This  level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography: Arts and Entertainment / Politics and Government / Royalty and Nobility This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Royalty and Nobility (assessed as Mid-importance). Sweden High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sweden, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sweden-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SwedenWikipedia:WikiProject SwedenTemplate:WikiProject SwedenSweden High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on August 21, 2004, August 21, 2005, August 21, 2006, August 21, 2007, August 21, 2008, August 21, 2009, and August 21, 2010.

Why is it confusing to put all dates into the Gregorian calendar after its first adoption in the 16th century? When trying to synchronize events in the Catholic World with those in the Protestant, doesn't it make more sense to just convert everything to the Gregorian calendar? In any event, this strikes me as a "POV" comment. Also, that remark about war and theater is just silly. john 07:58 Apr 30, 2003 (UTC)

It's confusing to quote a proleptic date without stating it's proleptic. It always makes sense to state the calendar that is being used when there is room for doubt: to silently change a Julian date to a Gregorian date without stating you have done so clearly leads to confusion, as can be seen by searching for Gustav's birthdate on the web. -- Someone else 21:19 Apr 30, 2003 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with that. It should be stated which calendar is being used. But there's no need for a rant about it in an article about a King of Sweden, is there? Just change the dates to indicate which calendar is used. john 23:21 Apr 30, 2003 (UTC)

The rant -- an unfair characterization -- is there to prevent people from erroneously "fixing" the date. Again. Do what you like with it. -- Someone else 23:39 Apr 30, 2003 (UTC)

Well, it's a bit of a rant, but perhaps I was unfair. It's more that it seems out of place. Why not just say Born: Such and such (Old style), Such and such (new style). Then nobody can possibly be confused, and you don't need to be snide about people "correcting" dates? And again, should an encyclopedia article about a king of sweden use up a portion of its space talking about, essentially, the incorrect beliefs of other contributors? john 02:12 May 1, 2003 (UTC)

The correct date is not a belief. And you are also unfair in your assessment of snideness. The dates have been erroneously corrected several times. But with the interpolation of the 1911 material the note on dates is now quite some distance from the dates themselves, and will probably be without effect. Delete it if you like. -- Someone else 02:29 May 1, 2003 (UTC)

Well, this is getting rather more hostile than I intended. The correct date, of course, is not a "belief". On the other hand, Somebody living in Italy at the time, asking the date of Gustavus III's birth, would be given the new style date. Furthermore, we here in the US celebrate George Washington's birth on February 23. This is the new style date of his birth, despite the fact that he was born before the adoption of the new calendar. Furthermore, in western accounts of Russian history before 1918, it is fairly common (although not universal, of course), to just convert everything to new style dates. So I don't think the issues is as cut and dry as you suggest. But that wasn't really my point. Your note originally mentioned a confusing tendency of "some" to try to "incorrectly correct" dates. But then, above, you indicated that what you meant by some was not "some scholars" or some such, but "some wikipedia contributors", and I don't think that an encyclopedia article should include statements about how other contributors are wrong. I apologize for using the word snide, that was unfair, and I really didn't mean to make this a personal attack. I think that, as is, it should be protected from people "correcting" the date to the Gregorian date. No hard feelings, I hope? john 02:51 May 1, 2003 (UTC)

I have none. I have changed the markup of the dates to that which has been used in similar circumstances. -- Someone else 02:58 May 1, 2003 (UTC)

I appreciate the work by Mic very much. But here the long quote from Encyclopedia Britanica of 1911 strikes me as allienating and not very neutral in tone. Maybe the 100 years old style is the problem. I'm not used to it, and the oddities hampers my perception?

But it's likely a matter of taste. ...I mean, john above questions the remark, of an earlier version, about "effort in war and theater" which I found almost brilliant: in a few words depicturing an impression which otherwise had demanded dozens of lines to express.

Maybe an editing according to the idea of Most Important Things First would be good?

