Talk:King of the Geats

I added Karl as rex Gothorum. We have reasons to believe he was this, because in his book "De tyrannide papae" Lars Banck mentions a letter from Hadrianus IV, in which Hadrianus addresses Karl as rex Gothorum. Naturally, and sadly, it seems as if this letter no longer exist.

The article is perhaps a little confusing as it is, and maybe it would be a good idea to just mention the latin title for the historical kings. An example would be to call Ingold I a rex Visigothorum.

Two names to add would be Hallsten and Karl av Edsvära: Hallsten because in the papal letter from around the year 1080 we hear of reges Visigothorum I and A: and Karl av Edsvära because in some Icelandic sources he is actually called a king. We have reasons to guess that Karl av Edsvära was ruling Västergötland independently, even though he probably was only a mere lawman of Västergötland.

/Mof

Good addition. I wonder which Icelandic source Karl of Edsvära was king, just of curiosity. However, I disagree with your removal of text, because at this time, you simply had to be accepted at the Stones of Mora to be king of Sweden. The people of this time would have been very surprised if they learnt that when Svearike came to be pronounced Sverige, during the late Middle Ages, it was to cause many/some people in the 21st century to understand Svearike and Sverige as different concepts. Using the English form Sweden while conceptually making a difference between Svearike and Sverige is anachronistic in this article, and frankly POV. BTW, according to the excellent site Tacitus.nu the distinction was introduced for Geaticist reasons in order to add the victories of the Goths to the victories of Sweden.--Berig 15:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

An expression such as "core provinces", is a loaded expression. It is not a good idea to use them, unless we clearly define what we mean, and can show that we have very good reasons to assume that we are right. It is not enough to mention Mora stenar, because we have no evidence for that ceremony before the end of the 13:th century. Not wanting to start an endless debate, I will just note that the prevalent view of present day Swedish historians, is that Västergötland and Östergötland were the core provinces of our state for some 250 years (1000-1250 AD) Not everyone has to share that view, but foreigners, reading the text as it is, will be in for a surprise if ever they were to talk to a Swedish historian.

So, there's a simple solution, just remove a text that establishes something that has not been proven. After all, it is difficult to see how it is relevant to the subject in question.

I am also a bit skeptic about mentioning Ragnvald and the expression non-Geatish (if that is what it said). The reasons are that an expression like non-Geatish is an ethnical label. It is better to just call him a king in or of Sweden.

Icelandic sagas is actually not my cup of tea, so I cannot point to the exact reference. It is just something I have read. However, I'll have a look and see if I can find where he is mentioned as such.

Are you talking about a distinction between Sverige/Svearike? Hm... I will read that tacitus.nu text and see what it says.

Mvh, Marcus

Uh, I forgot: I have to ask, where do the English name versions come from? Like: wouldn't it be better if Ingold I was called Inge den äldre? /Marcus