Queen Louise of Denmark (1851 - 1926)


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
Meraude said:
Princess Lovisa of Sweden was never "thrown out" of the line of succession to the Swedish throne by her male cousins, of the simple reason that she never had had a place in it (nor had any other Bernadotte princess before Victoria and Madeleine). Sweden had absolute agnatic (Salic) primogeniture from 1810, when Karl Johan became crown prince of Sweden until 1980, when there was a change in the order of succession to absolute cognatic primogeniture.
Click to expand...
Back when I wrote that, I didn't know the details about this. I assumed that a Swedish princess in the 19th century could inherit the throne, if there were no male heirs. We did have two regent queens previously (Christina and Ulrica Eleonora), and Queen Victoria was a girl, but still inherited the British throne. But I find it strange, that the law wasn't changed a bit already a generation before it was. After all, our current king has four older sisters, and it was very uncertain, that there was going to be a boy.
 
Last edited:
Furienna said:
Back when I wrote that, I didn't know the details about this. I assumed that a Swedish princess in the 19th century could inherit the throne, if there were no male heirs. We did have two regent queens previously (Christina and Ulrica Eleonora), and Queen Victoria was a girl, but still inherited the British throne. But I find it strange, that the law wasn't changed a bit already a generation before it was. After all, our current king has four older sisters, and it was very uncertain, that there was going to be a boy.
Click to expand...
Before 1810 Swedish princesses could inherit the throne and also pass the right to the Swedish throne to their children (Karl X Gustav's mother was the sister of Gustav II Adolf), it was not until 1810 females was excluded from the order of succession. England and Scotland never adopted the Salic law of inheritence of the throne, which is why Victoria could become queen.

As for a change in the order of succession in the 1930:ies or 1940:ies, I doubt king Gustaf V would have agreed to that, and do remember that prince Bertil remained unmarried in case something was to happen to Carl Gustav. If he had become the heir I would guess that Bertil would have done his duty and marry a suitable princess and have children.
 
I then wonder why the law about this was changed in 1810. I guess we could partly blame the law not being changed again a generation earlier than what it was on Gustaf V, but Gustaf VI Adolf was just as traditional as his father had been, so that was why prince Bertil wasn't allowed to marry Lilian until after he too had died.
 
I always wondered how her father in law, Christian IX and her brothers in law treated her? Was he a bit nicer to her than her mother in law and sisters in law were? Or was he just as mean?

theresa_225 said:
The next king was not fond of Dagmar because of her treatment towards his mother. I do not have the exact source now, so correct me if I'm wrong :)
Click to expand...

I wouldn't blame him if he did. Normally, I like Dagmar, but I do think she went a little too far in how she treated her sister in law. I wonder how she felt after the revolution. Lovisa was still Queen Mother, and her son was still King of Denmark(and alive).
 
Last edited:
The next king, who was Louise's son, was Christian X. The first modern king of Norway was also her son.

Thinking of that, I know remember a mini series about Carl (Haakon) and Maud, which also featured then crown princess Louise, played by Susanne Reuter. It wasn't a very nice portraital of Louise. I especially remembered her being very pushy about Carl accepting the Norwegian throne, when he hesitated about it. But at least she seemed to get along well with her husband, crown prince Fredrik.
 
Queen Louise was interested in music and painting and financed many artists. Some of her own paintings were exhibited and given as gifts to members of other dynasties.:denmarkstandard:
​
 
According to the comments in the blog, which say according to the Times, Lovisa was not there... Not much of a surprise.

I've wondered lately if all her pregnancies didn't give her some very bad hormonal/emotional issues on top of the negative treatment she got from her in-laws, and perhaps that's why she ended up treating her children so poorly. (Was she as bad to them all straight through, or did the younger ones have it any easier...?)

Trying to fit her various selves together is a bit like doing a jigsaw.
 
Last edited:
It's an interesting detail that she is showing off her shoe (or what do you call such footwear? Bootlette? In Danish it's a støvle, and a short and neat støvle for women is called a støvlette, hence bootlette.) or was that detail as sexy thing?
 
Muhler said:
It's an interesting detail that she is showing off her shoe (or what do you call such footwear? Bootlette? In Danish it's a støvle, and a short and neat støvle for women is called a støvlette, hence bootlette.) or was that detail as sexy thing?
Click to expand...

Well, goodness, it's her shoe, and not her ankle. ;)

Probably just showing off that she has fancier stuff than you can dream of, head to toe, including nice shoes/ankle boots.

I know Lovisa took a lot of flack for her height and being a bit ungraceful, but I don't think a shorter woman could have pulled off all her Mandelbrot-like ruffles.
 
Here are two more dresses, Lovisa-style, and a mystery to me:

https://kgl-fotosamling.kongernessamling.dk/catalog/Den Kongelige Fotografisamling/r/37226 So this is pretty much confirmed Christian X, around age 2. (The hair tends to give it away.)

https://www.gettyimages.ca/detail/n...crown-prince-news-photo/3295962?adppopup=true

I can't figure out who this slightly younger kid is. The Palace in Oslo says it's Haakon with a different date and "no source". I was inclined to believe them, until I saw most other places (Getty, the Glucksborg blog) have it as Christian. The detail on the boy's face in the first picture is not good enough for a solid match.

Any ideas? The fact that it's just Lovisa and son would seem to tilt it to Christian — why do this for the spare? (Just bias, but she also appears to have that 'delighted new mother look' rather than 'tired second child'.)
 
Can somebody do me the great kindness of refreshing my memory as from where to where Lovisa had her children "walking" every day? I saw the locations and distance written somewhere, and now I can't find it again.

All I know is it was quite far even for adults, and not even Ingeborg's vow after she got married never to walk anywhere again is helping me pin it down.
 
Last edited:
Yes, I think that would be useful. Except that English photographic sites would still refer to to mother in law and daughter in law as Louise.

It might be well to just remember that the younger Queen Louise was of the same generation, more or less, as Alexandra/Dagmar etc and therefore photos of these two (and their siblings) with a very much older looking woman called Louise would mean their mother not their sister in law.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

B
New Most Recent Common Ancestor of Reigning European Monarchs
Replies
17
Views
5K
tihkon2
tihkon2
Blog Real
King Gustav III (1746-1792) and Queen Sophia Magdalena of Denmark
Replies
4
Views
842
CyrilVladisla
CyrilVladisla
Blog Real
King Gustav IV Adolf (1778-1837) and Queen Frederica of Baden and Family
Replies
8
Views
873
Marengo
Marengo
D
House of Garsenda
Replies
5
Views
4K
kalnel
K
Blog Real
Prince Philippe, Count of Paris (1838-1894) and Princess Marie Isabelle of Orléans
Replies
7
Views
1K
CyrilVladisla
CyrilVladisla

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom