Talk:Eric I, Duke of Mecklenburg

HansM (talk) 22:24, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Eric I, Duke of Mecklenburg. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120208091810/http://portal.hsb.hs-wismar.de/pub/lbmv/mjb/jb050/350367779.html to http://portal.hsb.hs-wismar.de/pub/lbmv/mjb/jb050/350367779.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:23, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Eric or Albert?

I believe this portrait by Theodor Fischer depicts Albert, not Eric. A wider view from Schloss Schwerin shows the text above the painting, which identifies him as King Albert. This painting is from 19th century and has always been in the same gallery, so it seems unlikely that the identity of the subject would have been forgotten. The Gotland symbol can surely be explained in a variety of ways, as he did rule Gotland with the Victual Brothers. Isn't it also unlikely that the heir would have been depicted with the crown?

One can compare with other portraits of Albert: [1][2][3] (Nationalmuseum server seems to be unreliable, but the last link does occasionally work). He's wearing the same clothes in the above images, and given the artistic licence, there is some likeness, as is there with the fresco of him as an old man (e.g. the hair and the eyebrows). Jähmefyysikko (talk) 20:11, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

And the Gotland symbol specified in the image's caption? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:43, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

What of it? Without some reliable source we don't know what exactly it symbolizes, and since Albert himself had a connection to Gotland, it hardly counts as evidence for the claim that this should be Eric. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 12:51, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

That symbol is most likely a generic Agnus Dei which is a common Christian symbol. Persevant (talk) 13:35, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Indeed, Gotland's coat of arms has a ram instead of a lamb, and the flag has five tails, unlike this one. On the other hand, historically Gotland's coat of arms seems to be very close to generic Agnus Dei (commons), so its difficult to say whether this one should now be interpreted as a reference to Gotland. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 14:23, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

This, rather obviously, is what Eric has hanging from his neck. Any NPOV person can see that. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:55, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

I do find it possible that it might refer to Gotland. But without a reliable source it is WP:OR to state that in the article.

And to claim that this is Eric you would also need to provide a reliable source. The text above the painting says "Albrecht III" and there seems to be nothing unclear about the provenance of this painting. The book by the Borchardts describes the portraits in the Ahnengalerie, and there is "Albrecht III" there, but no "Erich" (although he is listed as Albrecht's son [4]).

A piece of wikiarcheology: You seem to have gotten the idea that this is Eric from this discussion in Commons, and then it subsequently found its way to your friend Demitz' 2020 book (RSN thread) which you now use as a source here.

Feel free to ask for a third opinion if you feel that neutral input is needed. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 15:54, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

For the interested, here's a short description of the Ahnengalerie: https://www.landesmuseum-mv.de/en/exhibit/ancestral-portrait-gallery-in-schwerin-palace/ The painting is also discussed in this book:

• Borchardt, Erika and Jürgen (1991). Mecklenburgs Herzöge : Ahnengalerie Schloß Schwerin (in German). Schwerin: Demmler. ISBN 978-3-910150-07-2.

I don't have full access, but these Google Books snippets [5][6] give some background information on which works the painting was based on. Apparently this painting was "helpful", but Fischer's painting was based more on a drawing by Carl George Schumacher, which unfortunately seems to have been lost during WW2 [7]. Perhaps the book would also tell what Schumacher's drawing was based on. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 18:24, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Wrong son of Albert in a painting you mentioned of King Albert & son. . That's Albert (Jr.) not Eric. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:08, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

I did not identify the son in the painting as Eric, so I am not sure what you mean by your remark.

If we look at that double painting, we see that Albert III on the left is again wearing the same clothes and a crown with a similar design as in Fischer's painting, although he has a beard here. But note that the other snippet describes Albert III as having a clean-shaven face like in Fischer's painting (which he is describing of course). The book is maybe a bit confused here though, since it says that the double painting in Gadebusch includes the king's father, "es zeigt auch der Vater des Königs", while its actually his son. Either this is a mistake in the book, or there is another double portrait of Albert III in Gadebusch that I am not aware of. I find the latter unlikely, but not impossible. Albert V's own portrait in the Ahnengalerie is clearly based on this double portrait. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 15:39, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't know whay anyone would want to try to use an unresolved and archived reliable-source discussion here, especially when the extensive bilbiography of that book was ignored there. I do not know why any wild personally antagonistic theories about how something ended up in sombody's book are being brought up here. I also do not know why we are to discuss anything but the fact that there is no evidence of any kind that this is Albert nor that it is his son Eric. The age of the depicted man and the symbol on his chest would lead most NPOV people to guess that it's Eric. That's what the image caption does. It does not dictate anything. Any user on some kind of a ruthless or careless campaign (ignoring previous warnings about headstrong behavior) like some kind of a Wikipedia Police Officer, to remove everything found in a book, even theories, is not reallly doing us any big favors with most of that. Oh, and image descriptions at Commons giving alternative identification info should bot be changed by any user jumping the gun on lacking consensus just to try to get h way, especially if that user has been warned several times about that behavior at Wikipedia. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:16, 19 June 2024 (UTC)