Talk:List of Norwegian monarchs

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)

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)

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).

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)

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:

1. Harald I
2. Harald I of Norway
3. Harald Hårfagre
4. Harald Fairhair
5. Harald Halfdanson

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.

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)

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)

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).

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)

Haakon Jarl

In the following sequence, why is Haakon spelled with a double a, unlike the other so named kings?

• Håkon the Good Håkon den Gode : 934-961
• Harald Gråfell : 961-976
• Haakon Jarl² Håkon Jarl : 976-995

qp10qp 18:13, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Recent changes

I'm not sure I approve of the recent reformatting of this list. The possibility to sort by something else than ascension date is usefull I guess, however I don't agree with the removal of the rival kings as irrelevant, also the dynasties assigned to Magnus Erlingsson and Inge Bårdsson seems somewhat odd. A few errors have sneaked in too, but it should be possible to remove those Fornadan (t) 11:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Kingdom of Denmark Norway 1537-1814

The monarchs mentioned between 1537 and 1814 (From Christian III to Frederick VI) were not Kings of Norway but of Denmark (or Denmark-Norway as it was called), much like the Kings of Greatbritain are not Kings of England or Kings of Scots. The Kingdom of Norway didn't exist during that time. 81.70.72.51 (talk) 00:49, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

This is not, so far as I can tell, the case. Certainly before 1660 it was merely a personal union, since the Danish throne was elective and the Norwegian throne hereditary. Even after that dates, it seems to have still been considered a personal union - there was never any act declaring that Norway was now part of the Kingdom of Denmark. john k (talk) 02:06, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Major changes

I added Haakon the Young and changed the beginning of Magnus VI and Eric II's reign to their reign as junior kings. Junior kings are as much monarch as senior kings.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 05:50, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I changed the format of the tables to look like the List of English monarchs and Danish monarchs. Does anyone want to keep the color scheme?--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 00:54, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Was it okay that discredited all the Regents of Norway that had real power in the kingdom at the time such as Haakon Sigurdsson who I only mention as a side note on Harald Bluetooth and Sweyn Forkbeard? Or should they be given a slot in the tables.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 05:54, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

The problem with that is that after c. 975 Haakon jarl no longer recognized the Danish king as his overlord, even beating back a Danish attempt to reestablish control.

I would also like to see the Bagler kings reintroduced to the list, they seems to have been removed at some earlier point Fornadan (t) 11:24, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

A seperate article for list of rival kings of Norway should be created.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 05:08, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Olaf Magnusson

I don't think we should number the child king Olaf Magnusson. Referring to him as "Olaf (IV) Magnusson" can cause people to confuse him with the actual Olaf IV, Olaf Haakonsson. -- Nidator ^{T / C} 10:23, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Fairhair Dynasty

For some apparent reason the entire article was rewritten to classify these kings differently. It obvious from reading the article Fairhair Dynasty that these kings were not from the same family but using unclassified as a subheading isn't any better. Why don't we actually classify them by their branches and sub-dynasties listed in Fairhair dynasty#Kings and pretenders in sub-dynasties? --Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 05:39, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Images

There are no rules that wikipedia can't use these images and you remove more than just the 19th century images, some from the middle ages such as manuscripts, church frescoes, coins and other images. Images are not required to be comtemporary depiction and most aren't. These images are used on the article themselves so I don't see why they can't be used here. --Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 05:41, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

There are no rules, but many of those images are just simple illustrations, and some of them are just scenes that don't specifically illustrate the kings. For example, how exactly does this image, File:Magnus Berrfoetts saga-Tittelfrise-G. Munthe.jpg, help the reader? This one, File:Haakon4.jpg, is a coat of arms attributed to Haakon the Old, not Hakon the Young. This one, File:Harald Hardraades saga-Harald og Svein Sjaelland.jpg, doesn't seem all that useful either. Try not to add images just for the sake of it.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 10:17, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't agree with this since it defeats the when these illustration are show in the articles themselves.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 15:27, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi.

