Talk:Ingeborg of Norway

message: See article Queen mother, section Exceptional cases. 217.209.96.110 (talk) 00:14, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: She was the mother of a king, but she did not have the title Queen Mother. The title did not exist in Sweden. That is a formal title, not something one is automatically. --85.226.43.33 (talk) 21:59, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Please be more careful and don't make changes just to make changes! Read what you change and comprehend it before you change it, please! The caption had "(undeclared) Queen mother". That made her situation pefectly clear (in English) and it was quite correct. Official titles can be mentioned informally in this way (with qualifications in parentheses) to describe a situation. SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:44, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Have you read this book? There are hundreds of thousands of women who were mother of kings withouth having the title of queen mother. That it a title. She was not even de facto queen mother, only de facto mother of a king. If we intend to use that for all mother of kings who were not queen mothers, then there would be many more to add to this. This phrase: don't make changes just to make changes! is something you use toward me to make me sound like a non-serious editor, because I have insulted your pride in a previous discussion. You also lecture me because you were offended when I gave you advice earlier. I gave you advice to make an article as good as possible, not in the intent to insult you, and I will not be offended when you try to do the same with me. This is not very mature, nor is it very usefull of as an editor. But if it is important to you to restore your pride this way, then I will happily let this be. I hope your damaged pride are somewath restored by this, so that you can return to the good work you have done before. And once again: I am very sorry that I have wounded your pride. Again: this was not my intention. As I am not myself interested in status or prestige, I am may lack sensitivity toward these feelings in others. Please try to keep wounded pride and such things out of your work as an editor, and not let them affect the so far good work you do. --85.226.43.148 (talk) 11:22, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

text: Ingeborg was the mother of the king of Sweden and Norway in 1319-60. Furthermore, she was the regent the facto of Sweden in 1318-19, and the regent de jure in 1319-26. The fact that she was the mother of the king, does not make her the queen mother. The fact that she was the regent de facto, and later the regent, does not make her queen mother. She did not have the title of queen mother. But furthermore, neither was she the queen mother de facto. Political power has nothing to do with the position of queen mother. Queen mothers had no political power unless they were additionally regents. The other cases refferred to in the section exceptional cases in the article of queen mother, includes women who were granted the formal title in exceptional circumstances. This does not aply to Ingeborg, references or not. This has been pointed out before. --85.226.47.128 (talk) 13:12, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: See reply and friendly appeal here. Cordially, SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:36, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Queen mother? 

message: The section Regency mentions a cousin-sister-in-law Ingeborg Eriksdottir. What does cousin-sister-in-law mean? Was Ingeborg Eriksdottir a cousin-in-law of Ingeborg of Norway or Ingeborg of Norway's cousin who was also her sister-in-law? Anyway, someone has done a great job expanding the article. Surtsicna (talk) 20:13, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The latter: (first) cousin and sister-in-law & I agree about the article. Cordially, SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:25, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I have just seen that the article about Ingeborg Eriksdottir is linked in another section. I should have read the whole article first. Thank you for answering and sorry for asking! Surtsicna (talk) 20:38, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cousin-sister-in-law? 

message: A book search only shows results from the 19th century. Wikipedia should follow current usage. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:26, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Canute Porse? 

message: I believe we should stick to status quo until Bobrayner presents secondary English language sources that call Ingeborg's daughter Birgitta. If any such source exists, I am in favour of changing "Bridget" to "Birgitta". If not, the established form of the name should be retained, in my opinion, per Bridget of Sweden. Surtsicna (talk) 19:03, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Me too. SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:04, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:   That the whole this "Bridget" be Ingeborg's child, is a pile of bullshit. It comes from old guesswork genealogies and from idiots who want to have yet more royal roots (This here is again the "Wikipedia problem": someone has published an idiocy and therefore the idiocy is repeated in Wikipedia, all over time, and it is going to be a shitstorm between historians and idiots here to erase the idiocy). Truly, "Jon Hafthorsson" is a known quantity: he is Ingeborg's sister's son, factually. Jon would NEVER been permitted to marry a first cousin, the church would have forbidden it and there would have been big 1300s shitstorm about it. (Jon Haftoresson is son of a Norwegian baron Haftore by his wife Agnes Hakonardottir, Agnes being concubine-born daughter of King Hakon V of Norway, king Hakon being the legitimate Ingeborg's father too.) Already this would dictate that Bridget does not belong to here as child of Ingeborg. The known quantity, "Bridget", really Birgitta Knutsdotter av Fånö & Ervalla, Jon Haftoresson's historical wife, happens to have a suitable patronymic so that historical & genealogical ignoramuses have, presumably already for a few centuries, connected her as this Duke Knut's daughter. Birgitta's landed inheritances of known properties in Sweden and her contemporary documentation in Sweden and Norway, are saying quite clearly that the real Birgitta Knutsdotter is daughter of lord Knut Magnusson of Fånö, lawspeaker of Västergötland and Värmland, and his wife Cecilia Röriksdotter of Ervalla. This parentage is published in the 1957 publication Äldre Svenska Frälsesläkter, in the publication's chapter "Tyrgils Knutsson"'s family. In reality, Porse and Ingeborg ever had merely two children who lived to adulthood: Hakon Porse and Knut Porse the younger. Because they die before their mother Ingeborg, Ingeborg is recorded as having inherited their landed properties. This would not been so if the boys had a living sister who would have had a share. Canute Porse's all progeny died out by the deaths of the two boys during the Black Death.
Lady Birgitta Knutsdotter, "Bridget" who married Jon Hafthorsson, really has issue to our days. They inherited Swedish Ervalla, Swedish Fånö, Norwegian Huseby, part of Norwegian Soerum, etc. Once upon a time, the couple's one descendant Eric Trolle inherited Fånö and he is an ancestor of Fånö's later owner Axel Oxenstierna. Inheritance of Ervalla passed in family to their another descendant the countess Eeva Horn, the wife of Field Marshal Nils Bielke, and one of their daughters inherited Ervalla, marrying to the Mörner family. 2001:14BA:4857:A000:27BA:1C47:D946:6356 (talk) 22:51, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bridget or Birgitta? 

message: The recent move adding a phonetically cumbersome Norwegian word was not necessary. It was also controversial and should not have been done without discussion. --80.216.4.51 (talk) 12:07, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Controversial move