Jump to content

Talk:Svein Knutsson

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

Move to Sweyn II of Norway

[edit]
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: no consensus. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:59, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Svein, King of Norway → Sweyn II of Norway — because his grandfather Sweyn Forkbeard was the King of Norway before him and Svein is usually translate as Sweyn. Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 23:46, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose Do you have a single source that calls him Svein II, or is this your own name for him? I see no Google matches for Svein II of Norway, none for Svein II, King of Norway, one for Sweyn II of Norway that is nothing but an error for Sweyn II of Denmark, and a single use, from 1839 for Sweyn II, King of Norway. If disambiguation is really needed, they the much more common Svein Knutson would be better. Agricolae (talk) 00:54, 10 May 2011 (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.

Post move discussion

[edit]

Svein is somewhat more common than Sweyn in English, and it is also closer to Sveinn, the transliterated version of his Old Norse name. So the title should be Svein II of Norway, per WP:NCROY. Kauffner (talk) 03:30, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Out of 74 kings in the Category:Norwegian monarchs, this is the only one with the phrase "king of Norway" in the title. From NCROY: Otherwise, kings, queens regnant and emperors and empresses regnant who are known as "first name + ordinal" (with the exceptions mentioned elsewhere) normally have article titles in the form {Monarch's first name and ordinal} of {Country}. Examples: Edward I of England; Alfonso XII of Spain; Henry I of France. Kauffner (talk) 01:22, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
". . . who are known as 'first name + ordinal'. . . ." I looked for similar forms (as documented above) and I don't see that this form matches the typical scholarly usage. Yes, you can find instances, just as you can find instances of Edward the Elder being called Edward I. If you think otherwise, then formally propose a rename, rather than unilaterally making a move before the dust has cleared on the previous failed proposal. Agricolae (talk) 02:55, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Norway Svein-II OR Sweyn-II -Estridsson -Wikipedia yields 492 Google Book results, so the ordinal is not original. "of Norway" is from NCROY, not a form that needs to be documented in sources. If you look at the titles for monarchs of various countries, the "King of Foo" suffix is quite unusual, used only there is no more natural way to disambiguate. In this case, it doesn't even really disambiguate, since there was another Svein/Sweyn who was king of Norway as well.
I don't see my move as "unilaterial". I explained it in a post here and a month went by without objection. Silence implies consent, and all that. Kauffner (talk) 04:02, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Suggested June 2, moved June 5. I will have to check a calendar, but that looks to be somewhat short of a month. And coming as it did just two weeks after a formal move was rejected, and it doesn't occur that those involved in that discussion might have an interest in your proposed change? Given that a page move had just been declined, how could something extremely similar be anything but potentially controversial? As to your Google search, I modified it a little, excluding also Estrithson and limiting it to the last 60 years, and looked at the first two pages of Google Books matches and all but one still refer to Estrithson of Denmark. The one that doesn't is about the nephew of Canute, just as QELS says. Look, I am not in love with Svein, King of Norway either, but that is no reason to introduce a neologism. How about we find cases actually referring to this ruler and see what scholars call him. Agricolae (talk) 14:51, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My move was unilateral, but yours was not. That's convenient. Kauffner (talk) 01:38, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My move was a revert of yours - the system really doesn't work if anyone can make any change they want, but to revert it a discussion is required. Hence revert, discuss. Agricolae (talk) 21:04, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So "the system doesn't work" unless your right all the time? Wow. Kauffner (talk) 22:27, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Now you are just being belligerent. There is no reasonable reading of what I wrote that could be summarized as you have just done. Agricolae (talk) 00:37, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
At that time, it was 2-1 against the title you moved it to. But what does that matter when you're the guy who makes the system really work? Kauffner (talk) 08:28, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your continued intentional mis-characterizations of my words regarding a functional system, in addition to being tedious, does you no credit and is hardly in the spirit of Wikipedia. Given that your target was neither the current one nor that recently proposed, at that time it was 2-to-1 against yours too, and there was a clear difference of opinion documented by a very recent formal proposal which ended in a lack of consensus. You decide you would just move it anyhow to your own personal preference, leaving little time for comment, and have no grounds to complain that someone reverted the move. And the consequence of that reversion of your change - we are now having a real discussion, involving many editors. That's a bad thing? Agricolae (talk) 12:22, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you read the results most are talking about "Sweyn II, Estrithson" or "Sweyn II., the nephew of Canute the Great". --Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 05:22, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

" As the original person that posted the move above, I agree with Agricolae. No real historian ever called this person Sweyn II or Svein II, even though he was the second king of Norway by that name which would make him Sweyn/Sveinn II. Why don't we move this article Sveinn Alfífuson, Sveinn Knútsson or Sveinn Oforsynjukonungr? With a note in the intro stating the fact that he is the second Svein to rule as Norway. Also like his grandfather's article mention all the different language translation of his name: Sweyn/Sven/Swegen/Svein/Sveinn/Svend/Sweno.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 05:22, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Out of the three I suggested. I much prefer (any form of Sweyn) Knutsson. He is also the only notable son, named Sweyn/Svein, of any person named Knut/Canute. Other examples like such exist Olaf (II) Haraldsen, Estrid Svendsdatter, Björn Haraldsen Ironside. It doesn't give any title like his father's, his grandfather's, his great-grandfather's and his great-great grandfather's and his two half-brothers' article title. We'll have to discuss which form of Sweyn. --Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 20:40, 6 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Questions:
  1. Is it reliably referenced anywhere that he really was King of Norway, not just a form of viceroy or jarl on behalf of his father? Other iw articles on him are ambivalent about that.
  2. Is there any scolarly literature on this man at all in English and by English-language people, and if so, what he is usually called there? (I don't know how to check things like that & don't plan to learn.)
  3. If there is not, are we free to devise the most sensible name in English for his WP article?
  4. If so, may I suggest (without too much angry comment) that the name Swain or Swan be used (my preferred English exonyms for Danish Svend, Norwegian Svein, Swedish Sven) as his personal name?
  5. That we should not use a title in the article name, whether or not he was king or other?
  6. That we should absolutely not use such phonetically disastrous (in English) words as Alfífuson or Oforsynjukonungr?
  7. Why not Swain, Norwegian ruler for Canute the Great?
SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:41, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can't address all of your points, but for what it's worth, Larson's Canute the Great calls him Sweyn, and simply indicates that he is son of Canute (i.e. "Canute . . . selected his illegitimate son Sweyn", and having thus identified him, just Sweyn thereafter). It indicates that at different times he was (probably) regent of Denmark and then regent of Norway, not king. This work is from 1912, though. The problem is the typical one with Google Books - nothing recent enough to show current usage is available due to copyright. Agricolae (talk) 00:56, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't sound like Svein was ever really king of Norway. Canute used the title "king of all..the Norwegians" officially, so it seems unlikely he would name someone else king. Certainly no source supports the "co-king" idea. Canute dismissed Svein after five years. You can't do that to a king. In A History of Scandanavia (2000), D.K. Derry says Canute sent him to "act as king." Kauffner (talk) 01:38, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Where does it say "Canute dismissed Svein after five years"? I am only citing this article. The Saga of Magnus the Good (Heimskringla, translated by Samuel Laing) says Magnus I of Norway was brought back to Norway, and he and his followers booted Svein and all the Danish out, and Svein died shortly afterwards in Denmark. Canute and Svein lost Norway at the this moment. There was no time to dismiss his son. Both their Norwegian reign ended in 1035. It says "winter", but I think it's talking about the winter of the previous year or the winter of the beginnig of the year of 1035 that Magnus was brought to Norway or else Canute would have been dead if it was the winter of 1035, and Svein would have been effectively the only king and ruler over Norway...So I don't see any evidence of any dismissal. I don't think you even read the article before you commented, like you didn't read any of the sources you used google book to search. As for myself, I admit that I only started to read this article today since I normally don't read most of the articles I edit.
Also there is also his nickname with the reference of "king." Also not cited.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 07:13, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Using this article: Shakespeare called him "Sweno, Norway's King" and Snorri writes that "King Svein..." I have no idea who Snorri was, but I'm guessing it's talking about Snorri Sturluson, the only historian in the disambiguation page. He lived 1179–1241, a century afterwards this man, although there is mostly a lot of myth in his histories or sagas like most historians of his time. And it also must have been in the history books back in the 1600s, unless Shakespeare made up the title of King for this man, which I doubt. Notice both section have absolutely no citations, but if someone can pull up a copy of Macbeth or one of Snorri Sturluson's translated sagas, it could and might just be right there. I don't know the modern opinion on these two older sources though, and I'm not that interested to search for it... If Cnut couldn't be in Norway to rule his dominion, it would make perfect sense that he would make his son "co-king" or act as king/regent in his place, either way with the title of King. Even though I'm arguing for the case that he was King, I'm still against it being include in his article title.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 04:17, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think I agree with QE2LS. There seems to be no reason to invent what would be effectively a neologism ("Sweyn II (, King) of Norway" or some variation thereon) when we have names by which the man appears to be quite regularly known. I suggest Svein Knutsson as the commonest name I can find in English on Google Books.--Kotniski (talk) 08:17, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like "Svein Knutsson" is acceptable to everyone, so I've gone ahead with a G6. There are only 3-4 examples in Google Books. But one of them is Snorri: Kong Svein Knutson raadede over Norge i nogle Vintre. ("King Svein Knutson reigned over Norway for some winters." -- my own translation) That's certainly a good source. For those who have no idea who Snorri is, he wrote Heimskringla.Kauffner (ta lk) 10:14, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you do, please propose request move. Or I'll do it. Not everyone support this name. The two other user haven't voiced their opinion.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 11:12, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Status as king

