King Karl XV (1826-1872) and Louise of The Netherlands (1828-1871)


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
From Instagram of the Royal Palaces:

From the collections: Fan with Queen Lovisa's family tree, painted by Lord Chamberlain Gustaf Adam Lewenhaupt. Can be seen in the jubilee showcase in the Bernadotte Apartments even June 10th.
https://www.instagram.com/p/BijFIshFUAG/?taken-by=kungligaslotten

From the collections: Painting box with associated palette and brushes belonging to Karl XV. To be shown in the jubilee showcase in the Bernadotte Apartments even June 10th.
https://www.instagram.com/p/BijRQpiFSgo/?taken-by=kungligaslotten
 
Instagram of The Friends of The Royal Armoury:

Queen Lovisa of Sweden and Norway. Married to King Karl XV. Painting in Ulriksdal Palace by Johan Christoffer Boklund 1861. Photo by Mårten Hougström.
https://www.instagram.com/p/CDg6BmuHZu2/
 
Thank you for the link Lady Finn. It is a lovely portrait. The artists in those days were wonderful.
 
King Charles XV of Sweden and Princess Louise of The Netherlands - 1850

King Charles XV of Sweden and Princess Louise of The Netherlands were married in 1850.
Louise was the daughter of Prince Frederick of The Netherlands and Princess Louise of Prussia.
At the time of the wedding Charles was Prince Charles of Sweden. His parents were King Oscar I and Queen Josephine of Sweden.
The engagement was officially declared in February 1850.
Louise and Charles married at Storkyrkan (Stockholm Cathedral) in Stockholm, Sweden on June 19, 1850.
 
My great-great grandmother Ingrid Carlson born in 1840 in Sweeden was said to have been a lady of waiting for the queen of Sweden.King Karl XV & Queen Louisa reign would be the right period of time. Was there record keeping of the ladies of waiting? Ingrid was married in 1863 and immigrated to the United States in 1868. Would appreciate any input on this. Thank you

Interesting story. The answer is yes, there are perfect records of her ladies-in-waitings. A lady-in-waiting was essentially employed to act as a companion to a royal woman, and not regarded as a servant. To be a lady-in-waiting was the perhaps most high status profession a woman could have in that time period, and until the late 20th-century, all ladies-in-waitings were members of noblefamilies: countesses and baronesses. The most known ladies-in-waitings of Louise were arguably the countesses Josephine Sparre, Stefanie Hamilton and Wilhelmina Bonde (they all have Wikipedia-articles, btw, and there's a whole category full of Swedish ladies-in-waiting in Wikipedia).

It was necessary to belong to the highest aristocracy to be appointed lady-in-waiting. The name Ingrid Carlson is not an aristocratic name. The emigrants to the United States were normally poor people in search of a better life, not members of the aristocracy.

Perhaps your ancestor was a servant employed at the royal court rather than a lady-in-waiting? She could very well have been, for example, a chamber maid employed at court. This would explain the emigration better - and she would of course still be a member of the court. There would be records of the servants employed at court as well, but they are much harder to access.
 
Last edited:
They both died so relatively young and so soon after one another, their only living child wasn't even 21 yet, and essentially marooned with a bunch of in-laws where the distaste was mutual. Maybe it isn't surprising young Lovisa's emotional state seems to have gone awry.
 
They both died so relatively young and so soon after one another, their only living child wasn't even 21 yet, and essentially marooned with a bunch of in-laws where the distaste was mutual. Maybe it isn't surprising young Lovisa's emotional state seems to have gone awry.
Indeed, it seems to me that Lovisa didn't have an easy life with her in-laws.
I have even seen accusations of her abusing her children, but I don't know how true that is.
 
Indeed, it seems to me that Lovisa didn't have an easy life with her in-laws.
I have even seen accusations of her abusing her children, but I don't know how true that is.

Lovisa dealing with her own children probably belongs in her own thread, but I think there are a few things from her parents (other than spoiling her) that influenced how Sessa ended up.

— it's cruel to be cheated on, and moreso to have his family making it clear you're not attractive and even say things like he only married you for your money. But to realize you're in the exact situation as your mother, when you've been brought up with far more pride, and still worse, in something where you walked in of your own free will and expected you'd be happy...? :sad: That's horrifying.

The fact she lost her own family and any support so young, and the realization that had she been a boy and not a tomboy she would have been King of Sweden and not scorned in Denmark (she does not seem to have been inclined to go to Uncle Oscar for much; maybe because he disapproved of her first) really cannot have helped.

— and then the rather severe Calvinism Louise of the Netherlands apparently brought with her and passed to Lovisa is what Sessa then tried to use in coping and in raising her many children, in a much less lenient form. Without her own mother, her responses and lifelong religious quest may have been something quite different.
 
— and then the rather severe Calvinism Louise of the Netherlands apparently brought with her and passed to Lovisa is what Sessa then tried to use in coping and in raising her many children, in a much less lenient form. Without her own mother, her responses and lifelong religious quest may have been something quite different.

Queen Louise got her religious awakening through her aunt Queen Sofia who was herself very religious and with leanings towards the evangelical movements of the time.
 
Last edited:
Queen Louise got her religious awakening through her aunt Queen Sofia who was herself very religious and involved with leanings towards the evangelical movements of the time. Before that she wasn't more religious than most women of her class and time.

But wasn't Sofia known as more of a liberal than an evangelist?
 
But wasn't Sofia known as more of a liberal than an evangelist?
The evangelical movement was liberal at the time (we're not talking about it's modern American namesake) because of it's focus on personal faith, how this affected your daily life and the belief in a personal connection between G-d and the individual. Especially when compared to the very conservative and pro-establishment Church of Sweden. The Queen of Sweden couldn't openly support the free churches that sprung up at the time, so Sofia became a part of and active supporter of the low-church movement within the State Church.
It's worth noting that Louise and Sofia were very close because of their shared faith, Sofia always having been supportive of and kind to her sister-in-law & niece and them all having the fact in common that their husbands couldn't keep their pants on.
 
Last edited:
The evangelical movement was liberal at the time (we're not talking about it's modern American namesake) because of it's focus on personal faith, how this affected your daily life and the belief in a personal connection between G-d and the individual. Especially when compared to the very conservative and pro-establishment Church of Sweden. The Queen of Sweden couldn't openly support the free churches that sprung up at the time, so Sofia became a part of and active supporter of the low-church movement within the State Church.
It's worth noting that Louise and Sofia were very close because of their shared faith, Sofia always having been supportive of and kind to her sister-in-law & niece and them all having the fact in common that their husbands couldn't keep their pants on.

Thank you for the explanation. And thank goodness she had her aunt. But I've never heard of a commonality in the way they raised their children. Wasn't the upbringing of Lovisa's kids more similar to Viktoria of Baden's?

It still seems rather reasonable that had her parents not died so soon and so suddenly, Sessa might have fared better.
 
Actually, I don't understand. Since Karl wasn't fond of Louise, why didn't he take the divorce when she offered it (and he pretty much had the best possible reasons to accept)?
 
Actually, I don't understand. Since Karl wasn't fond of Louise, why didn't he take the divorce when she offered it (and he pretty much had the best possible reasons to accept)?
While he couldn't be faithful to her, I do think that he was fond of Louise in his own way.
 
I have no idea about his fondness for his wife but a public divorce would also entail a very public scandal and perhaps political problems.

Very few Kings divorced in those days [and even now]. Even the very disastrous marriage of Louise's cousin King Willem III of the Netherlands and his wife Sophie of Wurttemberg only ended in a separation, partly due to pressure from the government.

In the case of the Bernadotte's: the marriage of Karl XV to an Orange-Nassau was the first one with an older royal family. The reputation as parvenus would also be solidified if a divorce would have taken place. I suppose it would also complicate any marital prospects for the daughter Louise and there would be significant opposition from within the family as well.

Anton van der Sande writes in his biography on Prince Frederik of the Netherlands that the marriage between Poutje (nickname of Louise) and Karl was good for the prestige of both families. It was the only time an Orange-Nassau married King while for the Berndottes a marriage to the granddaughter of the Prussian and Dutch Kings connected him with older dynasties as well.
 
Last edited:
While he couldn't be faithful to her, I do think that he was fond of Louise in his own way.

He was very openly frustrated about not being able to find her attractive, though, which is different than when you have no major complaints about a spouse but still aren't faithful to them, anyway.

I have no idea about his fondness for his wife but a public divorce would also entail a very public scandal and perhaps political problems.

Very few Kings divorced in those days [and even now]. Even the very disastrous marriage of Louise's cousin King Willem III of the Netherlands and his wife Sophie of Wurttemberg only ended in a separation, partly due to pressure from the government.

In the case of the Bernadotte's: the marriage of Karl XV to an Orange-Nassau was the first one with an older royal family. The reputation as parvenus would also be solidified if a divorce would have taken place. I suppose it would also complicate any marital prospects for the daughter Louise and there would be significant opposition from within the family as well.

Anton van der Sande writes in his biography on Prince Frederik of the Netherlands that the marriage between Poutje (nickname of Louise) and Karl was good for the prestige of both families. It was the only time an Orange-Nassau married King while for the Berndottes a marriage to the granddaughter of the Prussian and Dutch Kings connected him with older dynasties as well.

Correct about the "parvenus forever" thing and losing a lot of prestige (and Louise's money...:ermm:), but Karl's great-grandmother Josephine had been divorced for the same reason (need for an heir), which is something I would imagine even ancien royalty would understand.

He also wasn't known as the most prudent of men (combined with being extremely popular domestically), so I don't know how much the scorn of other royals would have occurred to him.

Maybe it really was keeping Louise's money. (Or perhaps the machinations of his jealous younger brother, who remained unhappy he might lose his shot at the throne when Karl was trying to remarry after Louise's death.)
 
Last edited:
He was very openly frustrated about not being able to find her attractive, though, which is different than when you have no major complaints about a spouse but still aren't faithful to them, anyway.



Correct about the "parvenus forever" thing and losing a lot of prestige (and Louise's money...:ermm:), but Karl's great-grandmother Josephine had been divorced for the same reason (need for an heir), which is something I would imagine even ancien royalty would understand.

He also wasn't known as the most prudent of men (combined with being extremely popular domestically), so I don't know how much the scorn of other royals would have occurred to him.

Maybe it really was keeping Louise's money. (Or perhaps the machinations of his jealous younger brother, who remained unhappy he might lose his shot at the throne when Karl was trying to remarry after Louise's death.)
Well, there would be no need for Karl to produce an heir after Oscar had four sons.

Marengo is probably completely right also about that a divorce wouldn't be a smart thing at all at the time.
 
Well, there would be no need for Karl to produce an heir after Oscar had four sons.

Karl and Oscar didn't get along (or at least Oscar was hugely envious of Karl and Karl was probably aware of that), and I imagine Karl would have rather seen his own heir inherit instead of Oscar or a nephew.

Oscar panicking when Karl was trying to remarry seems to indicate he thought getting displaced was certainly a possibility.

Aside from all of that, afaik Karl had also made some efforts to try and get the laws changed so that Lovisa could be queen — but that never went anywhere.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom