This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Anglo-Saxon KingdomsWikipedia:WikiProject Anglo-Saxon KingdomsTemplate:WikiProject Anglo-Saxon KingdomsAnglo-Saxon Kingdoms articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to
join the project and
contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the
documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Denmark, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Denmark on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DenmarkWikipedia:WikiProject DenmarkTemplate:WikiProject DenmarkDenmark articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Norway, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Norway on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NorwayWikipedia:WikiProject NorwayTemplate:WikiProject NorwayNorway articles
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a
list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the
full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Norse history and culture, a
WikiProject related to all activities of the
NorthGermanic peoples, both in
Scandinavia and abroad, prior to the formation of the
Kalmar Union in 1397. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the
project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the
discussion.Norse history and cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Norse history and cultureTemplate:WikiProject Norse history and cultureNorse history and culture articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
the Middle Ages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject English Royalty. For more information, visit the
project page.English RoyaltyWikipedia:WikiProject English RoyaltyTemplate:WikiProject English RoyaltyEnglish royalty articles
Graphs are unavailable due to technical issues. There is more info on
Phabricator and on
MediaWiki.org.
Untitled
There is an entry
Sven of Denmark. I think this needs a redirect to Sweyn.
the first scot to bear the title steward of scotland was a grandson of sweyn, and his progeny took the name stewart, and when robert the bruce's daughter married walter stewart their son because the first stewart king of scotland, to there are at least two lines of descent from sweyn to the stewart kings of scotland and england. - robbin stewart 9/4/15. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
75.112.200.46 (
talk)
19:11, 5 September 2015 (UTC)reply
I disagree. There are many notable people named Sven (see the list
here), so it's important to maintain a separate article on the name itself. Sweyn Forkbeard is not so unambiguously attached to the name "Sven" to justify redirecting the name's article to this one. --
Biblioworm21:50, 5 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Anonymous edits
An anonymous editor considers the Swedish conquest of Denmark to be "propaganda" against Denmark. However, his addition had factual errors so it is better discussed here:
12th century historian
Saxo Grammaticus claims that Sweyn was deposed by
Swedish king
Eric the Victorious who proclaimed himself king of
Denmark and ruled it until his death in
994 or
995. This is obviously erronoeus; contemporary sources have Sweyn ruling Denmark in 991 and 994 when he claimed "
Danegeld" from king
Ethelred the Unready of
England, and he also had
coins made with his likeness, being the first Danish king to do so.
Besides, Sweden was not yet united into a single kingdom, and the Gothian kings had nowhere near the military power that it would have taken to overthrow the king of Denmark...the were often busy warring with each other, and only in the 13th century did modern Sweden begin to take shape. Contemporary Danish historians (Benito Scocozza, Grethe Jensen, Bent Østergaard etc.) disregard the idea, which is not a serious topic of discussion in neither Danish nor Swedish historical research.
The supposed "Swedish" conquest may have been based on an ealier event when the Danish king
Helge was deposed by a warlord who probably came from modern-day Sweden in the
890s. It may also be a case of conscious propaganda by the writers of the
catholic church who rather disliked Sweyn Forkbeards attempt to bring English rather than
Germanpriests to Denmark. They would have wanted to show his reign as being unsuccesful, as does Saxo who claims (albeit erroneously) that Sweyn was a
heathen.
It was the
11th century chronicler
Adam of Bremen who said that Eric conquered Denmark, so I strongly doubt the veracity of this addition. Moreover, the description of Sweden is highly POV and even if it was correct, I do not see its relevance. And what is Gothian? I'd also like to know which contemporary sources, the anon refers to.--
Wiglaf 5 July 2005 09:03 (UTC)
Ahm, not knowing exactly the history in question, however there seems to be some truth in some of those analyses. For example, I know that most historians today agree that it most probably was a Polish/Vendic princess whom first Eric then Sweyn married. Eric's marriage with a Norse Sigrid is possibly a distorted info, or an earlier marriage, or a bigamity, or even fiction. This all should be treaded carefully and objective analysis presented balancingboth views. Perhaps even the "nationalist" would be satisfied in the end.
217.140.193.12319:46, 29 July 2005 (UTC)reply
Well, yes. I have written about the problems of defining
Sigrid the Haughty as a historical character in her own article, but this person asserts her fictiveness which is a different matter all-together. He has already shown that he does not respond when I try to make contact with him (on a slightly different IP address), and he completely ignores this discussion.--
Wiglaf20:52, 29 July 2005 (UTC)reply
One thing I know for sure, no swedish king has ever ruled Denmark.
This is an encyclopedia. If you want to present your own certainties and opinions, you should make a webpage about it.--
Wiglaf15:51, 6 August 2005 (UTC)reply
I'm pretty sure I would have known if another nation had ever ruled my country, only one has ever done so, and that was Germany in WW2. Besides, I'm not your so-called "POV-pusher".
It is very interesting that when I state that Canute the Great ruled Sweden for some time, it gets removed by Swedes. When I state that Eric the Victorious probably ruled Denmark for some time, it gets removed by Danes. I frankly think that it is distressing. This is an encyclopedia, where we state what primary and secondary sources say. If Swedes and Danes can't accept that their kings may sometimes have ruled the other country as well, what hope is there for Wikipedia?--
Wiglaf11:47, 28 September 2005 (UTC)reply
Well I don't see any sort of questioned neutrality on the Canute the Great article, nor any talks about Swedes removing stuff.
Can we put to rest the Neutrality dispute? I'll leave it up until sept 1st, unless someone says otherwise. (
Opes08:12, 27 August 2005 (UTC))reply
Wiglaf, I am Sweynn Tjuguskegg/Forkbeard as a job (historical tour guide)and I have become aware through my readings on the matter of a lot of propaganda which was either contemporaneous or in the even worse cases not even in the same century. Can one really take non-Norse accounts seriously. The catholic church at the time was in a war against Sweynn mostly because he knew that by playing his cards right he wouldn't have to let the HRGE in and risk them overtaking his kingdom. I had heard of wars between him and Eric the Victorious but surely if at anytime Eric would no doubt have attempted to lay siege to Denmark during Sweynn's absence anytime between 1003 and 1013/14. Woudln't you agree that would make more sense? I suppose that little is known about him anyway and he kinda comes across as a near mythical character with these unknown/fictive wives and the chasing and killing (only maybe^^) of his father and so on. All that I'm saying is that catholic account should be taken with a grain of salt and the Danish nationalist seems to present a valid coherent set of arguments. Maybe Eric laid attacked Denmark unsuccessfully around that time. I haven't actually read the article so I can only judge by what I've read here. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
94.9.52.109 (
talk)
08:34, 26 June 2013 (UTC)reply
Hows this?
I'm not an expert on the subject, so bear with me here... The article as-is has an obvious pov that Sweyn wasn't overthrown... most of the content of the article is about this. Could we say something like (My facts are sketchy at best, I dont' really know the history):
Sweyn I "Forkbeard" (Sven Otto Haraldsson; Danish: Svend Tveskæg, originally Tjugeskæg or Tyvskæg, Norwegian: Svein Tjugeskjegg) (c.
960 –
February 3,
1014). Sveyn succeeded his father
Harold I as king of
Denmark, probably in late
986 or early
987... (blah blah blah) ...
Adam of Bremen says in his history
Saxo Grammaticus claims that Sweyn was deposed by
Swedish king
Eric the Victorious. Some historians disagree with this, however (put cites to case against Adam here)..."
Admittedly a loose framework, but I think what we need to do is put in that some people *do* disagree with the history, but not state an opinion (ie "This is highly doubtful"). I'd do a draft of the whole article, but I'll leave that to someone who has more knowledge of the history.
Windsagio23:55, 17 October 2005 (UTC)reply
made what i hope will be some improvements to what i consider a bit of a ramshackle...his name is totally different throughout...I couldn't decide on which name to use, I haven't yet finished, i decided on Sven..alot of the British history books do give Sweyn, but throughout my studies and books i have always decided on Sven...it is an English name which seems to correspond best with scandinvian equivalents...any suggestions?
Ciriii02:58, 15 December 2005 (UTC)reply
Ciriii - Regardless if some facts can be disputed, changing an article to your POV isnt really a good idea. Granted I agree with some of your edits, sven, sweyn or svend, you are always going to run into differences in spelling. But if the article is being disputed, making major changes to the article usually is not advised. Hence why I reverted back to the last bot edit.(
Opes19:54, 15 December 2005 (UTC))reply
Well, actually it's not my POV per se. I do not see that it makes sense to revert completely back to the former article...only to add the NPOV etc..back and whatever you think necessary. Not only does it say at the start that Sven carried other names in different nations, but this being the English article, then the English name should be given. Sweyn is rather Whiggish, so Sven seems to fit in nicely. Since i feel i keep a neutral, none English, dane, or Swede POV then i have reverted again, however I will keep the NPOV, POV etc at the start, i perhaps went too far deleting those. Since you feel you agreed with some aspects, it would be great for you to add something to the article. Sven is not my favourite part of history, and so much discussion over a ver small and , not so significant reign, i find it quite amusing! I rather felt that there were edits within edits in the article...i just wanted to attend
Ciriii20:53, 15 December 2005 (UTC)reply
And for your information Opes, it certainly is not my first day..please do your resaerch before being so offensive, i was BOLD, something Wikipedia advocates, you are so protective of what was a bad article...Why?
This article has been disputed for months. Its been constantly argued about. I'm not to going to agrue about this article. Plus I'm not in the mood today. If you are so offended, you need to grow a tougher hide. I just find it ridiculous that someone would come in and start making major changes to an article that is being disputed of POV, its just adding to the agruement, which we are currently doing right now. I'm done. I dont give a shit. Edit it anyway you want. Someone else can agrue with you about it.
Opes21:31, 15 December 2005 (UTC)reply
The fact that it is has a disputed POV is one reason i created what i see as a wholly more neutral article. I built upon what was already there and made it more consistent, icluding a few more generally agreed upon historical accuracies. As for my hide...it's fine thanks....purt, tough....lovely!
Ciriii16:37, 16 December 2005 (UTC)reply
Edit, not revert
Okay i do understand where people are coming from. Name changed to Sweyn, in all cases; that being the article nbame. But rather thanj just reverting EVERY time to something that must be an inferior article judjing by the lack of consensus on it it...can you not all make something better? Istead of arguing over who invaded who and what his name is! An edit would be more productive then a revert. What i created is by no means perfect, but I was trying to create a neutral objective solution that was just history...I hope you guys will edit, and not revert!
Ciriii19:05, 16 December 2005 (UTC)reply
Correct name: Sweyn? Svein? Sven?
Which name should be used do there is at least some consensus? In all my studiesw I have never seen Svend in an English book. I dodn't think we should give local names to rulers in the English encyclopaedia either. Mostly i see Sweyn, but when i added this it was edited away to Svend....could others please add comments.
Ciriii18:29, 7 April 2006 (UTC)reply
I would go with Sweyn. I would state his fathers name.
for example:
Sweyn Haroldson (Forkbeard) Son of King Harold Gormsson, and father of Knut the Great.
yes, dated, but still relevant. What is the predilection to keep updating things? Most sources I use, use Sweyn or Swein, I do not see why a google search is the definitive answer? Whatever his name may have been anywhere else. Quite simply it couldn't have been any of the names with "v" as this letter was not introduced into the English alphabet until the mid-eighteenth century at the earliest.--
Ciriii17:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC)reply
well they are secondary, no primary. I am not listing every book on anglo-saxon history I own. Though I would say the e ango saxon chronicle uses Swein, but sometimes Suein intermittently, of the published historians: F.Stenton uses Swein (Anglo saxon England), Roy Strong=Sweyn (Story of Britain), Alison Weir=Sweyn British Monarchs).I think there is a definite case for changing ot to Swein?? any thoughts? --
Ciriii17:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)reply
after doing a google search (not just books, though, didnt want to resrtict to just recent publications found on Google) sweyn+forkbeard=14,600 , swein+forkbeard=505 and svend+forkbeard=657 so I reckon that's maybe not so dated as we reckoned, and in English it is convention to call him that. so...--
Ciriii17:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC)reply
Interesting, but you've got to be careful because the Wikipedia name has been Sweyn for a good while now and Wikipedia content is mirrored all over the net. It's possible to counteract this to some extent by using "-Wikipedia" in the Google search. Doing that this is what I got:
4.100 pages for Svend Forkbeard -Wikipedia
1.330 pages for Swein Forkbeard -Wikipedia
952 pages for Sweyn Forkbeard -Wikipedia
572 pages for Svein Forkbeard -Wikipedia
512 pages for Sven Forkbeard -Wikipedia
111 pages for Sveinn Forkbeard -Wikipedia
This is clearly still a bit bonkers, you and I both know that "Svend" is not the most common form in English. In fact I don't have a single English language book which spells his name like that. I agree with you that Swein has some attraction; Sweyn looks rather quaint to me. I'm still rather partial to Svein based on the books search, which has often served me well in the past. I'll try a Forkbeard search there and let's see what we get.
Haukur19:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)reply
270 pages on Svein Forkbeard
233 pages on Sweyn Forkbeard
203 pages on Swein Forkbeard
120 pages on Sven Forkbeard
33 pages on Svend Forkbeard
17 pages on Sveinn Forkbeard
This time I didn't specify a time-period; though I still think that recent books are more relevant for questions like this than old books.
Haukur19:51, 20 July 2006 (UTC)reply
ah yes I see what you mean. I thought my numbers were a bit strange! I agree with you, Sweyn is definitely getting a bit..whiggish, and Svend is not right here. Swein is definitely what i would go with. Though I would like to hear what other people think, too. --
Ciriii23:28, 20 July 2006 (UTC)reply
The historical name is Zven (i.e., Sven) — w (and not v) was the late addition to the alphabet.
The odd results above are probably from poor searches. Svend is a fairly common modern name (albeit much better known as Sven in English) and searching without quotes'll leave you too many results. For the general Google search, you shouldn't just use -wikipedia but also -wiki. Also, limit the language to English. That leaves us with:
42800 for "Sweyn Forkbeard,"
11600 for "Svein Forkbeard,"
14200 for "Svend Forkbeard,"
10300 for "Swein Forkbeard,"
3860 for "Sven Forkbeard,"
363 for "Sveinn Forkbeard,"
143 for "Swend Forkbeard,"
91 for "Swen Forkbeard," and
5 for "Sweinn Forkbeard"
from the general search. Google Books (English from 2000) gives 2060, 1390, 194, 1780, 688, 118, 108, 8, and 4. Google Scholar (English from 2000) gives 62, 70 (Svein), 12, 97 (Swein), 39, 18, 2, and 0 and 0. So "Svend" (which started this off) is definitely a popular anachronism and the movement of scholars is towards "Swein," but there's no real consensus except for the popular one supported by the fact Wiki's article is under that name. ;)
Found it. It was (appropriately enough) in Old English instead of Latin, but its version is Swegen (MSS C, D, & E; presumably originally "sƿeᵹen", /sweɣen/; "Swegen" 753/6/3). —
LlywelynII03:40, 18 August 2011 (UTC)reply
On
Kingdom of England is the death date February 2, 1014 is listed. Here it is February 3, 1014. Please find the correct. Can't find sources. None are listed. ARRRRRRGH!!! HELP MEEEE IM DYING!!!1!!!11!!11111 --
80.63.213.18213:43, 29 June 2006 (UTC)reply
Beard/nickname
I'm not a linguist but I am suspicious of the given etymology of "tjugeskaeg", "tveskeg", etc. It sounds to me like the Dutch "tve" (two) added to the ON "skegg" (Beard? Or I would guess the root of "shag" or "shaggy" in English, after "skip/ship", "skyv/shove", etc.) and numerous bynames (Kolskegg, Skeggi, Skeggjason, etc), i.e. literally "dual-beard", "split-beard", or something like that. Is there a speaker of ON in the house?
About the roots of Sveyns, or whatever you want to call him, petname; "Tveskeg", "Tjugeskaeg" and so on it should probably best be translated to English as Twobeard. Skegg means beard and tve is a older form of two. A "Tjuga" looks like an upsidedown U. Two sharp ends. He probably had a beard that looked something like it. And a thought; shouldn,t take you the most common english form of the name be used since you are writing for, mostly, english readers. In Sweden he is always called Sven but is not likely in England. Kurt
Sven is the original Latin and also a much more common name in English than Sweyn, but (see below) it's apparently the scholarly consensus on rendering this guy. Anyway, the trick OP missed is that English "fork" isn't necessarily three-pronged or an eating utensil. It also shows up in things like "fork in the road" and "fork-tongued" where it simply means 'split.' That's what they're talking about here. —
LlywelynII04:57, 18 August 2011 (UTC)reply
I changed the paragraph. We're not talking about his moustache here, but about dividing his full beard on the middle. This fashion can be seen on numerous English coins from this period, and England is undoubtedly where he picked it up. --
dllu15:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)reply
Harraldsson
Hi, somebody added Harraldsson as a surname and i removed it as i wanted it confirming..I never heard of him referred to as this and it could just be an easy Scandinavian guess, i mean I could be Michaelsson..but I am not...if you get me?? So could someone find me a csource?
Ciriii15:32, 15 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Hi Ciriii, well, technically, it's correct: he was Harald's son. But I don't know how frequently or by whom he is referred to like that. Since name issues seem to have rocked this article before, I think it's best if some of the original contributors are given a chance to comment before new names are added. Seems like most Wiki articles refer to him as Forkbeard only; with the exception of German Wikipedia, most have not bothered with a -son name for him. See for example
Danish,
Icelandic,
Norwegian,
Norwegian, and
Swedish Wikipedia. Best (and thanks so much for keeping an eye on vandalism to this article too! Your work here, as elsewhere, is much appreciated Cirii!),
Pia00:17, 17 March 2007 (UTC)reply
You've got to remember it isn't a surname, but rather a patronym. So your patronym, Cirii, would be Michaelsson whether you acknowledge it or not and regardless of official usage or legal standing. As his father is called 'Harald' he IS Sveinn Haraldsson whether he used it or not.
BodvarBjarki (
talk)
16:14, 21 October 2009 (UTC)reply
Possible Descendants
Sweyn de Eiton who had possession of a "Town on the River Eye" in Scotland. He was a viking invader who was given the area after invading and taking control. Does anyone know if there is a relation?
Sbfenian191622:51, 8 July 2007 (UTC)reply
WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class.
BetacommandBot09:31, 10 November 2007 (UTC)reply
I was going to bring up that omission, why no mention of "Sweyns Eye"?
Family Tree
The family tree given in the article seems to have more to do with the succession to the English throne, rather than having all that much to do with Sweyn. This causes it to be cluttered with irrelevant material, and to lack important connections, such as Sweyn Estridson. If no one can justify it's retention as it is, I am going to either delete it or significantly pare it down.
Agricolae (
talk)
18:55, 30 May 2008 (UTC)reply
i have read somewhere that sweyn was the grandfather of the first Stewart of that name. so when a stewart married robert the bruce's daughter and became king, or their son did, sweyn's line became the royal line of scotland, and later the uk.
Recently the file
File:Sweyn drawing.jpg (right) was uploaded and it appears to be relevant to this article and not currently used by it. If you're interested and think it would be a useful addition, please feel free to include it.
Dcoetzee09:49, 30 April 2009 (UTC)reply
Previously the main picture for Sweyn Forkbeared was a stone relief. Whether it should return to being the main picture or not I recommend that the original stone relief picture be included in this article. [
[3]]
--
Acefox (
talk)
22:33, 30 May 2010 (UTC)reply
This claim is unsourced; since Edmund Ironside was still in England, it seems doubtful. How active opposition to a major army was likely to be in mid-winter is an entirely different question.
SeptentrionalisPMAnderson16:38, 9 July 2011 (UTC)reply
Swansea
This invisible text was left in the article:
< ! - - Swyen Forkbeard is the founder of the town
Swansea, in
Wales. Swansea is a corruption of Sweyn's Ey, which means "Sweyn's Island". Why exactly he settled in modern day Swansea is unknown, but it is generally accepted that the Vikings and
Celtic nations were allies against the Anglo-Saxons. NOTE: Making this invisible until we locate a source - - - >
Leaving aside the typos, remember to leave the text here outside of the main body of the article. First, it's not cluttering it; second and more important, other editors can help look for a cite for you. —
LlywelynII04:51, 18 August 2011 (UTC)reply
DNB is the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. It is published by the Oxford University Press and the articles are written by leading academic historians. The one on Sweyn is at
[4]. If you are a member of a UK public library, you can access it by the number of your library card. It is far more authorative than an encyclopedia of unknown provenance.
Dudley Miles (
talk)
21:39, 27 November 2012 (UTC)reply
The two sources I listed are
Dansk biografisk leksikon and
Den Store Danske Encyklopædi, which are as reliable as the Oxford Dictionary and actually written by Danish historians. The people writing the Oxford dictionary probably stumbled upon the complexities and disputes on the identities of Sweyn's mother and Harald Bluetooth's wives and just decided to take the easy way out and said she was unknown. --
The Emperor's New Spy (
talk)
21:47, 27 November 2012 (UTC)reply
The online Dansk biografisk leksikon is the first edition over 100 years old, and secondary sources that old are generally considered too out of date to be relied on. The Den Store Danske article on Sweyn names his mother as Tove, but the article on Tove herself just says that she was named on a runestone as Harald's wife but not that she was Sweyn's mother. The Danish Wikipedia article on Tove says that is not known whether she was the mother of any of Harald's children. The statement that Sweyn's mother is not known seems a fair summary of the situation.
Dudley Miles (
talk)
23:44, 27 November 2012 (UTC)reply
Unclear maybe, not unknown. Just because a book is written now (don't know the date for your source) doesn't give it anymore credibility other older sources; other factors have to be taken into account. The Oxford dictionary could just be recycling older English sources on the subject while the two encyclopedias have the Danish perspectives. Also in general, I would trust Danish history coming from the Danes themselves more than one coming from an English source. I think the discrepancies and confusions should be stated in the article and not simply removing his mother's name and saying it was unknown or stating one over the other. Also what sources state Gyrid was his mother because that seems to be the weakest possibility here out of his father's three named wives?--
The Emperor's New Spy (
talk)
00:21, 28 November 2012 (UTC)reply
The second edition of the Dansk Biografisk Leksikon from 1931-34 can be browsed
here (the third edition from the 1980s has been incoorporated in the abovementioned national encyclopedia Den Store Danske). Second edition DBL says "son of Harald Bluetooth and perhaps Queen Gunhild", thir edition (in Den Store Danske) says "son of Harald the first Bluetooth and Tove from the Western Venden". I have no special knowledge of Danish Viking Age and Medieval history, so unfortunately can't provide any qualified judgements on which claim is true. It is quite clear however from these sources that the question of his mother has been disputed amongst Danish historians during the 20th century (the various editions of Dansk Biografisk Leksikon were written by the most prominent specialists in their respective fields). --
Saddhiyama (
talk)
00:50, 28 November 2012 (UTC)reply
I think the article on Harald is the place for a discussion of his wives, but the one on Sweyn could perhaps have "mother Tove?" as I seem to remember the Danish Wikipedia on Sweyn does.
Dudley Miles (
talk)
17:59, 28 November 2012 (UTC)reply
A discussion on Harald's wives is a discussion of who was Sweyn's mother since both cases as confusing on who was who; the same goes for Sweyn's wives and the mother of his children.--
The Emperor's New Spy (
talk)
12:23, 6 December 2012 (UTC)reply
It would help if you actually read the relevant section of the article: "Sweyn apparently recruited priests and bishops from England, in preference to the
Archbishopric of Bremen. In part, this reflected the fact that there were numerous Christian priests of Danish origin in the
Danelaw, while Sweyn had few personal connections to Germany. However, Sweyn's preference for the English church may also have had a political motive, because German bishops were an integral part of the state. It suggested that Sweyn was seeking to pre-empt any diminution of his independence, by German leaders.[1] This may have been a reason for Adam of Bremen's apparent hostility in his accounts of Sweyn; by accentuating English ecclesiastical influence in his kingdom, Sweyn was effectively spurning the Archbishop of Bremen."
Dimadick (
talk)
19:23, 5 July 2020 (UTC)reply
References
^Lund, Niels (1986). "The armies of Swein Forkbeard and Cnut: leding or li(th)" Anglo-Saxon England 15 (1986), p. 39–40The Christianization of Scandinavia, Birgit Sawyer, et al., ed. Kungälv: Viktoria Bokforlag, p. 80.
ISBN91-86708-04-X.
Father
I can't see the page of the book saying that Sweyn's father was actually Knut and not Harald. Can someone verify? There are lots of other pages in the book that I can see and they all describe Sweyn as the son of Harald.
Celia Homeford (
talk)
16:16, 4 March 2022 (UTC)reply
references to Danelaw in the article are surely incorrect as the actual Danelaw that we know came to an end in 954. Danish laws no longer applied in these areas.
You could use it as a term to indicate areas where Danish laws had ONCE held sway and where some of the people were of Danish extraction, and you could also use the term if you were clear it was a 'new' Danelaw to indicate the areas that Sweyn conquered, however it would be important to differentiate.
Certainly it is not appropriate to make reference to, or link to, the article on Danelaw here, which itself states quite clearly when the Danelaw ended.
As I say it would be important to differentiate, because the article as it stood read as though Danish laws still applied at the time of Sweyns invasion, which is not the case.
Alooulla (
talk)
17:52, 10 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Danelaw (Dena lage) was a term invented in the eleventh century for areas where Danish law applied long after the last Viking kingdom ended in 954. See
Danelaw. In Wikipedia, you have to base your edits on reliable sources, not your own unreferenced opinions.
Dudley Miles (
talk)
18:45, 10 May 2023 (UTC)reply
I don't wish to edit war, but when I referred to a 'simple' Google search, I was referring to how easily it is to verify exactly when Danelaw ended. Danish law no longer applied after 954. Any credible source will verify this. It was a term invented for something long since passed. The actual Danelaw article to which you LINK also has the end date therein. I do not think you are being objective here.
Alooulla (
talk)
19:25, 10 May 2023 (UTC)reply
I base my comments on the views of historians of the period, such as
N. J. Higham. In his article on the Danelaw in the Wiley Blackwell Encyclopedia of Anglo-Saxon England, p. 139, he writes "York was to remain committed to Scandinavian law even as late as 1065" and "Danelaw communities were among the most influential in the country throughout the tenth and eleventh centuries." Sean Miller in the same volume on
wapentakes, p. 488 writes "Wapentakes were the equivalent of hundreds in the northern Danelaw: they were used instead of hundreds in Domesday Book for the area of the
Five Boroughs.
I see your point, and I am not making the argument that all Danish laws were gotten rid of; just that Danelaw itself is a specific term for a specific period of time that was over.
'The Anglo-Saxons' by Dr Marc Morris, page 349 specifically mentions Sweyn exploiting the 'cultural sympathies' of the Danelaw.
In the same source is a quote from King Edgar (reign: 1 October 959 – 8 July 975), who says he will (paraphrasing) allow the Danes to keep some laws as they best prefer, but that serious crimes are to be punished equally throughout all of England (page 307) which, again, is forbearance of allowing the Danes to keep some local laws, but giving overlordship to his set of common laws. Danelaw states the laws of the Danes holding sway above the laws of the Anglo-Saxons; clearly not the case there.
The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle isn't unbiased as we all know, but it puts it pretty clearly in 954; This year the Northumbrians expelled Eric (Bloodaxe) and king Edred took to the government of the Northumbrians. Eric was the last Danish lord still in place.
Essentially, Danish laws that were still in effect were cultural remnants, and there because of the forbearance of King Edgar, but they still were subservient to greater Anglo-Saxon law.
Again, the argument is more that Danelaw as a specific entity ITSELF came to an end in 954; any remnants of Scandinavian law were kept there beyond this point as a cultural concession. The article as written implies those areas were not part of the Kingdom of England, which surely you would at least agree is false.
Alooulla (
talk)
20:04, 10 May 2023 (UTC)reply
I'm not going to edit war as I say though, so this'll be it from me. I think the way it's written is misleading, especially for laypeople new to the subject, which I think we sometimes forget, Wikipedia is for their benefit. Danelaw ended in 954. The article refers to it in the present tense, instead of making it clear that it was merely now cultural and legal holdovers in these areas. I do not think this is correct, but it's down to others to decide now I suppose.
Alooulla (
talk)
20:11, 10 May 2023 (UTC)reply