Talk:Charles XIV John

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Blakenyguen.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:14, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Pontecorvo?

In the Bernadotte article, it's Ponto Corvo. Here it's Pontecorvo. Which is correct? RickK 03:05, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)

John gone

Why is the name "Charles XIV"? To the best of my knowledge, he was known exclusively as "Carl XIV Johan" in Sweden, and while I can see the point of translating Carl, I certainly cannot see the point of removing Johan. Is there such a point? --Jao 20:33, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)

You are right. Also Encyclopædia Britannica translates his name to Charles XIV John. /Jebur 28 June 2005 18:11 (UTC)

Surname

Why was Deu Pouey altered to Bernadotte? Did one of his ancestors inherit the property of a relation with that surname? --Anglius 04:00, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Jeandou deu Pouey married Germaine de Bernadotte 1615, she got her name from a property in Pau, and they changed to that name. Idon't know why, but a likely guess was that the Bernadottes were higher nobility than the Poueys. Their son Pierre Bernadotte was Jean-Baptiste's great-great-grandfather. --BluePlatypus 08:13, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I thank you, sir. I apologise for having not responded earlier. I did not notice your reply.--06:09, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Battle of France

Surely Bernadotte took no part in this since it happened in 1940... --Actarus000 (talk) 20:36, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Good catch! It used to read Battle of Fleurus (which makes very much more sense!) before the paragraph was partly amended and partly obfuscated in this IP edit on March 4, 2008. How much of that edit is legitimate and how much is vandalism? -- Jao (talk) 22:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I think I misread the changelog. Isn't that edit just a removal of all the text between "Battle of" and "France"? It's not undoable anymore though, so I guess it has to be done manually? -- Jao (talk) 22:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Monarchical Styles Infobox

This infobox, besides looking like a gaudy wine label, doesn't have any practical use in the biography. It's a bit silly (and not at all reverent) to address a Swedish monarch in English, especially when he has been in his tomb for a long time. I'm going to remove it, as happened on the Christian VIII of Denmark page. Glatisant (talk) 15:28, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

File:Jean-Baptiste-Jules Bernadotte, Prince de Ponte-Corvo, roi de Suède, Maréchal de France (1763-1844).jpg to appear as POTD

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Jean-Baptiste-Jules Bernadotte, Prince de Ponte-Corvo, roi de Suède, Maréchal de France (1763-1844).jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on October 20, 2010. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2010-10-20. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks! P. S. Burton (talk) 00:54, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Picture of the day

A full-length portrait of then-French Marshal Jean Baptiste Bernadotte (1763–1844), who later became King Charles XIV John of Sweden and Norway. Bernadotte had a long and decorated career in the French Army, when he was unexpectedly elected the heir to the childless King Charles XIII. His election was due to two main factors: the Swedish Army were in favour of electing a soldier in view of future complications with Russia, and he had shown kindness to Swedish prisoners during the recent war with Denmark, part of the Napoleonic Wars. Although he never learned to speak Swedish, during his reign, Sweden and Norway became united, and both experienced great material development.Artist: Joseph Nicolas Jouy

His capture at Cuddalore 1783?

According to the accounts in sources used in main article Jean Baptiste-Bernadotte was captured in the failed French assault on 25th June 1783 at the Siege of Cuddalore in India as corporal or sergeant in the marines and was looked after by the Hanoverian Colonel Waggenheim whom he would later meet him again in an interesting reunion when France annexed Hanover in 1804. Here is an example 'Napoleon and His Marshals - Vol. II Chapter XX' MARSHAL BERNADOTTE and I quote: Serving here two years he was sent to the East Indies, where, in a sortie, at Cuddalore, he was wounded and taken prisoner. Some have questioned this as a fable as it shows in this Napoleonic website Bernadotte-sahoib? Wondering if anyone could shed any more light on the matter. Bruich (Bruich) 19:57, 18 August 2010 (GMT)

Hello, Bernadotte was never posted to India. Every biography denies that he had been to India. In Barton's "The Amazing Career of Bernadotte," the author relates the genesis of the India rumor.

It goes as follows: While hosting a ball in Hannover in 1804, Bernadotte encountered a certain General von Gonheim, who had served with the British at the Siege of Cuddalore, where an element of Bernadotte's old regiment, the Royal-la-Marine, had served. The general asked Bernadotte if he had served in India, as he recalled the service of the Royal-la-Marine, and remembered that he had nursed a French prisoner, a young sergeant, back to health in his own tent. General von Gonheim was disappointed that the man had never contacted him afterwards, to thank him. The man was old and Bernadotte humored him be claiming to be the prisoner and thanked the old man for his kindness, and over the next year, showered him with marks of favor and distinction. Afterwards, an ADC asked Bernadotte if had actually served in India. Bernadotte laughed and said no, but he was repaying the man's kindness on behalf of his fellow regimental soldier.''

--User:SJCReecy (talk) 23:39, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

References

Too smooth description of how he unified Sweden and Norway

In the article Treaty of Kiel it is mentioned that Norway defied its annexation by Sweden, and instead Norway rose up as an independent state and fought Sweden (in the last war involving Sweden to date) in 1814. Only after both sides suffered from the strains of the war, they sought a compromise which changed the original annexation to a personal union. In this article, however, there is no mention of all that. Also, it is not entirely clear from this article that Charles XIV John was not actually the ruler of Sweden at the time of the unification with Norway. --ComradeMicha (talk) 20:49, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Marshal Bernadotte's father

Jean Henri Bernadotte, the father of Marshal Bernadotte/King of Sweden and Norway, was magistrate at Pau as PROSECUTOR (translated by the word "PROCUREUR" in French) and not PROCURATOR !!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.192.53.52 (talk) 22:48, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

What about his wife, Desiree?

Bernadotte's wife is never mentioned in the article. She was Joseph Bonaparte's wife's sister. Please add info about their marriage.71.206.203.88 (talk) 13:20, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Name problems

I rolled back 3 unsourced name adjustments. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:20, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Charles XIV John 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151117015734/http://www.ambafrance-se.org/IMG/pdf/Olof_Sjostrom-_Karl_XIV_Johan_laid_the_foundations_for_modern_Sweden.pdf?3087%2F3254855707f4a3e86da124e202b60fc92f7fe1db to http://www.ambafrance-se.org/IMG/pdf/Olof_Sjostrom-_Karl_XIV_Johan_laid_the_foundations_for_modern_Sweden.pdf?3087%2F3254855707f4a3e86da124e202b60fc92f7fe1db

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 14:29, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Moves?

There have been two (reverted) moves here. I think the current title is clearly correct by the MOS, so I will not be procedurally starting a move proposal unless technical assistance to do so is specifically requested. @Mullone: Please discuss on the talk page before moving this page again. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:27, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Rollback re: names

I rolled back 3 edits which contradicted the sources on his name. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:49, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Interesting book about his ties to Napoleon

One user accused it of being a "blog" in a recent edit summary[1] I suggest you refrain using such slander and allow reliable book resources to displayed.68.47.64.121 (talk) 23:08, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

NPOV?

The part on his military career is full of positive spins. The content on his failures as a commander even looked apologetic on his behalf. A mediocre commander is made to look like a hero that is wronged and received injustice here. What a joke of a biased article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.140.160.148 (talk) 20:09, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Franz Joseph I of Austria which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 14:30, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 19 June 2020

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Consensus to move (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 05:45, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

---

Charles XIV John of Sweden → Charles XIV John – Consistency with other articles recently moved following discussion at Talk:Carl XVI Gustaf#Requested move 9 June 2020. Opera hat (talk) 22:44, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support. I do not understand why it was not moved as part of that move request, where it was listed. Surtsicna (talk) 10:29, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose He is known at Charles III John in Norway- --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:23, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Same problem with Charles XV. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:39, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

I do not see how keeping the article at Charles XIV John of Sweden takes that into account. He is far more commonly known in English as the Fourteenth, which also happens to be the only ordinal he used and endorsed. Charles III John is virtually unheard of in English-language literature. Surtsicna (talk) 14:11, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

