Talk:Louise of Sweden

Elected

The article says: Contrary to other Scandinavian monarchies, which were elective, Norway was a hereditary kingdom from its beginning. The succession rules were somewhat loose, but agnatic members of the Fairhair dynasty had higher claim. After its extinction in the Middle Ages, the crown of Norway was inherited in female line, firstly by a Swedish prince, then by Danish princes and kings. Norway came to belong to Charles XIII of Sweden not only as a result of war, but also because he was a descendant of a junior branch of the Oldenburg House, the Norwegian Royal House of that time. Old traditions of Norwegian succession did not preclude succession through a female line; therefore it was relatively easy to set aside the restrictions of a relatively new constitution

King Haakon was elected to the throne in 1905, the historical succession arguments only supported his candidature, they were not the decisive point, as one might think after reading this article! Fredrik from norway, 06.04.2006, 17:24

Female succession

The article says it was against tradition of Sweden and Norway to have a female monarch, but this is not correct; the Swedish constitution proclaimed female succession in 1604, and after this had two female monarchs, but the new constitution of 1809 did not include this; Norway may have ben different. I have changed the article accordingly.

Box

• The long panel box overwhelms the formatting of the information in this article. Perhaps it doesn't matter...--Wetman (talk) 02:01, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Requested move to Louise of Sweden

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was Move Parsecboy (talk) 02:14, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

• Lovisa of Sweden → Louise of Sweden - (Discuss) - per Wikipedia:Common usage - Surtsicna (talk) 21:57, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Survey

Move or Don't move followed by reason and ~~~~

Move This queen is known as Louise in English (the only relevant language when it comes to this Wikipedia), Danish (language of the country she was queen of), and Swedish (language of her homeland), therefore I have no idea why this article is called Lovisa of Sweden. Surtsicna (talk) 21:57, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

I am from Scandinavia, and I have no opinion in which name to use here, but if it could help, I´ll tell you which names are used for her: Her Swedish name was Lovisa, which is always used in Sweden (and that should of course be stated to be her original name-form in the article); when she moved to Denmark, she was called Louise. Perhaps that could help!--85.226.44.74 (talk) 13:04, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh; in the beginning of the article, her name-forms are presented in Swedish. Please remember, that in Swedish, she was Lovisa and not Louise, so the current form are not correct. --85.226.44.74 (talk) 13:10, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for clarification, but the most important name form is the one used in all English references - and that's Louise. We will, of course, mention the Swedish form of her name in the article. Surtsicna (talk) 14:27, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Excellent, I have no problem with this. I'm glad I could help! --85.226.44.74 (talk) 15:10, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh and generally: Swedish name forms often end with an "a", and Danish with an "e"; as you see, in Swedish she was EugeniA and JosefinA, and in Danish EugeniE JosephinE. Just a remarc I couldn't help adding! --85.226.44.74 (talk) 15:50, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

From WP:RM, is this Louise more notable as "Louise of Sweden" than Louise Mountbatten? The dab page that is currently at Louise of Sweden isn't necessary; when there are only two articles, disambiguation is sufficiently achieved through hatnotes. I can close this proposal and move the page as soon as this question is answered. Parsecboy (talk) 00:48, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd say she is more notable as Louise of Sweden than Louise Mountbatten. When the latter is called "Louise of Sweden", there is usually "Queen" in front of it, while simply "Louise of Sweden" almost always refers to this woman. Surtsicna (talk) 11:19, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Good enough for me. Parsecboy (talk) 02:14, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Edit war neeeded re: dynasty?

Lovisa (her post-1900 legal name) did not belong to the same dynasty as her husband - people only belong to one dynasty or branch thereof. Lovisa was a Bernadotte. Dynasty or house inclusion (and thus WP categorization) depend wholly on accepted genealogy. It seems to me that WP should not be permeated with personal POV that is not accurate. I am very unhappy about one other user in this regard, in particular, who keeps categorizing royal women as if they belong to their husband's dynasties where they (most of them) do not. I corrected that in this case with what I felt was a clear enough edit summary, but that editor reversed the correction without discussion. Invite opinions of others please as I revert it back to what is correct again, according to such reliable authorities as Burke's and Debrett's. SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:11, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Picture Caption

I think something has been literally lost in translation here:

Louise with her beloved sister-in-law Princess Thyra of Denmark with whom she had a confidently friendship.

Confidently friendship? Doesn't make sense. Additionally, the article states Louise did not get along with her sister-in-law. ScarletRibbons (talk) 04:28, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Correct. That text is not neutral, so it should be removed in any case. I will do so.--Aciram (talk) 12:33, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Louise 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/20140208201408/http://kongehuset.dk/english/the-royal-house to http://kongehuset.dk/english/The-Royal-House

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) 08:04, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Which sister in law?

The article says she was disliked by her mother in law and sister in law. She had three sisters in law, though, so which one? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:BC01:9B0:544F:E012:2320:EFE4 (talk) 21:22, 4 January 2021 (UTC)