I have removed images that are non-contemporary artistic imaginations and such, leaving only those whose authenticity is more or less verified, and I believe that this is to the better for the article, making it simpler and more objective—and furthermore easily allows the (unskilled) reader to distinguish between real portraits and fiction. I see neither a historical nor an educational function in displaying, be it, 19th century depictions of our earliest kings; this is in fact abler to cause confusion.

I may fully support this statement: ‘Try not to add images just for the sake of it.’ Some contributors are too uncritical in their choice of content, making this article look more like romantic literature rather than a scientific, rational presentation.

 — Breadbasket 11:42, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I have removed all book illustration and 19th century depictions and left all pre-19th century paintings, medieval illustrations, frescoes, seals, and coins.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 15:27, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

<———

File:Harald Haarfager1c.jpg

Harald I lived ca. 850–930. This drawing is of the 14th century. Conclusion: invalid.

File:Harald Blaatand.jpg

Harald ‘Bluetooth’ lived ca. 925–985. This font is of the 13th century. Conclusion: invalid.

File:Sweyn Forkbeard.jpg

Sweyn ‘Forkbeard’ lived ca. 960–1014. This drawing is of the 13th century. Conclusion: invalid.

File:Harald III of Norway.jpg

Harald III lived ca. 1015–1066. This drawing is of the 13th century. Conclusion: invalid.

File:HakonTheOldAndSkule-Flateyjarbok.jpg

Harald IV lived ca. 1204–1263. This drawing is of ca. the 1380s. Conclusion: invalid.

File:Oluf 2 of Denmark (Kronborg tapestries) cropped.jpg

Olaf IV lived 1370–1387. This carpet or tapestry is of the 1580s. Conclusion: invalid.

 — Breadbasket 13:37, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with your removal of these above images. I am not even going argue about the 19th century saga illustration, but these paintings and illustration should be place back in this article. List of English monarchs use noncomtemporary images and even the articles of these kings use these non comtemporary images. I don't seem why this article should be an exception.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 20:14, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

King Sverre as imagined by artist Peter Nicolai Arbo in this 19th century painting.

Hi again.

When such images are used, they must be supplied with a minimum of information, such as name of artist, year of production, and (for a serious historian) the necessary description ‘[E.g. a person or a battle] as [an artist] has imagined it’. This list does simply not allow such information.

— Breadbasket 01:37, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Could it, however, be a good compromise that non-contemporary images are equipped with a short, clarifying text such as ‘NON-CONTEMPORARY IMAGE’? — Breadbasket 01:41, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

How would you applied that on to the tables on this article?--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 02:08, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

It would have to be like this:

Code: <br /><small>'''NON-CONTEMPORARY'''</small> or <br /><small>NON-CONTEMPORARY</small>

Result: NON-CONTEMPORARY or NON-CONTEMPORARY

Illustration:

P	Name	Portrait	Birth	Marriages	Death	References
I	Harald I of Norway 872–930	NON-CONTEMPORARY	c. 850s son of Halfdan the Black and Ragnhild Sigurdsdotter	various	c. 930s Rogaland aged 80
I	Eric I of Norway 931–933 (deposed)		c. 895 son of Harald I and Ragnhild Eriksdotter	Gunnhild Gormsdóttir c. 922 eight children	c. 954 aged 59
I	Haakon I of Norway 934–961	NON-CONTEMPORARY	c. 920 Håkonshella son of Harald I and Thora Mosterstong	never married	c. 961 Håkonshella aged 40–41

It does not look so bad, does it? — Breadbasket 02:27, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. It looks bad. I think readers are smart enough to know what is comtempoary and what isn't. Such captions should go on the article pages, although not in captial letters, more like Sverre's article. --The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 02:40, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Yep. I agree with Emperor. It seems a bit much. Since this is a list, the less we clutter it up with non-essential stuff, the better. How about we use a footnote or something? It'd take up less space - it's just that "non-contemporary" is pretty long, and it takes up too much space on my browser. Does anyone know if the busts contemporary? For example, the ones of Erik II and Hakon V look like they might have been carved at the same time.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 06:47, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

If we increase the image size to 120px "non-contemorary" fits into one line (at least for me). It's not as invasive that way.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 07:01, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

(Reply to both.) I consider myself as rather experienced within (Norwegian) history, but I had a challenge determinating whether many of the images, for example this of Sweyn Forkbeard, were contemporary or a couple of centuries younger than that. Concerning portraits made of stone or textiles, I am usually not capable of dating them. I do not believe that the average reader is able to tell, citation, ‘what is comtempoary and what isn't’. He might even believe that a given image actually shows King N.N. That is exactly why such images are equipped with the text ‘as imagined by’. See for example here.

