Talk:List of Norwegian monarchs

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

1 Translation of names
2 This entire list of Norwegian monarchs is wrong!
3 Union? with Iceland and Greenland
4 Consistent spelling of "Olav"
- 4.1 More consistency issues
- 4.2 Even more consistency issues
5 Date of new Law of Succession
6 Interregnum?
7 Harald Hardråde
8 Haakon Jarl

[edit] Translation of names

According to my sources, Olav Kyrre is more appropriately translated as Olav the Calm.

Also, I believe Magnus Berrfott is better as Magnus the Bare-legged than Barefoot.

Shouldn't Harald Graafell be Harald Greycloak or Greyfur?

And Harald Gille would be better as either Harald Gilchrist (if Irish) or Harald Handsom if Norwegian.

Sigurd Slembe (or Slembdjakn) should be Sigurd the Wicked or Wicked-Deacon.

Inge Krokrygg should be Inge the Hunchback.

Eystein Meyla should be Eystein the Maiden. --Sparviere 15:23, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This entire list of Norwegian monarchs is wrong!

This list is full of wrong names and dates! If you see http://www.kongehuset.no/default.asp?ogid=1&mgid=1&gid=37 you will se the real list of Norwegian monarchs. This is the Norwegian Royal Family's homepage, and i guess they know who ruled their own kingdom before them!

And which dates do you want to change? Fornadan (t) 18:49, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't have time to go over everything and change the dates myself at the time, or I would have done it. But a quick look on the dates showes that e.g. the first king Harald Harfairs reign is wrong. On this site it says: 890-930, but the official date is: 865-933. The next king Eirik Bloodaxe is also wrong, here: 930-934, official: 933-935. And it just goes on and on. woelne

I'll do a comparison myself then. Note that wiki's list (with one exeption) gives the traditional dates while kongehuset.no gives more approximate ones. (wiki to the left, kongehuset right)

Harald Fairhair c.890-c.930 vs c. 865-c.933

Here kongehuset has dates that are based on a more literal reading of the sagas. Modern historians are however rather sceptical to the accounts of Harald's early reign.

The traditional date for the battle of Hafrsfjord, which resulted in Harald becoming king of a united Norway, is July 18 872. Though it is contested that the battle had to take place later (the years immediately following 880), this date (872) is used extensively in wikipedia (English & Norwegian). --Tokle 18:51, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Eirik Bloodaxe c.930-934 vs c.933-c.935

Here wiki uses the traditional dates (according to Heimskringla Eirik was co-king with his father from 930 to 933 and then as sole king for one year)

Håkon the Good, Harald Gråfell, Håkon Jarl

Wiki use traditional dates while kongeshuset gives approximations

Olaf Tryggvason - the same in both lists
Svein Forkbeard 999-1015 vs Eirik & Svein Håkonsson 1000-1015

Eirik & Svein were vassals of the Danish kings and is probably preferable for this list. Not sure were the date 999 comes from.

Olaf Haraldsson - same in both
Håkon Eiriksson and Svein Alfivason were both vassals of Knut the Great.
Magnus Olavsson - same in both
Harald Sigurdsson -not sure why kongehuset uses 1045
Magnus Haraldsson - same in both
Olav Kyrre 1066-1093 vs 1067-1093

Both start dates are techniacly correct. Only Olav followed king Harald to England in 1066. He did not return to Norway until the next year though, and was thus not hailed as king in Norway until 1067

Håkon Toresfostre 1093-1094 vs 1093-1095

Not sure why kongehuset uses 1095, Snorre put his death to 1094

Magnus Berrføtt - same in both
Olaf Magnusson - the date 1115 is AFAIK the correct one, will fix that
Kongehuset does not list the various unsuccessfull pretenders of the 12th and 13th centuries. I think we should let them stay
Magnus Eriksson 1319-1343 vs 1319 - 1355

Magnus Eriksson was at first king of both Sweden and Norway, but under pressure passed his Norwegian crown on to his second, then underage, son Håkon. The events that followed are a bit complicated, so it might be better to give 1355 (the year he died) as his enddate

Will take a look on the rest tomorrow Fornadan (t) 21:30, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Magnus VII's endate is definently 1343, when he abdicated as king of Norway. This is a list of Norwegian monarchs, not Swedish! 14.December 2005 (Norwegian)

What is meant by "united kingdoms of Denmark and Norway 1523-1536? Wasn't that period an independent interregnum?

