Eduard is the grandfather of Carl Gustaf. Sibylla's marriage into the Swedish royal family is discussed in the "Weimar Republic" section. Carl Gustaf himself is named in the "Postwar period and death" section. I removed the table because I think that having the dates of birth, marriage, divorce, and death of his nine daughters-in-law and sons-in-law is quite an overkill; but I think I erred in not keeping the children's years of birth and death, which fit well in the prose. Surtsicna (talk) 19:07, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

King in lead

I do not agree with this reversal. His position as grandfather of a legitimate king certainly must be a fact essential enough for the lead? I will reinstate it unless someone can give us a good reason here not to. SergeWoodzing (talk) 03:40, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

SergeWoodzing and AndrewPeterT, I don't really mind either way but you two might want to discuss it. Llewee (talk) 16:41, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Llewee, thank you for the mention. For context, I made that revision as part of a series of related edits I made across royalty-related Wikipedia articles.

@SergeWoodzing:, I removed the information about Carl XVI Gustaf being Charles Edward's grandson because I fail to see how that specific genealogical fact is important enough to be mentioned in what should be a summary section and does not contravene WP:UNDUE. More specifically:

1. I am not an expert on the last Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha. However, I would expect a Wikipedia article on him to briefly describe what someone like Charles Edward accomplished on their own merits in the lede, in the spirit of what MOS:LEADNO describes. That Carl Gustaf is the Duke's grandson is an "accident of birth" not related to anything the Duke did in his "professional" capacity.

I do not agree. The fact that this former British and Gerrman prince, who was very controversial, was the maternal grandfather of King Carl Gustaf is essential to telling the story of his life. That's what a biography is. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:19, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

2. When I conducted the Google search charles edward of saxe-coburg and gotha carl xvi gustaf's grandfather, I noticed that most of the results that mention the genealogical connection came from either blogs or sites that pull information directly from Wikipedia. This brings up the issue of WP:RELIABLE. If few "trustworthy" sources are describing this relationship, why should Wikipedia?

Flabbergasting that anyone would question such a readily available fact in many scolarly works, as if the identity of the grandparents of the king of Sweden is questionable. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:19, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

3. The details of Carl XVI Gustaf's biography on the Swedish Royal Court's website also convince me to not mention the connection in question. Charles Edward is only mentioned once in the King of Sweden's biography. Even then, the Duke is acknowledged as the King's godfather, not grandfather. I am cautious that saying something beyond what the Swedish Royal Court says would be WP:OR.

"Godfather" should prove that he wasn't his grandfather? While visiting the royal website, one could also read this to see who his mother's father was. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:19, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

4. Finally, at the expense of violating WP:OSE, I would also like to mention how the lede of the article on Queen Victoria (which is of FA status) is written. Nowhere in that top section does it mention that Victoria was the grandmother of the legitimate Wilhelm II, German Emperor, even though the tensions between Wilhelm and Victoria and her eldest daughter (the Emperor's mother) were arguably a cause of World War I.

Victoria's article is irrelevant. She had so many relatives in palaces all over that is would be tedious to mentuon them all at the top. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:19, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

I hope this reply sufficiently detailed my reasoning. Please let me know if you have any further questions or comments. AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 18:21, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

I see no viable reason not to reinstate this. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:19, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I do appreciate your detailed counterarguments. As I would prefer my objections (over just one sentence in a long article) not derail the ongoing peer review, I will agree to disagree and reinstate my removal. AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 21:38, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Suspense build-up?

Under Personal life we now have this wording "In 1932 his daughter Sibylla married Prince Gustaf Adolf, Duke of Västerbotten, the eldest son of the Crown Prince of Sweden and second-in-line to the Swedish throne. The marriage meant that Sibylla would, in the normal course, become Queen of Sweden." - and that's it! Is this meant to build up some sort of suspense - did she or didn't she!?!? background music - or why is it left open and only followed-up on by something one might be able to hide-and-seek for much later in the article? Very strange, in my opinion. SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:44, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

That section is about the 1920s and early 1930s. What happened later is mentioned when it happened. I think this is quite a trivial issue to have a argument about.--Llewee (talk) 21:23, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

The mention later is not enough to inform the reader clearly. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 09:11, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

SergeWoodzing, In response to the rather unpleasant comments you left on my talk page, I'm editing this article a lot at the moment because I am trying to get it ready for Featured status. I'm in no way claiming ownership over it. Other editors have made changes to it during the period I've been working on it and I've taken advice in the informal and formal peer reviews.

On the specific issue in question, "personal life" is a subsection of "Far-right advocate", the section of the article about his life between 1918 and 1933. The expectation when the wedding happened in 1932 was that she would become Queen of Sweden. Including comments about what happened later mixes up chronological order and repeats information unnecessarily. Ultimately this is not her biography and detail about her life that isn't specifically related to Charles Edward should be kept to a minimum.--Llewee (talk) 21:13, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

We normally do not bring article-irrelevant personal arguments from our user talk pages over into article talk.

I see no rational motive not to mention for clarity, not even in parentheses, the fact that Sibylla's chance to become a queen did not materialize, right where that is mentioned as part of her farther's aspirations. What's the importance of not mentioning it right there? Why should the reader be left hanging like that? This is not a magazine article, it's an encyclopedic biography where clarity, rather that creative-dramatic build-up, is the best course. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:07, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Nothing useful will be gained from the two of us discussing this further. I will notify editors that have recently been involved in this article and try to reach a consensus.

Surtsicna Gerda Arendt Matarisvan Therealscorp1an AndrewPeterT Векочел If you could add your views on this matter that would be helpful. Thanks, Llewee (talk) 23:52, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

I think it would be better to say something along the lines of Sibylla was expected to become the queen of Sweden. To me, it seems a bit vague to indicate that she would become queen 'in the normal course'. Векочел (talk) 00:13, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Llewee, thank you once again for your ping.

With respect to the issue at hand, I agree with SergeWoodzing (and Векочел). The sentence This marriage meant that Sibylla ... become Queen of Sweden, as written, begs the question of whether Sibylla actually did become Sweden's royal consort.

For clarity, it should be mentioned right afterward in the prose that Sibylla never became Queen of Sweden (or at least as a footnote if this is too intrusive). Alternatively, the quoted sentence should be rewritten or removed to avoid introducing this suspense to readers.

Moreover, I disagree with the fact that the later mention discussed above clarifies whether Sibylla became a consort. The pertinent paragraph does not explicitly state that Sibylla never was the Queen of Sweden.

AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 00:22, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

• (pinged) I looked, and wonder if we could drop the sentence altogether. The one before said that her husband was scond-in-line to the Swedish throne, - isn't that clear and sufficient? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:16, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! Seems that still might leave the reader wondering. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:16, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Please note that this is the reversal which I cannot find constructive for clarity. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 08:50, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for pinging me. I have to agree with User:SergeWoodzing that it may seem a bit odd to the reader with the current wording. However, I agree with User:Llewee in that I do not think the solution (the one that got reverted) is good either. Using brackets within Wikipedia articles has never looked very encyclopedic or professional for me personally. I also think the arguments involved in this entire discussion could have avoided from the start. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 22:51, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! LLewee did not revert because of parentheses. They have become an issue (?) only now. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:55, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

To clarify, I reverted because I thought the addition was scruffy and unnecessary so I think I do partly agree with Therealscorp1an.--Llewee (talk) 15:17, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Use of photos

Hi, User:Llewee. Great job on all the work you have been doing to this article lately! I just wanted to bring up the point of images within this article. Have images been used excessively here? From this section onwards, the right hand column of the page is filled with many images. Maybe we could move some to the left hand side to avoid clutter or maybe just remove some in whole? Thanks. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 23:04, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi Therealscorp1an, thank you for the complements. On the picture issue, a while ago they were spread out on both sides. I moved them to the right as the article expanded because the guidance says that its preferred. It is like you say starting to look quite crowded. I'll move a couple and you can I say if it looks better.--Llewee (talk) 12:12, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Birth

"On 19 July 1884, at Claremont House near Esher, Surrey, Princess Helen, Duchess of Albany, gave birth to a son. He was called Leopold Charles Edward George Albert and used the name Charles Edward." reads more like a novel than an encyclopedia and does not clearly identify the article subject. Can this be reworded to reduce drama a bit and increase clarity a bit? SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:02, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Reworded now Llewee (talk) 19:29, 11 March 2024 (UTC)