Talk:Aud Haakonsdottir of Lade

Cleaned up

Recateg as semi-legendary - not recognized queen, rm false Lagerqvist source & queens box, Ohlmarks=fiction. SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:29, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect removal of a correct reference

It is not correct of you to remove the Lagerquist reference. Unless you have checked it, and confirmed that she is not there, than it is unproffessional and incorrect of you to remove it. I have checked this reference on my local library, and it does mention her. It is arrogant and disrespectfull to declare a reference "false" and remove it from an article without nowing if it incorrect or not. We all make mistakes of course, but try not to repeat such a thing please. --85.226.43.33 (talk) 11:43, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Please do not be belligerent! I am sorry as I do see now (with the book in front of me from my own library) how you may have reacted very irritated at the word "false". I thought the Lagerqvist reference was there to try to to establish her as queen - you probably know that Lagerqvist explicitly states that she was not, if she existed at all, on page 23. There is so much input that really is "false" and needs to be fixed in many of these articles. Let's collaborate, not argue! Once again, sorry. SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:22, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I see. Well, it was a simple misunderstanding from your part then. Though the article did in fact already stated that she may or may not have existed, which is also stated by Lagerquist: he doubts her existence, but he also admits that she may have existed, and in that case, as the last spouse of the king. She may have existed - something many Scandinavian people from this era have incommon. But I am glad we solved that. --85.226.43.33 (talk) 18:26, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

The box removal

I am hesitant about the removal of the box. As a general rule, legendary people should also be inkluded in lists of royalty. If their existence is unproven, they may still have existed: we do not know. In this case, it should not be correct to broke the line of the succession, if the next person in this line is unconfirmed. The article should state that they are legendary, that is the task of the article; the task of the sucession-boxes it to state the succession. --85.226.43.33 (talk) 12:16, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

See my reply above please! "Swedish queens" should be those that have been officially recognized as such, shouldn't they? We are likely to cause serious confusion otherwise. SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:24, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I really should have explained this better, I'm sorry. The succession-boxes are only there to provide a succession. Other countries do mention royal people who may or may not have existed, and are mentioned in partially in legend, in their succession. It is simply a question of having a practical sucession line who one can use for help to access information : the fact that some of the people may be partially legendary, should of course be clearly stated in their articles: this is the task of the article, not of the succession. Legandary monarchs are included in lists of kings. This is not a problem - as long as the articles states their semi legendary status, of course. That way, no confusion will occur. You see, it is more or less like this: we now this woman existed, and we now that she was queen in this period, between these two confirmed queens. The fact that her correct name, years, (for example) is unconfirmed, does not change her place in the succession line. The boxes are there simply to state the place in the succession, and that place is not contested : the contested information should be dealt with in the article itself. I hope you understand. But: in other aspects, you have done a great job. --85.226.43.33 (talk) 18:23, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Please see my reply here. This lady here has been classified definitely by all authorites as not a Swedish queen. Cordially, SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:29, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Her existence is disputed, but not entirely questioned. It is believed that she "may or may not have existed". Lagerquist, as you can see (I have also mentioned it above), doubt her existence, but do admit that she may have existed, something she have incommon with almost every single person in Scandinavia at this period. But, I have no wish to argue, and I will therefore leave this discussion. Cordially, --85.226.43.33 (talk) 11:39, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I am in total agreement with you about this and only needed to point out (to justify my actions) that all the reliable sources say she was definitely not queen. So yes, there is no reason at all to argue. SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:50, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Category:Queens

It is not known wether she existed or not. In any case: Wether she was legendary or not, she was still queen. It is the task of the article to state that she is legandary. --85.226.43.33 (talk) 12:20, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

See replies above (why start three threads on the same topic, basically?). SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:26, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Found a much better "People..." category and have made it too a sub to Category:Swedish monarchy and to the explanatory intro text at Category:Swedish royalty. Thank you 85.226.43.33 for your input on these important names and all the other remarkably good work you do here. Sincerely, SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:23, 15 July 2009 (UTC)