Talk:Eric of Pomerania

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Portrait

The caricature is contemporary (I believe the full picture also features a Byzantine Emperor and, if I remember correctly, the Holy Roman Emperor). Do we have any information about the Polish portait and its age? Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 23:57, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Union arms

Twthmoses rightly identifies the three crowns in Eric's union arms as representing the Kalmar Union, and not Sweden. But he objects to the idea that the dividing cross also refers to this union. We will probably never know for sure, but it is very likely 'not' a

Denmark-Norway
is usually shown with fimbriated edges in order to identify it expressly as derived from the flag, with a white cross on a red field. The cross in Eric's union seal is more likely the red cross of the flag that he unsuccessfully tried to adopt for the Kalmar union. That theory has been advocated by the well-known Danish expert on heraldry, Nils G. Bartholdy. See his article: "De tre kroner og korset. Unionssymbolik, ambition og rivalitet", in: Heraldisk tidsskrift, 76 (1997), pp. 233-260. More on the flag of Norden in the FOTW article http://flagspot.net/flags/xn_nordn.html.

The Kalmar union flag had a red cross on a yellow field. The colours were possibly chosen because they were those of the only hereditary kingdom, Norway. On a statue depicting

Karl VIII
of Sweden, also king of Norway for some years, he is shown carrying the union arms of Sweden and Norway, quartered by a red cross with gold fimbriation. This cross is presumed to be the same "Nordic" cross, appropriated from the Kalmar union arms, probably to demonstrate Karl's claim to be the rightful ruler of that union.

Roede 14:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where is that statue located? I'd like to know more about it. For what it is worth, Danish heraldist Erling Svane describes both the seal and another of Eric's arms from a church bench from Kirkebø (Faroes), in one of his books. In the case of Kirkebø, he describes the cross as the Dannebrog cross due to its fimbriation. This symbol is not identical to his seal depicted here since the Kirkebø arms contains the following symbols: 1st quarter: three uncrowned lions (Denmark); 2nd quarter: three crowns (Sweden?); 3rd quarter: three leopards (England. Queen Philippa was English); 4th quarter: Norway. All divided by a fimbriated cross carrying an escutcheon featuring the arms of Pomerania. In this case, he identifies the cross as the Dannebrog. (Erling Svane (1994): Det danske Rigsvåben og Kongevåben, Odense University Press, pp. 77-79). The flag conquered by Lübeck in 1427 and destroyed 1942, showed the arms of Denmark, Sweden (three crowns), Norway and Pomerania divided by a white cross, and with two red square tails, so this too must have been a (rather unusual) Dannebrog. Svane seems to be in two minds regarding the cross in the union seal depicted here. On the one hand, the entire chapter about these arms begins with Efter at tre-løve-våbenet havde været de danske kongers våben i mere end 200 år, fandt Erik af Pommern på at firdele sit våben med dannebrogskorset således, at der kunne anbringes 4 - og med et hjerteskjold - 5 forskellige skjoldmærker i det derved opståede sammensatte våben., but his blazon of the seal merely states Korsdelt skjold med hjerteskjold .... The theory about the fimbriation is interesting though, I'd never really thought about that aspect before. Most likely we will never know for sure unless somebody actually rediscovers a coloured mural in a church. Alas, such chances are pretty low. His arms preserved on Krogen is in very bad shape. In this case, the cross is not described except that "a small red animal" is identified as the remains of an escutcheon with the Pomeranian arms. The probability of errors is naturally very high, given that the arms is in poor shape and might have been repainted. This combined arms is - again - different than the rest with the four quarters occupied by Denmark, three crowns (Sweden?), Norway, and Schleswig.
Regarding the four quarters on the seal, I can only agree that the three crowns must represent the Union, while the Folkung lion represents Sweden. Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 20:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The statue of Karl Knutsson Bonde is located at Gripsholm castle in Sweden. It is a wooden statue, carved by the well-known sculptor and painter Bernt Notke from Pomerania. His most famous work is St. George and the Dragon in Storkyrkan of Stockholm, in memory of Sten Sture's victory at Brunkeberg in 1471. Even though Notke's statue of king Karl was carved long after the dissolution of the short-lived union between Sweden and Norway, he is depicted as king of both countries, carrying the union arms. The inescutcheon shows his family arms (Bonde), the main shield is quartered, with the Swedish arms in the first and fourth quarters, the Norwegian arms in the second and third. The cross deviding the shield is golden, with a rather narrov red stripe along the middle of each arm.
A good picture is to be found in volume 4, page 178 of Aschehoug's Norges historie, published in 1996 (editor: Halvard Bjørkvik).
I don't have Heraldisk tidsskrift at hand, but I seem to recall that Nils G. Bartholdy refers to the same statue of Karl Knutsson in his interesting article from 1997. I think that this article also shows Karl's arms from seals or coins of the period. As king of Sweden, his arms are quartered with three crowns and and the Folkunge lion. But as union king, his arms show Sweden and Norway quartered, divided by a fimbriated cross - surely the "Nordic" cross, and not Dannebrog. I think that this substantiates the theory that the cross of Eric's union arms is the same as in Karl's.
You may be interested in the following references, copied from the FOTW page on Norden:

Nils G. Bartholdy: "De tre kroner og korset. Unionssymbolik, ambition og rivalitet", in: Heraldisk tidsskrift, 76 (1997), pp. 233-260 Poul Grinder-Hansen: "Kalmarunionens flag", in: Nyt fra Nationalmuseet, 6 (1996), p. 6 Nils G. Bartholdy: "Kroner og kors som unionssymboler", in: Poul Grinder-Hansen (ed.): Unionsdrottningen: Margareta I och Kalmarunionen, Föreningen Norden: Stockholm, 1996, pp. 92-97

Roede 10:29, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The triple crown may have been used by the Union, but it predates the Union in its use in Sweden, such as its appearance in the seal of

Albert of Sweden and continues today to have wide recognition as a Swedish symbol. That is why I identified the triple crown of the sinister chief quarter as representative of Sweden. My fix to the seal's description, however, was primarily geared toward putting things in the proper quarters, as the previous version had the quarters all mixed up. At least now we are properly identifying dexter and sinister, chief and base, as (anatomic) right and left, top and bottom, respectively. Wilhelm meis 20:04, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

The arms of the dexter base quarter represents Sweden, not Norway. It is the older Swedish arms, called the Folkung lion, still present in the greater arms of Sweden. The Norwegian lion, with St. Olav's axe, is only found in the inescutchon. The use of this older Swedish arms might indicate that the three crowns of the sinister chief quarter should be interpreted as the Kalmar Union rather than Sweden. However, because the identification is uncertain, I have included both possibilities. Also, I have once more removed the unsubstantiated claim that the cross represents Dannebrog, the Danish flag. The cross arms are solid, without the fimbriation that is usually seen in later union arms of Denmark-Norway. The theory advocated by Bartholdy and others seems more plausible — that the cross is a symbol of the union, also found in the yellow and red flag that Erik introduced. (See my comment above of 13 December 2006). Since the meaning of the cross is still controversial, I find it better to omit both theories. Roede 14:20, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be the devil's advocate. :) Later portrayals of the Danish(-Norwegian) flag can be an indicator but they are no certain proof. I will try to find a copy of Bartholdy's article, but AFAIK, documentation for a yellow-red union flag is still very sketchy. On the other hand, a flag conquered by Lübeck in 1427 was preserved in that city's St. Mary's Church until World War II [1]. This flag depicted the four main symbols from Eric's arms. The only symbol missing is the arms of Norway. This flag dates from his reign and since the cross is white and the tails are red, I think it is a safe conclusion that this well-documented flag was a Dannebrog. Another issue is that this image apparently dates from 1398. Again my information is sketchy, but isn't the "union flag" normally attributed to c. 1430? Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 22:05, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Btw, I am aware that the page I linked to [2] does not consider this flag to be a Dannebrog but a union flag. It would obviously be a very unnormal Dannebrog, but given the colours I still think this is the best description. Danish heraldist Erling Svane describes this flag as "det ældste Dannebrogsflag fra 1427 med Erik af Pommerns våben" (Det danske Rigsvåben og Kongevåben, pp. 78-79.) Regards. Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 22:27, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True, the Kalmar Union flag is only known from two written sources - but they are quite clear about the shape and colours of the flag. According to the FOTW site, "it is described in two letters, both dating from the year 1430. In these letters, king Erik of Pomerania wrote to the priests of Vadstena and Kalmar instructing them to wear on their robes the banner of the realms (union), which were a red cross on a yellow field. Bartholdy is of the opinion that the red cross on a yellow field may have been a conscious choice as new and distinct flag for the union, based on a universal symbol, the cross, and taking the most significant colours from the arms of the three united kingdoms, primarily that of Norway as an inherited realm (king Erik of Pomerania inherited Norway in 1389, several years before being elected king of Denmark and Sweden), but the yellow field also from the arms of Sweden and Denmark at the time." Substantial proof in the shape of actually preserved flags or depictions thereof from that time would be something of a miracle.

I advise a visit to the tomb of Queen Margrethe in Roskilde Cathedral. I recall that her coat of arms is carved in marble, and that it is identical to that of Erik. If my memory serves me right, the cross is without the fimbriations associated with Dannebrog crosses.

The much reproduced but now lost flag of Lübeck is not a very reliable source, as the tinctures of the union arms are mixed up. The arms of Norway (in the lower quadrant near the hoist) shows the lion on a blue field. (Norway is not missing — the colour of the field has made you draw the wrong conlusion). In my opinion, only an act of strong faith can make one see it as a Dannebrog. True, the white cross is present, but in view of the fact that the colours are unreliable, how do we know that the creator of this flag knew the correct colour of the union cross? The most characteristic element, the red field, is missing. (The red "tail" of the flag must be regarded as a mere ornament. The colour is too far out of place to be interpreted as a reference to Dannebrog).

By the way, there is also scant evidence that Dannebrog was actually in common use at the time. Do we have any other evidence than the banner embellishing the arms of the King of Denmark in the Gelre armorial from about 1370? Can one infer from that piece of evidence that the Dannebrog was regarded as the "official" flag of the king or his kingdom?

I propose that we let the matter rest and keep the description in the article unchanged until we have studied the evidence more closely. Roede 23:37, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have since found compelling evidence to reverse my previous thought that the Folkung Lion was a Finnish symbol. It turns out that my original source was a bit upside down, and the Folkung Lion as a Swedish symbol significantly predates the use of derivative symbols in Finland. Thanks Roede for challenging the notion. I have corrected the description on this page and the Kalmar Union page. I still maintain, however, that the evidence for retaining the description of the Triple Crown as a Swedish symbol and not as primarily a symbol of the Kalmar Union is overwhelming. Again, its use as a specifically Swedish symbol both significantly predates and survives the Kalmar Union itself. Wilhelm meis (talk) 20:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copied from User talk:Barend:

I am just curious why you changed the description of Eric's seal to link the lion to "Norway" instead of the "Hereditary Kingdom of Norway". Perhaps it's splitting hairs, but from a heraldic perspective (and this is in a heraldic context), I would think of "the Hereditary Kingdom of Norway" as the more precisely accurate description of what is represented by the lion maintaining an axe, as depicted in the inescutcheon in the center of the seal. If you have a compelling reason for the change, I'd like to know. Thank you. Wilhelm meis (talk) 20:57, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

The rest of the description linked to Denmark, Sweden, etc, the respective countries to which the parts of the seal referred. I see no reason why it shouldn't also link to Norway, which is what the lion referred to. The article hereditary kingdom of Norway is a not very good article about the way the Norwegian throne was inherited at various points in its history. The name "hereditary kingdom of Norway" is not very precise, it has never been an official name of the country, and whether Norway was, in fact, hereditary at this point in time is, in fact, open to debate. I see no reason why that article should be linked to from this place. If you want to be accurate, you could of course change the description to "the kingdom of Sweden, the kingdom of Denmark, the duchy of Pomerania, the kingdom of Norway", etc, but still have the links go to Sweden, Denmark and Norway. --Barend (talk) 21:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thank you for the discussion. As I previously mentioned, I am looking at this from a purely heraldic perspective. As discussed here, the coat of arms in question (depicted within the inescutcheon) originated not as a symbol of Norway per se, but as a symbol of King Eirik Magnusson of Norway, personally. Since the coat of arms, along with the kingdom, was passed down the hereditary line, I think it is more accurate to link the one with the other, rather than directly equating the device with the nation state of Norway (a correlation that eventually developed with the cultural development of the national identity in the 19th century). Basically, I think to us in the 21st century, it represents Norway, but to Erik of Pomerania and his contemporaries, it represented Norway as the domain of Eirik Magnusson and his heirs. Wilhelm meis (talk) 23:20, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think I see what you mean. You have a good point, but I don't think the specific article hereditary kingdom of Norway is any better to link to in that case. An important point is that Eric didn't, in fact, get the kingdom passed down the hereditary line, it ended up with him as the result of political decisions - basically he was elected in Norway as well. And anyway, the point would be the same for Sweden and Denmark as well, not just Norway.--Barend (talk) 11:28, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I would counter that whether or not he inherited the Kingdom of Norway, the symbol still (at the time) represented the concept of the hereditary kingdom. Again, I am looking at this from a heraldic perspective; there are others who know much more than I do about the actual history of the period. In any case, thank you for the thoughtful discussion. May I copy this to the Talk:Eric_of_Pomerania page? Wilhelm meis (talk) 02:12, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Wilhelm meis (talk) 23:23, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the coat of arms added 30 June 2008 by Odejea. This modern design is no improvement on the image of Eric's union arms already in the article, from his own seal. It is wrongly identified as "Armoiries Eric de Poméranie, roi de Danemark", but is in fact his arms as king of the Kalmar union. Odejea's design has a white cross with red fimbriation quartering the escutcheon, clearly a reference to [[Danebrog]. It is unlikely that a purely Danish symbol would have been included in the union arms, see the reference above to Bartholdy's article. The cross is not fimbriated in the contemporary image from Eric's seal, and it may in fact have been red. Roede (talk) 19:11, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Duke of Pomerania

The article says that he was Duke of Stolp/Słupsk from 1449-59.

Dukes of Pomerania lists a "Casimir I" as the duke during that time period. Olessi (talk) 20:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Eric of Pomerania crowned in Norway in 1392?

It seems like there is some evidence for this.[3][4] I found this while I was making the article on

Royal coronations in Norway. Does anyone know more about it? -- Nidator T / C 20:13, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Yes. Eldbjørg Haug at the University of Bergen believes she has found evidence for this, and has written an article about it in Historisk Tidsskrift. Some historians have been convinced, others have not. There was a debate about it in Historisk Tidsskrift in the 1990s. At the moment it would be correct to say that this is disputed in the scholarly community, which is more or less what the article says at the moment.
Debating the merits of the claim is not for us to do here at wikipedia, of course. But to summarize, from memory, Haug has found a letter written by the King of England to queen Margrethe, where he congratulates her on Erik's recent coronation as King of Norway. The counterargument goes that the English king may in fact have been referring to Erik's hailing as King of Norway, and not been aware of the difference between hailing and coronation. There are no other sources that mention a coronation, except for the English king's letter, so if it happened, it has left no trace in Scandinavian sources, and this has also made some historians wary of accepting the coronation scenario. If, on the other hand, one accepts the separate Norwegian coronation theory, that may explain why there were so few Norwegian magnates at the coronation in Kalmar in 1397. The bottom line is that we will never know, one way or the other. Unless someone discovers a stack of newspapers from the 1390s, or Erik's diary.--Barend (talk) 13:35, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Could it not be added to the article if both sides are presented (an expansion of what you just did)? It is an interesting subject. -- Nidator T / C 13:54, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is a lot to add to this article - I've been planning on expanding it for a long time, but never seem to get around to it. The whole topic of how Erik came to the throne is very interesting, and deserves a more extensive treatment than the article currently gives. If you have access to Historisk Tidsskrift, Haug's articles are "Erik av Pommerns norske kroning" and ”Erik av Pomerns norske kroning nok en gang. Svar til Knut Dørum og Erik Opsahl.” (Norsk) Historisk tidsskrift 74, nr. 1 (1995), pp. 1 – 21 og 492 – 508 (stated on her website), and Knut Dørum and Erik Opsahl's articles are in the same issue.--Barend (talk) 20:39, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I found an English language summary of Haug's article online: here.--Barend (talk) 21:04, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the URL! -- Nidator T / C 21:46, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Undiscussed move from Eric of Pomerania