Ruhrjung 17:45 Apr 30, 2003 (UTC)

The remark about war and theater was clever. But not particularly informative. If the war link had linked to an article about the Russo-Swedish War of 1788-1790, that would have made sense, but as it was, it was somewhat mystifying. So, it'd be a clever bon mot in an actual work of history, but I don't think it's a good thing for an encyclopedia john 23:36 Apr 30, 2003 (UTC)

The following comment was added by anon user 156.34.223.188 who is suspected of vandalism on another page. Please provide an authoritative source for this comment before re-adding it. Rossami 18:46, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

He ordered abolished, in 1772, the Cave of Roses where an array of lizards were kept for the purpuse of torturing criminals.

• It's unlikely he'll find one, for reasons given in my nomination for deletion of that page. (G3 did indeed abolish torture, though this is already mentioned) BTW; I can't see what the current NPOV-tag is for. The person who added it didn't follow the guideline by not giving any reason on this page, much less any specific complaint. I'm removing the tag. --BluePlatypus 19:40, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He "possessed that charm of manner which was to make him so fascinating and so dangerous in later life". That does not sound like NPOV to me. Kevin Nelson 08:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A book on Marie Antoinette claims that, oddly, Gustavus III had homosexual tendencies. Why is this taken into little if any note? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.237.218.59 (talk) 14:34, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because that is somewhat controversial: He is often claimed to be homosexual or bisexual, both then and now, but this has never been proven. It is more peaseful to leave it at that I suppose. --85.226.44.74 (talk) 22:59, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In his biography of the king "Den stora rollen" in 1986 Prof. Erik Lönnroth wrote that there are no factual grounds of any kind for any suggestion that Gustav III had homosexual desires or tendencies. And nothing that might conflict with that conclusion has been published since. 217.209.96.89 (talk) 19:36, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is, that the homosexuality-question is a very sensitive issue, similar to the question of wether Marie Antoinette ever had sexual relation to Axel von Fersen or not. As homosexuality was considered to be wrong until now, the wiev has been, that people in favour of Gustav III have regarded this as "disgusting slander", while people who disliked him has taken this as an example that he was immoral. Both of these attitudes comes from a negative wiev on homosexuality. Nowadays, of course, people no longer consider homosexuality to be wrong, so it has become possible to look upon the matter in a more neutral way.

Of course, one book can not be said to proove anything, no matter the author. Every historian have their own oppinion, and everyone tend to be bias. As one can understand, it is more or less impossible to proov that he was, or that he was not, homosexual. The only thing one can do, therefore, is to state, in a neutral way, that there were rumours regarding this, and that it is not known wether they were true or not. And that's what we have to be content with, I'm afraid. --85.226.44.238 (talk) 18:50, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid it's one more time just homophobia. Proofs of his homosexuality exists, everybody knew, even in his family. 86.218.67.130 (talk) 21:02, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Previous user is POV-ing freely and can give no reliable source for this fantasy claim. No one knew and still no one knows. Facts, please, not fables! SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:20, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry but it is all truth, nothing I wrote is wrong, homosexuality is not always fable I think, it is sourced, but censure, censure. 86.218.67.130 (talk) 21:35, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And I am sorry, that's right, no one knew, but all the people who lived with and around him and who, for some of them, made clear testimonies. 92.141.124.81 (talk) 11:27, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"All the people"? "Clear testimonies"? Sources please! Sorry, there are no sources to support these claims. How could the sourced historical truth be homophobic? Are we to accuse Erik Lönnroth of that? Attempts to remake dead people into definite gay people can only succeed if new reliable sources are given. Otherwise such attempts do more harm than good to any cause. A basic rule at WP: sources must be given, and they must be reliable. SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:24, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They are. By the way, the court of Gustav III welcommed the french actor Boutet de Monvel, prosecuted for homosexuality in France. 92.141.124.81 (talk) 13:01, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response to third opinion request:

Looking through the edit, I see the only reference for the the statement in question Many writers, including his own sister-in-law, claimed that, "though his own exalted example", he helped to spread in Sweden this vice of men sleeping with men, wich hitherto had been almost unknown here' is the footnote "as recorded by L. von Engeström, minister of justice in an unpublished memorandum : Who's who in gay and lesbian history : from antiquity to World War II. Robert Aldrich Garry Wotherspoon, p.194". If the only source is Adrich and Wotherspoon, and their only reference is an unpublished memorandum, then it is not wp:rs to back up the statement made. The editor needs to provide more/better sources. You may wish to use Alrich as a footnote/reference to the shortened statement "It was rumored at the time that he was homosexual."—Work permit (talk) 02:21, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

.

A new edit today contained slanted opinions not supported by any serious historians nor by the king's own letters published in French and Swedish in 1989 and 1992. 217.209.96.183 (talk) 17:46, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why slanted ? Do you know what censure mean ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.35.207.114 (talk) 20:14, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the edit is not that bad to me. [1] That "The writers of contemporary diaries and memoirs noted the king's sexual indifference to women, including his wife, and his sexual preference for men." is not unbased rumours; it is a accurate phrasing than the current "It was rumored at the time that he was homosexual." And the next sentence "Many writers, including his own sister-in-law, claimed that, "though his own exalted example", he helped to spread in Sweden "this vice of men sleeping with men, wich hitherto had been almost unknown here." even has references! How can that be , as was said, "unsourced and non-factual information"?

Fred-J 09:08, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

His sister-in-law was the only person to allude to this that we know of. The rest is all completely unsourced. There were no "many writers" or other "the writers of...". No such persons existed, as far as we know. Charlottes diaries have been criticized by experts as being equal to tabloids in these regards, entertaining rumors rather than fact. They were private notes to a friend of hers, never intended for publication nor for use as sources to history. Anyone who wants Gustav III to have been gay is facing such factual problems. We just do not know. The text provided by the IP is a gross exaggeration and as such is inappropriate in this bio. Why not go by Professor Lönnroth on this? We can trust him. SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:46, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's simply not true and completely dishonest. It is a reliable source by a woman who knew Gustav III. There were private notes to a friend ? That's why it's even more valuable than texts intended for publication : she had no reason to lie. Gustav III dismissed his doctor Dahlberg because he criticized his homosexuality and his mother didn't believe he was the father of his son because she new he was homosexual. Therefore we know he was homosexual like other people in his family. 92.141.124.81 (talk) 11:04, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We have to be very careful with experts who systematicaly dismiss a kind of sources who are often very interesting with a lot of facts (see Saint-Simon) but who do not say what they want to write in their biographies. 92.141.124.81 (talk) 11:19, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Dishonest" is a personal attack - not allowed. You are also compelled by WP rules to give sources for these claims, and until you do you will stop this edit-warring or it will be requested that you be blocked, no matter what IP you are using at the moment for this kind of unsourced POV-pushing. SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:09, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry but all I wrote in the article is sourced, that is the diary of his sister-in-law. I read the fact that Gustav III dismissed his doctor because oh his behaviour, but the books didn't source them. That's why it isn't discussed in the article. Quotes of the diary are perfectly accurate and it will be requested that you be blocked if you continue to censure. After all, the paragraph end with "concluded that there is no factual basis for the assumption that Gustav III." It may be right, but what is a factual basis —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.35.207.114 (talk) 18:53, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unrelated to the content dispute, please stop inserting bad spelling. Please read the summary of this recent edit[2], and also note that queen mother/Queen Mother is in any case not spelled queen-mother. Me and other editors don't want to do house keeping after you, 90.35.207.114.

Fred-J 19:14, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response to third opinion request:

Looking through the edit, I see the only reference for the the statement in question Many writers, including his own sister-in-law, claimed that, "though his own exalted example", he helped to spread in Sweden this vice of men sleeping with men, wich hitherto had been almost unknown here' is the footnote "as recorded by L. von Engeström, minister of justice in an unpublished memorandum : Who's who in gay and lesbian history : from antiquity to World War II. Robert Aldrich Garry Wotherspoon, p.194". If the only source is Adrich and Wotherspoon, and their only reference is an unpublished memorandum, then it is not wp:rs to back up the statement made. The editor needs to provide more/better sources. You may wish to use Alrich as a footnote/reference to the shortened statement "It was rumored at the time that he was homosexual."—Work permit (talk) 02:22, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] I am sorry but everybody acknowledge that Gustav's sister-in-law stated that he was homosexual. To quote her shortly is perfectly normal, I am sorry. And Erik Lönnroth has the last word inferring she is obviously a liar, so there's no problem. 90.35.207.114 (talk) 19:51, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

.

Once more, I would be very delighted to know what would be a factual basis. A photography ? 90.35.207.114 (talk) 20:12, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize. Can you please explain why you think I missed your original point. I am not an expert on the topic and may unintentionally have overlooked a detail.--Work permit (talk) 03:55, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I am sorry but everybody acknowledge that Gustav's sister-in-law stated that he was homosexual

can you please provide a source that states "everybody acknowledge that Gustav's sister-in-law stated that he was homosexual" Then of course the article can state "Gustav's sister-in-law stated that he was homosexual".

• I would be very delighted to know what would be a factual basis. A photography ?

As you probably know, wikipedia is based on verifiability. Nothing in what I have suggested requires "factual basis". If you have "A photography" that is license free, feel free to add it to the article.

• "as recorded by L. von Engeström, minister of justice in an unpublished memorandum

If the source for all these "rumors" is "an unpublished memorandum recorded by L. von Engeström", then may I suggest that the article state so directly.

--Work permit (talk) 04:14, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

May I suggest that each editor provide in this section the precise wording for the "marriage section" they would like to insert. Include of course the specific references to back up their statement. I am no expert on the article. I have made no edits to this article, but to just now revert an edit that has not been achieved by consensus. I'm just here to be helpful. We may want to request a comment from a broader group. Let me add, if the source of all the "statements", "rumors", etc can all be traced to an unpublished manuscript by L. von Engeström, then please preface all the statements by that simple assertion. .--Work permit (talk) 03:57, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for trying to help! Below you will find the precise wording I would be happy with. It is the exact same wording as now, with the only exception that I interpret the sources - Prof. Lönnröth and Gustav's own poublished letters - in such a way that the marriage should be described as not happy rather that unhappy. There is a difference. The main, and most reliable, source for all the content in the whole section is Lönnroth's book. Gustav's letters were published in French in 1986 (ISBN 91-1-853482-1) and in Swedish in 1992 (ISBN 91-7119-079-1).

Text for Marriage section:

By proxy in Christiansborg Palace, Copenhagen, on 1 October 1766 and in person in Stockholm on 4 November 1766, Gustav married Princess Sophia Magdalena, daughter of King Frederick V of Denmark. The match was not a happy one, owing partly to an incompatibility of temper; but still more to the interference of the jealous Queen Mother. The marriage produced two children: Crown Prince Gustav Adolf (1778–1837), and Prince Carl Gustav, Duke of Småland (Drottningholm, 25 August 1782 – Stockholm, 23 March 1783). For the consummation of the marriage, the king requested the assistance of Adolf Munck, reportedly because of anatomical problems both spouses possessed. Gustav's mother supported rumors that he was not the father of his first son and heir. It was rumored at the time that Gustav indulged in homosexuality.^[1] The close personal relationships he formed with two of his courtiers, Count Axel von Fersen and Baron Gustav Armfelt, were alluded to in that regard. His sister-in-law inferred as much in a diary. Professor Erik Lönnroth of the Swedish Academy has concluded that there is no factual basis for the assumption that Gustav III was homosexual.^[2]

Thanx again! SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:15, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have no issues with this phrasing. Actually I think it well incorporates all the important material.

Fred-J 21:31, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: this edit, I think it's also important to give the name of his actual dynasty the House of Oldenburg, not just Holstein-Gottorp which only was a branch of that family. Have tried to add it to the info box but apparently I don't know how. Same for his father, son and regal brother. SergeWoodzing (talk) 01:11, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote cordially to a one-time IP user who tried to add a drawing that I consider irrelevant to this life story. SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:42, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the uproar surrounding his son, with even Gustav's mother saying that it wasn't his child, I disagree. It's a good illustration of the rumors surrounding the whole affair.

Andejons (talk) 07:27, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Serge and Andejons, just letting you know that your 3O request has been declined by another editor (not me) because there are more than two people involved (you two plus the original IP editor). You could probably stretch the rules a bit and relist your request, but, speaking personally, I'm going to recuse myself from taking it if you do; some could say that I've taken too many 3Os involving Serge already. And there really hasn't been that much discussion of it on talk pages yet. Anyway, best of luck to both of you (and the IP, if he's still around). Thanks! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:48, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Hi! I came here to give a third opinion, but find that that would not be appropriate this time, as there are already more than two editors involved - the IP editor who originally added the image, User:SergeWoodzing and User:Andejons. In general, one might hope to see a rather more developed discussion before a third opinion is called for, but no matter. So instead, I'll just offer a purely personal opinion, on an interesting topic about which I knew nothing whatsoever. I having difficulty seeing why the image might not be considered relevant: it's funny, it's well drawn, it definitely depicts the people involved, and it is certainly no more bizarre than reading that the king requested assistance with the consummation of his marriage because of "anatomical problems both spouses possessed". But that's just my take. If there are good reasons for considering the image not to be relevant, then presenting them here for discussion would probably be a good way forward for all involved. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:15, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Justlettersandnumbers, for providing your opinion anyway! I thought the amount of talk page debaters (max 2) was the 3O prerequisite.

Let's hope more editors reply. This is more important than it may look and could lead to a trend where all kinds of fun sleazy private drawings "depicting" the subjects are added to hundreds of BP's and BLP's on WP. I might even whip up (!) a few myself! SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:45, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This drawing had been made by Carl August Ehrensvärd, chamberlain at the court, who was close to these events, see this account in Swedish. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:07, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see any encyclopedic value in having the "picture" in the article.--UnQuébécois (talk) 00:13, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do nor see how the arbitrary removal of one of Gustav's sons, know to history as being the important birth that dispelled rumors that the king's earlier son was fathered by someone else, adds quality to this article. Unless anyone else objects I will try to reinstate him again. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 05:11, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you look more carefully, you may see that although the second son may not be included in the infobox, he is still included in the article. Personally, I think he may be included in the infobox as well, but the main thing is that he is included in the article, which he is. Other than that really is just formatting, but I will not protest if he is included in the infobox. --Aciram (talk) 12:32, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! In this case, the son's inclusion in the info box can spur a reader on, to find out more in the text, and the background about this particular little boy is unusually interesting, I think. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:22, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To find out what? That the child lived for less than a year? That's all the reader can find out in the text. If the child is notable enough, why not create an article about him? Perhaps nominate it for DYK? Personally, I am not sure that the child is notable. Listing an obscure infant in the infobox right after an actually notable person (a king) does not seem like a good idea, given that infoboxes are supposed to be "a quick and convenient summary of the key facts about a subject". A six-month-old child is not a key fact, at least not in this case. See also infoboxes in articles about Anne, Queen of Great Britain and Isabella II of Spain, and compare them to complete lists of each woman's children. There are other examples available too. Surtsicna (talk) 20:25, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looks to me like you didn't read the whole paragraph. Anyone who does is likely to see clearly how the birth of their second son is important to history, and why their second son's name is red-linked (1 bastard = possible, 2 bastards = unlikely). Regardless of language, a quick look at the infobox at sv:Gustav III might also have helped you be more careful in this case. "Personally" is perhaps, with all due respect for most of your fine work on WP, the way you edit just a tad too often. The best thing you could do in this case is revert yourself. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 09:22, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is rather sickening to see you write about me editing "personally" (as silly as that may sound) when every comment you make contains a comment on me (or whoever you are writing to). In my original response, you will find comments on the content and no comments on you; the best thing you could do is learn something from that.

Anyway, looks to me like you are synthesising. Their second son's name is red-linked because he is not notable. How the birth of the second son is important to history is not clear at all, given that he is mentioned only once and absolutely nothing is said about such birth confirming or disproving anything. Anyone who reads the section can clearly see that; you are the one seeing something that's simply not there. Not that it even matters, but why is 1 bastard = possible, 2 bastards = unlikely? A man thought to be homosexual is actually often not the biological father of any of his wife's children, as was the case with Francis of Spain. Surtsicna (talk) 14:34, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are no grounds whatsoever for all the personal accusations Surtsicna is slinging again here about what I always do and so forth. I find it impossible to deal with this kind of a discussion, and the disagreeble tone extremely alienating. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 03:37, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I must say, that I have never heard or read anywhere that the child is known for being some kind of proof that Gustav III was not the biological father of the children, and I am a Swede. The book from Lönnroth may be an exception to this, I have no idea, so therefore I have inserted a request in the article to cite exactly where it is said that "When his second son was born, there was no doubt in anyone as to his legitimacy", which is in any case a curious statement: of course we can not know what everyone thought, so to say that no one had any doubts is a problematic phrase. Lönnroth may be some kind of exception, but of course we can not know what kind of sexuality Gustav III had, nor can we know anything about this issue, though Lönnroth just as any other who writes books about historical subjects are entitled to their personal opinion and theory. To say that this child is "known in history" for the reasons stated above, however, is something I have never heard before anywhere, so I do not see how it can be claimed by anyone. I can say, however, that this child is not "known to history as being the important birth that dispelled rumors that the king's earlier son was fathered by someone else": these rumors is known to have been repeated in the late 1780s and during the coup of 1809, and it would not be historically correct to say that they were not. Note, that you will find nothing in Swedish Wikipedia which supports the claims from Sergewoodzing. But of course, Sergewoodzing may address these questions at Swedish language Wikipedia, were editors are perhaps more aware about what is "known in history" regarding Swedish subjects, and see if these claims could be introduced there. Sergewoodzing does have an account on Swedish Wp, and judging from his interest in Swedish royalty and Gustav III, then why not introduce these well known facts in Swedish history at Swedish wp, where more people would presumably be aware about what is well known in Swedish history? Still, there is nothing about the claims stated by Sergewoodzing in Swedish wp. In any case, I think it is important to remember the vital principle of neutrality. Regards--85.226.45.175 (talk) 12:13, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is not clear to me how any omissions on Swedish WP are relevant to this discussion or to this article, nor how it is expected of me (as the previous comment seems to read) that I must fix such omissions. This is not about what I think either, nor what any other user thinks, but about what the quoted sources give on the pages cited. I have attempted to fine tune this here now. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:14, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As there now has been more info added about Gustav's second son, with references, I am reinstating him in the infobox. A constructive development - thank you! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:49, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let's take care not to add too much sensationalistic tabloid-type gossip by writer's like Virginia Rounding. SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:46, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Alexander Roslin - King Gustav III of Sweden and his Brothers - Google Art Project.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on 24 January 2019. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2019-01-24. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 14:40, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Picture of the day

Gustav III (24 January [O.S. 13 January] 1746 – 29 March 1792) was King of Sweden from 1771 until his assassination in 1792. Born in Stockholm as the eldest son of King Adolf Frederick, he married Sophia Magdalena of Denmark in 1766. At the time of his accession, the Swedish Riksdag held more power than the monarchy but was bitterly divided between rival parties. After unsuccessful attempts to mediate, Gustav seized power himself in 1772, changing the constitution in what is considered a coup d'état. Following an attempt to form a league of princes to counter the French Revolution, a conspiracy formed among Swedish nobles and he was shot while attending the opera. He died two weeks later and was succeeded by his son Gustav Adolf.

This picture, titled King Gustav III of Sweden and His Brothers, is a 1771 oil-on-canvas painting by Alexander Roslin. It shows Gustav (seated, left) with his two brothers, Frederick Adolf (standing) and Charles (seated, right). It is now in the Nationalmuseum in Stockholm.Painting: Alexander Roslin

Archive – More featured pictures...

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 11:16, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I rolled back 5 edits which were not improvements. Places of birth and death, e.g., are recorded by country, not era. A church that has an English name should be so named in English. Etc. SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:30, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]