Norway was occupied and claimed for Christian III of Denmark on Oct. 18th 1537. 14 dec 2006 (Norwegian)

Why is Skule Bårdsson, 1st Duke of Reinskloster, placed among the monarchs of Norway? 14. dec 2006 (Norwegian)

[edit] Union? with Iceland and Greenland

I've never seen the term "The Union with Iceland and Greenland" before - union would be the wrong concept here (at that time). -- Egil

Iceland and Greenland was united with Norway under Norwegian rule, but I'm sure that it's possible to find a more precise terminology to describe the relationship for dependent territories. /Mic

Annexed probably describe bether what happened Fornadan 13:17, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)Fornadan

Iceland, Greenland an the Faroe Islands were all considered a part of Norway until the Kiel peace treaty of 1814. Here it is explicitly mentioned that these parts of Norway are not transferred to Sweden. -- Gustavf Mon Mar 17 14:04:33 CET 2003

My bad. In what form where they dependant on Norway? / Mic 14:03 Mar 17, 2003 (UTC)

I would change it to "dependencies"

Probably the text should say that Norwegians settled those islands (as well as Orkney & Shetland), and sooner or later such were taken under Norwegian administration.

Actually, the sources also here in Wikipedia state that it was because the Treaty of Kiel did not mention Greenland, Iceland and Faroes, they were left to the Danish crown. I.e, by default.

However, since Norway was in 1600's officially united to be a province of Denmark, I believe it is wrong to claim that those islands were "considered a part of Norway". I believe that more correctly, their role as parts lasted until that act in 1600's. after which, the dependencies were parts of Denmark. This view is supported by their fate in 1814. 62.78.105.242 07:18, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

During the period when Norway was recognized as a province of Denmark (1537 - 1660) the overseas dependencies were STILL counted as a part of Norway. After 1660, when Norway's status was "restored" to a kingdom (Denmark-Norway), they remained Norwegian provinces.

Norway has always been a kingdom, and never a province, but part of the Danish state with the same rights as a province!

In 1660, absolute monarchy was claimed for both kingdoms, and Norway practically lost all its political power to the Danish soverreign. Anyway Greenland and Iceland were not part of the kingdom of Norway, nor Finnmark county until 1543, but were officially belonging provinces of the Norwegian kingdom. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.52.250.205 (talk) 19:53, 14 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Consistent spelling of "Olav"

A nice project for somebody: consistent spellings for the Olavs. Currently, there's articles for Olaf I, II, and IV and Olav III and V; and the spelling within article bodies/links isn't much more consistent. —Paul A 04:27, 8 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I could be willing. But when first done, this should be done consistently. Does anyone have an authorative source for the English names of the Norwegian kings? -- Gustavf 06:33, 8 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Not me. I've never had much reason to pay attention to Norwegian kings; this was just something I noticed in passing. But for what it's worth, Britannica and Encarta both use Olaf in the article title, with a note in the actual article that Olav is the Norwegian spelling. —Paul A 08:17, 8 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I will look around a bit and see what I find. -- Gustavf 10:12, 8 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I would certainly vote to use the Norwegian form, and of course keeping all variations as redirects. We had exactly the same issue with geographical names. The problem is that there really is no single authoritive source, and EB1911 is simply too archaic as a referrence in todays globalized world. So there is lots of confusion — should it be Andalsnes, Aandalsnes or indeed, Åndalsnes. Doing the Google test, there are 171.000 hits for "Olav V", and 4.500 for "Olaf V". FWIW. My vote would be firmly in favor for using todays Norwegian form as the basis, where a consistent referrence spelling exists. (PS: I notice Encarta uses "Olaf V", but also "Håkon VII". Wikipedia needs to better that, in terms of consistency) -- Egil 09:00, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Olaf was the form actually used by Snorre and elsewhere well into the 19th century. I can't say I ever seen the form Olaf V in use anywhere. The most accurate would thus be to have Olaf I-IV and Olav V. Fornadan 11:08, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] More consistency issues

