Talk:Ulrika Eleonora of Sweden

Ulrika name

In Swedish, she is known as Ulrika Eleonora. I highly doubt that the form Ulrike is more common, or even remotely close to as common, as that in English usage; afaik, it's a German/Danish form, not an English. The Britannica uses Ulrika. [1] Unless arguments for Ulrike can be produced, I really think this article should be moved. -- Jao 17:06, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

I agree. Ulrika is the name form familiar in english-anguage literature. 213.243.157.114 15:30, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Eleanor

Eleonora is Eleanor in proper English. Since she is a monarch, the name should logically be translated into English, not left in its Swedish form Eleonora. 62.78.121.150 10:25, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

prejudice

In the second paragraph, what does "the prejudice of Queen Kristina" mean? —Tamfang (talk) 06:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps that she became monarch as the closest relative to the previous monarch, even though there was a male heir in the extended family? In the same way, Christina became monarch as the closest living relative to the previous monarch, even though she had a male cousin. Ulrika Eleonora's nephew should othervise be king, as he was the son of her elder sister, who was the heir before her. But this is only a guess, I don't really know much about it! --85.226.235.208 (talk) 15:52, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Jealousy scandal?

I know of no reliable source that has ever asserted that the queen almost made a scandal out of jealousy. On the contrary it is known that she never commented on the king having a mistress and that any opinion she might have had about it remained private and never has been known by anyone. I am adding a citation tag to the "scandal" assertion (which probabably is from a novel or other dramatized entertainment) and ask that the item be removed from this bio if not reliably sourced. SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:57, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

This is the text in question: In 1730, her spouse became the first king in Swedish history to have an official mistress, the young noble Hedvig Taube, who was given the title countess of Hessenstein. Of course, many Swedish kings have had mistresses, but the French way of having an official mistress had never been practiced in Sweden before, which was a great humiliation for Ulrika Eleonora[3]. In 1735, she had the bishops lecture both Frederick and Hedvig [4], and in 1739, she attempted to have Hedvig expelled [5]. Hedvig did pack her bags and left in direction for Germany. But when the king stopped Hedvig on her way out of the country, the Queen was close to making a scandal by bringing her complaints before the clergy fraction of the parliament [6]. In the end, she was forced to [7] accept the matter. It is now referenced. It is correct, that Ulrika never commented a word about the affair, although her great dislike is known in history. The lecture of Hedvig Taube, the attempt to exile Hedvig inspired by the silent disaprouval Ulrika displayed, is correct, but it is good that it is now referenced; it should have been already from the start by the one who added the information and the reference withouth in-line citations. It is true that in-line citations is not absolutely neccessary, but when it comes to information which may be questioned, it is vital, so it is excellent that the matter is now adjusted. Good work in noticing it! --85.226.41.180 (talk) 13:58, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry but I have to remove all the fiction citing references from Lindqvist, who for all intents and purposes is a novelist, who never cites any research, and by no means is considered a reliable source (notorious for inventing things and mixing fact with fiction - see Herman Lindqvist (journalist)). There is no reliable source of any kind about anything regarding Ulrica Eleanor's opinions of King Frederick's mistresses - only completely unsubstantiated gossip. This queen was known for never commenting on any of this or taking any action about it of any kind ever. Her reliable biography is Ulrika Eleonora d. y. Karl XII:s syster by Walfrid Holst (Wahlström & Widstrand, Stockholm 1956). Her "great disklike" is not known at all. It is just as likely that she whole-heartedly appoved of the whole affair with Countess Taube von Hessenstein, such as was common behavior among many royal wives of men with mistresses for centuries. SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:07, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I am very sorry to hear that. The fact that Hedvig Taube was lectured by the clergy, and that she was almost exiled from Sweden, is completely confirmed, and I trust that is not questioned. The reason for this was the quite discontent of Ulrika Eleonora. It is completely true that Ulrika never commented this affair, but her dislike was still known. That is something which Lindquist is not alone to say. "Gossip" about what contemporarys claim and interpeted in a story is also allowed in an article, on the condition that is is related as such. I am very sorry to see that is have been removed. I have also restored the ref about Lovisa Ulrika which was removed, by the way. --85.226.41.180 (talk) 08:24, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

The fact that Hedvig Taube was lectured by the clergy and almost exiled should still be included. I think that is important to give a picture of the whole affair. But I am sad to say I haven't the time. Hopefully, someone else will reintroduce it from a different source, by someone whos oppinion is more respected. And of course: there is not only one, but many acceptable books from which to take information to this article. I am sure your ref Ulrika Eleonora d. y. Karl XII:s syster by Walfrid Holst, Wahlström & Widstrand, Stockholm 1956 is an excellent one, but all articles should have several sources, to give a balanced and neutral impression, as historians do have their different oppinions and interpetations, just like everyone else, so that reference should not be regarded as the only acceptable source. Just a general remarc. --85.226.41.180 (talk) 08:31, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you sincerely for referencing the Lovisa Ulrika item so clearly! I never said the Holst book is "the only acceptable source". I wrote "reliable biography". Obviously, many reliable writers have treated this queen extensively. But Holst's book is the only reliable biography so far. Also, gossip must be referenced reliably - as such! - if included in a WP article. "the quite discontent of Ulrika Eleonora" is an invention - we know absolutely nothing about any discontent on her part, quiet or not. Lastly, I could hope you might be able to find it in your heart to be pleased that we are removing fiction here, instead of being "very sorry" about it. WP needs a lot more such work, and a lot less fiction. Cordially, SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:08, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Frederick "unfaithful"?

It does not seem releveant to this article, in my opinion, nor necessary, to assert that King Frederick "however, had mistresses", right after relating the fact that his wife hoped to give birth to an heir. It would seem to be enough to state the fact that he had mistresses, without professing any special POV of our time or theirs, nor motivating that because it then was acceptable for men (only?) to be "unfaithful" but that that "was still adultary according to law and religion". We don't know if Frederick and Ulrica Eleanor still had sex or not and kept trying to have a legal heir, and we don't know if she supported him having mistresses or not (as many royal spouses of both sexes have done) - so why slant their story with some sort of unsourced indignation? SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:47, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Not trivial?

Can Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy please explain why the title Landgravine of Hesse-Kassel deserves a succession box? Did she wield power as landgravine? Was she significant or notable for being a landgrave's wife? How much does the reader benefit from knowing who was the landgrave's wife before her or after her? Did she ever even use that title? Surtsicna (talk) 21:55, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

It is not trivial. She held the title and was the wife of the ruling Landgrave of Hesse-Kassel. This source calls her the Landgravine Ulrika Eleanora of Hesse. You been ranting about the lists of cosnorts articles and these are the only places where they can be linked. Calling her Queen of the Goths and the Wends would be trivial on the succession boxes would be trivial not Landgravine of Hesse-Kassel which was what she was, along with being Queen of Sweden.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 22:12, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

You haven't answered any of my questions. She held the title, so what? We will mention it. Why do we need to link to women who held it before and after her? And you know very well that I am just one of many people concerned with the lists of consorts and these succession boxes. Surtsicna (talk) 22:52, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

What? Isn't that the entire concept of succession box to show their predecessors and successors? Why is Frederick of Hesse-Kassel and Louisa Ulrika of Prussia her predecessors and successors as Consorts of Sweden while Maria Amalia of Courland and Mary of Great Britain not her predecessors and successors as Consorts of Hesse-Kassel. What is the point of even link the people who held the position of Monarchs of Sweden before her for that matter? --Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 16:53, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the entire concept of a succession box is to show their predecessors and successors but you can't even compare the "Landgravine consort of Hesse-Kassel" succession box to the "Queen of Sweden" succession box. First of all, this woman is notable and significant for being a queen of Sweden. Nobody knows her for being a landgravine of anything. The article goes into detail about her predecessors and successors on a royal throne. It doesn't mention Maria Amalia of Courland or Mary of Great Britain at all, nor should it - they just happened to be married to minor German princelings who ruled the same bit of territory. Should we also have a succession box for her being wife of the heir to Hesse-Kassel? "Hereditary Princess of Hesse-Kassel" | Predecessor= Amalie Elisabeth of Hanau-Münzenberg | Successor=Mary of Great Britain? Surtsicna (talk) 18:36, 20 June 2011 (UTC)