Such a text is not optimal,—but it is necessary when one insists on adding romantic national images etc. to the list. I support otherwise that the images are given a slightly bigger size. This space surrounding them makes it look untidy. — Breadbasket 14:12, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion going to as far as saying "imagined by" is a bit unnecessary like the image on Harald Fairhair's article for example. We know he lived in the 11th century and since the image dates to the 14th century the inclusion of the texts "imagined by" or "non-contemporary" isn't really necessary. We don't really tag every image of Jesus with "imagined by" or "non-contemporary". Although there a lot of people who may take "non-contemporary" for real. Funny story, once I stumbled on youtube video of a man claiming to be the descendant of Clovis I because his face look exactly like the 17th century portrait of him. The busts of King Erik and Hakon are probably not contemporary in my opinion since they look like Church decorations rather than depiction of themselves made during their reign. I think the footnote idea would have to be the best compromise. I think creating a note section where the empty reference section now is is the best idea.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 20:13, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

<———

Both parts have presented good arguments, so a compromise is probably a good solution. It involves no sizable problems having a small text under each non-contemporary image. It is the price that one has to pay for using non-neutral content. They may at least remain standing until more contributors have expressed their opinion. — Breadbasket 05:44, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Styles

Why does the paragraph on the royal style of the Norwegian nitpick on titles? It mentions "King of the Goths, King of the Wends, Duke to Sleswick, Duke to Holsatia" but Duke to Ditmarsh, Duke to Stormarn, Count to Oldenburg, and Count to Delmenhorst was removed for no reason along with the title King of Denmark. Also not mentioned is the title of the Swedish kings of Denmark. Bottom line the titles and style shouldn't even be in this article; it should be on Monarchy of Norway like all the other Scandinavian kingdoms. Monarchy of Norway#Titles and styles needs to be expanded by an expert to the standard of Monarchy of Sweden#Titles and Monarchy of Denmark#Style.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 17:46, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

A reply is here.  — Breadbasket 07:18, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Dynasty

Magnus V of Norway is a part of the House of Hardrada because his mother was from that house. Saying he isn't because his father was a not seems to be applying modern 19th century royal rules that a member of a royal house had to be paternally descended from the founding member of that house. Olaf Tryggvason should be either under the Vigen branch or Non-dynastic instead of using his name. The term Vigen branch seems to be made up by someone who edited on the article Fairhair dynasty because Olaf's father was the King of Vigen; the same editor called St. Olaf's family the Vestfold dynasty. There are no source for the Vigen dynasty. It would help if this term was real.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 20:34, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Second concern...On a second look I found that the term "Vestfold dynasty" seems to be a real term, so would this be better than calling Saint Olaf and Magnus the Good part of the "St. Olaf Dynasty"?--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 20:45, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

On a third look it seems that the term is referring to another family which included Olaf the White and Rögnvaldr Óláfsson.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 20:56, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Citation: ‘Magnus V of Norway is a part of the House of Hardrada [...]’ I would agree if the term were dynasty or clan (Norwegian: ætt; this includes both patrilineal and cognatic descendants), but Magnus V was indeed no member of the hypothetical house (a concept that old Norwegians whatsoever did not practise).

Magnus V belonged to a clan known as Stødle. They were, according to the Norwegian Biographical Encyclopedia, cognatic descendants of the Arnmødlings and Earl Haakon Sigurdsson, who himself ruled Norway.

I do not know of the term Vigen dynasty or Vigen branch. (A branch of what, by the way?) It should otherwise be spelled Viken, the way that I consider it; Vigen is Danish. — Breadbasket 04:31, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

A branch of the hypothetical Fairhair dynasty. The Vigen/Viken refers to his father's landholdings.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 04:42, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

It seems that the source you give only says his father was from that clan. How about changing it to Hardrada dynasty instead? The concept of a dynasty, clan or family line allows for the inclusion of cognatic descendants, although I would like to argue that a "House" still can contain a cognatic descendant.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 04:41, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

The Fairhair dynasty died together with Harald II.

The origin of Olaf I is very dubious (according to Halvdan Koht and others). When reading the sagas, one should be aware of that a considerable part of them were much later constructions intended to strengthen kings' right to the Throne. One reads, among other things, that Harald I married ‘Snowjoy, daughter of the King of Finns’. This was Snorri Sturluson's way to legitimise the King's lordship over Finnmark. Olav I was probably like Olav II and Sverre; they appeared out of nowhere, and their claimed descendance from Harald the Fairhair (which was nearly compulsory for any pretender) was false. — Breadbasket 05:31, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I understand that concept which is why I never considered calling him part of the Fairhair dynasty. That is why terms like St. Olaf dynasty, Hardrada dynasty, Gille dynasty (Harald IV might not have been son of Magnus III), and the House of Sverre are used. In that case, Olaf Tryggvason should remain at non classified or non dynastic until we can find source for a Viken/Vigen dynasty.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 05:45, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Repeated reverts

Due to the reverts of certain edits (in the first case, repeated edits of what appears to otherwise have consensus), I find it necessary to explain the edits more in detail.

First off, "The People's King" (a somewhat awkward translation of Folkekongen) is an informal term that to varying degrees has been applied to all three modern Norwegian monarchs (Haakon VII, Olav V and Harald V), for various different reasons. Such a term is in any case fundamentally different from Norse and medieval nicknames such as Fairhair, the Good, etc, which were integrated parts of a person's name. It should be obvious to everyone that "Olav The People's King" has never been a common name of Olav V, such as is the case with the earliest Norwegian monarchs.

Second about the column for references. I have hardly seen a separate column for References in similar articles, and the column is likewise wholly unused in this article. If anyone wants to add references in the article in the future, it would in any case be far better to use the references directly after the actual content it cites. If a reference is placed in a box without other content, it would be impossible to know whether it was a reference to the content in the birth, marriage or death columns. Thhist (talk) 10:22, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

The reference section is suppose to be like List of British monarchs referencing the all dates relating to a monarch and it originally was until a user decided to remove them all. Although I am okay with its complete removal. --The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 16:43, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

On second thought, given what you write, it might perhaps be best to use a column for references after all (I didn't know it had been referenced before). Nonetheless, it should preferably only be used one reference for each monarch. In that case, I would suggest using the entries in Norsk biografisk leksikon, hosted at Store norske leksikon, which largely contain all the relevant info (for a sample, see Harald 3 Hardråde). If other users agree, I should be able to write the list of individual references for each monarch. Thhist (talk) 17:07, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

List of monarchs, references

My suggestion for the use of the tables is as follows. It includes some slight changes to the content according to the sources (Norsk biografisk leksikon), although changes of the content will probably only be restricted to the earliest half dozen monarchs. If nobody object, I'll try to add references in a similar fashion for the entire list in the article.

P	Name	Portrait	Birth	Marriages	Death	References
I	Harald I Halfdansson Harald Fairhair c. 872–931	Non-contemporary	c. 850–860 son of Halfdan the Black and Ragnhild Sigurdsdotter	various at least nine sons	c. 931–933 Rogaland aged 71–83
I	Eric I Haraldsson Eric Bloodaxe c. 931–933 (deposed)		c. 895 son of Harald I and Ragnhild Eriksdotter	Gunnhild Gormsdóttir c. 922 eight children	c. 952/4 England aged 57–59
I	Haakon I Haraldsson Haakon the Good c. 933–960	Non-contemporary	c. 915–920 son of Harald I and Tora Mosterstong	never married	c. 960 Håkonshella (near Bergen) aged 40–46
I	Harald II Ericsson Harald Greycloak c. 960–970 (murdered)	Non-contemporary	c. 935 son of Eric I and Gunnhild Gormsdóttir	never married	c. 970 Limfjord, Denmark aged 35

What changes are talking about exactly? In this one I see a lot of different dates from the original which was base on the dates listed on their articles. It would be really confusing and inconsistent to say Haakon's reign ended in 960 when the article on Haakon I says 961. Which one is right? Also I understand that the Limfjord is around Hals, but Harald II's article death place list the place and your new one list the body of water. --The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 16:50, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that the WP articles for most of the Norwegian monarchs don't have any references for the dates they give (or for much of the content at all). The discrepancies between the articles and the NBL sources is because the dates for the early monarchs essentially range from being mere scholarly estimates, to cases were it is impossible to know whether for instance 960 or 961 is the correct year (the authors of the WP articles have probably used some other sources). In the short list I presented above, I used the Official royal website for the years of reigns, but all other dates from NBL/SNL. If anything, the articles for the monarchs themselves should be changed to the sourced dates, not the other way around. Thhist (talk) 18:05, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

That is what I thought. In that case I would support the change.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 18:23, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Cnut the Great ?

There is no mention of Norway being part of any larger kingdom before 1537, yet "Cnut the Great" is listed as king of norway, but isn't he usually considered to be Danish ? In England he surely seems to be.Eregli bob (talk) 17:04, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't know were you got the year 1537 from, but if you're talking about the intoduction prose, I agree that it should say that Norway were under the Danish monarch at times in the late 900s and early 1000s (I'll see what I can do). Thhist (talk) 17:18, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Regents

Should Eiríkr Hákonarson, Sveinn Hákonarson and Håkon Eiriksson be included in separate boxes like Haakon Sigurdsson? [1] List them alongside the monarchs.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 17:30, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Coat of arms

I removed the coat of arms because they do not add anything to the list and only leave many ugly blank areas and leaves the list unaligned. It is just really trivial decorations not just not necessary. You can add them to Coat of arms of Norway.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 01:01, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I understand that they "are in fact just as important as portraits, from a royal's aspect" but it should be in their articles. My main concern the homogeneity and alignment of the tables since not every monarch had a coat of arms. Thanks for understanding.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 13:57, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

This article has for more than a year been illustrated with a coat of arms derived from an illustration in the Danish encyclopedia Salmonsens Konversationsleksikon, Copenhagen 1924. This design has never been used in Norway, neither by the royal family nor by the government. The coat of arms in actual use was designed by painter Eilif Peterssen in 1905 and has been the official coat of arms of the royal family since then. The escutcheon is always surmounted by a royal crown. Especially in an article about monarchs, it is advisable to depict the official design used by the present dynasty — including the crown. A rendering of the official 1905 version will presently replace the 1924 version.Roede (talk) 07:57, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

References

I will try to help you cite the missing stuff as you go along here. I don't know how to use the citation format so I just provide you links.

• Adam of Bremen mentions another wife of Harald Bluetooth called GUNHILD; Adami, Gesta Hammenburgensis Ecclesiæ Pontificum II.3, MGH SS VII, p. 307.
• For the existence of Gyrid of Sweden; http://runeberg.org/nfbj/0772.html or Saxo Grammaticus (Christiansen), 10, II, p. 5.
• Dates for Harald Bluetooth's birth are not cited, they can be removed unless you can find a source able estimate by another historian
• Number of children of Earl Haakon with wife change to three, according to Medieval Lands Snorre names "two sons, Svein and Hemin, and a daughter Bergljot" as the children of "Earl Hakon", Snorre, King Olav Trygvason's Saga Part I, 19.; here too on an online version of the saga
• I took most of the family relations and dates from Medieval Land when I originally expanded this; it is a good source for source when you click the footnotes, but you can't cite the site directly since it is considered by wikipedia to be unreliable because it is a self-published site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Emperor's New Spy (talk • contribs) 17:16, 2 November 2012‎

Unscientific contributing

For the next few days could you not edit war with User:Thhist on List of Norwegian monarchs since he is trying to make it a feature article. If one of his edit is not to your satisfaction talk to him and me on the discussion page or directly with him. Also try adding references to things you add since referencing is going to help get this article to be a feature article. Thanks. --The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 16:27, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I am quite tired of unscientific and hereunder romantic nationalist presentations of history repeatedly getting added to the article. That is the first field to focus on if one wishes to improve the article. Spy and Thhist have been the most hostile opponents of a clean, objective, and modern presentation of the history of the Kings of Norway. They have protected academically unacceptable presentations, be it that Harald I ‘united Norway’. Here are two examples of them trying to fight scientific contributions: 1 2 I would like to point at, among other things, that I was the one who—also then meeting resistance—insisted on splitting the Fairhair dynasty into several (unrelated) dynasties. Therefore one may ask who has really improved this article, making it worthy of becoming a featured article. Thanks. — Breadbasket 18:08, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I had no intention of alienating you in this. I merely note the fact that most your edits are unsourced and you continuingly edit war with Thhist over the name Olav V and me with the pictures and splitting of the dynasty prior to that, which I have already made concessions and compromise with you over already above; the saga images are removed and only Harald I, Haakon, Eric, and Harald II are considered Fairhair dynasts. We have tried discussing with you over these issues here. I did and Thhist did to, but you never want to talk and just keep insisting that your edits are more right or scientific then ours. I want to note that I understood the concept that the Fairhair dynasty were separate families with dubious claims prior to your edits; I merely clustered them into one category for simplicities sake at the beginning.

By what source and academic backing do you said that "Harald I uniting Norway" is less accurate than Harald I merging petty kingdoms into Vestfold. Unification and merging are the same thing. Somehow unification is romanticism and merging is science. You keep saying everything that is hard cold contemporary fact is 19th century nationalistic romanticism, but the sagas and the traditionalist approach at the Fairhair dynasty are from the 13th century not the 19th, you can't say statements like "a view that was solidised by modern romantic nationalist and national socialist historians, whose intentions lay far ahead of objective presentation of history" without giving sources. As long as you give sources, your edits are more than welcome. --The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 18:59, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

First, what The Emperor's New Spy says above regarding the use of sources is the key point in most of these issues; adding content without sources is at best as good as adding nothing, and at worst worse than adding nothing. Second (and touching the former point), I would advise against stating that Harald merged the Norwegian petty kingdoms into Vestfold, as it should be noted that this is a highly controversial issue (see NBL). While the youngest sagas (Snorri etc.) claim that Harald originally ruled Vestfold after his father (a potentially politically motivated claim, along with other claims such as later kings' alleged descent from Harald), the oldest sagas says that Harald originally was "king of sogningene" (after his mother), and thereafter inherited Ringerike (still not Vestfold) from his father. Furthermore, all evidence suggests that Harald's eventual unified kingdom primarily was based in Western Norway. I would still like to suggest a compromise however, which would have to be to state something along the lines of "Harald united several of the Norwegian petty kingdoms into his own realm, after a series of military campaigns." Such a detailed statement regarding this, as sought by Breadbasket, have to be as general as possible. Thhist (talk) 23:46, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Interregna and coregency

I do not agree with that de facto ruling Earls have gotten their own row, indicating that they were formal monarchs or giving them the same importance as formal monarchs. This principle means that also Struensee, the de facto ruler of Denmark and Norway in the early 1770s, has to be included in the list.

I would suggest that one uses the same solution that the article has for medieval and modern regents:

P	Name	Portrait	Birth	Marriages	Death
DS	Christopher 4 June 1442– 5/6 January 1448		26 February 1416 Neumarkt in der Oberpfalz fifth son of John, Count Palatine of Neumarkt and Catherine of Pomerania	Dorothea of Brandenburg 12 September 1445 Copenhagen no issue	5/6 January 1448 Kärnan Castile aged 31
R	Interregnum Sigurd Jonsson as regent (1448–1449)

Ergo:

P	Name	Portrait	Birth	Marriages	Death
D	Sweyn Forkbeard 1000–1014		c. 960 son of Harald Bluetooth and Gyrid of Sweden	(1 & 2) Gunhild of Wenden or Sigrid the Haughty eight or more children	3 February 1014 Gainsborough, Lincolnshire aged 53–54
R	De facto coregency Earl Eiríkr Hákonarson (1000–1012) Earl Sveinn Hákonarson (1000–1015) Earl Håkon Eiriksson (1000–1015)

— Breadbasket 13:40, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

We stick to what the sources says, and I don't see that you back up your claims with any source. Norwegian regnal lists include the earls, but I've never seen a Norwegian regnal list that includes later regents. This probably has to do with the development of the concept of statehood (which was hardly developed in c. 10th century Norway), as well as the different nature of primary sources for the periods. Thhist (talk) 15:28, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Facts are authorative. Presentations of facts are not authoritative, and especially not traditional and in my eyes biassed presentations originating in the 19th century.

