"Carl XVI Gustaf - The Reluctant Monarch" by T. Sjöberg (2010) & other books of T.S.


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
I watched an interview of the author of the book. Now I don't remember anymore if it was in Aftonbladet web TV or where. He explained that he wrote the book because he wanted the people to know what kind of king and head of state they have for real.

He didn't convince me. In my opinion he has just money in his eyes. He seems really a trash-journalist who is ready for anything for the sake of money.
 
Last edited:
Anyone who is writing a biography, the authors of the book claim to have done, must be careful with the sources. It's not enough to whet your tongue and speak up. As long as you can not get anyone to stand on what you are trying to impose one should keep opinions to herself. If not then there is The Royal Forums ...


not true in the media world of the 21st century. basically, the media can write what they want because they know, especially with royals, no legal action will be taken. very often, there is a mix of truth, exaggerations and lies and no public figure in a respected position will engage in a public hearing of evidence.

There is not much CG and all the others (there are countless examples in royalty, like Prince Charles, Juan Carlos or Princess Letizia) can do about it.

As usual with such books, there will be a purpose and a reason why it is being published now. I think this whole story is very useful for the republican movement and in the very long run monarchy might be finished in Sweden, this is just one small step that could add up in the end.
 
Anyone thinking of investing in this book should only invest a few minutes by thinking how it would feel in the same situation. Yeah, imagine that you would be king by all means, and if you were king, would you not have done any stupid things during adolescence? And would you want to be accountable for things that your friends have done, just because your friends happen to know you? And would you like someone wrote a biography about you, but you got so much comment on the content?

I completely agree, Karisma. The only way to discourage these types of books are to not purchase them. Unfortunately, for every one person who chooses not to buy it there are probably several who do.

It's undeniably American. Just bury themselves properly in someone else's life and then throw it up for public display. Actually it does not matter what you will find, if it is good or bad is not what this is about. That's the thing, to crush another's privacy for what? Prove something? I actually get a little disgusted. :bang:

What sources has the newspapers in other countries? They may be called "Le Figaro" or whatever! Well, the foreign press reviews about the Swedish press and the articles you can read here. No one has ever presented the source to the various allegations. In a democratic country with a functioning judiciary is a fundamental requirement that you should have witnesses willing to testify before you shed a verdict. It is unfortunate that this form of American squalor press found us up to Scandinavia.

Call me hypersensitive, but I found myself offended reading the portions of your post which I have highlighted in boldface. Since the links covering any of the reports about this book have been to the various Swedish journalistic agencies, as well as the Daily Mail in the UK, I find it insulting to characterize this as an "American" phenomenon. Gossip existed before America and, as an American, I think your point was clearly made and would have been as effectively received if the criticism was of this type of journalism, rather than a sweeping generalization of Americans. A review of the UK's Daily Mail shows story after story of this type. And wasn't it a German publication that was successfully sued by the Swedish Royal Family for articles written about them? And isn't the author of this book Swedish? How many articles have been written in Swedish media about Sofia Helqvist? In America, we used to call this "yellow journalism". But it exists, and has existed, in all countries with freedom of the press.

We have had the habit of letting the private be private. And when we present something that we call "the biography "we have at least become accustomed to the source again research is published and reviewed.

Reported sales figures for this book would indicate that habits can be broken. Apparently a great many Swedish people are clamoring for this information. In fact, if private was to be private, there would not be many threads in this forum and most of us, including the two of us, would probably not be participating in this forum.


I'm pretty sure that your comments weren't intended to be hurtful to Americans, but to borrow your scenario...before making a sweeping generalization about another gender, race, culture, or - in this case - country, imagine that another person described the Swedish as blonde, drug-using, sexually-promiscuous, emotionless ice queens with large breasts.

All of these descriptions exist somewhere in the Swedish population, but none of them describes the Swedish people as a group. I understand that your perception of Americans may be as you stated, but I encourage you to educate yourself about the many different people and cultures in my country just I have done regarding yours and many others.
 
:previous: Well said, Rascal! I reacted the same way you did. I fail to see why this has anything to do with America. The Swedish King has an affair, a Swedish writer writes a book about it, a Swedish company publishes the book, Swedes buy the book, and there are articles about it, primarily in Swedish papers. And the whole thing is "undeniably American"???

(Not that I'm criticizing the Swedes for being interested or talking about it - my point was that this particular incident is very much a Swedish thing.)
 
:previous: Well said, Rascal! I reacted the same way you did. I fail to see why this has anything to do with America. The Swedish King has an affair, a Swedish writer writes a book about it, a Swedish company publishes the book, Swedes buy the book, and there are articles about it, primarily in Swedish papers. And the whole thing is "undeniably American"???

(Not that I'm criticizing the Swedes for being interested or talking about it - my point was that this particular incident is very much a Swedish thing.)
When it comes to writing about official persons indiscretions I think perhaps the Brittish takes the prize.
 
Latest polls about the royalty say the book hasnt made the support go down, but instead its gone up some.

Atleast he hasnt been caught on a tape saying he wants to be a tampon in a woman that is not his wife like Prince of Wales:) Atleast not yet
 
I feel so sad for Queen Silvia. If it is true, that the king really fell in love with Camilla, she knew but she was not able to do anything, it must have been a horrible time for her.

One poster said, that this may have become the start for her surgeries.... yes, this could have been true.

Bye Bine
 
Latest polls about the royalty say the book hasnt made the support go down, but instead its gone up some.

Thanks to Victoria and Daniel, I suppose. Everybody wants to see Victoria as a queen one day.

I feel so sad for Queen Silvia. If it is true, that the king really fell in love with Camilla, she knew but she was not able to do anything, it must have been a horrible time for her.

One poster said, that this may have become the start for her surgeries.... yes, this could have been true.

Bye Bine

I read somewhere that this affair occured in the late 90's. Think about that time - it might have been heavy time for the whole family then, because that's when Victoria suffered of anorexia.
 
Last edited:
I feel so sad for Queen Silvia. If it is true, that the king really fell in love with Camilla, she knew but she was not able to do anything, it must have been a horrible time for her.


Well, if she put up with it and didn't divorce him, then that's a choice she made.
 
If the Queen decided to forgive the King for his indiscretion it can be beacuse she loves the King, didn't want to break up her family or add drama to the Swedish Royal Family.

And honestly, they wouldn't be the first couple to deal with a affair and come out stronger. I have read that for some couples it actually puts their relationship in perspective and they come out stronger. Look at Paola and Albert of Belgium, they hold hands and giggle like a couple of teenagers (but not in a yucky way), which I think is fantastic!
 
If the Queen decided to forgive the King for his indiscretion it can be beacuse she loves the King, didn't want to break up her family or add drama to the Swedish Royal Family.

And honestly, they wouldn't be the first couple to deal with a affair and come out stronger. I have read that for some couples it actually puts their relationship in perspective and they come out stronger. Look at Paola and Albert of Belgium, they hold hands and giggle like a couple of teenagers (but not in a yucky way), which I think is fantastic!

I agree, Zonk. Among the millions of women (and some men) who have experienced infidelity in their marriages and remained married, there are countless reasons which motivated them to stay. Among the "regular" people, sometimes it is monetary with one spouse being financially dependent on the other. Other times it is familiarity/comfort/security/true love wherein the routine/lifestyle is to their liking and unwilling to change that. In most cases that involve divorce, one or both of the parties usually loses a circle of friends, an environment/neighborhood (including favorite restaurants, vacation spots, etc.)

Queen Silvia may have any or all of these motivations. It's possible that at this time in her life she wouldn't know what else to do besides being The Queen. In addition to all of the things she might lose as mentioned above, her role becomes COMPLETELY different. Most former spouses of royalty completely fall off the radar in comparison to their lives while married (Countess Alexandra in Denmark, for example). Diana, Princess of Wales, was already an international figure so she had the "star power" to maintain her role. Fergie has desperately tried to maintain her notoriety with mixed results. But Silvia doesn't have the international star power of Diana and does have the class and good judgement that prevents her from making herself the spectacle that Fergie has become.

Aside from Diana and Fergie, most of the other divorcees have simply faded away (Sarah Crocker Poole - aka Begum Salima, 1st wife of Aga Khan IV, Chantal Hochuli - 1st wife of Prince Ernst August of Hannover, the Duchess of Montpensier - 1st wife of the Count of Paris, the second and third wives of the Sultan of Brunei).

Of course, none of us know the truth of any of the rumors or of the relationship of CG & Silvia. Maybe his alleged infidelity, if true, is the ONLY area in which their relationship is not perfect. Maybe he treats her like a queen, not THE QUEEN, and is very loving, attentive, and affectionate to her. Maybe SHE is the one who has decided to stay and, because she doesn't have a salary has been financially dependent on him - now she might have "negotiated" a larger financial allowance from him. Maybe she now employs his handlers and they report to her his activities. Maybe she decided to stay and make his life a living hell. None of us knows and, with the blessed departure of the increasingly ineffective Nina Eldh, we probably will not and certainly should not ever know.
 
Last edited:
Exactly, although Silvia to me has never been someone who "seeks" the limelight. So I don't think fading away into the abyss was/is something that would have mattered to her.

Like most people who are the injured party in marriage as a result of an affair....I would imagine that she still loved the King (if nothing else for companionship) and really, some people don't want to give up on a long term relationship as a result of another woman/man. On the other hand, an extra martial relationship of a year is nothing to sneeze at.

Most importantly though, is how old were Victoria, Madeline and Carl Phillip at the time of the affair? Children definitely play a role. Most royal woman (who are not royal themselves) lose primary custody of the children. Diana really couldn't take William and Harry out of the country without the Queens permission (forget Charles). If something happens to Frederik and Mary, the children will stay with the Danes, same with WA and Maxima. If they were under age, maybe Silvia decide to deal with it so not to lose her children.
 
There are many reasons why women stay in a marriage where their husband has strayed. Not wanting to hurt the children is one reason. In a lot of cases, though, the children may know about the affair (this of course depending on how old they are). Sometimes others have told them (usually out of spite or just being mean) or they have heard people talking about it. In some cases the children find out by hearing their parents arguing about it.

I don't know what Victoria, Madeline and Carl Philip knew or didn't know. They may have known bits and pieces of this and perhaps not the whole story.
 
Silvia will have stayed for obvious reasons, doing a Diana would have been counterproductive for the monarchy and no mother wants to lose custody of her children.

Royal women in the first line of action (Queen, CP) are trapped with their men, the consequences of leaving are desastrous for the inividual and the constitution. Therefore they will stay and know from the beginning that they will have to put up with anything. But not all is bad, it depends on the individual. There is a lot of good work that comes with the position, money, priviliges, attention, some couples might be happy with leading a separate life but do the job together. And not only Kings may have mistresses but also Queens may have their toyboys. Being a King or Queen means no ordinary live in many ways.

Silvia doesnt strike me as the most tolerant person on earth and its well possible that she will have reacted with doing lots of work and lots of plastic surgery. Do I pity her? No. At the end of the day it was her choice to stay.
 
... [snipped] Aside from Diana and Fergie, most of the other divorcees have simply faded away (Sarah Crocker Poole - aka Begum Salima, 1st wife of Aga Khan IV, Chantal Hochuli - 1st wife of Prince Ernst August of Hannover, the Duchess of Montpensier - 1st wife of the Count of Paris, the second and third wives of the Sultan of Brunei). ...[snipped]
Sultan's of Brunei former wives knew exactly what would happen in case of the divorce and behaved accordingly. The Duchess of Montpensier is an out-and-out Aristocrat, who deals with her issues in a proper manner.
Queen Silvia might be sad about the book and rumours the book might stir. At the same time, it might be presumed that Swedes would duly laud her for saving the face and performing her duty as a Queen and a mother.
 
Victoria is winning the popularity contest. Versus the king. So this book shouldn't do that much damage at least for him.
 
I hate these kind of tell all books, they do nothing but cause trouble for person the book is portraying and the author didn't include the info out of pious rightousness, it was pure greed because titillating stories bring in the money. I think the book is a cheap shot at the King and a deliberate attempt to blacken his reign. The lowest thing was that the book was released in what should have been a banner year for the Royal Family. If the alleged affairs and raunchy behaviour has been "known" for many years, then why release it during the year of Victoria's wedding and the 200th anniversary of the Bernadotte Dynasty? It was spite.
 
Unfortunately the Kings behaviour is not particularly unusual or unexpected. We can just look at the kings around Europe and according to rumors and acknowledged out of wedlock children Carl Gustaf is not alone. At least we have not heard of any offspring from King Carl Gustaf's indiscretions yet.

CP Victoria's choice of husband now makes lots more sense. Daughters of philandering fathers tend to either pick someone who is like dad (Jonas comes to mind) or someone who is the opposite. I think Victoria was wise in not letting go of Daniel but to fight for her choice. In the storm now brewing around the King, Prince Daniel is looking better and better.
 
:previous: I agree with you, Grevinnan, on your thoughts about children´s reaction on their own choice for partners -- and also on Daniel.

Bye Bine
 
Expressen

Expressen headlines. Does the first one say 'New Scandal book on Silvia by the same authors'? Oh dear.
 
Last edited:
Unfortunately the Kings behaviour is not particularly unusual or unexpected. We can just look at the kings around Europe and according to rumors and acknowledged out of wedlock children Carl Gustaf is not alone. At least we have not heard of any offspring from King Carl Gustaf's indiscretions yet.

CP Victoria's choice of husband now makes lots more sense. Daughters of philandering fathers tend to either pick someone who is like dad (Jonas comes to mind) or someone who is the opposite. I think Victoria was wise in not letting go of Daniel but to fight for her choice. In the storm now brewing around the King, Prince Daniel is looking better and better.

i dont know. not everybody is a born philanderer. people change with time and i think that such a position goes with a lot of pressure and even though the first years when raising a family are happy, the years to come will be the true test. the king is the king, extremely priviliged and with anything to his availability, things can go wrong. average couples have the same issues: the kids are grown, too much to do to keep talking, with royals there usually is a royal and a non-royal partner who suddenly find out that they dont share the same values anymore because of very different upbringing. you cant really change who you are and the older people get, the more they become their parents' kid again. i have said it in another thread, royals are used to live arrangements, its normal and usually done in their circles, and the partner cant really do something about it since the marriage is more or less set in stone.

daniel & victoria may be happy now but who knows what will be? people change and the position will certainly change daniel too and only in many many years to come we will know how he finally coped. victoria seems pretty dominant to me, maybe one day he has enough and will find some escape routes. after the disney-like promoting of their relationship & marriage the bar is very high for them not to fail. victoria isnt even queen, doesnt even have children and daniel is potentially a very ill man. i am sure there is drama to come and if her marriage will be better than the marriage of her parents remains to be seen.
 
It goes without saying that all marriages have their ups and downs and no matter the upbringing, I see that many people at some stage question if they made the right choice in partner and think 'what if'. I think that has more to do with the 'human condition', myself.

I certainly know my parents have thought that at least once or twice in their 30+ years of marriage and I know some of my siblings have as well.

The regent couple obviously care for each other very deeply, and have weathered the intrusions upon marital happiness. They have come through the other side. Sure, their respective positions would be a very large reason as to why they have lasted, but I truly doubt that to be the only reason. They clearly share something quite special, as is generally the case for marriages that last.

Victoria seems quite certain of herself, publically, but then again she has too. Who is to say that privately she isn't, or shouldn't remain, a doting wife?

I think women is positions of such authority and 'power, be it constitutional, often look to men who in prviate, provide them with the assurance they themselves are expected to project in public.
 
The book and the Kings behaviour has completely been blown out of proportions. So he had an affair! And his hanging out with buddies and young women! Neither is particularly noble or acceptable but so what? It is not what I as a Swede would like for "my" king to do but it does not make him less of a regent. There are enough information already available out there to make dozens of book about his family life and him being a very involved father and husband and ordinary activities that in my mind are much more important than what he might have done with his "friends". Victoria has often spoken about the family Sunday night dinners that nothing is allowed to compete with other than official functions. How many people do you know that do not sit down to dinner on the weekend?

Unfortunately the upper echelon of powerful men tend to have a constant need for young women or at least women other than the one they are married to. Read social, business, political and even religious news and see what philandering males are up to.

My heart goes out to Queen Silvia. At least she deserves a new spectacular piece of jewelry. The usual "guilt" gift in these situations.
 
Will she give the king also a "guilt" gift after the sensational book about her (by the same author) will be published :p
 
Expressen

Expressen headlines. Does the first one say 'New Scandal book on Silvia by the same authors'? Oh dear.

And after that we get one for the kids, a book that is thinner than the book we are discussing.

Its another thing thats strange with the book. Nothing is said about his relationship with his children and their loveintressts apperantly, or we would have heard this by now.

But since i havent seen any headlines with "The relation between Daniel and the king, as written in the book" i have the feeling they have left that out for the sequel.

The authors say they have sources: Anonymus sources isnt what i call good sources. One of the named sources is a man that has tried to con money from Bjorn Borg and he isnt what i would call trustworthy. Camilla H, that is supposed to have a relationship with the king for a year can say has lived like a homeless person and could be lying.

Even the forum Flashback that isnt to royal friendly or dont care about sources when someone post something have problems beliving the book. The Tabloid Aftonbladet had 4 pages on the book today compared with 15 last Wednesday and they dont have anything about the book on the headlines at aftonbladet.se today. Expressen had around 10 pages when i looked at it(i was out shopping toiletpaper, not tabloids today:)) and on expressen.se had a interwiew with the authors. The story has run its course and the morningpapers have never touched it as big as the tabloids. Its a nonstory within a week.

In 1 month and 3 days its the Nobelawardcermony, we will then find out if the royal family looks strange or ordinary.
 
Will she give the king also a "guilt" gift after the sensational book about her (by the same author) will be published :p
According to Expressen this morning the book about Silvia will be a psychological portrait of a women that have accepted living with whatever the King has done. They call it a scandal book but I fail to see what scandal that is in deciding to stay married to your husband.

I am not getting a very good impression about these authors. They are blaming the swedish media for being cowards and are using the words "scandalous" in regard to the book about the king and the next book supposedly in the works about the queen. If they were truly interested in portraying the King as he is the book might have included a more comprehensive picture about him.
 
Back
Top Bottom