Listen in your podcast app
Listen in your podcast app
Women of power. E1.
Sophie of Mecklenburg: Would have been on Forbes list of Europe's richest
How would you like to be so on top of your finances that you have enough money in your coffers to lend to the rest of the world? Not bad, right? Not many people know about Christian IV's wealthy mother, Sophie of Mecklenburg, whose nose for making money saved Denmark from financial ruin after the Thirty Years' War. At the age of 14, she married Frederik II, who was more than twenty years older and would have preferred to be married to someone else, but they had a happy arranged marriage. A contemporary woman who is also financially savvy - and who has made it her mission to help women build their wealth - is CEO Mia Wagner of Nordic Female Founders. Women are often responsible for paying for family consumption while men build wealth, which can be a challenge when a family splits up. Hear from two women who are on top of their finances and what you need to do for your next salary negotiation.
Women of power. E1. Sophie of Mecklenburg: Would have been on Forbes' list of Europe's richest
23.DEC.2020Your hosts
Micha Fuglede, journalist and Lisbeth Imer, senior researcher at the National Museum of Denmark
Among other things, you can meet
Mia WagnerDirector of Nordic Female Founders
About Mia WagnerMia Wagner
Poul GrinderSenior researcher at the National Museum of Denmark
+45 41 20 61 15About Poul GrinderPoul Grinder
- Mia Wagner
Director of Nordic Female Founders
About Mia WagnerMia Wagner
- Poul Grinder
Senior researcher at the National Museum of Denmark
+45 41 20 61 15About Poul GrinderPoul Grinder
Sophie of Mecklenburg: Would have been on Forbes list of Europe's richest
In this episode, we hear about the mother of probably the most famous Danish king, Christian the 4th. Her name is Sophie of Mecklenburg, and few people will be on a first name basis with her, and even fewer will know that she was the richest in Northern Europe.
She turns out to be sharp-witted and very determined and such a driven family politician.
Sophie married Frederik II at just 14 years old, but during her time as queen she developed an exceptionally good nose for business. She was so wealthy that she lent money to several of Northern Europe's royal houses. A contemporary woman with a nose for good investments is Mia Wagner. The public knows her as the female lion in The Lion's Den and an investor. But she recently left her family company Freeway to create a network of women to empower entrepreneurship and investment.
We talk to Mia Wagner about what we women can do better to get our own foot in the door and strengthen our own wealth.
We are behind in relation to our wealth. We are behind our role models. So we need a spurt. We actually need an extra push in the back, because there are some men who have a head start of hundreds of years.
Welcome to the eighth episode of Women of Power.
Yes, Lisbeth, we'll walk here in front of Kronborg Castle.
Sophie of Mecklenburg is one of those queens that is unknown to most people. This is despite the fact that she had a great influence, especially on Christian IV's economy.
Where would he be without his mom's money?
That's why we're here today, that's why we're here today. That's why I'm talking about Christian IV, because we've come to Kronborg and we're going to talk about Queen Sophie, who was simply an economic talent without equal. When she died, she was the richest woman in Northern Europe. She was one of the tough cookies of her time.
But what comes to my mind when you become aware of this: Is it because there just haven't been any women throughout history who have been worth...?
That had any significance whatsoever, that you could erect statues after? That's what's so crazy. It's 2020, so maybe we should start thinking about who were these women?
We met museum curator Poul Grinder-Hansen at the royal couple's residence: Kronborg Castle. Poul knows the castle and its history better than most. He has written a book about Kronborg and a biography of Frederik the 2nd.
It's a place that still has a real feel of Frederick II and Sophie's time. And since Sophie is our main character, it would be a great place to go. Tall windows, roofs, stair towers and spires surrounding us from all sides. I think it's a very appropriate place to talk about Sophie, because this is where she's been, and she's seen this castle looking pretty much as it does here. So it also provides an environment for this main character we're going to talk about, Sophie. Someone who walks the floors, but also the cobblestones in courtyards and up spiral staircases in sandstone-studded stair towers and in such an environment of splendor and royal festivities.
And she comes to Denmark quite young, right?
Well, the reason she ended up up here in the first place is because she was born as a little ducal daughter down in Mecklenburg. That's in what is now northern Germany around Schwerin and Rostock. And there was an independent duchy that was powerful and important, and that's where she was born as the daughter of a Duke Ulrik and a duchess named Elisabeth, who was Danish. She was the aunt of the Danish king Frederik 2. Such a task for a young girl at the time, it was actually most important that she should marry someone, because that was how political connections were made. And in that way, a little girl back then was very much a pawn in a kind of political game. Or at least a useful pawn, because she could be a link between those you wanted to be good friends with in a political sense. And now, of course, it was obvious to look to Denmark, because her mother was Danish. But it wasn't as if they had planned anything in that direction.
When Sophie was 14 years old, she was allowed to travel with her parents on a visit to Denmark, and what was supposed to happen on this visit was that the Danish king, who was 38 years old and named Frederik 2, was finally going to find himself a suitable, princely spouse. He had been in love with a Danish noblewoman named Anne Hardenberg for many years. And he wanted to marry her. He wasn't allowed to do so because neither the Danish lords nor the royal family thought it was appropriate for the king to marry such an ordinary noblewoman - and an orphaned noblewoman at that. It simply didn't work. The king didn't want to, so his mother could have it her way. She was constantly trying to get him to marry. As long as she was alive, he never married. When she was dead, Frederik's mother agreed that I should visit a princess from Prussia, who was then invited to Nykøbing on Falster. Frederik was to come and look at her, and then the ducal family from Mecklenburg brought her princess for Frederik to look at. But he wasn't particularly interested in her. It was someone who was 18 years old, and he had to see if she lived up to expectations. He had probably been sent a picture in advance. So he had to see if she looked like her. But the thing was, instead of the 18-year-old he was supposed to be looking at, his eyes fell on the 14-year-old cousin from Mecklenburg, Sophie. She was just with her parents. They had followed the princess from Prussia over because they were also related to her. So they brought her over. And it wasn't that far to travel from Mecklenburg to Denmark, because you just had to sail across the Baltic Sea from Rostock. So it was Sophie that Fredrik became interested in. And that sounds worrying to modern eyes, doesn't it? He's 38 years old, she's 14. It sounds crazy, doesn't it?
Yes, you can.
There was a background for banning child marriage and so on. But precisely because girls were very much objects and pawns to be used, you wanted to get the deal done.
Can you imagine that she has also been brought up to do this in some way? That she's always been told that this is your future prospects.
It was so much in the cards. It was the same for her, and she behaved exactly the same way when she became a mother herself. Then she took the same approach with her own daughters: While they are quite young to arrange some kind of marriage. So it was simply embedded in the way of thinking.
I mean, what if my family had set it up so that my parents had to choose my future husband, and I knew that he already had a girlfriend. I don't think either I or my parents would think that was a particularly cool idea.
They didn't. They didn't think so at the time either. There were also several considerations to take into account, because firstly, they had to consider the woman he was in love with, but they didn't think that the king himself should meet her and explain the situation. It wouldn't be appropriate. Now that he had met someone new, he should not meet with the old one. So Sophie's mother arranged a meeting with the former girlfriend and talked to her. And we actually have some letters from that situation that are written a bit camouflaged, because the king is not called the king but the mayor's son. But anyway, that's who they're talking about.
You weren't supposed to know or...?
No, but everyone knew that. But in reality, it appears that Anne Hardenberg actually felt quite relieved that another solution was found, because she could see that the relationship with the king was not going to work out.
Why was it that you couldn't marry someone from the nobility at that time? The Danish nobility didn't like it because it meant that one of the noble families was better than all the others.
Ah. They got preferential treatment. Of course they did!
Then they would suddenly become part of the royal family, and they didn't like that. The royal family said: a noblewoman was useless. What good was an orphaned noblewoman? She was useless. No political connections. No political alliances abroad or anything. She couldn't be used for that. So it was a completely wrong choice. That's why it was a really bad idea. It was like wasting all chances of what a marriage should be within princely houses. And then you simply made a kind of agreement with her, who wasn't going to have the king anyway. She actually writes to one of her friends, "I haven't felt so light-hearted for many years," she writes. So she has felt it as a great burden, the royal attention that she has felt from everyone was not something anyone could accept. And then, of course, they arranged for her to marry someone else. In return, she got a wealthy Danish nobleman. So she was sent there, and the king then married Sophie. She was barely 15 when they got married.
Despite the broken love for Anne Hardenberg, it doesn't take long for the relationship between Sophie and Frederik to become very affectionate. We know this from private letters, among other things.
He keeps writing "My Sophie". That's what it says in his diary. So in reality, the king became very fond of the young girl he had married and was obviously so fascinated that he wanted to do the best he could for her. So actually, here we are at Kronborg, when the castle was finished in its first version, he wrote to one of his political connections that now I'm going to call the new castle Sophienborg. It was to be named after Sophie, because it was in her honor. But then he changed his mind and thought: No, we'll call it Kronborg instead. But he had actually thought it should be Sophienborg, which just goes to show that he valued her very highly, the young girl or woman he married.
And she is also the mother of a very famous Dane, because he's the one people always know, that's Christian the Fourth. Of course, the most important thing was to have a son. She did start by giving birth to two girls.
Of course, it was not so good. But finally, there was a third son in 1577.
And she was only 20 years old at the time.
Yes, she did. And by then she already had three children.
We are in the 1600s and now so far into history that the sources are getting stronger and stronger. And the desire to get close to this queen and her life is becoming easier, but some of it will still be open to interpretation.
But I would like to get a sense of what she was like? You don't get much of an impression of that from the sources that have survived. You get the impression that you shouldn't underestimate her as a naive little girl who comes up here and has no idea what's going on. Because over time she turns out to be both very sharp and very determined and such a driven family politician. But we can get to that. It wasn't always like that because as long as she and the king lived together, she didn't get involved in politics. I mean, she could host parties and stuff like that. But when the king died at the age of 54, probably from some kind of lung disease in 1588, she wrote to her father a few days later that she didn't know what to do next, because the king had never involved her in any political matters. Now she's on her own, and she has a whole bunch of children. And she imagines that she will be the guardian of Christian IV and help decide how the country should be run. Christian IV was only 11 years old when his father died, so he was too young to really be king. He could officially be considered an appointed king, but he wasn't really a king. He had to go to school etc. So someone would have to decide and run the country instead, and that's what she imagines Sophie would do. And with some concern, because as I said, she had never been involved in anything to do with governance or anything like that. Then there were negotiations between her and representatives of the government that existed in Denmark, made up of nobles - it's called the Privy Council. In the end, the Privy Council set up a government of four nobles. So the Queen didn't become the guardian of the country's leadership at all.
Was it customary?
No, it wasn't customary. They were also worried that it could set a precedent if she, as a woman, was put in charge politically as well. She didn't have a lot of experience in that kind of thing, and the caretaker government also had to manage foreign policy and everything else, the economy and so on. She wasn't equipped for that at the time.
Do you think they were afraid that her German family would have more influence, or was it simply because she was a woman that they thought she didn't know how to do that?
No, I think you're right that it could easily be for the sake of preserving the Danish nobility's position, so they appointed four skilled Danish nobles, who then led the government in Denmark for the next few years. But now it was a bit complicated, because we all know Denmark as we know it today, but at that time there was also Schleswig and Holstein, down south of Southern Jutland, which the Danish king also ruled over - at least parts of it - together with some other dukes. Very complicated. Anyway, anyway. But down there they had different rules, and then she was made a guardian, Sophie. So in Schleswig-Holstein she was the guardian of her son, but not in Denmark, where it was a guardianship government. It was very complicated.
Because she kind of had a little leg down there?
The rules were different. That's because some of that area was part of the great German Empire, and in the Holy Roman Empire the rules were different. And so she was able to get a position there. It hasn't stayed that way. Anyway, she had a few years where she was the guardian of Christian IV down there, while in Denmark proper it was four nobles. But that's when they began to sense that she seemed to be able to maneuver a bit politically. Her political interests were not so much about foreign policy and strategic thinking or tax rules in Denmark, or whatever you could imagine. It was first and foremost about securing her children's future, and that was what she maneuvered for. She thought that the Danish rules for this kind of thing favored the eldest son, Christian the 4th, far too much. The other sons, who they also had, were not really taken into account what they would live on when they grew up. And that's what she thought, I'll make sure they have that in their respective duchies. She was used to that from down in Meklenborg, that that was how you provided for someone, by giving them a small piece of land and then they got the income from it. But the Danish Council of State wouldn't agree to that, because they didn't want to split Denmark into a bunch of small duchies. Denmark was Denmark. In Schleswig-Holstein it was a little different, but they didn't want it to be divided into too many small pieces either. So they didn't agree with the policy she wanted to pursue, which was very much about safeguarding her children, her sons first and foremost. Because the girls were something else. The daughters just had to get married. But the sons had to have something to live on.
Sophie's connection to Schleswig-Holstein gives her some favorable opportunities that she is resourceful enough to take advantage of.
We always think of Germany as one continuous state, but in the Renaissance, Germany was divided into thousands of tiny duchies because every time there were children, each son got a little piece. So he has to have that piece and then he gets a little duchy there and he gets duchies there. This meant that eventually Germany was split up into a complete patchwork of tiny and half-sized duchies.
And there were many children.
There were a lot of children and they all had to have something, all those sons. And that's what she thought. So in terms of how visionary it was, you could say that the Danish Council of State had a different line. They said: "We should not have divided Denmark into duchies. It should be a unified kingdom that should go to the king, and that is Christian IV. He should have it all. He must not lack Ribe and the surrounding area. It should not be a duchy.
No, because if there is a war, where does he stand? Then you might have a potential opponent in such a war.
That kind of thing causes a lot of trouble. But there were a few areas in Denmark that had a special touch. And that's because at any royal wedding, the queen was given something called a life estate in connection with the wedding. That is, it was an area that if her king died, she would get this area of land and live there and live off the income from it. It was a way of ensuring that the woman in a marriage had a secure income if the man fell away. And Sophie, she had been given the Lolland-Falster area as a living thing.
This means that in 1588, when Frederik II died, it meant that from then on she had the right to receive the income from agriculture and taxes and duties and such from that area of Denmark. That particular part of Denmark was thus securing her future. But it was just based on the same mindset that she would have given some more areas to the others. And she didn't really get away with that in the end - not even in the duchies of Schleswig and Holstein, because the Danish politicians managed to approach the emperor, who then recognized that Christian IV was already of age and self-determining when he was 15 years old, due to his unusual maturity. Therefore, he became independent and his mother was no longer his guardian. And he wasn't interested in sharing with those brothers.
No, he wasn't?
No, you can't. But then you can thwart it. And then the Queen was told, now we honestly think you should go down to that thing down there in Lolland-Falster and stay there instead of continuing to maneuver around with the entire Danish politics.
So they're going to have a bit of a falling out there or what?
Yes, there were plenty of disagreements and political maneuvering and intrigue. And the Queen and Christian IV also fell out at the time, but they eventually managed to get on slightly better terms. But she didn't get away with the demands she made just after the king's death. Her demand was that she should take over the king's entire fortune. In other words, she wanted all the money in all the castles in Denmark.
They didn't really want to agree to that.
They wouldn't agree to that. So she called her father, and he came too, Ulrik from Mecklenburg, and joined the negotiations. But it was a real tug-of-war. Because by the time he showed up, it had already become common in Denmark for people to inherit half of what they left behind. So now it had become half of the money that was left. But even that didn't go through in the end. But she still got access to quite a lot of what would have to be defined as the king's private money. But it was just difficult to distinguish between what was private and what was state.
Yes, when it's the king.
There were lots of things that were itemized that she was allowed to keep. So she wasn't poor at all when she was widowed. In fact, even though she didn't get everything she wanted to begin with, she had good negotiators. They don't start by saying what they want. So she actually got quite a lot.
Good retailer.
She was actually a good negotiator.
And then she also had the income from the whole estate down there, right?
Well, she did, and when she really lived there most of the time from 1594, she turned it into a kind of model farm, where they simply produced all kinds of different types of goods and fattened steers that were sold for meat in northern Germany. It was a good income. She was simply a really good landowner, you could say.
I think I read somewhere that she was trying to make money in new ways. She was very forward-thinking in that way, financially and entrepreneurially, right?
Yes, she was. It also gives you a glimpse of what kind of noblewomen and princely women like Sophie were like. Because you think that when someone like that gets married at the age of 14, what are you supposed to do as a confused little pawn in a game of skittles? But it turns out that a lot of people - not least someone like Sophie - were super good at managing things and making money and keeping it and so on. She had an economic sense. But she was later blamed for that in later times: She was a bit stingy, and she hoarded money and stuff like that. And you probably wouldn't have said that if it was a man you were talking about. But a woman who could make money and hold on to it and make it all grow in her hands, that was a bit strange.
Did she have someone who kind of advised her?
She had advisors and typically some who came from Mecklenburg. And generally when she was on Lolland-Falster, which she was for many years, because she did not die until 1631.
So she sat there for over 40 years and ran the whole area. She surrounded herself with lots of employees and advisors, almost all of whom came from her old home region of Mecklenburg. This may also help to explain why, if new techniques and things like that were introduced in Mecklenburg, she picked them up and introduced them in Denmark. So she hasn't been completely alone. A good leader is also someone who can involve good advisors and employees. Frederik II would have been the same. She could have learned that from her husband. Even though she wasn't involved in discussing policy in closed meetings, she may well have learned how important it was to get good advisors and to negotiate with them in an informal way. And trying to avoid major confrontations. She had experienced this sometimes with the Council of State. But you get more out of it if you can talk things out with people.
Yes, before there is a conflict.
And Frederik was good at that, and she may well have learned from that, I think.
And it makes perfect sense.
Sophie's ability to grow her fortune and run a profitable business also came to mean something to her famous son. Several wars had depleted his coffers, and throughout his reign he had to turn to his mother several times for help, but it was because she was so rich that she made so much money that she eventually had an extensive lending business. Not only in Denmark, but also to other princes around the northern German regions and elsewhere. For interest, of course. Of course, they had to pay interest on the loans. But it was also a great advantage for her son, Christian 4. Initially, he inherited a very, very wealthy kingdom from his father and from Sophie. And in the first decades of his reign, Denmark was also doing very well. But at some point, Christian IV got involved in the Thirty Years' War, which was a huge European war - you could almost call it a world war - and he didn't get away with it very well. So the kingdom lost a lot of money and the king was in trouble. And it was good to be able to go to mom and borrow a lot of money, because she had it. It was simply her money that saved him from bankruptcy after his failed participation in the Thirty Years' War. Sophie was very popular there. And they actually had a good relationship, at least for the last part of her life.
Was she recognized for her influence and what she helped the crown and Denmark and the king with?
I think she has. She has been the Queen Mother and respected. Partly because she was the widow of Frederik II and the one who helped to create all these things, but also because she was talented.
I think it's so interesting what you say about her actually saving her son from financial ruin after the Thirty Years' War. We've just had a little chat about how many statues of women we actually see around the cityscape or around Denmark? And then we see Christian IV and all his buildings. But in reality, there's also a woman behind them. It's thought-provoking that you see a statue of Christian IV, and then maybe it's actually his mother's money.
Then you can take comfort in the fact that Sophie was quite good at creating monuments to herself. Because in Nykøbing Falster Abbey Church - it was part of the area she ruled over - she had a huge family portrait painted, many, many meters long, showing all her ancestors. And it's still hanging there.
So her ancestors?
Her ancestors, yes. Of course, you also see Frederik II, but then from there, all branches spread far, far back in history. But she is the one who set it up. And in general, she was very interested in family history and genealogy. It shows another side of her, namely that she emphasized her fine lineage and that she was a ducal daughter. So you can't imagine Sophie being the type of person who just went around chatting casually with everyone and thinking that I'm nothing special. She definitely thought she was special. She knew: I'm from this ancient ducal family from Mecklenburg, and she wanted to preserve that for posterity, including with a huge memorial plaque.
Poul knows all about the history of Kronborg and who has lived where. That's why he takes us on a little tour of the rooms where the Queen has lived.
These are some insanely beautiful rooms.
Let's go up to the tower room, which overlooks the Sound. The tower we're standing in is called the Queen's Carnatic Tower, named after Sophie, because she had her apartment on the floor below. And she had different rooms - there's a spiral staircase inside the wall there - where she could do things that were more private.
So a secret staircase?
A secret staircase, yes.
I often wonder about that: Did they really have any privacy at all? But then they had limited privacy.
A little, but I would say in the company of someone all the time, because the Queen was always surrounded by young noblewomen, ladies-in-waiting, who kept her company and entertained her and so on. So she had that too. And then there was a court mistress who kept track of all those noble ladies. So it was an older noblewoman who made sure that they behaved properly. Frederik II also did a lot of that himself: He emphasized having places where you could retreat and be a little more private, so you didn't have them all running around you, but could either sit all alone or just drag a single person up and talk informally. And that's how they have also done something to furnish the Queen's part of the living quarters here at the castle. It makes me think about what people did in their spare time, and we know that Sophie was very interested in birds. She bought canaries and parrots, and she had a parrot cage. In addition, or rather in line with the birds and rare animals, she also collected dwarfs.
On dwarves? In other words, humans?
Human guardian, yes.
Okay, it's a very strange hobby indeed.
Well, we have a letter where Frederik II writes to a priest on Funen, where he has heard that he has a dwarf daughter, and he really wants her to come to the palace, because the Queen is so fond of these. She would like to have one of these. She also had a dwarf when she was older, so it wasn't a hobby she only had as a teenager. For centuries after, there was often a dwarf or two or three or maybe more at such a court. Sometimes they would organize little dwarf weddings. That could be fun. You could make a big status out of these tiny little people, it was so fascinating. But sometimes they had a halfway role as court jester, because it was an entertainment. Some of them couldn't do anything, but there were also some of those dwarves who performed at court who could be entertaining at the same time. Sophie reaches a great age for that time. In 1631, she died at the age of 74 at Nykøbing Castle, and today she is buried next to her husband in Roskilde Cathedral.
Now you know a lot about the impact she has had on Denmark. Could you have given her a little more credit? Not many people know her story.
No, no one has written an actual book about Sophie. You might want to do that. Does that really mean that even today - in modern history - no one has been interested in digging a little more about Sophie, even though he's been digging about Frederik II and Christian IV and all these people? Well, I think that's interesting. So it may well be that it's time for historians to start pointing that way.
She deserved it. I've written about Frederik II, but no one had done that for a long time, because it was Christian IV who overshadowed everything.
It hasn't been that many years since you wrote that book.
No, it was released in 2013, but that was almost seven years ago. Sophie deserves that much attention. She was a talented woman who could control a whole lot and who really had a lot going for her. If you want to see her in real life, you can go to Rosenborg, because there are a couple of beautiful bronze busts of Frederik II and Sophie in the lobby as you enter the castle. A gorgeous, pointy-nosed woman with such a fine, embroidered cap close to her head.
I read somewhere that she left behind five million rigsdaler. That's quite a lot of money.
That's a lot of money, yes.
And they have fallen to the king or the kingdom or what?
Then there was a division of her inheritance, but most of the funds went to Christian IV, which was much needed. It was probably also very fortunate, because if he hadn't received them, we might not be standing at Kronborg today, because Kronborg burned down in 1629. At the same time as the king's affair with Kirsten Munk fell apart and he lost the Thirty Years' War, the castle burned here too. And the Privy Council looked out over the poor and impoverished Denmark. It probably helped a year later that he was able to inherit his mother's fortune. And he had helped the cause in the meantime by doubling the Øresund toll, everything that all ships had to sail past. So that also brought in money, but I'm sure it helped to ensure that the castle here was also built up beautifully.I'm actually amazed that when she is the mother of such a well-known person and has had such wild skills that you haven't heard of her before.
No, you don't even know her name, do you?
But one of the things I'm actually a little envious of is that she has had this financial acumen. How I wish I could just grab the bone and talk to her before going to the bank.
There aren't that many women in the limelight with finance and managing and running a company?
No, I don't know that many.
There's someone like Mia Wagner.
Yes, I've heard that name.
She's on The Lion's Den, and she was recently the CEO of Freeway. But she has actually just founded a company to promote entrepreneurship for women. Women and investment.
Exciting.
Yes, she could be a great person to talk to. She could be really good to talk to and might remind you of a modern-day Sophie of Mecklenburg, because she invests in other companies and makes them grow.
So do you think we can ask her what you should do next time you go to the bank or just negotiate your salary? Yes, I read recently that she said that she thinks that sometimes women negotiate like women. That you should negotiate like a man. And I'd really like to hear that: What is that?
It sounds really exciting.
Basically, I'm an ideological person and it motivates me to work for justice. I'm a lawyer, so maybe that's where it all starts. But it's also because - to put it in Danish - I'm actually quite tired of being a woman in spite of myself. That is, being skilled for a woman. I think I've become much more aware with age that what I experience is not my problems, it's the challenges of the system. It's a culture we live in. So when you occasionally feel that you're a little bit sidelined, you could say, a little bit on the right flank or a little bit sidetracked, or whatever it may be, it's not what I experience myself. These are the challenges we all face as women in business.
But what is it that you have experienced that there has been a bit of skepticism?
Yes, also from the inside. Because I'm part of that culture myself. And I've also had the feeling that I'm only in The Lion's Den because I'm a woman. And then there are some nice, kind men who have provoked me a little and said: "Are you really so sure about that? No, I don't really know. It could also be that if I were a man, I would have gotten the job. About this quota thing and about the fact that we can already get caught up in the rhetoric that every time you come forward and say: "I'm a woman: "I'm a woman who wants to do something. Then it's as if there has to be a male counterweight that says: It's just because you're a woman. But it's not like that. We just want to do more than we can right now as women in business. And you have to say, and you know more about this than I do because you delve into history, that we are behind. We are behind in relation to our wealth. We are behind our role models. So we need a spurt. We actually need an extra push in the back, because there are some men who have a head start of hundreds of years.
What do you want to achieve with the project you are launching?
Well, I've actually taught myself over the years to have higher ambitions. I practice that every day. I have my partner, Anne Stampe Olesen, and every time we take an initiative, we look at each other and say: Are we ambitious enough? And fortunately, we're getting more and more ambitious, so that's good. And with that I want to say that I want to move Denmark. I want to do my part to ensure that we have a society where there are equal opportunities for equal skills. And this also means that there are women who need a talent and skills boost, because we haven't necessarily made the grade. I think it's important to take action, at least in relation to women in business and women as investors. I have some hands-on experience, which means that I may have more experience in executing, i.e. making things happen - so I will try to activate that to move Denmark.
What do you think it will take to achieve greater equality? Berlingske Tidende did a study showing that if we continue as we are now, our daughters will not experience this gender equality. I think they said that in 102 years, we will experience equality.
I'll have to take a look at how they do that.
Yes, and there are also slightly different opinions about it. I think the World Gender Gap says 99, but that's also worldwide, and Berlingske has calculated it in a different way. What do you think can be done?
Well, number one is that we are still deluding ourselves that we have equality. That's just not true. So we need to start by recognizing that. And you can start by looking at the statistics, you could say, and find out that there are actually many places in Denmark where women do not have the same opportunities as men. There are also places where men do not have the same opportunities as women. We need to be aware of this because there is a widespread industry imbalance. The gender distribution in the different industries is very uneven. So of course we need to work on that too. And I don't want to turn men into women or turn women into men. But I don't really think we belong in two absolute boxes. I think we are much more on a soft scale as people, each with our own talents. So number one is recognizing that. And then the hard part is taking action. How can you do that? Now we're brand new, but I've certainly experienced that I now have a voice that is being listened to. So of course I have to take advantage of that. I think it's really my responsibility to use it to raise an agenda. And then we will work very specifically to inspire women
Vi vil også gerne inspirere mænd. Vi vil egentlig bare gerne inspirere til ligestilling. Jeg kan rigtig godt lide mænd. Jeg har mange dygtige, gode mandlige kolleger rundt omkring, så det er slet ikke det. Det er jo sådan et problem, at man skal sige det højt. At fordi man gerne vil fremme kvinders muligheder, så bliver man nødt til lige at fremhæve, at jeg kan også godt lide mænd, og jeg synes, mænd er dygtige. Der føler man lige, man skal lave den balance, ikke, så nu har jeg lige gjort det. Vi kommer til at arbejde med at have et læringsunivers. Altså både det, at vi er i netværk, og vi tør dele ting. For man må vide, at når vi sætter kvinder sammen alene, så kommer der lidt mere frem, end når vi laver de her blandede grupper, kvinder og mænd. Det gælder i forskellige sammenhænge. Så det her med, at hvis vi kan skabe et sted, hvor vi kan udveksle erfaringer og få ret konkret viden. Vi kommer til i særdeleshed at have fokus på kvinder som iværksættere, for vi har også en grundlæggende økonomisk ulighed i Danmark. At vi egentlig inspirerer kvinder til at ville og turde noget mere med deres virksomhed og tænke lidt større, det har jeg selv skullet have hjælp til nogle gange. Så det kommer til at være vores første fokus. Det bliver ligesom at puste og give dem en god vind i ryggen på de kvinder, der gerne vil drive iværksætteri. Og det kommer vi til at gøre gennem en netbaseret læringsplatform, hvor vi også arbejder med at skabe noget netværk omkring det. At få skabt et forum, hvor det er okay at stille det, jeg plejer at kalde det det kloge fjols - det gør jeg også som leder - at åbne op for at give plads til det kloge fjols, hvor man også godt må skrive eller spørge. Eller at vi kan behandle emner som: Hvordan agerer jeg lige, når jeg skal til mit næste bestyrelsesmøde, og der er kun mænd, og jeg har faktisk noget vigtigt på dagsordenen, og jeg er bange for, at jeg ikke bliver lyttet til? Det kan vi også godt snakke om. Men vi kan også godt snakke omkring, hvordan skal jeg håndtere min næste lønforhandling, hvis man har sådan en? At vi egentlig prøver at tage det ned på et lidt mere hands-on, praktisk niveau. Det vil være noget af vores hovedformål. Overordnet set så det, jeg kommer til at arbejde med, det er jo, at vi har fundet ud af, at der er meget få kvinder, der modtager investeringer. Og det er jo igen - hvis vi skal røre ved det her med, at der er en økonomisk, grundlæggende ulighed mellem kvinder og mænd, og hvis ikke vi gør noget... Og jeg har i hvert fald oplevet også som advokat - jeg har jo også siddet med skilsmisser - at jeg har mødt mange kvinder, som ikke helt havde den føling med økonomien, som jeg synes ville være godt at have.Forestil dig så, at jeg har jeg været på barsel, og min mandlige, jævnbyrdige kollega har ikke, så er jeg lidt bagud i min lønforhandling. Jeg kommer tilbage, og jeg er bagud i min anciennitet, og jeg er bagud i min løn. Det skaber jo et formue-gap, som så breder sig. Så prøv lige at gange det med 50 år på arbejdsmarkedet. Pensionsopsparing og alt det der. Vi ved det jo godt, men lad os bare sige det højt: Det gør bare, at der er forskel mellem mænd og kvinder bliver større og større. Jeg har i hvert fald mødt min del af kvinder, som så tager sig af indkøb til børnene. Hvis man deler økonomien, så er det den slags ting, de løser. Det løser de almindelige forbrugsindkøb, det, der skal klares her og nu. Man siger jo, at kvinderne globalt set sidder på 80 procent af forbruget. Men det er jo netop værdier, der bliver forbrugt. Så vi har måske ikke helt en kultur for at komme ind der, hvor det er værdier, der bliver investeret, så vi ikke sidder, når vi er pensionister, med en markant mindre formue. Hvis du har ti kroner, og jeg har to kroner, og jeg render rundt og investerer mine to koner, og du investerer dine ti kroner, så bliver jeg aldrig lige så rig som dig. Du er nødt til ligesom at gøre noget. Og det er så det, vi kommer til at arbejde på. Det vil sige, at vi kommer til at arbejde med at løfte det her med, at kvinder får investeringer. Det er sådan, at man har lavet en opgørelse, hvor man har talt en masse investeringer sammen - det vi kalder venture-investeringer, altså investeringer i iværksætteri - og der går 98 procent af investeringerne til virksomheder, der kun har mandlige stifter. Én procent går til blandede, og én procent går til rent kvindelige stiftere. Der er altså rigtigt meget, vi skal have lavet om på dér, hvis kvinder skal have lige mulighed for at drive virksomhed. Hvordan kan vi modne kvinder som investorer i iværksætteri? Og hvordan kan vi åbne op for, at den bane bliver åben for kvindernes spilleplade, bliver åben for kvinder? Hvordan kan vi så modne kvinder til at blive investorer? Og hvordan kunne vi måske i stedet for, at vi er en kvinde, der har rigtig mange penge, så er vi måske flere kvinder, der tilsammen har penge nok til at løfte kvinder i dansk iværksætteri og i øvrigt gøre god forretning? For det skal vi jo også gøre. Jeg har i hvert fald selv skullet modnes meget som kvinde. Som jeg startede med at sige, det her med at være kvinde på trods. Og jeg har været i mange fora, hvor jeg har været eneste kvinde. Så det her med at forstå, hvad jeg faktisk kan. At indse, hvor meget jeg kan udrette. Det har krævet en modning.
I also have an older brother, and I remember how we were brought up a little differently. Well, I'm perhaps a bit more of a pleaser and nice guy, where he could lie on the couch while I was encouraged to clear the table and stuff like that. But is there anything where we might be stepping on our toes a bit that we need to focus on as well?
I think it's a huge topic and really hard to figure out. If we hold on to maturity. We have to understand that we have also been exposed to so much ourselves. Shame, I think, is an excellent example. I know that men are ashamed of certain things. I've come to understand that much. But I do know that shame is a really powerful factor for women and young women. I have two daughters myself. And the thing about young boys too: If I can shame a woman, if I can make her feel that she should be ashamed, then I can actually have some kind of influence on her. So shame, I think, is much more important in the upbringing of women and girls, I imagine. I don't think it's only in your and my upbringing that this has been the case. I come from a family with one older brother and three younger siblings. And it was further emphasized by the fact that we all trained karate. And my brother was the highest graduate, so that gave him certain rights. It's a very hierarchical system and in many ways also very healthy that there is a very, very high degree of discipline and self-discipline. A lot of good things come out of this. But there have been things where, when you look back, you think: Why were we so servile? Why were we the way we were towards my older brother? Because we were. That's how it was.
Earlier this year, a new study from Mybanker revealed that, on average, women pay more to borrow money than men because women pay a higher interest rate for the same product. Based on her long experience as a CEO, what is Mia Wagner's take on what causes this gender inequality?
I haven't tried being a man, but I can certainly see that there is a difference when I've negotiated salaries with men and women, where women take more collective responsibility. A woman cares about how is the whole company doing? How is the whole company's economy doing? Is there room for me to get a raise? Can I take my place? You ask a little cautiously. Whereas a man is much more focused on the fact that I bring value, I'm indispensable, and therefore I'm worth this. Some men, I also think, take it further. And I also think we have a cultural challenge, because if you as a woman negotiate salaries and push further and push further, you risk becoming hysterical. You risk falling into the box as the hysterical one, and then it will affect the tasks you get in the future. And that's what makes it so difficult, because there are certain voices out there that want to just sit back and say: Women can just get on with it. But it's actually not that easy. Because we are part of a culture and a system. So let's say that I've been body shy at the last salary negotiation, and we've actually been in conflict about what I think I'm worth. And now you're going to come to me tomorrow with a new work assignment that's actually really exciting. Where are you going to go? Then you might go to the male colleague. And you think he's cool because he knows how to make demands, he knows his worth, so we send him out for a negotiation. But we think the woman is a bit hysterical. You can risk that, anyway. The little thoughts you have about yourself: Am I a sharp enough negotiator or whatever it might be - we all have them. So yes, I think there's something about negotiating as a woman. The opportunities that have been created for me have been created through my heritage, my family, what I come from. For better or worse. That's what it's like to be crown princess. I can see it the other way around, with the people who negotiate with me. I can see it there. And I can also see how others react if a woman resists. It's true that there have been salary negotiations where I've said - and I shouldn't do that because I'm a CEO who has to make sure I get the most value for the least amount of money - but I've said, I simply don't want to see you negotiate like a woman. And I've also instructed a couple of women on how you should approach this salary negotiation. And I've actually once tapped an employee on the shoulder after a completed salary negotiation because her male colleague had negotiated a better salary, and then I raised her salary.
Really?
I have done that, yes.
What do you do? What are the good tips for that?
The basic tips are to be well prepared. So is it, if we just take the menta-
laugh, because it's actually a big deal: Take a breath and be yourself. You can do that if
you're very insecure, you can become a little aggressive, or if we're female,
we can call it shrill. That you kind of tighten up. I know that when I had my first procedure in court, I think I looked incredibly angry. I had to argu-
to explain why someone was innocent. It muddies the picture. So you have to
Be yourself and try to find the calm. A very basic trick I always say it is:
Take out a glass of water if you feel like you're feeling a bit pressured in the situation. Then steal a break by taking a sip of water. So you constantly find your core. You have to be well prepared, and that also means you have to be aware of where you bring value to the company. Because that's what a CEO is interested in. We need to create more value all the time. So where are you valuable? What have you produced? But also to a great extent: What can you accomplish? That is important. And how can you accomplish this, both as an individual, but for the community and for the company strategy? And relate to the company's strategy. Show that you're aware of your whole company and what it's doing. We think that's great. Praise and flattery are always good. Being happy has a great effect on most people. That's why you should never hold a performance review at the same time as a salary negotiation, because you'll never get any constructive criticism. And you should also be aware that nothing comes to us for free. What have you done to raise your skill level? What have you done to become more valuable? And then, of course, there are the basics - seniority and inflation - that you can bring in and say: I've been here for so and so long, and I need a raise. But if you want the other extra, you need to pay attention to the other parameters I've just highlighted.
Juliane Marie got rid of Struensee and Caroline Mathilde, and she didn't do it alone, but she was certainly one of the pioneers. And she was also the one who put Leonora Christina in the Blue Tower, she had Sofie Amalie. And these are two women that history judges quite harshly, because they were tough enough to do it. They got rid of some rivals from their sons. Whereas, when you read about the history of kings, it may surprise me a little that they did nothing but sandbag each other and gain power.
Why is it that women are sentenced a little harsher for the same crime?
You think I can answer that. At least that's how it is and has been. And now we've talked about the fact that there is a wealth difference between men and women, which means that we're always behind on points. Then there's also a cultural difference, which also means that we fall behind on points. We are not heroized. We are not made into heroes. How clever would you think it was if it was a man who had done it, right? A strategic little stroke of genius. Helle Thorning-Schmidt once said at a lecture I heard that we must take power, but we must also dare to say that we take power. I think that's very well expressed, that we shouldn't be so afraid of being shamed. That's not what Helle says, those are my words. That mindset, we haven't been praised there. We haven't been recognized that it's a good mindset to have as a woman. And it's a bit Darwinian, you could say, that we do more and more what we are praised for and where we are recognized and where we feel that we are good. That's where we will go. Typically, we've learned that we're good when we're nice and polite and obedient, we can sit still on our chair in primary school, and we can do our homework and so on. And there's something important to say, because we like the 12th grade girls. They should get the shaming they get. They do a damn good job.
There's something persistent about it, and there's something ambitious about it. And we have a tendency to talk down these twelve girls as if it's something negative.
Who are we kidding ourselves? We can talk society down if we can't accommodate all people. The fact that as a young girl you feel that you have to do so much - I'm very happy not to be young myself today - that's a societal problem. Twelve-year-old girls work hard and they do what they can. I think they should be praised for that.
I'm thinking a bit about being a girl of twelve and a bit perfect - should we try to teach our girls to be a bit more courageous and dare to fail a bit more? Not that you don't have to be a girl of twelve, but also to have that other dimension. Is there something there?
I've never tried to teach my children to be 12th grade girls. I think it's very much about leaving room for you to develop as the person you are. We'll probably all be chasing our own existence throughout our lives, I think. But to give good space. So that's not how I feel at all. I really don't try to pace them. Perfectionism is certainly an initiative killer and counter-killer. The whole self-criticism thing. As women, we're incredibly good at talking about it. I actually don't know how it is for men. Because I think I also see some men out there who are tormented both by their own inner critics, but also by the fact that they feel they have a lot to live up to, and I think it's hard to be human today in reality, because we have to be pretty perfect. I just think we need to do away with that across genders and make room to be much more fallible. Also because we will discover when we say it out loud that we all feel the same way. And how can we become more courageous? It's both something about accepting risk, and it's also quite fundamental - I can perhaps only relate to myself - to become a little better at loving yourself. I will always be self-critical, and the humility inherent in that is what makes me better every day. So I've tried to make friends with this eternal self-criticism. I know it benefits me, but you have to somehow protect your core, right, and remember that you actually have to love yourself.
My daughter said to me one day, "Mommy, you talk so badly about yourself. And then I was like... Because I really don't think I do that. But the fact that she said that to me, I thought: Wow, there's my hope. I'm so glad you said that, because you're absolutely right.
And she sees it.
And I say: Can you please take that for yourself too? Because that's actually the best advice I'm getting from you right now.
Just be a little kind to yourself. Basically. And then remember all the good things, how good you really are, how cool you actually are. I think you touch on something essential about being a parent. You're a role model, so the more you stand in front of the mirror and pinch yourself, the more you pass it on.
So how the hell do you break it? I think I tried really hard. And yet there was one day a long time ago - and if I don't say which daughter it was, it might be okay - but there was one of them who was sad about everything they had to do, and then I heard myself say: Why is it that you think you have to be so perfect?
And then she says: Well, mom, just look at you. Oh yes, I can see that. But no matter what you do, you become... It's hard to be a good role model. We all work hard to do things as well as possible, and you have to do that too. But it just can't be self-flagellation, right? I've had some bumps in my working life, right, and I actually had a really difficult period when my children were so nice to me, and they were so good to me.
And I thought: Oh, I'm not the cool one anymore? I've always been cool and first and forward and brave, and I stand up and give speeches and this and that. Then I said to them: This is just a small parenthesis in my life, but it's a difficult parenthesis. But we're all going to face them. I think I forgave myself a bit by saying that it was also important to show them that there are downs too, and you can get over them.
I think you're right about that. I also think that if there was something I had to change - I've been through a divorce, I've also been there - if you had to change something - my children were quite young at the time - but I've certainly become significantly more open with age in relation to the children. In other words, they get to see more of me and also where you think it's difficult. You also share your doubts. Maybe in the beginning as a parent, you felt you had to be the perfect role model. You had to show that mom has it together. I mean, they can see right through us.
You also touch on another interesting topic, and that is networking. We had a chat with Birgitte Possing, who wrote this book: Arguments against Women. One of the things she can see from the many women she has interviewed is that the network in particular makes it difficult for women to come forward. What is your experience with that?
So to put it simply, you can just say: I just want to join. Can I please be allowed to join the club? There are men's lunches and men's dinners and things like that, and I'm not in. Then I know that in a moment I'll have to explain why... There are some men who sit in some areas and have a lot of influence and power and know each other really well. So how do you do that? They have to open up that circle, and it just gets really awkward if there's a woman present.
I can feel that too. I'm very much a little sister, and my brother has been fantastic, he's taken me everywhere. And maybe that's also part of what gives me the mindset I have, because I've always been allowed to follow right behind him.
And so I've also heard a lot of stories that take place in the men's world. And maybe I've also had some kind of pride in the fact that I can easily handle it. I've always been careful never to bring myself into play. I've never had escapades that could become a story in that sense. I don't think I have, anyway. But I can see, now that I'm among men, that it limits their dialog, because now they know I'm a feminist. So it can make it difficult to get to soccer games and hockey games and whatnot. It just creates a gap - a chasm.
But there are also closed women's networks. As much as we want to try to make us all equal, we probably shouldn't make us all the same. And I think it can be extremely liberating to sit with a lot of women. It can also be very liberating to sit with men, because I learn a lot more there.
I think I will use a concrete example. I was going out with some business associates and had to ask myself: I wonder if they bring their wives? If they do, where do I go? Who do I put myself between? Because I actually want to do business. I want to get to know the men who might have some influence or who we can partner with to create more value. But it would look strange and the women would definitely not like it if I sat down as the only woman over there. Because it does happen. I was at a confirmation the other day and that's exactly what happened. I hate to say it out loud: the women met in the kitchen, the men sat out on the terrace. So there are some dynamics.
Where were you?
Well, I have to say it: I went to the kitchen. But I could have just as easily sat on the couch. But I just became very aware of it. And it happens all the time. And these systems also make it harder to get daughters and women into a different mindset, into a new world. To open up this game board and say: you can actually join us over here. Where do my daughters stand? If they sit out on the terrace and listen to the men talk about the latest real estate investment, entrepreneurship, and whatever else we want to talk about. But if the daughters are sitting in the kitchen - and we might talk a bit more about: "Wow, that's a great dress you've got there, and those shoes, they're so cool.
I like to bring some of that business talk into the kitchen. I'm pretty forward if I find someone I find interesting to talk to. I'll ask if we should have a cup of coffee, and then I hope it's not a man who misunderstands. There's always that extra guess, are we flirting or are we just getting to know each other? Having said that, it also means that we at Nordic Female Founder are aware that sometimes you just need a purely female form. Maybe also because we talk business in a different way and need to be able to do so, and we're going to cultivate that. I myself have taken a board training course where we were all women, and it just gave a very liberated dialog, which I imagine there is also in forums where there are only men, unfortunately. Maybe, hopefully, sooner than a hundred years, it won't matter. But we are also just different across the different genders.
Men can probably also feel uncomfortable in a large group of women. You also put your finger on something that might be about the fact that when we haven't been used to being in these male networks so much, we might also be a little afraid to ask the
Stupid questions.
Yes, but so are men, I might add. When I'm famous, I give my tiny little lecture with the wise fool, and who is the wise fool? It's the one who dares to ask the stupid questions. Because actually, there's typically a lot of insight in those questions, and there are many who have the same questions, but don't dare say so. You might be a little extra afraid as a woman because you're afraid of being marginalized as the dumb goose. Because we have boxes that we can quickly be put into. Maybe it's a little different as men, I think.
If you want something, you have to do something. Nothing happens by itself, and you have to take your place, you have to take initiative, and you have to take risks. Sometimes you also have to risk sounding stupid.
What is your experience with power language?
Lots of it. I might have a bit of a low voice. I've experienced situations where, let's say, I dive into this male forum - there are a lot of men standing around and talking. It's as if they don't hear what I'm saying, I've experienced that a couple of times. But I've definitely experienced that it can be difficult. Maybe it's simply the frequency of my voice. But I've also experienced wonderful, benevolent, inclusive
Men who still talk over my head, who don't really listen without being aware of it. But you have to get used to it, and I've learned that you simply have to speak louder and straighten your back and physically take a seat to make sure you're heard. Look people in the eye.
When I was young, my father always said to me: Always sit at the end of the table. Never walk along the side panels. You must always be both physical and in the way you speak and in your posture - no excuses. When negotiating, you need to maintain your core. You have to practice a little bit that the more pressured you are, the more calm you look. You have to take your place in your behavior too.
When I was young as a lawyer or jurist, I had to appear in court. And when I started, there weren't that many female players in court. There are many, many more now - it has really changed. Back then, it was absolutely the case that if a male counterpart could drive me around, he would. And it's been a healthy school, because I've learned to be well prepared and I've learned to take something.
It's really quite violent that you have to be like that.
Something that is important to me is that we need to be aware of the biases that exist, and we need to be aware that we need to open up and reach out. And there are some managers, including some male top managers, who need to be conscious of reaching down through the ranks and finding it, because there is talent. There is untapped potential that Denmark needs to use. That's what we need to work with. It's not a bitter, sour battle, women against men. And it won't be me who will stand shrilly on the podium and angrily insist on taking my place. And I certainly won't be a victim. That's the difficult art in this battle - and we can call it that, but it shouldn't be a battle between the sexes, it's a common battle - it's that you become a victim. If you're there, you lose power and influence.
Why is it that it provokes so much, because it really gets people up on the barricades?
Yes, it's strange. It's always the case that when certain men try to bring it up - we're talking 10-15 percent, let's be fair, there are many wonderful men who want to do good - it's as if it's always necessary to create a counterweight. You also get benefits from looking good. Now you have the advantages, you have to take the disadvantages too. Ah, that's not how it is. But that's how it can be presented. It's going to be a gender battle, and I'll keep trying to make myself a spokeswoman for the fact that it's not because we're taking anything away from the men; we have to create added value together. Nothing will be taken away from anyone.
When you talk about adding value and stuff like that. There are simply so many women taking important courses today. Unfortunately, many of these women drop out when they have children.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. But you're touching on a very, very difficult subject, which is parenting. I'm fine with fathers taking a lot more parental leave. I think that would be a good thing, because they just get closer to the children, and it reflects on the rest of their upbringing. But I just think that we in the business world need to be much better at understanding that becoming a parent is also a skill-building experience. It also creates some qualities. I think it becomes a bit too much a question of it being a disadvantage, and then we have to deal with, are you a risk factor because you can get pregnant? And I think you learn a lot from becoming a mother. You become more efficient and more mature and more holistic. You become much more aware that you can't just solve a small part of a problem. You need to take it all in. I think it's empowering. I think we need to be more aware of that.
Oh, my goodness. She's an exciting woman. They have the potential to make a huge difference for women. They highlight some of the things we don't really like to talk about.
Those places where it hurts a little.
Are you just greedy and wanting more? And appreciating yourself and stuff like that. I like that they say: We should be brave enough to talk about it openly. But it will be exciting to follow on the sidelines. And we're not done yet.
No, thankfully we're not.
No, because we're going to something mega-dramatic.
Yes, we will. Well, next time we'll talk about being in bad standing. We're simply going to talk about the Queen, who could have used a spin doctor. I mean, come on. Everyone has heard of Leonora Christina. I don't think we can find anyone on this street who doesn't know who Leonora Christina is. Christian IV's beautiful daughter, who was imprisoned for over 20 years. We'll talk about her rival Sophie Amalie, the evil queen. And we'll hear Ulla Kjær ask if she was really that evil again, or if she really just acted like a man and threw the rival in prison that she didn't need to see every day.
That, I think, is very exciting.
Why don't we step into the car and talk about it?
Yes, and then we drive to Amalienborg and find Ulla.
This podcast is produced by WhatMatters for the National Museum of Denmark. Production: Senior Researcher Lisbeth Imer and myself, Micha Fuglede, have been responsible for production, organization and editing. Radio editing: Amdi Wiil. Sound mix and design: Jais Kringelbach. Thanks to curator Poul Grinder-Hansen and director Mia Wagner.