Articles are to be located at the most commonly used name - it doesn't matter that other kings are located at their numeric title. Eric of Pomerania is never referred to as Eric 7 but invariably as Eric of Pomerania. This is like moving Gorm the Old to Gorm 1 or Magnus the Pious to Magnus 1st. The article has to be moved back.·Maunus·ƛ· 18:53, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That would necessitate moving all the previous Erics (I through VI) to their respective nicknames as they are all commonly referred to as such in Denmark. And before you ask: using the Arabic numeral was a blunder, but I'm waiting for a removal of the present Eric VII redirect to accomplish the "reversal". Favonian (talk) 18:58, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And once it's done, there will of course be a redirect "Eric of Pommerania" -> "Eric VII of Denmark". Favonian (talk) 19:01, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If all the Eriks need to be moved then so be it - they shouldn't be in those locations in the first place. The naming guildeline requires articles to be located where most people will look for them. This is unless there is a subbguideline for Danish royalty article names that I am unaware of somewhere (i don't think there is). This is why
Julian the Apostate are still located where they are even though they could be less pejoratively reffered to. Actual usage takes precedence over systematics and political correctness.·Maunus·ƛ· 19:06, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Assuming all the necessary redirects are in place, then the articles show up when you look for "Eric of Pomerania", "Eric Plovpenning" et al., so the user won't be bothered. Since the score was 6-1 between the enumerated Erics and the nicks, I opted for the speedier solution. If you absolutely insist, I'll go back on Eric VII but leave his six predecessors to whoever wishes to move them around. Favonian (talk) 19:12, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The policy states that articles should be at the most used name and redirects at the lesser used ones. Obviously moving the other six isn't your responsibility unless you've moved them there previously. Instead of insisting I think we could wait a few days to see if we can form a consensus involving more editors than the two of us.·Maunus·ƛ· 19:25, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus is OK with me. No, I didn't touch the six old Erics. By the way, returning to your original examples, neither Gorm nor Magnus would be given a number as they are the only ones of their respective names in Denmark. Favonian (talk) 19:27, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But they could be at
Sweyn I of Denmark for example. Right now there is an arbitrary break for example between those early viking king and the medieval kings - the first are listed by epithet the second by number (E.g. Sweyn Forkbeard but Sweyn II of Denmark). Now the reason I prefer to wait is because I realise I may be biased by the Danish viewpoint - since I don't read Danish history in English I honestly don't know if English history books conventionally refer to the Danish Erics by number. ·Maunus·ƛ· 19:42, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
My Danish bias is no smaller than yours :) As far as I know, the current trend among historians is to push the epithets towards the trivia section, but I'm no professional. Favonian (talk) 19:51, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Quick heads-up: As I explained above, I had to complete the move "Eric 7" -> "Eric VII", since the Arabic numeral is probably the one thing we can agree to avoid. This had to wait for the old redirect to be deleted, but now it's in place, and all Erics are (at least for the time being) enumerated. Favonian (talk) 10:40, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A Google book search yields 651 hits for "Eric of Pomerania", but only 111 hits for "Eric VII of Denmark", and the difference is even more significant if we look at scholarly articles: 92 hits for "Eric of Pomerania" but only 8 hits for "Eric VII of Denmark". Eric of Pomerania is by far the name more commonly used in English. Aside from that, this article has been at "Eric of Pomerania" for how long? Forever? I think it's safe to say there is a considerable silent consensus for "Eric of Pomerania". The other article names can be handled individually, but it sounds like they should be dealt with as well. For now, let's get this one moved back. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 13:10, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, 11 of those books mention both "Eric of Pomerania" and "Eric VII of Denmark", and they all seem to present Eric of Pomerania as the common name and Eric VII of Denmark as a secondary or alternate name. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 13:16, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am convinced that the move should be done. However it will require an administrator to do it since the original location is now a redirect. ·Maunus·ƛ· 14:21, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I notified some of the article's major contributors of this discussion. If consensus has been in any way misjudged, we'll soon know. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 15:08, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Since both names are legitimate and established the numeraled one should be used (1) to match the other numeraled Danish kings by the name of Eric and (2) to avoid strange wording like King Eric of Pomerania of Denmark, Norway and Sweden. There is also global perspective involved. "Eric of Pomerania" makes no sense in many languages to name a king of other countries than Pomerania. In some languages, such as Polish (his native language) he is called Eric the Pomeranian. SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:17, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • The naming convention does not mention that one should take into considerations the other articles about rulers of the same country. And in this case to do so amounts to somehting of a falsification of Danish hisytory by implying a sort of dynastic sequence that was not known in early medieval Denmark. The second argument is flawed because Eric of pomerania was a king of other countries than Denmark and was also known by the cognomen in those countries, and because such a strange wording would never arise since the naming convention clearly states that if the cognomen is used then there is no need to disambiguate by country.·Maunus·ƛ· 15:29, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Try to avoid starting with condemnations like "neither argument is very valid" Let's assume good faith and that all arguments may be valid! Just state your valid opinions without passing judgement on others. Cordially SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:38, 8 August 2009 (UTC) PS: The previous user has now removed his original references to valid in the previous entry. SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:05, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry if I came across as if I didn't assume good faith - I am certain that you are arguing in good faith - your arguments are just not solid or based in policy. I believe commenting on the validity of other users arguments is a basic part of civil discussion. If you feel that my arguments are not solid I certainly encourage you to mention it so that I can either defend them better or abandon them.·Maunus·ƛ· 15:47, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are obviously a gentleman and we agree to disagree like gentlemen. I try very hard (failing at times like we all do) to state my opinion without criticizing others in any way (unless there is ongoing hounding involved and/or someone obviuosly has a personal agenda full of unsubstantiated POV or such). Clean debates without any reprimands of any kind are always a joy to participate in. SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:13, 8 August 2009 (UTC) I might add without criticizing you that your arguments seem to be very much out a habitual Danish way of looking at the problem. You might want to open your mind up a bit to a more global viewpoint. Just an attempt at a constructive suggestion, since you all but asked. Cordially SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:18, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I may be dense, but could you elaborate on how my viewpoint in this case is paroquial? I have admitted that when it cmes to danish history my knowledge comes from Danish sources, but I would be interested in knowing how this might be affecting my reading of WP policy in this case.·Maunus·ƛ· 16:25, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I did not suggest that you may be dense nor did I say that your viewpoint is paroquial or national. Suggest you reread your own entries above. Also suggest you and I drop our chat (yours and mine) on this now, which doesn't look like it will move the overall debate forward. SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:47, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No. no, no. I suggested that - I was not trying to ascribe those views to you. I actually may be dense in not understanding it, but I don't, and it is fully possible that my views on this issue may be paroquial - as I said I only read Danish history in Danish. I really appreciated your previous response and was not trying to be snide at all, but only to acieve an understanding of how I might be getting it wrong. This really is the problem with this damn internet discussion - I am sure this wouldn't have happened if we had been face to face. ·Maunus·ƛ· 17:13, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I much appreciate your kind message on my talk page and wish I had time to be more detailed on this issue about Eric. But I have made a major flub here and will try to correct it below. That's all I will be able to do for now. SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:32, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support – An obvious problem with the current title is that he wasn't king of just Denmark, which also gives him different numerals. In Sweden he is also always known as Erik av Pommern. Närking (talk) 15:20, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • comment the relevant paragraph of the naming policy says that: "If a monarch or prince is overwhelmingly known, in English, by a cognomen, it may be used, and there is then no need to disambiguate by adding Country. Examples: Alfred the Great, Charlemagne, Louis the Pious, Henry the Lion, Skanderbeg, etc...". But there must be consensus so strong that it would be surprising to omit the epithet; and the name must actually be unambiguous. For example, although Richard the Lionheart is often used, Richard I is not unusual, so he is at Richard I of England; again, if two kings of different countries are both known in English as Name the Great (for example Louis the Great of Hungary and Louis the Great of France), do not use the epithet but disambiguate them by country (those two are at Louis I of Hungary and Louis XIV of France)."·Maunus·ƛ· 15:25, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment He was King of Denmark first, making it quite proper to name him accordingly, and the other numerals for Norway and Sweden can be handled very effectively through 2 simple redirects. Swedish historians (and others) have a lot of trouble wording their texts to avoid Erik av Pommern av Sverige etc. SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:27, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New proposal - Citing my own comment here, and the error I made there, I propose the page should be renamned (that's what I call the moves entailed) Eric III of Norway as he was king there seven years before he was king of Denmark and Sweden. Truly sorry about this flub of mine! SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:32, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS - all the redirects are already in there I now see. The only thing needed is filling the Eric III page and redirecting the others to it, moving talk pages. SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:46, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that using Eric of Pomerania (by which name he is known in all the countries of which he was king (and in his native polonia)) would completely avoid the question of whether he should be titled as king of, Norway, Denmark or Sweden.·Maunus·ƛ· 17:40, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wasn't he actually known Bogislaw VI in Pomerania? Favonian (talk) 18:11, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have a Polish reference book which lists him as Eryk I of Pomerania-Slupsk. He had officially changed his name from Boguslaw when he was adopted in Denmark. Boguslaw VI of Pomerania-Wolgast was his father's first cousin. SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:25, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He is known as Eric of Pomerania in all countries. Närking (talk) 18:19, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not only is he known as Eric of Pomerania in all countries, but scholars writing of him in English nearly always call him Eric of Pomerania. I think naming him Eric [number] of [country] is more regionally biased than giving him the name he is known by throughout the English-speaking world. And
WP:ENGLISH says we should use the name most commonly used in English. This may be radically different from any endonymic name (such as Germany or Mount Everest). In short, how he is known in Swedish/Danish/Norwegian/etc. is distantly secondary to how he is known in English. This is en.WP, not da.WP or no.WP. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 02:26, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Global perspective! "of Pomerania" is not an epithet, it is a declaration of nationality, very confusing in this case, in the minds of most readers. Please see my comment just now under "Oppose" to additional name changes. SergeWoodzing (talk) 07:12, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No one is advocating an additional name change. We are asking that it be moved back to the name it has always has until the other day. I submit to you that readers coming here to find "Eric VII of Denmark" would be more confused than readers coming here to find the him given the same name he is given in nearly all other works of reference (Eric of Pomerania). Wilhelm_meis (talk) 08:22, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved the article back to the old consensus name. If someone wants to name him after only one of the territories he ruled like "Eric X of Iceland" or Eric X of Denmark", it should be based on consensus on this talkpage.--Berig (talk) 08:38, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back, Eric of Pomerania. The arguments for the original name are overwhelming. The statistics presented by Maunus (below) show Eric of Pomerania ahead by 651 to 111 against Eric VII of Denmark. To call him by numeral (different in each of his three kingdoms) would be very confusing when he is commonly called Erik af Pommern/Erik av Pommern in all his former kingdoms. That epithet, by the way, is a reference to his origin, not his realm(s).Roede (talk) 17:04, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Related page moves

Per request, some related page moves will be listed here. So far, these include Eric I of Denmark and Eric II of Denmark, but please feel free to add others here as appropriate. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 02:35, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eric I of Denmark

  • Move
    WP:COMMONNAME
    .

Eric II of Denmark

  • Move
    WP:COMMONNAME
    .

Eric VI of Denmark

  • Move
    WP:COMMONNAME
    .
Including as arguments for moving my post from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Denmark#Erics of Denmark: Namng conventions
A short search of google books shows that at least some of them are pobably much more widely known by their cognomens and that according to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles)#Sovereigns they should be located by their cognomen.

The results of my search are such:

Eric I of Denmark 44 hits - Eric the Good 332 hits - Eric Ejegod 86 hits (in English language books)
Eric II of Denmark 48 hits - Eric the Memorable 30 hits- Eric Emune 61 hits (in English language books)
Eric III of Denmark 27 hits - Eric the Lamb 89 hits
Eric IV of Denmark 33 hits - Eric Plovpenning 79 hits ("Eric Plough-tax" 0 hits - this name should be removed from the Danish kings infobox)
Eric V of Denmark 28 hits - Eric Klipping 85 hits
Eric VI of Denmark 51 hits - Eric Menved 389 hits
Eric VII of Denmark 111 hits - Eric of Pomerania 651 hits

I would suggest that at least Eric I, Eric VI and Eric VII be moved to Eric the Good, Eric Menved and Eric of Pomerania respectively. For some of the others it might be a matter of discussion and consensus whether they should be moved or whether they should stay.·Maunus·ƛ· 02:42, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - This is likely to create an unnecessary inconsistency and make it much more difficult to figure out who is who and what the various (often arbitrary) translations of their epithets mean and stand for. Some kings had different epithets depending on who was doing the name-calling. Christian II has been widely called the Tyrant in Sweden, but the good in Denmark. That's why he is always referred to only as Christian II. Many kings and others unfortunately have begun to have translated names that are more or less etymologically disastrous. Erik Menved should be called Eric Meanwith if his name is to be translated with some semblance of etymological accuracy. Eric Menved (with a c in Eric) makes no sense to me. In any case, in English, roman numerals automatically clear this linguistic stickiness up very nicely and all these problems disappear. SergeWoodzing (talk) 07:05, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There would be no such confusion since as the numbers show these kings are overwhelmingly known by one name in the anglosphere. Whether it makes sense is not really relevant - the usage is what counts according to policy. ·Maunus·ƛ· 08:11, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. We use the name commonly used in English. In this case, that is clearly "Eric of Pomerania" by an order of magnitude. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 08:22, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Striking my comment above - this discussion is about the others. "Eric the Good" is how he is known in English sources. "Eric the Memorable" is how the next Eric is known in English sources. I don't think Christian II is a very valid example in this discussion because actually he is commonly known in English as Christian II. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 08:30, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And for what its worth ive never heard Christian the II mentioned as "the good" but always as Christian den Anden.08:43, 9 August 2009 (UTC)·Maunus·ƛ·
Christian II of Norway is identical to the Danish king of the same name, and he is never called anyting else in Norway. But Norwegian history books generally mention his Swedish epithet "Christian Tyrann" because of his unpopularity in Sweden. Roede (talk) 16:35, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
yeah, Danish history books mention that too. Never heard of "the good" though. The guy basically just massacred swedes and then spent a decade walking around a table. Don't know how that would prompt the "good" cognomen.·Maunus·ƛ· 20:46, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm okay with "Eric of Pomerania," but I think the google search you have done is quite dubious - you are ignoring cases where they are referred to as "Eric V" or "Eric VI" without "of Denmark". I very much do not think that "Eric Menved" or "Eric Clipping" are very commonly used in English. "Eric VI" and "Eric V" are pretty unproblematic, and are fairly commonly used. I don't see any reason for these moves.

talk) 21:20, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

That's a good point. final decisions for the other kings should probably discussed and research separately for each.·Maunus·ƛ· 21:40, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think Eric I/Eric the Good, Eric III/Eric Lamb, and Eric VII/Eric of Pomerania are the ones who have fairly solid COMMONNAME arguments, not so sure about the others. Then "Eric the Good" may have ambiguity issues. Does anybody have book search results for "Eric the Good" referring to someone else? I really think that the biggest problem here would be moving Eric Lamb and Eric of Pomerania to ordinal names. I'll take a look at some others when I get a bit more time. Thank you all for looking into this. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 00:29, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a
requested move
. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Consensus not to move. Ucucha 03:05, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


WP:NCROY for guidance on cognomens and dual or triple monarchies. PatGallacher (talk
) 22:21, 16 January 2010 (UTC) Support - Time to start curbing the all-too-firmly-rooted "of Pomerania" nonsense in naming this king of Denmark, Norway and Sweden. SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:03, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

most common name just because some users don't like it. Surtsicna (talk) 14:59, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Oppose. He is by far more known as Eric of Pomerania, not only in Denmark, Sweden and Norway but also the English speaking world. Närking (talk) 22:15, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

King Eric of Pomerania of Denmark, Norway and Sweden was never a good idea, regardless of the fact that he has become known as such in some texts that are extremely confusing. Should not be perpetuated. SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:23, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You can't change the fact that he was and still is known as Eric of Pomerania, no matter you like it or not. And it's not more confusing than Christopher of Bavaria, who of course also should stay under that name. Närking (talk) 22:38, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since I raised this I discovered another monarch, Christopher of Bavaria, who I suggest should be moved to "Christopher III of Denmark". We do need a consistent naming convention for monarchs of the Kalmar Union. PatGallacher (talk) 22:31, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent idea! Otherwise we are going to have to call
Adolf Fredrik Adolf Fredrik of Holstein-Gottorp, Charles X Gustav Charles Gustav of the Palatinate-Zweibrücken etc. SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:46, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Oppose. If it's the most common name there is no need to change it. This arguement is similar to move Boris Godunov to Boris I of Russia and Agustín de Iturbide to Augustine of Mexico except Eric and Christopher had other countries that were of. As for SergeWoodzing's arguement, Adolf Fredrik and Charles X Gustav actually established a line of kings that ruled after them unlike Eric of Pomerania and Christopher of Bavaria, who only ruled in their own lifetimes.

  • Comment: 483 English language books refer to him as Eric of Pomerania. 59 English language books refer to him as Eric VII of Denmark. The number of books which refer to a certain person as "Eric VII" is larger than the number of books that refer to Eric of Pomerania but those books are generally very, very old (and some of them may actually refer to
    Eric VII of Sweden). Thus, his most common name is Eric of Pomerania. When I discuss a title of an article, I value consistency, conventions and common usage; now I am divided between the proposed title (supported by consistency and conventions) and the current title (supported by common usage). Surtsicna (talk) 23:21, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a
requested move
. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Better portrait?

I changed the info box portrait to one with better color and more of him visible. Another editor changed it back to the severely cropped version with dull color, giving the opinion that the new one is not better and the question "who wants to see the frame?" I am reverting that, not to make war but to discuss. SergeWoodzing (talk) 07:38, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I don't see much of a difference beside it's brighter and includes more unneeded space and framing. Can you crop this image and remove the frame? In the infobox picture you don't really want to include the frame of the portait. Although I think this argument really depends on one's opinion. --
talk) 07:52, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
I agree. Shall we ask for a Third opinion? SergeWoodzing (talk) 07:54, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

Cecilia (royal mistress) should be merged into Eric of Pomerania. Cecilia is only notable in the context of being Eric's mistress, so a separate article is unnecessary. Also, there is very little information about her; this information can be merged into Eric's page without causing article size problems. Jenphalian (talk) 02:53, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I say no; many people are notable because of their connection to powerholders, but this form of notability does not mean that they are not notable enough for their own article. The information is already to much to add to the article of Eric. There may also be more to add eventually. --Aciram (talk) 08:51, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The article is a bit scrappy but I think does just about pass notability. Not everybody who had a brief affair with a king is inherently notable, but we already have several articles on royal mistresses. PatGallacher (talk) 11:51, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A connection to a powerful person isn't enough for notability, per
WP:OTHERSTUFF). Cecilia's notability has to be judged on its own merit. This article seems to include every single verifiable fact about her, all of which (including the anecdote about the nobleman attacking her) relate directly to Eric, so it is perfectly reasonable to place these facts in his article. Further, his article is 20kB, which is not too large to merge 1.7kB of information into. Jenphalian (talk) 19:52, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
I agree. To me, the article as it looks now seems to have been created for the sake of creating an article about Cecilia, not because it stands up well on its own. We don't even know the woman's full name and/or heritage. I wish we did know more. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:55, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I believe one should be aware of the fact that this article may be expanded. This means that the argument that it is small is not enough: the work with articles on wikipedia is in continuing progress. Also, this is not just an article about a royal mistress, but also, as we can see, about a consort of a monarch: she was married to him.--Aciram (talk) 22:39, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Further more, this should really be a separate discussion about the deletion of the article (which would in reality be the case if it is merged) and not something to discuss on the back-page of another article. --Aciram (talk) 22:42, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Aciram, I followed
WP:NOTINHERITED still applies. Jenphalian (talk) 23:32, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
I can't see the likelihood of the Cecilia article being expanded. We know nothing about this woman, not even through Polish historians who would know, if anyone. SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:11, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note that she has her own article in the Danish Dictionary: [5]. Whether the article can be expanded or not, furthermore, is something yet to be established. --Aciram (talk) 21:05, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
2 new books about Queen Philippa mention Cecilia. This article needs to be brought into balance between latter-day propaganda and contemporary facts. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:18, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Eric gryf listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Eric gryf. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. signed, Rosguill talk 22:02, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"in his own time he was considered an emperor"

This is from the biography by Herman Lindqvist which was released this August. I actually contacted Lindqivst after I read this claim, since he doesn't cite any sources for it in his work. He told me that this was something several Polish popular historians claimed, but that neither he nor any other historian he knew had a primary source for it. There is obviously a case to be made for Eric being considered the equal to an emperor in his own time, since he was depicted as an equal alongside Sigismund (at that time King of the Romans) and John VIII of the Byzantine Empire, but in my opinion this can at most be considered a speculative claim. In my opinion it would be better to create a new section exploring this possibility and remove it from the introduction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.162.92.145 (talk) 08:00, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Inconsistent date listing

Shouldn't dates in the right column show Norway 1389-1442, Sweden 1396-1434, 1436-1439 and Denmark in 1396-1439 followed by dukedom 1146-1459 so that they are chronologically listed, separated by countries/titles and correct? I understand Margaret I was the boss until 1412 but the actual dates do not seem to be listed correctly.

ICE77 (talk) 22:36, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Eric_of_Pomerania&oldid=1194939472"