Talk:History of the Norwegian monarchy

message: I think an article that explains the twist and turns of how the throne to Norway was inherited is an interesting subject, but I think the title is misleading.  This isn't about the kingdom of Norway, but rather the way the monarchy was inherited or in some cases hijacked, whatever your point of view is.  Since we have articles on the monarchy of Norway, lists, etc., this article should rather discuss the transitions and peculiarities of the monarchy.  I'll be editing on that basis, but we need to have a discussion on the title.  --Leifern 13:55, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
:Where is the article of "Monarchy of NOrway" (I haven't found such)??
:Well, in my opinion, all possible othe titles for this sort of article are at least as bad as this, and probably worse. For example, "List of Monarchs" is even worse title for this content than the present. Does anyone have any GOOD suggestions for the title?
:The idea seems to be the hereditary nature of the Norwegian throne throughout centuries. It is a thread that does not get its due as small sentences all around the "history of Norway", rather it is a good idea to make a specific article to explain the general outline of that particular phenomenon.
:Norway was an oddity among its neighbors, all others were elective. Thus this spöecial feature deserves a concise presentation, with lots of examples.
:One possibility is to have an article about Monarchy of Norway, which should give the background (I think this aryticle is quite a good for that background) as well as monarchy today, its today trappings, finances, constitutional and emotional position, royal pictures, wedding and birth hypes, etc, whatever. But is there readiness to produce such contents of today? And, if such is made, then, does these two things: history and today, confuse if they are put into one article? And, will it be too long? 213.243.191.218 19:16, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Mistitled?

message: I took the liberty of cleaning up this somewhat confusing article
--Sparviere 18:02, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Clean-up

message: Norway had its own inheritance law, quite established for inheritance of "udal"; I found a citation from its contents, in Norwegian:
"I den norske arvelova var det i 6. arv fylgjande grupper(m.a.) i prioritetsrekkjefylgje:
* Ektefødde søner av samfedra sysken
* Ektefødde døtre av samfedra sysken
* Ektefødde søner av samfedra systrar
* Ektefødde døtre av samfedra systrar..."
Which "priorities" also agree with usual understanding. That a cousin, how male the one be, is after one's sister's son, being a more distant relation. After all, Scandinavian inheritance laws follow rather well the intuitive undertanding of how closely heirs are related to the one to be inherited.
Also, Norway had at least since the 13th century received feudal traditions, while "chivalric" customs and organization had been to some extent adopted in Norway. Feudal law was quite clear about that a territory shall not be inherited by such collateral relative who does not descend from those ancestors from whom the previous holder had inherited it. And feudal law (for example, customary law in England and particularly in Scotland) accepted sister's son's hereditary rights.
History knows very well that Eric did not have any children as heirs. He had one sibling who survived to adulthood: his sister Catherine. Catherine descended, as much as eric himself, from precisely same ancstors, and thus, through theur MOTHER, was descendant of Eufemia Eriksdotter, Ingeborg Haakonsdotter and Haakon V (from whom the inheritance, Norway, had come). Catherine, in turn, had one child who survived to adulthood:her son Christopher, who was Eric's nephew.
Whereas it is well known that the mentioned Bogislas was Eric's (and Catherine's) cousin through father, and thus Bogislas was not a descendant of Eric's mother, nor her near pedigree, i.e he mentioned Eufemia, Ingeborg and Haakon.
Therefore I must wonder what are sources which claim that king Eric's Pomeranian cousin, Bogislas, was his legal heir in Norway and even in priority before Eric's full-sister's son Christopher.
As far as I have read, Bogislas is mentioned as heir intended (appointed, designated) by Eric. But such does not make him the LEGAL heir.
After Eric was deposed, Christopher was accepted as his heir, obviously, as historical record affirms that he really succeeded. No doubt if such had contravened the relevant inheritance laws (and not only the designation made by deposed Eric), at least some of Norwegian magnates and judges would have   protested. Suedois 10:54, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I only have one of my books with me at the moment, I'm sure I can find more citations later, but for now: From "Danmark-Norge 1380-1814 bind 1: Fællesskabet bliver til" by Esben Albrectsen (p.171): "Efter den norske tronfølgeordning fra 1388 tilkom kongearven i tilfælde af kongens barnløshed hans nærmeste slægtning i det pommerske hertughus. Det var hans fætter Bugislav der var født o. 1407, og ham ønskede kongen at sikre unionskongedømmet..." which translates as "According to the Norwegian settlement of the succession from 1388, in case of the king dying without issue, the hereditary kingdom would fall to his nearest relative in the pomeranian ducal house. That was his cousin Bugislav, who was born around 1407, and the king wanted to secure the united kingdom for him..." My translation may be a bit clumsy, but the meaning comes across.--Barend 20:40, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

text: As for Albrecht of Mecklenburg, from the same book(p. 85): "I Norge var den svenske kong Albrecht nærmeste arving, fordi hans mor var søster til Magnus Eriksson..." - "In Norway, the Swedish King Albrecht was the nearest heir, because his mother was the sister of Magnus Eriksson..."--Barend 21:37, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Another reference about Eric of Pomerania's heir: From "Norsk historie frå omlag år 1400" by Lars Hamre (Oslo, 1968): "Etter norsk lov og valbrevet var farbror til kong Erik, hertug Bugislav, hans næraste arving. Men han var så gamal at det var audsynt at han ikkje ville leva etter kongen. Erik rekna difor son hans, som òg heitte bugislav, for den rette tronfylgjaren..." My translation: "According to Norwegian law, King Erik's uncle, Duke Bugislav, was his nearest heir. But he was so old that it was likely that he would not survive the king. Erik therefore saw his son, also called Bugislav, as the rightful heir to the throne."--Barend 12:18, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

text: And finally, from "Norges historie, tredje binds anden del" by Absalon Taranger (Kristiania, 1917): "Sikkert er, at efter valgbrevet til kong Erik af 1389 skulde tronfølgen i fremtiden regnes fra ham, og efter "6. arv" i Landslovens tronfølge var Eriks fætter, hertug Bugislav, nærmeste tronarving; men næst efter ham var Eriks søstersøn Kristoffer nu nærmeste arving (9. arv)" My translation: "What is certain is, that according to the letter of election of King Erik from 1389, the line of inheritance would in future be decided from him, and in the "sixth degree of inheritance" of the Norwegian law, Erik's cousin, Duke Bugislav, was the nearest heir to the throne; but after him, Erik's nephew Kristoffer was the nearest heir (9th degree)".--Barend 09:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Norwegian inheritance law 

message: The flag illustration is with a lion in the style of a decorative illustration by Karl Georg Jensen for Salmonsen's Encyclopedia, Copenhagen 1924. That style has never been used by any Norwegian royal families or public authorities. In the Middle Ages we have the seal of duchess Ingebjørg with an armorial banner and in the years since 1905 we have the King's flag at the Royal Palace in Oslo. Their lions are stylized in quite another manner. So why use the Danish model of 1924? Hans Cappelen (talk) 18:03, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  A strange flag 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Hereditary Kingdom of Norway. 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 archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060214011614/http://www.sv.uio.no/mutr/publikasjoner/rapp2003/rapport68/index-Contents.html to http://www.sv.uio.no/mutr/publikasjoner/rapp2003/rapport68/index-Contents.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050827143047/http://www.kongehuset.no/dt_kongehuset_allAtOnce.asp?ogid=20&mgid=20&gid=53&aid= to http://www.kongehuset.no/dt_kongehuset_allAtOnce.asp?ogid=20&mgid=20&gid=53&aid=
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061008140443/http://www.mil.no/sjo/keskdr/overflate/start/fartoyer/kongeskipet/ to http://www.mil.no/sjo/keskdr/overflate/start/fartoyer/kongeskipet/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071103102413/http://www.aftenposten.no/nyheter/kongelige/article891187.ece to http://www.aftenposten.no/nyheter/kongelige/article891187.ece
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:22, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified