Talk:Margaret I of Denmark

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


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?[edit]

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 (talk) 19:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Date of birth[edit]

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

Name of mother[edit]

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?[edit]

I tried to repair this in the lede of the article:

  • ... Margrét Valdimarsdóttir),[A] (March 1353[1] ...

but now it's already back. Are back-to-back parentheses OK now

  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?

Please enlighten me! SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:17, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Why Margaret I?[edit]

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[edit]

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 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)