Talk:List of Norwegian monarchs

message: 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)
thread_title:  Translation of names 

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

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: Consistent spelling of "Olav"

message: 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: 
# Harald I
# Harald I of Norway
# Harald Hårfagre
# Harald Fairhair
# 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 Hårfagre. For modern times, it is easier, of course: Harald V — Egil 09:23, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  More consistency issues 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Even more consistency issues 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Interregnum? 

message: 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)
thread_title: Harald Hardråde

message: 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)
thread_title: Haakon Jarl

message: 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)
thread_title: Recent changes

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Kingdom of Denmark Norway 1537-1814 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Olaf Magnusson 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Fairhair Dynasty 

message: 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)
replies: text: A reply is here.  —  Breadbasket 07:18, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Styles 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Repeated reverts 

message: 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 HalfdanssonHarald Fairhairc. 872–931         	Non-contemporary	c. 850–860son of Halfdan the Black and Ragnhild Sigurdsdotter	variousat least nine sons               	c. 931–933Rogalandaged 71–83             	
I	Eric I HaraldssonEric Bloodaxec. 931–933(deposed)     	                	c. 895son of Harald I and Ragnhild Eriksdotter               	Gunnhild Gormsdóttirc. 922eight children	c. 952/4Englandaged 57–59                	
I	Haakon I HaraldssonHaakon the Goodc. 933–960          	Non-contemporary	c. 915–920son of Harald I and Tora Mosterstong               	never married                           	c. 960Håkonshella (near Bergen)aged 40–46	
I	Harald II EricssonHarald Greycloakc. 960–970(murdered)	Non-contemporary	c. 935son of Eric I and Gunnhild Gormsdóttir                 	never married                           	c. 970Limfjord, Denmarkaged 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: List of monarchs, references

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Cnut the Great ? 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Coat of arms 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Proposal: Haakon -> Håkon 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Image sizes 

message: 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)
replies: text: Indeed! And it looks like they tried again between 1818 and 1905! Richard75 (talk) 14:11, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  The lineage names from 1450-1814 

message: 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  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  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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:58, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified