Talk:List of Swedish royal consorts

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

Correct endings[edit]

Just for the record; in Sweden, the ending of names with this form are -"dotter" not -"datter"; -datter is Danish, and -dotter is Swedish. -dottir is Icelandic. I know this is a thing only a Scandinavian would notice, but if you find a name of a Swedish woman with the ending -datter, or a Danish woman with the name -dotter, you now know the right nameform. Just for the record! I've corrected some myself.

Earliest queens[edit]

This list now includes several people living before the year 1000, all of which are of debated historicity at best (see Semi-legendary kings of Sweden). Should we keep them while acknowledging this, or wipe them out altogether? -- Jao (talk) 21:03, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the best way would be your first alternative. In the introduction, it could be inserted, that the queens uptil 1000 are not confirmed. To wipe them out altogether would be a little brutal. We do not know if they excisted; they might have, and if they didn't, it is still information - about legends or not. --85.226.235.206 (talk) 18:07, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
When it comes to lists about king's, the semi-legendary kings are often included. It should be the same with queens. I have added Yrsa. --85.226.235.208 (talk) 11:09, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-legendary queens

Here are the semi-legendary queens. Nice to have them available!--85.226.235.208 (talk) 13:59, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regent consorts[edit]

Someone recently removed several names from the list. The names remowed were the ames of the consorts of the regents which did not have the title of king, such as for example Sten Sture the Elder. This is a mistake, for several reasons. Sweden was in name united with Denmark 1397-1523, and the Danish kings were therefore formally kings of Sweden, and the Swedish regents were formally governors. In reality, however, Sweden was independent from Denmark since c. 1448. The regents were kings in all but name, ruled independently from the Danish kings, and even waged wars against them. They are in Swedish history recognised as kings in all but name, and are listed side by side in the list of kings. Their wifes are, the same way, listed in history books side by side with the queens of the country, such as for example in the book "Alla Sveriges drottningar" (English:"All the Queens of Sweden") by Åke Ohlmarks. Just as the regents functioned as kings, the regent-consorts functioned as queens. They were the first lady of Sweden, and the first lady of the Swedish royal court. They had ladys-in-waiting, the performed all the ceremonial duties of queens in court and in society, and filled their place in every way. They even functioned as regents during their husband's absences. To exclude them simply because they did not have the formal title is not historically correct. Inthat case, one should remove the regents from the listof kings as well.

To summarize my reasons for keeping them:

Reason 1 : They were the first lady of the royal court and the first lady of the country. In all ways, the filled the position of a queen, even as to be regent during husband's absences.

Reason 2 : Just as their husbands are listed side by side with kings in Swedish history, so are they listed side by sides with the queens. This should be consistent.

Reason 3 : They are give the place of queens in the history books, just as therehusband's are given the place of kings.

Reason 4 : Only rarely after 1448 was the Danish kings recognised as kings of Sweden, and their queens as queens of Sweden; and during those occasions, the regents are not listed as kings, nore are their wifes listed as queens. But othervise they were.

Reason 5 : During the years when the Danish kings were not recognised, the regents were counted and seen as kings, and their wifes as queens. They were no other kings, or queens, in the country then.

Reason 6 : When people look for a list of Swedish queens, they want to know "who was the first lady of the royal court?". This provides that. And as their husbands are there, named as kings or regents, they are not missinformed in any way.

These are the regent-consorts and de facto queens in question

The three first ones above are different from the rest I have described; Tyri was titular queen as wife of a claimant; Ingeborg was the first lady of the court and de facto Queen Mother as mother of an infant king. I have no oppinion of them, and Mecthild is questionable, as she was married to the regent of a minor king who was married and had a queen. The rest of them, however, are the cases I have described above, and if one wishes to be correct to history, they should be included.

  • In the articles introduction, one could mention; list of queens and regent-consorts.

Given reasons above, this should not be alterred until after a majority-vote. If it is decied, that they should not be included, one should insert a separate list in the same article with the title "Regent Consorts", "De Facto Queens", "Not recognised Queens" or similar. My best regards to everyone! --85.226.235.208 (talk) 13:59, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's be absolutely clear about language and what queens are. A queen regnant is a female monarch possessing and exercising all of the monarchal powers of a ruler. A queen consort is the title given to the wife of a reigning king. Women married to viceroys, tribal chiefs or my employer are not queens.
Reason 1: Irrelevant. List of cities in the US do not include Moscow, Saint Petersburg and Paris although those cities have mayors, city parks, public libraries and public servants.
Reason 2. False dichotomy. All monarchs are regents. All of their wives were not queens.
Reason 3. No, they are not. This is a list of Swedish queens, not a list of assorted women associated with Sweden.
Reason 4. I agree that a queen is a queen.
Reason 5. No, they were not queens. A queen is a woman married to a king or is herself the regent.
Reason 6. This is not a list of first ladies of the court, it is a list of queens. List of cities in the US do not include cities in the Russia even if Russian cities have mayors, city parks, public libraries and public servants.
Given reasons above, a list of queens should only include queens.
Thuresson (talk) 05:23, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry, but you simply do not seem to understand the argument here. The same discussion is going on on Swedish wiki, so I suggest we let it be finished there until we take action here. There, this discussion seems to have become very personal for you. I am sorry you take it this way. I suggest that we let this be decided by a vote of majority.

The arguments you use above, shows that you do not understand what I was talking about. This is particularly evident in your comment on my first statement. And if you do not understand, how can you judge in it? One must at least be able to understand what a person means to take part in a discussion. So I think it would be best to leave this to a majority vote. That is, after all, a policy used at wikipedia. I hope you will respect my stand point that this needs a majority vote, and not to continue an argument on the revision-history. Sincerely, my best regards. --85.226.235.208 (talk) 10:02, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I kindly advise you to read the article queen to fully clarify what the word "queen" means. A list of queens can not include non-queens, thank you. Thuresson (talk) 08:31, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I kindly advise you to respect the need for a majority vote. Thuresson, I do not wish to argue with you, and surely, this is not a question about which one should argue. As you do not understand my meaning, I advise you to awaite other people to take part in the discussion. On Swedish wiki, you seem to have withdrawn from the discussion. There, majority are so far for the includation of regent consorts. It is easy for you to be more domanant in the discussion here at English wiki, as few people are likely to take part in the discussion here, and perhaps fewer are informed about the circumstances. I also kindly advise you not to patronize me. Of course I am fully aware what a queen is, but this is not the issue here. I have never claimed, that the regent consorts wore the title of queens. Let me try to explain the issue once more, and this time as clearly as I possibly can.

  • The regent consorts did not have the formal title of queen. Neither did their husbands, the regents, ever have the formal title of king. The did, however, perform the function of a queen and had the position of one, just as their husbands performed the function and had the position of a king. They were no other queen, or king, in Sweden a the time, not even formally. The regents are therefore given status as kings by their contemporarys and in history books, even though they did not have the title of kings. They are of course fever books about queens then kings, but the regent consorts are treated the same way; in some books, they are listed side by with the queens, as they performed the function of a queen, even if the did not have the title; just as their husbands are listed with the kings, as they performed the function and had the position of a king, even if they did not have the title of king. One of the books that gives this recongition is Alla Sveriges drottningar (In English: "All the Queens of Sweden") by Åke Ohlmarks. In other books, of course, neither the regents, or the regent consorts, are mentioned with the monarchs. Here on wikipedia, it has ben decided to include the regents in the list of kings of Sweden, (see: List of Swedish monarchs), and in line of this, the regent consorts should be included in the list of queens. If one wishes, one can mark this in some way, of course; in the list of kings, the title points out that the regents are regents and not kings, but they are still included; here, one could to the same in a subtitle- the article needs sections anywhay.

Thuresson, everyone have different oppinions; sometimes two people differ so much in their oppinions, that the can't continue the discussion, and when we come to such a situation, the civilazed way is to make a majority decision. The civilizaed way is not to change the revision-history of a page all the time without having reached a majority verdict. This is arrogant, and shows no respect to a different wiev or to a democratic process in any cirumstance. It seems to be your wiev, that your opinion is so obvbiously correct, that you do not even bother to respect my wish for a majority vote. If it was that simple, then the Swedish regents would not be included in the list of Swedish monarch here on wikipedia. My point is not so stupid as to be treated with such arrogant contempt. I do not think either one of us have much more to contribute to the discussion. I therefore apeal that you allow others to contribute with their opinion.

If you have the opinion that the regents should be left in the list of kings, then I kindly advise you to read the article king to fully clearify to you what the the word "king" means. Thank you. --85.226.235.208 (talk) 09:35, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Their wifes are, the same way, listed in history books side by side with the queens of the country, such as for example in the book "Alla Sveriges drottningar" (English:"All the Queens of Sweden") by Åke Ohlmarks."
I have Ohlmark's book in front of me. Pray tell me on which page I can find this list. Thuresson (talk) 12:11, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then you will se that Ingeborg Tott have her own chapter there, as the queens do. She is not called queen, and she will not be called queen here either, but she is present in the book about queens as she should be present here. The same source are cited as a reference for her article in both Swedish and English wikipedia I see. I have no wish to argue with you. As you are not neautral in this, you may not be villing to admit this. It is easy to say you have the book in front of you, If I may say so. It is best to ask for another oppinion to verify than yours or mine. --85.226.235.208 (talk) 12:35, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I have another book to serve as an example, also used as a reference here:

  • Lars O. Lagerqvist (1982). "Sverige och dess regenter under 1.000 år",("Sweden and it's regents under a 1000 years") (in Swedish). Albert Bonniers Förlag AB. ISBN 91-0-075007-7.

This is about kings, but is mentions the regents, such as the husband of Ingeborg Tott; it also, in connection, mentions the queens, as well as the wifes of the regents. Just to state this for the discussion, I do not wish to argue anymore. --85.226.235.208 (talk) 12:40, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have posted the fact that the discussion needs more participants in the Village pump now, so I will kindly ask you to begin to respect the need of a majority vote. --85.226.235.208 (talk) 12:45, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lagerqvist also mentions Gustav Vasa, that doesn't make Gustav Vasa a queen. Ohlmarks also mentions Gustav Vasa and despite his fancifulness and imagination not even Ohlmark claims that Gustav Vasa or Ingeborg Tott were queens of Sweden. I must insist that you provide a reputable source who verifies that these non-queens were queens.
By the logic you have provided here, Carla Bruni should be included in List of Queens and Empresses of France. Thuresson (talk) 12:59, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your own reputation does not improve by saying that the regent consorts is not present in the book by Ohlmark. This is clearly false: In the book by Åke Ohlmarks mentioned above, "Alla Sveriges drottningar" (English:"All the Queens of Sweden") by Åke Ohlmarks, Ingeborg Tott are mentioned on the pages 94-95. Mette Dyre is mentioned on the pages 98-99. Christina Gyllenstierna is mentioned on pages 100-101. Anyone can verify this. They only need to read the book. You may see, that the articles about these women here on wikipedia also reference this source. In the book by Lagerqvist mentioned above, the regent consorts are mentioned d in the articles about theri husbands the same way as the queens are mentioned; Ingeborg in page 118, Dyre in page 121, and Gyllenstierna in page 122. The same goes for the book "Litet lexikon över Sveriges regenter" (English "Small encyclopedia over the Regents of Sweden") by Lars O. Lagerqvist and Nils Åberg; were we find Ingeborg on page 26, Mette on page 27, Gyllenstierna on page 28. I can only repeat; if we wish to include the regents on the list of Swedish kings, a policy accepted here, the same must go for this question. --85.226.235.208 (talk) 14:22, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To repeat the obvious, Ohlmark does not claim that these women were queens. There is no List of Swedish kings. Thuresson (talk) 14:59, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To repeat what I have said som many times already: I do not claim that these women were queens. I claim, that they had the position of queens, and as such they are mentioned in context of the queens in the history books; I do not claim that their husbands are kings either, but they had the position of kings, and are therefore mentioned in context with the kings in history. The books never say that the regents are kings or that the regent consorts are queens, but they mention them by the side of the kings and queens. Here on wikipedia, we have an article which is called List of Swedish monarchs. Monarch means king or emperor, not regent. The regents are listed here, though it is pointed out that they are regents. The same way, the regent consorts are listed here; and I have nothing against marking them to point out thea they were not queens, the same way that their husbands are marked such. This policy are accepted here on wikipedia, and it had not led to any demands to, for example, place the French presidents at the same list as the list of French kings. Your comparisson with Carla Bruni is therefore not valid. --85.226.235.208 (talk) 15:15, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neither Ohlmarks nor Lagerqvist appear to support your claim that these women had the position of queens. Please provide reputable sources to support this. Thuresson (talk) 15:38, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I really do not have much more energy left to fight and argue with you. Sufficient enough to say; the book of Ohlmarks is called "All the Queens of Sweden". To point out the obvious: this is a book about Swedish queens, and one would not include someone who did not peform the function of queen. This is spelled out by the mere fact that they are incuded in the book. I adition to that, i can only repeat my statements about the position of regents here on wikipedia: in my last comment, I said; Here on wikipedia, we have an article which is called List of Swedish monarchs. Monarch means king or emperor, not regent. The regents are listed here, though it is pointed out that they are regents. The same way, the regent consorts are listed here; and I have nothing against marking them to point out thea they were not queens, the same way that their husbands are marked such. It simply does not seem that we are able to reach an agreement. No matter what you ask of me, It seems I am only repeating myself here. This discussion is going nowhere. I reapeat; this is why we need more participants to the discussion. --85.226.235.208 (talk) 15:47, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's not much of an argument. The logical fallacy behind it is called dicto simpliciter ad dictum secundum quid ("Cutting people is a crime. Surgeons cut people. Therefore, surgeons are criminals"). Thuresson (talk) 17:06, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thuresson, I am not the kind of person impressed by the use of Latin. I am quite tired of repeating the same thing over and over again, and quite honestly, I have better things to do with my life than to spend my hours arguing with you all day long. I have nothing more to say to you. I think we must simply agree to disagree. I suggest we give a week for others to state their opinion of the matter. None of us two clearly have much more to say. If no selution have been made by that time, I suggest the title of the article is changed to List of Swedish Queens and Regent Consorts. If the descision is made up on Swedish wikipedia earlier than that, we could perhaps learn from that descision. As a farewell statement, I will say; If the regent consorts are not included here, the regents should be remowed from the List of Swedish Monarchs. This is the exact same principle, and one can not be accepted without the other. This is a strong and relevant argument, worthy of serious consideration. That is my farewell statement, and if you ask me anything more, I will no longer answer, as all my answers so far has ben repetitions. And with this, I take my leave of the discussion, and leave it for others to decide. I wish you the very best! --85.226.235.208 (talk) 20:49, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Title[edit]

The title of this article on Swedish wiki have been changed to (In English): List of Swedish queens and regent consorts. I have mowed this page accordingly. --Aciram (talk) 13:36, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additions[edit]

Just included these.

  1. 1066-1067 : (Name unknown), wife of Eric VII Stenkilsson (Erik Stenkilsson)
  2. 1066-1067 : (Name unknown), (first time), wife of Eric VIII the Pagan
  3. 1067-1070 : (Name unknown), wife of Halsten of Sweden
  4. 1070-1075 : (Name unknown), wife of Anund Gårdske
  5. 1075-1079 : (Name unknown), (second time) wife of Håkan, widow of Eric VIII. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.226.42.61 (talk) 13:06, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I included this one: * 970-975 : Ingeborg Thrandsdotter, wife of Olof (II) Björnsson.--85.226.44.201 (talk) 09:51, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nice spelling in the tables guys[edit]

So umm, someone want to tell me what "ascession" means? ;) -- œ™ 22:04, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Swedish_royal_consorts&oldid=1203588494"