Talk:Margaret I of Denmark

Untitled
Most of the initial text for this article is a copy from the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica

--Christian 12:32 Aug 7, 2002 (PDT)

A Joke?
Who on Earth is the "Benjamin Bach" mentioned in this article? And who is the Benjamin Bach mentioned in the ariticle about Queen Margrethe II of Denmark? This claim must be verified.
 * It seems that mr Bach has been coming and going since the page was formed. Is it a persistent saboteur logging on from different computers or is it some sort of virus? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.164.41.45 (talk) 19:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Date of birth
I once saw that she was born in March 1353. Is that true? jeanne (talk) 16:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Name of mother
The name of her mother was Helvig in Danish, Heilwig in German, Haelwig in English, not Hedwig/Hedvig - and has been given correctly in this article's text amd info box all along. I have put in a move request for her page today to try to correct the mess made there through an undiscussed move last fall. SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:16, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

--bibliography -- There is a very useful English-language biography of her that needs to be added at least to the English version, although the author (Vivian Etting) has since revised it in Danish: Vivian Etting, Queen Margrete I and the Founding of the Nordic Union (Leiden: Brill, 2004). 2old bill (talk) 15:28, 29 May 2012 (UTC).:

Back to backs OK now?
I tried to repair this in the lede of the article: but now it's already back. Are back-to-back parentheses OK now Please enlighten me! SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:17, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * ... Margrét Valdimarsdóttir),[A] (March 1353[1] ...
 * 1) in general?
 * 2) only in this particular article?
 * 3) because there is a comma in between?
 * 4) because there's a comma and a ref tag in between?
 * 5) when someone is too lazy to figure out another way of (re)writing stuff?

Why Margaret I?
There was never any Margaret II, so why is this at Margaret I? Tad Lincoln (talk) 02:00, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The current Queen Margrethe II of Denmark is Margaret II, only that her name is not angliced at Wikipedia the way Margaret I (Margrete I) is. With regards, Iselilja (talk) 02:13, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Low-importance Women's Articles
Really? One of the greatest geniuses in her realm (politics, especially diplomacy) and one of the most far sighted but unlucky conquerors ever. If modern Scandinavia had as much influence on modern media, imperialistic tendencies (past and present), secret taste for strongman (in this case strongwoman) leaders like the Anglo-Saxon, this woman would be all over the world's history books instead of Elizabeth I, Victoria ...etc (Not that I don't appreciate those two). But even excluding that, women history groups should take care to rescue females who should've been known more from obscurity. No other female (maybe just Isabella, Wu Zetian or Catherine II come close) matches this woman in her highly energetic, masculine, omnipresent style of rule (which would have been hard for even most men considered of strong mental and physical health). Deamonpen (talk) 12:07, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I couldn't agree more. By far the greatest woman, one of the greatest leaders regardless of sex, in northern European history. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:31, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * So they've heard us! Thanks, Mods!
 * Seriously, if women like a role model who transformed her natural and social disadvantages into advantages, it would be Elizabeth I (although she always wisely assumed some tough guy posture if needed), or her precedent models Margaret of Austria and Eleanor of Aquitaine - and they were very admirable for that, but if they want to claim that women could take what traditionally considered men's tasks in a manner traditionally considered masculine, a Peter the Great with a bit more manner and subtlety, surely this woman would serve as an ideal role model (she certainly was not trained in martial arts but looking at her character, her vitality and her physical courage that became even more remarkable in old age - she died at 59 while directly supervising a warzone, perhaps due to plague or physical injury depending on the version - she had inner qualities to compete with the best of them all).

Deamonpen (talk) 02:48, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Mixed
Mixed indicates that there are as many historians who have negative opinions on her abilities as those who are positive about her. However it's anything but mixed. Any major figure in history has critics. It's fair to show the opinions of the minority, but if a person being criticized by even a minority means it's "mixed", then any person's reputation can be described as mixed. Also Larsen just criticizes her vision regarding some matters. She still describes Margaret as a great leader. So "historians' opinion on Margaret are mixed" are totally unacceptable. Deamonpen (talk) 08:50, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Margaret I of Denmark. 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/20141109161827/http://shmeerumschlungen.npage.de/ausfluege/ochseninseln.html to http://shmeerumschlungen.npage.de/ausfluege/ochseninseln.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:31, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Never was she the Queen of Denmark
The title Queen of Denmark was never given to Margaret when she was alive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.77.131.20 (talk) 11:37, 13 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Given and given?..... at least the Pope adressed her as Queen. Oleryhlolsson (talk) 12:46, 13 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I tried doing some more research regarding this, since the Danish Wiki-page does not cite any pope referring to her as “Queen of Denmark”, and it seems this is from a document, that was not written while Margaret was alive. Indeed, I can find a source that claims the communication between Queen Margaret and the Pope was in fact lost. Nevertheless, Queen Margaret 1. was never formally proclaimed or chosen as Queen of Denmark, but only regent of Denmark on behalf of her son - this is also reflected on the Danish Wiki-page, which is quite more precise than presenting her as queen of Denmark (which she formally never was).

Also, Queen Margaret I was only chosen as regent of the various countries and ruled on behalf of her son, and therefore not “in her own right”, although she ruled by herself until her death, which does not diminish her impact in history.

Therefore, her title as Queen of Denmark should be removed, since she was never formally queen of Denmark, even though she might titled herself as this or was referred to as queen. Frederik Glerup Christensen (talk) 18:36, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * When she was installed as "Lord and Lady and Protector...etc" of said various countries, she did not have a biological son anymore, nor an adopted one (yet). Said countries also later let her choose the king according to her will, after whose coronation she changed the use of her titles, which were clearly unprecedented (and also unopposed by her subjects). Strictly speaking, in my view, her case was quite similar to Cromwell - head of state, but not really a monarch, nor a regent. The current Queen of Denmark apparently interprets her position as equivalent to queen regnant. In the end it should depend on historians' opinions rather than mine or yours. The ones I've read treat this like an ambiguous case, and history has been like that - it is not linear.
 * Female rulers tend to fall into these ambiguous cases. Wu Zetian was "restored" to Empress Consort at the end of her life/shortly after her death too, and certainly was not recognized as Emperor by her successor as well as many other. There were female Tennos in Japan, who are now not recognized by the current regime or reinterpreted as being equivalents to regents (which befits their maintenance of male-preference primogeniture). Certainly being a monarch in name or not does not change Margaret's importance in history. But it is also a problem, imho, if we drag all ambiguous cases (disputed monarches, anti-popes, leaders with unprecedented titles etc) towards the "lower" ends, especially when they were important, long-ruling people who were in practice able to exercise the authority they claimed in a long time and supported by large parts of the population/the ruling elites. Deamonpen (talk) 03:21, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Margaret (I) was the widow of a king of 2 countries bearing the title of Queen in Norway & Sweden for life. Quite normal.
 * Margrethe II decided in using that numeral that Margaret I indeed was queen regnant also of Denmark. That's that. The monarchs decide these things, nobody else. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:56, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * If so, IP. Why does the current Danish monarch named Margrethe have "II", after her name. GoodDay (talk) 22:27, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Pope decided this
Whatever the Pope called you was the title you had. Her contemporary Pope called her Queen of Denmark, Norway and Sweden. That settles that. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:52, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Queen breechless
The nickname "Queen breechless" - supposedly given by Albrecht of Mecklenburg, is widely regarded as a myth by modern historians (Such as Dick Harrison in his book on the Kalmar Union). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.162.82.134 (talk) 10:05, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * He allegedly called her "King Breechless" not Queen ... --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:23, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Queen of Denmark?
I wrote to the user who did this and requested a source, rather than tagging the article. Having read everything there is about Margaret, I have never heard of that. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:42, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Trinity
Hi, in the section Death, it says she set sail in her ship, Trinity, with ref given, AFAICS, Chisholm/Encyc. Brit 1911, p. 702. The EB mentions Trinity as day of a meeting, but not as the name of a ship. It would also be surprising if she were to have named a ship in English, and not in Danish ("Treenigheden") ... However, there may be other sources which I'm not aware of, and so I didn't edit the article today. The edit will be to simply strike the one word, Trinity, leaving all the rest as is. If no source is presented in a modicum of time, I'll do that. T 84.208.65.62 (talk) 19:25, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Edit: Link to EB p 702: https://archive.org/details/encyclopaediabri17chisrich/page/702/mode/2up T84.208.65.62 (talk) 19:26, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Rollback today
I rolled back 3 edits by a user who wants us to use Olav (Norwegian) rather than Olaf (English). SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:16, 16 April 2024 (UTC)