Talk:Ingeborg of Norway

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by WikiProject Royalty and Nobility.

Norse history and culture High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Norse history and culture, a WikiProject related to all activities of the North Germanic peoples, both in Scandinavia and abroad, prior to the formation of the Kalmar Union in 1397. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Norse history and cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Norse history and cultureTemplate:WikiProject Norse history and cultureNorse history and culture articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Sweden Low‑importance

	Sweden portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sweden, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sweden-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SwedenWikipedia:WikiProject SwedenTemplate:WikiProject SwedenSweden articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Middle Ages Low‑importance

	Middle Ages portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women's History Mid‑importance

	History portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Queen mother?

See article Queen mother, section Exceptional cases. 217.209.96.110 (talk) 00:14, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Most of the previous entry was copied and pasted in here from my talk page. SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:29, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Restored valid references removed recently and moved important text re: her power in Sweden 1318-1319 to lede. SergeWoodzing (talk) 01:26, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

See reply and friendly appeal here. Cordially, SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:36, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cousin-sister-in-law?

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)[reply]

The latter: (first) cousin and sister-in-law & I agree about the article. Cordially, SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:25, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Canute Porse?

A book search only shows results from the 19th century. Wikipedia should follow current usage. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:26, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bridget or Birgitta?

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)[reply]

Me too. SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:04, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Cited source

Users unfamiliar an expert academic source such as Prof. Blom should use more care not to remove material quoted from her books on this subject. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:43, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is not the source that is questioned. It is whether "undeclared Queen mother" has any meaning in English. As a Queen mother is a dowager queen who is the mother of the currently reigning monarch, and it is not any kind of formal title, it is not something that someone is "declared" as.

Andejons (talk) 16:56, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To me, the professor's wording is more relevant to Wikipedia that your opinion as to what may or may not have meaning in English. Frankly, I don't know what you mean by that. The modern British meaning of the word, and whether or not anybody has or has not been declared such, now or then, seems irrelevant to me. I will, however, carefully check the cited source's wording this evening, and if she didn't wtite that, I'll adjust this tomorrow. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:40, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quote Prof Blom re: Princess/Duchess Ingeborg ”Kongemor” pp 422, 424, 428, 429, 438, 443, 444, 445, 447, 448, 449; ”Den nye tronfølgelov [Norge 1302] tillot direkte kvinnelig arvefølge, mens kongens dattersønn kom på tredje plass. Ingebjørg [må] under hele sin oppvekst ha vært betraktet som tronarving.” (p 424); ”Hun falt udenfor ved å være kongemor uten samtidig å være enkedronning.” (p 428); ”inflydelse dronninger og hertuginner hatt ab antiquo” (p 444); ”hennes ikke-definierte posistion som kongemor” (p 448); ”the young Duchess and King Mother” (summary in English p. 452).

The text should reflect these important aspects of this expert's writings about the subject person. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:19, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the quotes, it makes for much easier discussion!

However, none of these quotes talks about her being "undeclared queen mother", it talks about the "undefined position of being the mother of the king" (without being dowager queen) and the "influence queens had since antiquity". The current sentence does not reflect this. A more accurate sentence would be something like "Ingeborg's position at court was not well-defined: she was mother of the King, without being a dowager Queen." Something might then be made with what is said on p. 444, but it's hard to tell from the short snippet.

Andejons (talk) 16:36, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Go for it! The fact that Blom calls her King Mother is also substantial, I think. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:10, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is "king mother" really the proper translation of "kongemor"? The term "king mother" is absolutely senseless. The first noun is supposed to be modified by the second noun, so for Ingeborg to be "king mother", she has to be a king who is a mother. Is it not possible to translate "kongemor" as "king's mother"? Even "kingmother" would make more sense than "king mother". Surtsicna (talk) 16:15, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"kongemor" means King's Mother. It is Danish (and Danish-influenced variant of Norwegian). In Swedish, "kungamodern" would be the same, King's Mother. In any Scandinavian language, the term "kungamodern" or "kongemor" does not change gender in the wording in a way that it would become "Mother Queen" (dronningmor, drottningmodern). in other words, NOT "queen". 2001:14BA:4857:A000:27BA:1C47:D946:6356 (talk) 23:09, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Controversial move

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)[reply]