Consistency for early Norwegian kings involves more than just language. Let us take the first king as an example. Based on current Wikipedia usage, these variations would at least be possible:

My vote would be to use form #2 as title of the article, in consistency with monarchs of other countries. But that references in text would appear with the form more consistent with the conventional but unique name of the king (as used historically, e.g. in Heimskringla and in current historical litterature), i.e. probably [[Harald I of Norway|Harald Hårfagre]]. For modern times, it is easier, of course: [[Harald V of Norway|Harald V]] — Egil 09:23, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Form 4 (or form 5 when no byname exists) would be preferable in the text, I think, since those are the ones usually used in history books. I see little point in translating from Old Norse to modern Norwegian in an English encyclopedia. Fornadan 11:08, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

In an international encyclopedia, written in the English language, methinks. Which is not the same thing. What would you think the commonly understood name of Inge Krokrygg would be, then? -- Egil 14:07, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC) PS: Every article where appropriate really should also show the name in Old Norse, but that is of course not what we are discussing.

Naming him Inge the Hunchback gives the unfamiliar reader some information at first glance. It also help distinguish the quite literal meaning of the epithet from his real name. Kings of France, Kings of Castile & Kings of Aragon translate to English. King of Denmark is somewhat inconsistent but use mostly Danish.Fornadan 16:13, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:WikiProject_Norway#Naming_policy for a conclusion.

[edit] Even more consistency issues

Håkon Jarl is named Haakon Jarl for some odd reason, though I guess it is due to Haakon VII. There are no Norwegian sources that would write the earl's name with that out-of-date spelling when there is a excellent Norwegian letter å available. --FinnBjo 01:54, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Date of new Law of Succession

The date listed for the new succesion law(1163) is wrong, but I can't find the right date at the moment (It was somewhere during Håkon Håkonsson's regin) Fornadan 14:41, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Well, there was some act in 1160's to formalize the cognatic ascension of Magnus Erlingson, who was son of a daughter of one of the old kings.

However, it is entirely true that Norway got its throne formalized hereditary in 1200's, during a son or grandson of Sverre. 62.78.105.242 07:23, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

There came new laws of succession in 1163, 1223 and 1278. 14 Dec. 2006 (Norwegian)

[edit] Interregnum?

Svein Forkbeard's rule is listed as lasting until 1015; however, he died in February 1014. Olaf II doesn't return until 1015 though... who ruled in the interim? Anyone?

Bantman 23:16, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

That would probably whoever ruled Denmark at that time, but the Danish kings were only nominally king of Norway. Eirik Håkonsson Jarl and his brother Svein Jarl, although in the name vassals of Denmark, were the de facto independent rulers of Norway 1000-1015(Eirik Jarl died in 1014 though)Fornadan 00:51, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The interregnum was ruled by Eric, Earl of Strinda. 14 Dec 2006 (Norwegian) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.52.250.205 (talk) 20:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Harald Hardråde

I'm not sure why he is called Harold Hard-rule here; perhaps this is an earnest attempt to translate his nickname into English, but it's not necessary in this case because, though the English are notorious for recoiling from foreign name-forms, we do usually call this chap something approximating to Hardråde, even if the spellings vary. I suggest that this list take the bull by the horns and simply call him Harald III Hardråde; we will all know who that is but would maybe have to stop and think for a moment about who this Hard-rule fellow is, particularly as hard-rule isn't an idiomatic expression in English, as far as I know. qp10qp 19:08, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Good point, but I disagree. Hardråde means Hard-ruler. Why should all the other kings have their nicknames translated, but not him? --Sparviere 14:16, 22 November 2006 (UTC)