Talk:Duchies in Sweden

Lilian

What about Princess Lilian, isn't she Duchess of Hallandia?
--Ruhrjung 11:56, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Adding a note about that.. -- Jao 12:24, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Article not very good

The article needs a clean-up of Swenglish, fact corrections ("younger sons" is BS), expansion (more than half are missing) and a different attitude (including women, for example). I am beginning by moving it to Duchies in Sweden and will then try to make time to fix it up as fast as I can, step by step. SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:54, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

 Done The article has been updated and its list has now been completed according to information given in bios on sv.WP and en:WP and now includes pre-1772 persons and all the women. I have shortened the listings to exclude superfluous/voluminous information readily available through linked names. Please help by looking for typos! SergeWoodzing (talk) 07:10, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Small lands equals Smallands?

The article of the province in question correctly gives an English exonym for its name as "Small lands". Here I added it as the Smallands to the province heading. I havve seen that name format several times in English literature, some of it older. This has now been removed with no reason given. I am reinserting it with the exact wording in the province article's lede and ask that this be discussed here before it is changed again. SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:59, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I had removed "also known as the Smallands" from a header because it is not really true. If the term can be found in older English literature, it is antiquated now, and not likely to be understood. Woodzing has added many other strange exonyms to this article, some ("Vermillandia") seem to be of his own invention. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:10, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

For some background on these personal accusations, see Kuiper's recent work here about what is or isn't Latin. Neutral editors: Since when do we censure what is "found in older English literature" as "antiquated now"? Unless we are acting on a personal agenda that is not constructive? SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:17, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Removal of cross-reference

One cross reference (only) was now singled out for deletion after the discussion just above and my subsequent adjustment of that cross-reference. I see no need to do that, which only defeats the purpose of all the article's cross-referencing. Reinstating. SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:04, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

The ducal titles in Latin are well known. Hälsingland is "Helsingia" in Latin and "Wermelandiae dux" is a title, but "Vermillandia", "Elsinland", and the rest may not exist. I suspect they are Woodzing's own witty inventions. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:22, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Those versions are the product of extensive expert research in Upsala, and with those county governments in Sweden, years ago. That I have from a reliable personal source, which refers to an extensive published bibliography on the subject, and which there is no reason to question. They have also all been published (not by me), so they exist as exonyms as per WP guideline, which is enough for their inclusion here. Anyone who wants to add more should feel free to, for maximal clarity for all readers.

I am now asking you again, Pieter Kuiper, once and for all, to leave me alone and stop harassing me with your uncivil accusations and ridicule. Please do not edit any of my work! I never edit yours except to reply to your incessant attacks on mine, always with your unwarranted, unsubstantiated and snide comments about what you "suspect" about my "witty inventions" and such, on and on forever. I make a few mistakes like everybody else. Please leave it up to others to help me correct them in a civil and helpful manner (from which I can learn to do better). Neither Wikimedia Commons, after your current block there expires (?), nor English Wikipedia (where you only edit to attack me) will suffer any considerable damage if you leave me alone. PLEASE! SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:05, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

1) The duchies do not have county governments. 2) Woodzing's references to "extensive expert research" and "reliable personal source" are impossible to check. 3) Even if "Elsinland" was used in some old English book for Hälsingland, the section heading does not provide clarity for any reader. All modern usage seems to depend on Woodzing's wikipedia entries. 4) Woodzing clearly needs to be reminded of WP:OWN and of the small print: "If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here." /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:35, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

All the county governments in Sweden have historical researchers who will or will not confirm the name variants (Latin and English as well as Swedish) of the ducal provinces covered by their areas today. Millions of people read old English books and have use for such cross-referencing clarity on en.WP. More specific references (I have added several now) are forthcoming as soon as I have more time. I'm glad to have my writing edited, but not by the only 100% uncivil editor I know of whose main objective is harassment and ridicule of a host of others. SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:51, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I can't find any English-language sources for Elsinland. I see mentions of "Elsin land" in Spenser's The Faerie Queene and one other old book, but it's not clear what that refers to. SergeWoodzing, what is the name of the published bibliography you mention? Can you cite any sources for Elsinland at all, including Swedish ones? Thanks. 67.117.130.143 (talk) 17:37, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for a cordial question! No, not at this time. I know I have seen it. Give me a week or two, if possible! SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:38, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

PS: when I saw it, I reacted to it because it matches Elsinore and Elsinburg (Helsingborg): all three begin the same in Danish/Swedish. SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:42, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

No, that is not the right order. There is every reason to suspect that anglicizations like Sonny Cisco are just Woodzing's witty inventions. I suspect that Elsinland is a similar case. Not to be disseminated by Wikipedia. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:41, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Sonny Cisco is an uncontestably correct translation to English of the Swedish name Suke Sik and thus warrants a cross-reference, I think. That's all there is on that name. And there is nothing "witty" about that nor about your continued sarcasm. SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:14, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Such a "translation" is just a private pun, and should not be included in an encyclopdia. If Mr. Sik was named after the fish (uncertain), translations like Peled or Lavaret would be more accurate (but lacking in alliteration). Anyway, I still suspect that Elsinland is a similar witticism, made up by SergeWoodzing. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:38, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

It is my policy only to discuss translations to English with people who are knowlegeable and preferably have English as a first language. Kuiper belongs to neither category and makes lots of translation errors (that are not typos), due to lack of knowledge, but never apologizes when proven wrong (which I have done three times this week). He just finds new things to make erroneous complaints about. That's what makes it so traumatic to be stalked by him for years. SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:13, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Seperating

Does anyone one want to just seperate all these titles into seperate articles and have this page be a list of links to those articles?--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 12:28, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

None of these titles have had any real meaning since 1634, when the Län of Sweden were created as the administrative structure. It is just a list of the Provinces of Sweden, which Gustav III used for creating fancy titles. So there has never been a "Duchy of Delecarlia", all that existed was a royal title "Duke of Dalarna". And in contrast with the UK, the news media in Sweden practically never uses such titles to refer to royals. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:54, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

No, "practically never" is not accurate. Seldom OK. And the royal court uses them every time these people are mentioned, their court departments are named thus and their royal coats of arms bear their provincial heraldry.

I don't see the benefit of making separate articles (what am I not getting?), nor are these titles important enough today to so do. They were quite important until 1618. SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:00, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

hereditary

Most duchies and dukedoms are hereditary, I know the article says they are not hereditary now, but have they ever been? This should be in the lead. Also, technically there is a difference between a duchy and a dukedom. a duchy is a fief or estate of a Duke, it the title has no land connected to it, then it is just a dukedom. 98.206.155.53 (talk) 07:52, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Technically, the duchies of the sons and grandsons of Gustav Vasa were hereditary, but either the dukes died without heirs or seized the crown themselves, so they were never passed on. I can't remember the status of the medieval duchies, but Swedish fiefs were generally not hereditary.

Anyway, I think this article would benefit from separating the medieval and early modern duchies from the modern dukedoms.

Andejons (talk) 08:43, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Category Nobility

Only one Swedish nobleman was ever made duke, the rest were all royals. That one single duke does not warrant categorizing the article as Nobility of Sweden in my opinion. SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:46, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Anachronism reintroduced by Woodzing

Woodzing restored an anachronism that I had removed. Without giving a reliable source for the existence of a ducal title in 12th century Sweden. It is yet another example of Woodzing trying to introduce his own original research. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:16, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

False acusation. I have never asserted there was any "ducal title in 12th century Sweden", merely noted that one academic Church of Sweden source has claimed there was. See pertinent discussion! SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:18, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Even if Boraen would be an important historian (which he's not), claims that he found notes about a ducal title in a now lost archive (which would that be?) are just silly. Both Nationalencyklopedin and Nordisk Familjebok has Magnus Birgersson as the first bearer of that title. If Boraen actually could claim to have used archives, Sune Sik (not "Sonny") would have been mentioned.

Andejons (talk) 20:40, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I have reworded this now so that it is clearer that it is a theory worth mentioning, but had nothing to do (as far as we know) with lost archives. SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:30, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I have removed it again. It is not worth mentioning. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:40, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

The section needs a bit of editing following the (fully justified) deletion to make sense. — Robert Greer (talk) 14:50, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

The article is in a sorry state. As to history, already Birger Brosa referred to himself as "dux" in Latin texts. That is the translation of the position of jarl. It has nothing to do with any duchy, and it would be strange to describe the jarl's spouse as a duchess. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:27, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Professor Svanberg expounds extensively on this in his distinguished book about royal images of the period, and that's good enough for me. Dux in English can just as well be Duke as Jarl in a global perspective, rather than purely Swedish thinking. SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:34, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

This article, however, deals with a problem that is specifically Swedish. — Robert Greer (talk) 18:08, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, the problem being that Swedish "jarl" not "hertig" has been used in modern times for Latin dux for anyone prior to Birger's sons. Svanberg's treatment of the subject motivates that Birger's wives were each known as "Duchess of Sweden" and even describes Birger's coronet as that of a duke as per contemporary standards then. The argument could be made that, in every instance where a Swede was called dux before Birger's sons, the most appropriate translation to English would have been duke, and that jarl actually (though the meanings have drifted apart with time) corresponded to English earl (not duke), which was a powerful title in Scandinavia then. SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:44, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Please respect this request! SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:52, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Hypocricy. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:15, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

It is not "generally accepted" that Birger jarl was the first Swedish duke. Nationalencyklopedin clearly states that Magnus Birgersson was the first. There seems to be no mention of Birger being a duke in Dick Harrison's Jarlens sekel.

And if jarls are to be equated with dukes, then Birger was the last, not the first.

Andejons (talk) 07:35, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Furthermore, I don't see why a book on art history [1] should be taken as an authority on ducal titles.

Andejons (talk) 07:41, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

If you knew the book, which is about royal images and has been cited by many others since it was published, you would understand. It contains quite a bit of biographical info, as is often the case with that type of book. SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:13, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I am waiting for more neutral input and consensus here before reinstating this relevant theory. SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:53, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

It's not even close to relevant, unless you can find a modern historian who, when writing about the period or Swedish nobility in general, discusses Boraen's claim. That a 18th century student made a mistake in one of his papers is hardly notable on its own.

As for Jan Svanberg, a professor of art history writing a book on art history would be an OK source if nothing better was found. He doesn't stand a candle to something like Nationalencyklopedin though.

Andejons (talk) 11:57, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Woodzing cannot be trusted to quote Svanberg correctly. I do not have the book here, but in a review Svanberg is summarized as saying: "In Sweden, it was Birger jarl's son Magnus who at 15 became the first duke (hertig)." (Ingalill Pegelow, Konsthistorisk tidskrift 58 p. 178 [1989]. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:31, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Insulting to accuse me of not being able to be trusted. Very insulting! Quote Svanberg on p. 106 "Birger Jarl, who on the international scale of rank was a duke..." SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:03, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Which is to say, we was not a duke per se, but the equivalent of a duke: a jarl, which we already knew was translated into "dux". Misquotation.

Andejons (talk) 18:12, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but Svanberg wrote var hertig = "was a duke" , not the equivalent of a duke. Who's misquoting? Add a global perspective to that, and think English (not Swenglish)! Read the book, look at the photos, and get back to us then! SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:19, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

That quote does not justify this in any way. It could be just as valid for the jarls of Sweden before Birger. I trust Pegelow to be correct in her summary when she summarizes Svanberg as saying that Magnus Birgersson was the first hertig. And it is because of my experience with Southerly Club editors that I find it necessary to look up such things myself. I am reluctant to believe that Svanberg would have gotten something like this so wrong.

As to art history, Pegelow notes that there are no crowns of any type on Birger jarl's tomb. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:22, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Andejons and I have cooperated constructively (I think) to improve that paragraph quite a bit. The link you gave now is obsolete.

I can only repeat: Read the book, look at the photos, and get back to us then!

And you might want to have a look at this portrait. It's on the front of the book's dust cover.

In the meantime, please stop all this mud-slinging! You don't like Southerly Clubs editors only because they complain when you harass them for weeks, months and years on end - why do we, one could wonder, when it always leads to such time-consuming and extremely tedious discussions as this one? Without your vicious and destructive attention to editors you despise, for strictly personal reasons, enWP, svWP and Commons would have a much much much healtier and more inspiring work climate.

Your hatred toward me is evident every time you write to or about me. Such hatred cannot be attributed merely to a few mistakes I've made on WP, even if I had edited deceitfully (which I never have), and it's just illogical of you to try that.

I despise no one, police no one, stalk no one, lord over no one, ridicule no one and am never ever rude to anyone unless they are very rude first, and even then I'm doing much better here now than I did a year ago. Even when trying to point out that people who don't know English very well should be more careful when they write it, I'm finding more diplomatic ways to do so (I hope). It's complicated.

Why don't you agree to the proposed interaction ban? The answer is simple, you only agreed to it when you painted yourself into a corner at Commons and basically had no choice, and here you don't want to give up your right to harass me, even though you usually end up wrong on the issues after a huge amount or sarcasm (yours) and brouhaha.

All this is nothing but disruptive, to me and many many others, and you actually deserve a nice long block. But I'll settle for the interaction ban. I certainly would never regret it. SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:57, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

You have repeatedly misrepresented Svanberg's opinions. That is not constructive in any way. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:20, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

That's just not true, to put it as diplomatically as possible. I have been present during conversations with Professor Svanberg several times since he published his famous and very appreciated book on this. Read the book, look at the photos, and get back to us then! SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:50, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Longer quote in Swedish from Pegelow's review: "Kapitel tre inleder författaren med en redogörelse för hur ordet hertig har uppkommit och även när titeln kom till Norden. I Sverige var det Birger Jarls son Magnus som vid 15 års ålder blev den förste hertigen." Is Woodzing claiming that Pegelow's summary is wrong? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:10, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Quoted selectively, out of context and excluding Svanberg's global perspective remarks. This isn't about the Swedish perspective (hertig) only. Added a page # now to the ref. Read the book, look at the photos, and get back to us then! SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:19, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Svanberg's opinions

Ok, I now have Svanberg's book "Furstebilder från Folkungatid" here, and I do not find support for this paragraph. Nowhere does Svanberg say anything about any elevation of Birger jarl, nowhere does he say that his rank was due to marriage, nowhere does he say that Birger jarl was the first with the rank of dux. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 00:41, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

It says "one of the first" not "was the first".

Source coming up for the titles of the wives, both were called duchesses in documents then, and Matilda had the title on her seal after Birger's death. Removing that part until I can locate that source also. I do as well as I can to provide sources as soon as I find them. All the rest of it is covered by the pages cited in Svanberg's book. SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:24, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Don't miss the part where Svanberg calls Birger "Duke and Regent of Sweden", and what that would make of Birger's wives. SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:32, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

There is no novelty in the rank of Birger Magnusson. Svanberg does not call him "one of the first" either. He was the jarl of Sweden, a position that two of his uncles had held before him, ranking third after King and Archbishop. Birger Brosa had been calling himself dux Sweciæ already in the 12th century, with a portrait in armour on his seal in the same way as dukes abroad. Nowhere does Svanberg suggest a break there. Svanberg identifies an anonymous corbel head with a coronet as Birger jarl, but he does not claim that as a novelty either. He argues that his identification is supported by a similar case (in Norway, I think).

The break is between Birger who was jarl and his son who was created the first hertig-duke. Svanberg sees a great deal of continuity, but he notes that this is controversial, and that Gillingstam regards the position of hertig as a novelty in Sweden (chapter III.1 note 4). /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:52, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

And (let's not ignore like that!) he calls Birger "Duke and Regent of Sweden" in English. I have never seen a professor or any other respectable writer say "this is a novelty", so I don't know why Svanberg should. Everyone (who just doesn't want to argue to bug me) has accepted Svanberg's identification of Birger wearing his ducal coronet as a major new accomplishment. Until today, Kuiper didn't even know about it, so, as always, he's just having trouble settling in with the realization of how wrong he was, will never admit it or apologize (like I do when I'm wrong) and will go on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on to take up our time arguing about it. SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:12, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I was in Varnhem last summer, I saw the corbel head. Svanberg's identification is indeed generally accepted (it illustrates the article in Nationalencyklopedin, also page 174 in Harrison's "Jarlens sekel", Pegelow's review). Yes, in the bilingual caption on p. 105 Svanberg calls Birger "Duke and Regent of Sweden 1250-1266"; (1250 is when his young son was elected King). But on page 106 he writes: "... markera en skillnad mellan en jarl och en verklig hertig" ("make a distinction between a jarl and a real duke") - implying that Birger was not a real, card-carrying, certified duke. The title of hertig was a novelty in Sweden in the 1250's. Some historians say that this was just the old jarldom under a new name (Henrik Schück, SBL, in the article "Magnus Birgersson"), others do not agree (see Svanberg, note 4 on page 209, for a summary of Gillingstam's opinion), probably the truth lies somewhere between innovation and tradition.

Summarizing: there is no reason for putting special emphasis on Birger jarl's rank in an article about duchies and the feudal and/or royal title of hertig in Sweden. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:40, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

The now famous coronet makes your summary illogical. Other than that, what's in the article now in no way conflicts with what you, I, Svanberg or anyone else asserts - except for the fact that you want it out of there because I put the subject paragraph in there from the start. Do something else now, Dr. Kuiper, somewhere else, please! - haven't you noticed there is already a clear consensus for an interaction ban between us. You followed me here. How about let's you and I both respect consensus, starting right now? SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:11, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

URL and link to not correspond

This link goes to the right URL but not to the right corresponding place on that page. Don't know what the problem could be or where to report it. SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:57, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

That is a browser fault since that page contains a collapsed content at the top. so you have to scroll up as much as content is collapsed. There is no backup solution except turning of JavaScript in your web browser to prevent content to get collapsed. mabdul 11:32, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Added references

I just added 2 more references to the disputed paragraph, showing that Birger Jarl is considered to have been elevated to his ducal postition largely because of his marriage to a Swedish princess. I'm sure I can find several more, since I have never seen the fact questioned anywhere else. SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:13, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

West Gothland

Is there a reason why in the 'Today' section the duchy name for Victoria's and Daniel's title is given in English (West Gothland) while the duchy names for the titles of Estelle, Carl Philip, and Madeleine are given in Swedish? Given that I've never seen any of the titles presented in the English version in media reports etc., I'm going to switch it (back?) to the Swedish version for consistency. Metheglyn (talk) 23:50, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

The reason is phonetic empathy i e readability but was not consistent with the others in this instance. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 07:49, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Royal Citizenship

I'm curious. Why was my edit about spouses of dukes/duchess having to have / accept Swedish citizenship reverted? The news articles I've seen have all indicated that, at least for men marrying duchesses, this is the case, as Christopher O'Neill reportedly turned down a title because he did not want to become a Swedish citizen (and give up his business interests). This is supported by a press-release from the Swedish Royal Court, which I admittedly failed to reference in the edit. Metheglyn (talk) 23:18, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

I explained it in the edit summary. There is no connecion whatsoever between the ducal title per se and citizenship. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 01:11, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

New sentence added now to clarify. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 01:17, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Fair point, now I see the reason for the reversion. That's what I get for noticing the change had been reverted, but not actually reading at the edit summary. Good reminder for the future, especially since I try to be thorough in my edit summaries myself. Metheglyn (talk) 01:50, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Lists of dukes be removed from the articles about the provinces

Can the lists of dukes be removed from the articles about the provinces? It makes no sense for Östergötland to have a section with a list of dukes and duchesses. --The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 02:01, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

 Done. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 01:09, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Titles "for life"

I have never seen in it print, reliable or no, that these titles have been / are given "for life" in the 18th, 19th, 20th or 21st centuries, nor that they still are "associated" with the kings who never - ever - use them once they have become King. Source or rewording needed. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:31, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

The Swedish Royal Court on its website writes: "Carl Gustaf Folke Hubertus, King of Sweden, Duke of Jämtland, became Sweden's Head of State on 15 September 1973". WP:OR cannot be used to interpret that to confirm that he still is Duke of Jämtland, which he was until he "became Sweden's Head of State on 15 September 1973" but no longer is after that. As King, he has given several speeches where he's stated he was "born Duke of Jämtland" but no one, including him, has ever said he "is" after 1973. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:44, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I've rewritten the section and added sources. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:12, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Duchy / dukedom

The article as presently written fails to mention or distinguish between dukedom (a rank or title) on the one hand and duchy (a territory) on the other. Furthermore, despite its current name, the page deals preponderantly with the first of those two terms (that is to say that it is basically about people who have borne the title of duke or duchess in Sweden). I think that as well needing editing to clarify the dukedom/duchy distinction, the page would therefore be much more appropriately entitled – in similar style to the corresponding article in the Swedish-language Wikipedia – Swedish dukes and duchesses. Comments? -- Picapica (talk) 10:17, 24 March 2017 (UTC)