If I may, Charlie Jack was/is better known as a Swedish monarch. Sweden was the dominant partner in that union, though this may have irked (actually it kinda did, see 1905 events) Norwegians. GoodDay (talk) 15:18, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support frankly, this should be moved without wasting time with a discussion, as its ommission from the earlier, collective debate was presumably an oversight. Which means this is merely housekeeping. I note that SergeWoodzing abstained in that debate; the argument for opposing now is obscure to say the least. ——Serial ^# 13:30, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Your reasoning is "obscure" as pertains to my valid comments. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:39, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME—the basis of the previous discussion in which you abstained—makes what he is known is in Norway, or Burkina Faso, irrelevant. Your oppose here is therefore "obscure" because you are arguing against COMMONNAME when you did not do so previously. Fyi. ——Serial ^# 13:59, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support. The other Swedish Charles's were just moved, so this one should be too. It's my fault that it wasn't moved with the others since I nominated it as part of a separate batch of requests. Allan Rice (talk) 14:03, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

WP guidelines generally frown upon citing other WP articles as reasons for changes. See essay WP:OTHER. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:12, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

What about WP:CONSISTENT? Allan Rice (talk) 14:23, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Indeed. WP:OTHER is an essay; CONSISTENT is policy. I sometimes wonder, more broadly, if the editors who cite WP:OTHER have ever read as far as the third sentence. Iit doesn't say what they would presumably like it to say: it is important to realize that countering the keep or delete arguments of other people, or dismissing them outright, by simply referring them to this essay by name, and nothing else, is not encouraged. ——Serial ^# 14:32, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Consistent would be not (not) to move articles about monarchs who ruled in different countries under different handles. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:04, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'd attempt to argue that it's more consistent to have articles scattered over different styles of page naming, but. ——Serial ^# 15:21, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

What we are dealing with here is only one problem: a monarch called different things in different countries of their reign. Nothing else is intended in my opposition. Why do on ignoring the only issue there is? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:38, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

But he was not called different things. He was officially Charles XIV John in both kingdoms (despite not being the fourteenth King Charles in either). And more importantly, he is almost exclusively called XIV in English-language sources. His name in modern lists of Norwegian kings can (and should) be stated in the article but it need not have any effect on the title. Surtsicna (talk) 15:49, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Wrong. Is (not was) called different things is enough to take into consideration in this discussion. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:13, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

What exactly do you think you are disproving by citing this? What he is called in Norway today has no effect on what he is called in English-language historiography. WP:Article titles policy does not require us to consider what Norwegian people call something or someone. Surtsicna (talk) 16:23, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

And also, Norwegian Wikipedia is not a reliable source. See WP:CIRCULAR. Opera hat (talk) 18:25, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

User:SergeWoodzing I'm afraid I don't understand your reasoning. You aren't arguing that the article should be moved to Charles III John. So why do you care whether "of Sweden" is included or not? I would have thought removing the "of Sweden" gave more recognition to the fact that he was also King of Norway, not less (particularly as he was also known as Charles XIV John in Norway). If I remember rightly, the move from Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom to Elizabeth II was done to placate Canadian monarchists on Wikipedia who insisted that she was equally Elizabeth II of Canada. Opera hat (talk) 18:25, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support - I truly do rather that we go back to the Monarch of country style, for all bios on monarchs. But, since this style has been gradually rejected over these last few years. I may as well join the ride. GoodDay (talk) 15:12, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Please at least read my opposition motive? Not a good one? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:36, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Would a compromise version like Charles XIV & III John be acceptable? I'm taking note that we have James VI and I, even though England was the dominant partner in that union. GoodDay (talk) 15:40, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:13, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Considering that it would be a Wikipedia invention, no. James VI and I, in contrast, is frequently called so. Surtsicna (talk) 16:23, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Definitely not. Opera hat (talk) 18:25, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose - I see no advantage in this proposal. And I'm disappointed in GoodDay's reasoning. Deb (talk) 18:59, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Conciseness is an advantage. And GoodDay seems to have just come full circle! In 2010 he wrote: "the Monarch # of country style is archaic." Surtsicna (talk) 19:14, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia has affected me that much over the years? GoodDay (talk) 23:07, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

@Deb: You're disappointed in my reasoning? Jeez, I can't seem to do anything right this month. I've been warned for pushing consistency across groups of articles & then for mentioning a certain word on British politics related articles. Gotta be my 'name' :( GoodDay (talk) 01:02, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

@GoodDay: No, it's because you say that you agree with the wording convention but you're not going to oppose because you want to go along with everyone else. That's not a good reason, is it? Deb (talk) 07:36, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm just a bit weary. Anyways, a discussion should be taking place at WP:NCROY, as too many of these RMs are popping up, in the last few days. GoodDay (talk) 11:47, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support as consistent with set of other monarchies in dynasty.--Bob not snob (talk) 07:44, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(royalty_and_nobility)#Request_for_comment

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(royalty_and_nobility)#Request_for_comment. Interstellarity (talk) 13:31, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Rollback of Norwegian name version as English

I rolled back 2 edits by an IP who would like us to treat "Karl Johan" as English. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:40, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Carl Carlsson Mörner or Baron Gustav Mörner?

The article says "son of Baron Gustav Mörner, a commander of the Swedish force captured by Bernadotte at Lübeck". However, the article Battle of Lübeck states that the commander captured was named Carl Carlsson Mörner. A mistake? --Jbaranao (talk) 18:00, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

            I will do some research in the morning on this. Thank you for pointing out the discrepancy. --User:SJCReecy (talk) 23:39, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

            Hello, Jbaranao, thank you for your message on the issue of the correct Mörners. I have gone into my "Bernadotte Library" to ascertain which of these guys is the proper person who led the Swedish regiment at Lübeck and who helped start the candidacy of Bernadotte with the help of his nephew. Multiple sources confirm that you are correct, Colonel Count Gustave Mörner is the correct person. His nephew, Baron Otto Mörner is the one who went to Paris. Carl Carlsson Mörner is a completely different member of that extended family. I have corrected the error on the Lubeck entry, and on this page. Thank you for noticing! --User:SJCReecy (talk) 01:26, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Primary portrait c. 1840

I notice there has been some wrangling over the article's main portrait. Originally it was said to be by Francois Gérard, however, the artist died in 1837. Moreover, the painting depicts a younger Charles John, perhaps in the early 1820s as by 1840 Bernadotte was clearly aged in many of his official portraits of the era depict him as very grey.

Could this painting be a much earlier work? Moreover, it doesn't look like a Gérard work.

User:SJCReecy (talk) 01:26, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

"all his official portraits of the era [1840] depict him as very grey and wrinkled" - where do you find such? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:45, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Nationalmuseum ([2]) and Nordic Museum ([3]) both claim Emile Mascré as the artist of this portrait. It is dated 1843 by both museums. Cilidus (talk) 15:09, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:01, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Wonderful, thank you, Cilidus! --User:SJCReecy (talk) 01:26, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Incidentally, someone has done a facial reconstruction of Karl XIV Johan based off his later years portraits. Qualitative analysis of royal portraits of the era (1835-1844) indicate only half of them depicted KJ as his true age. Interesting and amazing work on this: https://curtisdurane.artstation.com/projects/Ga6xbd

"Gasconade"? What that?

"It was during this period of rapid advancement that the military qualities he became known for, daring assaults and gasconades, came to the fore"

I didn't know what a gasconade was but the link does not help, going to a word that just means "extravagant boasting". I am not sure how that is a military quality. Did the article mean to say "escalade"?Tirailleur (talk) 09:49, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

In the military sense Bernadotte's Gasconades were used to motivate the troops into daring action. Like a motivational speech. SJCreecy (talk) 09:24, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Gasconade is entirely pejorative both in French and English, so I agree with Tirailleur that it rings false here.

Also, the sentence is convoluted ("came to the fore").

I would replace "It was during this period of rapid advancement that the military qualities he became known for, daring assaults and gasconades, came to the fore" with:

It was during this period that he came to be known for daring and leadership. Camdenmaine (talk) 19:56, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

I have to strongly disagree:

1) It isn't a pejorative in the context of the French military in question of that time. Murat, Lannes and Bernadotte were specifically known for their Gasconades (as Gascons) in their leadership styles and I can list half a dozen citations in various books and bios on the Napoleonic Wars and Bernadotte in particular that use the term repeatedly in a military context. Boasting and colorful language were part and parcel of the haranguing of the troops of the era and Bernadotte was noted as among the very most effective as both an officer and his time as Minister of War.

2) In the military literature for the past 200 years, Gasconade is a term used specifically in describing Bernadotte's leadership throughout his career. I specifically chose to include the term because it is so associated with Bernadotte over the centuries, that it has even been used by authors from from Britain, France, Germany and Sweden, who agree on little else about him, that is both proper in its usage and an academically unique identifier for the subject of the article.

Whereas I agree it is not a common term, the article benefits from its inclusion, and is just that much better for its specificity of information, as well as points of interest that are not commonly known. The sentence could be re-worked, but I strenuously disagree with removing Gasconade. SJCreecy (talk) 06:18, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

RfC of interest

(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) 19:36, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Good Article Nomination

I previously nominated this article for good article status, however, they removed it, saying I wasn’t a principle editor. They asked me to consult the principle editors. So, should we give this article a good article nomination? Henry Berghoff (talk) 03:02, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

@Henry Berghoff, normally, according to the guidelines, you have to be both in top 5 in terms of authorship and have written at least 10% of the article. We have had a recent discussion about whether this is a strict rule, and some users agreed that it is not. It is meant to ensure nominators are accustomed enough to the article and its sources so that they will be able to answer questions and solve issues during the review. However, in your case, you are not in the top 50 and appear to have made a single (minor) edit. I believe you should make further improvements to this article before renominating. Aintabli (talk) 17:31, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. I’m asking those who are major contributors to the article to do the nominating, and not me. Henry Berghoff (talk) 03:25, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi Henry!

I have written a very large part of this page, and have edited it for years. I would not be opposed to it, though I have been meaning to edit and categorize Bernadotte's career as Marshal and as a principal Coalition commander in the 1813 and 1814 campaigns as both sections are quite long and cover 15 years of battles without sub-sections. Perhaps after that? SJCreecy (talk) 09:26, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Purposal for new infobox image

Hi there, Since the current image is good. However, I feel that this this image from 1841/1843 is better at representing King Charles XIV John. SpartanMazda (talk) 12:24, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

OK by me. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:05, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

I too, am in favour of useing this image, as it better represents Charles XIV John in my opnion. — CarlsSston (talk) 00:07, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Looks good. Dignified painting that shows more of the King of Sweden and Norway, than the Marshal of France. SJCreecy (talk) 06:20, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Move needed

I am far too much the Wikipedia novice to undertake a change of the magnitude I'm suggesting here, but here goes anyway: To my mind, this article is mis-titled and should be moved to effect a title change to Jean-Baptiste Jules Bernadotte with Charles XIV John redirecting to the new page. Bernadotte is known to history as Bernadotte, and the name Charles XIV John comes as a complete surprise to anyone who searches for Bernadotte. (And nobody is going to search for Charles XIV John.)

Such a move would probably violate a Wikipedia standard that monarchs are listed by the name taken at time of coronation, but Bernadotte, the historical figure, is known far more for his pre-coronation adventuring than for anything that happened after his accession. He is no Charles III. The Wikipedia Page for Napoleon Bonaparte is titled Napoleon, Not Napoleon-I his name as emperor. And most other sources about Napoleon are titled Napoleon Bonaparte, not Napoleon-I.

The use of coronation names makes sense when, as in the case of Charles III, the monarch is known for nothing more than his royal role. Camdenmaine (talk) 21:30, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Not an improvement. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:56, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

I believe the rule is that monarchs that ruled until their death are always known by their regnal name(s). Moreover, Karl Johan is known by a bunch of names: various variations of Jean Baptiste Bernadotte, Carl Johan, Karl Johan, Karl III, Karl XIV Johan, etc., that the most proper name to avoid confusion is his regnal names, transposed in English per the rule. I believe that you cited this during the big debate on whether to keep the name in Swedish/Norwegian, which of the two regnal names to use etc. and that current name is indeed the most correct. SJCreecy (talk) 06:29, 15 September 2024 (UTC)