Talk:Blotstulka

Striclty legendary
There is no reliable evidence that his woman ever existed. Ohlmarks=fiction. Changed category to Semi-legendary kings of Sweden (for now) - see heading on that category page. SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:42, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Whatever one may think of the reliability of Ohlmarks, (and that is, after all, a matter of opinion) one can not doubt her existence as such. Blot-Sweyn was married and had children. The existence of his son is debated, and hardly finnished. Her real name, however, is of course not known. In any case, also legendary queens should be represented on wikipedia. As there is no category: "Semi legendary queens" (perhaps it should be), queens category it would not be incorrect to use the queens category. --85.226.43.33 (talk) 11:38, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Again here - there is no reliable source anywhere that establishes this unnamned woman as Queen of Sweden. Very reliable historians have even suggested that her husband, the so called Blood Swain (Blotsven), actually was King Hacon the Red (which I will be getting to on those articles with sources soon). So doing this (having the so called Blotstulka as a queen) is very likely to be a duplication. In any case, please let's not appoint 11th century people royalty whose very existence is in grave doubt and whose positions are absolutely, definitely and positively unknown, except in 20th century stories. SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:52, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Found a much better "People..." category and have made it too a sub to Category:Swedish monarchy and to the explanatory intro text at Category:Swedish royalty. Thank you 85.226.43.33 for your input on these important names and all the other remarkably good work you do here. Sincerely, SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:24, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is true that Sweyn and Haacon may have been the same person. If their articles are merged with each other, then of course so should the articles of their wifes. This is not done yet, however, and before that happens, they should stay. Yes, it is true that Sweyn and Haacon may have been the same person. If their articles are merged with each other, then of course so should the articles of their wifes. This is not done yet, however, and before that happens, they should stay. As to the matter of the succession boxes, I really should explain it better. The succession-boxes are only there to provide a succession. Other countries do mention royal people who may or may not have existed, and are mentioned in partially in legend, in their succession. It is simply a question of having a practical sucession line who one can use for help to access information : the fact that some of the people may be partially legendary, should of course be clearly stated in their articles: this is the task of the article, not of the succession. Legandary monarchs are included in lists of kings. This is not a problem - as long as the articles states their semi legendary status, of course. You see, it is more or less like this: we now this woman existed, and we now that she was queen in this period, between these two confirmed queens. The fact that her correct name, years, (for example) is unconfirmed, does not change her place in the succession line. The boxes are there simply to state the place in the succession, and that place is not contested : the contested information should be dealt with in the article itself. I hope you understand. But: in other aspects, you have done a great job. --85.226.43.33 (talk) 18:20, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you! If you can show me one single reliable source that the wife of the so called Blood Swain actually existed and that she was Queen of Sweden, I will be very happy to put her back in a category which should absolutely not include anyone who is not officially recognized as such. Wikpedia, and our categorization of articles, would become an arbitrary means of entertainment for editors and lose every bit of educational value as an encyclopaedia if we proclaimed queens ourselves based on stories and included them in very authoritative-looking succession graphics. SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:22, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I have no wish to argue. That Sweyn had a wife, should be more or less clear. He did have a son, who is not described as illegitimate. The son's existence is questioned, but not confirmed to be non-existant. Thereby, her mere existence can not be denied. The fact that her correct name is unknown does not dispute her existence. If Sweyn truly was the same as Haakon, then we are positive that he had a wife, as we do now Haakon had one. But, as I say; I do not enjoy arguing with people, and because of that reason alone, I will leave this discussion. Thank you very much!--85.226.43.33 (talk) 11:33, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree, Ohlmarks=fiction. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:48, 13 March 2011 (UTC)