Talk:Juliana Maria of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 22:50, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

name
she was known by the french style of her name Juliane Marie not Juliana etc. someone needs to change it somehow — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.141.2.79 (talk) 15:20, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Love affair betweeen queen Caroline Mathilda and Struense
The article claims a love affair between queen Caroline Mathilda and Struense. This claim is, in the eyes of modern historians, increasingly seen as propaganda, originating from the circle around Juliana and Guldberg as justification for ousting King Christian VII and placing her son (and the king's half-brother) Frederick on the throne as figurehead for her own rule. No court document or letters exist to prove an erotic relationship between the young queen and the king's doctor. The de facto coup, carried out by Juliana and Guldberg and supported by conservative forces among the nobility, whose position and priviledge Struense's reforms had threatened, needs mentioning for balance. 83.249.137.51 (talk) 15:10, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Needs work - the entire thing
Please re edit this bio. It is poorly written. Seems a summary report of a book. There are no citations. Tremendous instances of supposition and rumour. But most of all, the very poor sentence structure makes it difficult to comprehend. The paragraph that includes the inability to master the Dutch language is one glaring example. I do not know the information for this bio, or I’d do it myself. Dtss2017 (talk) 05:17, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I appologize - my English language must be worse than even I thought. I tried my best to develop it from the Danish language source. It does, as You see, have numerous citations and quotations, but perhaps badly formed; I did my best. Supposition, rumours and such are perfectly allowed, provided that they are stated to be just that; relevant to mention; referenced, and in quotes. Any way - I did my best with the language, and the article does have a lot of new information and the information is referenced by sources, so if someone who master the English language better than me can see to it, then the article will be better. Again - I am sorry for the bad language, but it is hard to notice when you are not native English speaking.  I allow myself to be proud of the addition of information at least; looking at the article history, it is mostly me who have been active in contributing information to this article, so I believe that to be usefull at least. The language faults are of course mine, but not intentionally done.  Wikipedia is, after all, a project where everyone can contributer to the best of their ability, and for my part, information is my ability, but perhaps not the language; as you may see from this post, my English language is quite bad.  As for the information, however, any one who can read Danish can verify that the information can be found in the references cited for the information.  My appologizes again for the bad language.  My best greetings, --Aciram (talk) 13:54, 12 August 2018 (UTC)