[edit]

Snorri [Sturlasson] also says that his father commanded him to go rule Norway, and be called King of Norway; whether he was crowned is a separate question. We have an article on Henry the Young King; it is quite likely t hat this was another provision to ensure the succession. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:49, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The simple fact that he was called a king is all that matters; he was king or he acted as king, either way a king. No every kings had coronation and that doesn't make them less of a king. As for the question, about if or if he didn't rule or rather it was his mother; that doesn't matter when it shows that he was called king. If we have the baby John I of France as a king, even though he never ruled, then Svein who lived to at least 19 can be counted, regardless of how he ruled which is also disputed.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 02:11, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Part of the problem here is a confusing combination of usages for 'king', at least historically. The term has been used for a generic viking leader, even though his role was nothing analogous to a monarch. Likewise it has been used for the sons of kings who have been crowned, and hence are in a legal way monarchs, but fulfill no such role. It is even used for uncrowned infantes in Navarre, who as far as I can tell were simply sons of kings being given the title by courtesy. Given these different usages, argument by analogy among people in the different roles becomes problematic. That being said, some variant of Svein Knutsson avoids the problem. Agricolae (talk) 21:04, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see that you are still not convinced that he was King. Seriously Agricolae you won't ever be convinced until a Rune stone or a royal charter dating to 1030-1035 call this man a king. But too bad there isn't such a thing. I agree the title shouldn't reflect his title or of Norway, but the word and his status as a king must remain in the article content unless there is any clear evidence he was most definitely not a king and never called a king.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 16:15, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am not convinced either. Do we have reliable sources and/or any clear evidence he was most definitely a king and was called a king? If not, why should he be called that by WP? SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:31, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Snorri and Shakespeare called him King. A lot history books called him King Svein or Svein, ruler of Norway, search google book. Seven entries call him regent but not king and 106 sources call him King and not regent. I am getting tired of argueing this with you guys.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 20:32, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I let this pass the first time, but I won't the second. Shakespeare? Why not just cite Lord of the Rings or Jurassic Park? Shakespeare was writing 500+ years after the fact, based entirely on pseudo-historical sources of dubious reliability. Did you note that the same play talks about Banquo, who is entirely made up? Further, if you look at some of the scholarly analysis of that specific line from Macbeth, you will find that due to a disruption in the metre it is likely that the line originally read "That now the Norway's king craves composition", and that the name Sweno has been interpolated into it, meaning that we don't know whether even Shakespeare thought the Norway king in question was named Sweno at all, and that Holinshed, one of Shakespeare's sources for Macbeth, attributes the whole episode to Danes and not Norse. History this is not, and the sooner you drop this Shakespearean argument the better. As to Snorri, there are also problems. First, he was writing several centuries after the fact, but that may still be one of our earliest sources. However, it must be kept in mind that he wasn't writing a work that was intended as pure history, or rather, the entire concept of history as strictly an authentic reflection of events had yet to arise. Thus what he has to say about it needs to be viewed through a lens of critical analysis, analysis not by us but by actual scholars of the period. We need to base out conclusions on scholarly consensus, not primary sources, and Snorri here is a primary source. Finally, as I already indicated, just because Snorri called him 'king' doesn't mean he was what we would call king in modern English. Five "kings" are said to have been killed at the Battle of Brunanburh, but with the exception, perhaps, of Owen of Strathclyde (perhaps because I haven't been able to find whether he was one of the dead, and also because the role of Strathclyde with respect to Alba is a little unclear at this time), none of them were kings in the modern sense, so when Snorri says 'king' does he mean King or just king?
As to your Google Books search, let me just run through the first page of sources supposedly calling him king: the first four are all more than a century old, and represent a scholarly consensus that differs significantly from that of modern historians, specifically in that they accepted the saga material as authentic history without question. The next three are different copies of Snorri. #8 actually calls him a viceroy, and nine a "puppet ruler" and ten refers to "Danish rule under Svein Knutson" without specifying a title. If the intent here was to prove that there is some type of modern consensus that he was king, at least the first page of this search fails abysmally. Looking at those calling him regent, there aren't very many, but at least three of them actually call him regent, and all three are less than 30 years old, so no, I cannot accept this pair of Google searches as being definitive proof that there is a modern scholarly consensus that he ruled as king. Agricolae (talk) 03:38, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wow you took my one mentioning of Shakespeare and run wild with it. I know Shakespeare is not a creditable source. But as I said farther above, I was wondering where Shakespeare could have come up with this character named King Sweno? Did Shakespeare magically pull this out of his imagination or did he use a historical figure and made a fictional plot to him? Is this King Sweno a Théoden or a real person? Also I don't see the difference between a King and a king. There is no set definition for a king as I stated above; if a man was called king, had the power of king, and is mention in sources in a list of kings with other kings, then he is a king. Why can't we accept the saga as historical sources. Many history is based on pseudo-history that developed over time. Wikipedia accepts pseudo-history, because there is absolutely no other form of history from this time period. The sagas aren't complete fake either. Vinland, from the sagas, was pseudo-history until 1960.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 05:53, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you can't find a modern consensus on the status of this man. The overwhelming older historical sources/consensus (100 years old) and Snorri is the only one we have. Find a modern consensus that states this man was not a king, and I'll accept your argument. There are many articles on wikipedia that don't follow modern consensus because either nobody can find one or there isn't one that differs from the older version of history. And even if there is modern consensus that states that he a ruler or rule for his father, with no mention of the word king; the status of him being a king and being called a king for the last 1000 years can still be argued. Oh yeah, also can you explain what you mean by "I let this pass the first time, but I won't the second."--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 05:53, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What I meant was citing Shakespeare's supposed use of the royal title for him as having any relevance whatsoever. The first time I let it pass as relatively harmless, but since you showed an intent to keep suggesting that it had some bearing on the question, I decided it shouldn't be left to stand. As I indicated, we don't even know that it was Shakespeare who named the king of Norway Sweno, and trying to figure out why is pointless, because it won't help (because the sources Shakespeare used for his 'histories' were little better than himself, e.g. he didn't invent Banquo, and finding out that Banquo is from Holinshed (IIRC) doesn't make him more real). If there is a modern consensus, the article needs to reflect that and not one that is no longer accepted. If there isn't a modern consensus, then the article needs to reflect the diversity of modern opinion. I know that not all of the Wikipedia articles reflect this (in particular Ragnar Lothbrok last time I checked), but they should. Wikipedia should not be propagating, as fact, versions of history that are dismissed by modern historians. As to Wikipedia accepting the saga material for want of something better, it should be noted that the article on Earl Siward does not show his father to be the product of the rape of his grandmother by a bear, as one of these traditional sources would have it, even though we don't have a modern consensus on who the grandfather really was. As much as everyone likes to point to Vinland as proof that the sagas are based on fact, sometimes a good myth is just a myth, and what makes a myth good is having just enough nuggets of truth sprinkled in. The problem is that one can never know which are the true parts without the corroboration which we are sorely lacking here, and you certainly also know some of it is false, as indicated above. Of equal importance, as editors it is not our job to decide, but rather simply to transmit what scholars have decided. Agricolae (talk) 07:37, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well put. SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:08, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sources calling him King

[edit]

There are only a few sources in the last ten years that called him regent or viceroy.

Move to Svein Knutsson

[edit]
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: page moved per discussion. There were opposing arguments, but they have all been answered adequately.

As far as redirects, I've pointed 36 42 to Svein Knutsson and 3 to Sweyn Forkbeard. The remaining 8 2 can be found here; I wasn't sure where to point them, but for anyone who knows what's going on, it should be the work of only a few moments to fix them. - GTBacchus(talk) 02:58, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Svein, King of Norway → Svein Knutsson — Per Talk:Svein, King of Norway#Post move discussion. Also opinion on which form of Sweyn still undecided.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 11:19, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • No idea. Rumble (Reign of Cnut) calls him "Swein" in the text and indexes him as "Swein, son of Cnut". Knut Helle's Cambridge History of Scandinavia calls him "Sven" in the text and indexes him as "Sven, son of Knut the Great". Rumble says he was "regent", Helle says "king", and if we believe Norwegian sources Ælfgifu was in charge anyway. I have no strong objection to "S[vw]ein, son of Canute the Great" Svein (son of Cnut the Great), but king shouldn't appear in the title. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:22, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Derry: "Cnut's ten-year-old son Sweyn". Britannica (1929): "[Olaf's] death at the battle of Stiklestad on his return in 1030 was followed by a few years of Danish rule under Svein Knutsson, which rendered Olaf's memory sweet by contrast." Collier's Encyclopedia (1993): "Svein Knutsson Bastard son of Knut II of Denmark, who invaded Norway." Kauffner (talk) 00:18, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Snorri (as quoted in the article; I checked it, although I'm not sure which translation that is) calls him King; we use it in titles like John, King of England to avoid Sweyn of Norway, which might be confusing. My suggestion would be Sweyn (son of Cnut); although I would prefer Canute. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:24, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The general histories may do so, Rumble deals specifically with Cnut's reign and doesn't. I've no objection to the K* word appearing in the article, but not in the title please. Svein (son of Cnut the Great) then, although I do really prefer commas to brackets. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:59, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm against any form of parenthesis or commas. As far as I can see, we only use those for Visigothic, early Frankish, and Byzantine royals because we can't apply either "of Place", or a title, or a nickname, or a patronym to them.
For those obsessed with Cnut to Knut and Knutsson to Cnutsson and how people can be so confused by a one-letter change, see Leif Ericson and his father Erik the Red. Oh no!!! Probably 80% of the people reading this just got confused. Let me tell you a big secret...they are father and son!!! Isn't they surprsing?!!! A little sarcasm there... See my point in this case the K to C is somewhere else in word. I personally would like Cnut the Great moved to Knut the Great, but I highly doubt anyone will support this.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 10:08, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) By the K* word, I presume you mean King rather than Knut, right? (it had me confused for a while). I don't see any problem with using Knutsson, which seems to be in quite common use in the literature, despite the "inconcistency" with our title for Cnut - it just turns out that the plain name and the patronymic are typically anglicized in different ways.--Kotniski (talk) 10:14, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I kept repeating it. Obviously I'm talking about the word Knut. Okay thanks for understanding and the great explaination. --Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 10:24, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, Knut is a common name in Scandinavia. But Svein's dad wasn't just any old Knut. It was Cnut the Great. Kauffner (talk) 12:16, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
'The fact that he was king' is not a fact: scholars appear to be divided in that characterization. That being said, perhaps some ambiguity is in order, in the form of Svein Knutson of Norway, retaining the 'of Norway' form typically used on Wikipedia for kings without explicitly stating he had that title, and without the neologistic numbering that virtually nobody seems to use for him. Agricolae (talk) 12:31, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That suggestion, though, seems just as neologistic as the numbering (and rather than imply that he was king of Norway, implies if anything that he came from Norway). I'm really not seeing the problem here - Svein Knutsson is what he's reasonably well known as, and doesn't imply either that he was or was not a king; it seems a perfectly obvious and unobjectionable solution. --Kotniski (talk) 13:29, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ONE MORE THING. After this move closes will anybody object to redirect this present title and any other redirect links, that doesn't apply only to him, to Sweyn Forkbeard, the more famous King Svein of Norway? I alreadly have a hidden note on the top of his grandfather's article.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 05:58, 10 July 2011 (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.

Names

[edit]

If there are more than two alternative names, you are supposed to create a name section, not pile them up in the opening, according to WP:LEAD#Separate_section_usage. The native name italicized in parenthesis seems to be the common practice, even though the guidelines don't exactly endorse that style. So: Svein Knudsson (Old Norse: Sveinn Knútsson) c. 1016–1035.... Kauffner (talk) 10:53, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I only used his grandfather Sweyn Forkbeard's article intro as an example.
Now you pull out the D's! This form is also used (For Danish Knudsen) but the proposed title is Svein Knutsson with a T. The bolded first name should reflect the article title. Yeah a name section is definitely needed for him and his grandfather and possibly his father Cnut the Great. --Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 11:18, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I listed all the variants of his name and patroynm and some I made up but surprisingly are actually found on google. This is just to look at don't include them in the article unless it scholarly correct.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 16:18, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If anyone doesn't like the title being proposed. Just create redirect from any of these combinations and everyone will be able to find this article. I already made some of them, but their are more versions. We probably don't want to list them all in the article itself, since it be a great eyesore.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 20:57, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Svein_Knutsson&oldid=1210594595"