King of Norway is and was no relative size, but a statical, formal title that these earls never possessed. They were indeed rulers of Norway, just like several drottsetes/riksforstanders and regents have been, but they were absolutely no monarchs of Norway. (The article's name: List of Norwegian monarchs.) — Breadbasket 03:39, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

The Norwegian Monarchy's website list the Earls of Lade with the monarchs but not Sigurd Jonsson or Struensee. They were more than just regents. --The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 16:23, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

In the age of romantic nationalism (which lasted absurdly long in Norway; several generations longer than in normal countries), mighty earls gave a delicious taste of Norwegianness; native and independent rulers with the de facto rank of kings as opposed to foreign and suppessing powers. In other words, they interpreted—and presented—ancient history in an 19th century aspect. That is why the Earls have traditionally been regarded as if they were monarchs and the Drottsetes and Regents haven't. There are no reasonable, objective arguments for giving only the Earls the rank of kings; merely romantic nationalist tradition. — Breadbasket 03:39, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Those are extremely strong claims that I would love to see you back up. You are applying your interpretation of history (ie. that the Earls of Lade can't be considered part of the list of monarchs and also your affiliation on 19th century romanticism, which I doubt even exist here on this article or concerns the Earls of Lade) against what the historians, credible individuals with an actual academic background and authority to say anything, have to say about the issue. That is what is called original research which isn't accepted on wikipiedia.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 04:38, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

I do have literature, hereunder a book from as early as the late 1940s, in which romantic nationalist historians and their motives receive harsh criticism, but I do not have the books here and now. — Breadbasket 05:09, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Am I correct in assuming that your stance is the removal of the Earls of Lade or the inclusion of every regents in Norwegian history? My compromise is the inclusion of the Earls of Lade, the interregnum regents and the removal of Ingeborg and Erling Vidkunsson and listing the regents in (1) either a separate article of your own creation or (2) listing a link to Category:Regents of Norway. --The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 04:38, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

A monarch is a monarch, whether he is powerful or not, and a regent is a regent, whether he is powerful or not. The inclusion of monarchs and regents has primarily to be based on their formal title and not on (subjective) considerations of how much power they possessed. My suggestion is (thus) to have all non-monarchs with the status of earl/drottsete/riksforstander (the latter two mean regent) in simplified rows of their own. There is actually no formal difference between a riksforstander (regent) during a monarch's minority or absense and a riksforstander (regent) when no monarch exists. — Breadbasket 05:09, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

All in all I suggest this solution:

• Monarchial rulers and co-rulers have a complete row. To these belong:
  • King
  • King's co-ruling brothers, uncles, etcetera, regardless of title

Magnus I and his (alleged) uncle Harald III are a good example.

• Non-monarchial rulers and co-rolers have a simplified row. To these belong:
  • De facto and de jure rulers who were earls (only in the Viking Age)
  • De jure regents (Norwegian: drottsete, riksforstander)

The Crown Prince Regents/the Royal Viceroys, be it H.R.H. Haakon Magnus and Charles John, could perhaps be included too, as they are not formally different from other regents.

In other words, non-formal power persons like Struensee will not be included. — Breadbasket 05:20, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Breadbasket, please don't make such substantial changes to the article based on your unsourced original research, and after all this jabbering, and claims of "romantic nationalism" in mainstream modern historians, you still haven't produced a single source for your extraordinary claims. Thhist (talk) 12:37, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Regents for child monarchs

I really don't think regents for child monarchs should be included, since no other list of monarch does this, except Ælfgifu of Northampton, since her rule is notorious. And Ælfgifu isn't even given a seperate column only a side note under Svein. The separate columns should only be reserved for the interregnum regents. And if we included regents for child monarchs, that raises the question if we should included the regent/acting heads of states when a monarch is an adult and is away or incapactiate for period; this is usually the eldest son, a relative or an official. Like should we make white column for Frederick VI of Denmark when he was Prince Regent for his father before he was King. And one for Johann Friedrich Struensee, too. I don't think it will look right. Why don't we just create a Category:Regents of Norway and link it on the see also section. We shouldn't list them for the same reason we don't list the pretenders. --The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 02:51, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, this is a question of (1) whether to present formal and/or de facto co-rulers, and which sort, and (2) how they shall be presented (whether in their own rows or with small letters under the name of their monarch).

Regarding (1), I believe that all drottsetes and riksforstanders (in a monarch's minority or absence) as well as regents (when there was no monarch) should be included, but absolutely not with the same prominence as monarchs, thus only with a simplified row without illustrations, wife/children, etcetera. There is no reasonable argument for excluding a drottsete ruling Norway and including an earl ruling Norway. Both were the absolute power persons of their respective time.

Regarding (2), I think that it is better to have the aforementioned in a simplified row of its own instead of under the monarch's name.

Otherwise I am a supporter of including the Crown Prince Regents in the list. Both Harald V as well as today's Crown Prince have been Crown Prince Regents several times. — Breadbasket 03:10, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

The reason is the Earls of Lade are considered rulers by historians and the Norwegian monarchy's official site; none of these list list the drottsete or Crown Prince Haakon's regency from 2003 to 2004 and in 2005. The Earls of Lade are more rulers than they are regents since the power of the Kings of Denmark at the time were never fully established in Norway. This article will look ridiculous with what you are proposing because virtually every single monarch had a regent or interim representative during his or her lifetime. I say we just have a link to a category with all of these regents or you can create a separate list of regents on a different article and link it here, you can also create an article for drottsete. --The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 03:13, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Proposal: Haakon -> Håkon

In modern Norway, only the last Norwegian king with the name, Haakon VII (reigned 1905-1957), is ever called "Haakon", as opposed to Håkon which is the spelling used for all the medieval Norwegian kings (and other medieval/Norse figures). The naming of Haakon VII came about because "å" was spelled "aa" during his life, an archaic use today, although still sometimes used for certain names (e.g. Haakon, Crown Prince of Norway). Is there actually any rationale for using "Haakon" for the medieval kings in English? The use is in any case certainly highly arbitrary and anachronistic. My proposal is to move all medieval/Norse Norwegian kings and other figures from Haakon to Håkon. Since this would be an extensive change to many articles, I want to raise the question here first to hear if anyone agree or object to such a move. (See the Official Norwegian list of kings for reference.) Thhist (talk) 13:49, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I would object to such a move on the grounds of consistency and usage. Haakon is about 327 times more common in English than Håkon, which doesn't seem surprising. Surtsicna (talk) 14:35, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Image sizes

I am adamant that these images remain 100px or else it would become crowded with the images. List of French monarchs uses 80px and it is a feature article and British monarchs uses 100px. The image can only be between 80 and 100px and nothing larger or smaller. They are perfectly visible to any reader and don't dominate more than any of the other fields, which isn't the case when the image size is increase.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 17:51, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

The lineage names from 1450-1814

Just a note that this is the most hilarious running non-joke in history. And the punchline at the end! OMG, I almost died.

If it wasn't for King John it would have been perfect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.46.194.86 (talk) 00:01, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Indeed! And it looks like they tried again between 1818 and 1905! Richard75 (talk) 14:11, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of Norwegian monarchs. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.denstoredanske.dk/Danmarkshistorien/Da_Danmark_blev_Danmark/Det_genskabte_rige/Knud_den_Stores_rige/%E2%80%9E%E2%80%A6_og_over_nordm%C3%A6ndene_og_en_del_af_sveerne_..%E2%80%9D
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://snl.no/.nbl_biografi/Harald_3__Hardr%C3%A5de/utdypning
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20020802074151/http://www.kongehuset.no/default.asp?lang=eng to http://www.kongehuset.no/default.asp?lang=eng
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060224182557/http://www.aftenposten.no/english/royals/ to http://www.aftenposten.no/english/royals/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:58, 6 December 2017 (UTC)