Talk:Coronations in Norway

Place of coronation in Oslo?

Does anyone know where the coronations in Oslo took place? -- Nidator ^{T / C} 11:22, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eric of Pomerania crowned in Norway in 1392?

It seems like there is some evidence for this.[1][2] Does anyone know more about it? -- Nidator ^{T / C} 11:22, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Catholic vs Lutheran and Bishop vs Archbishop

This post is in response to the changes made by Jm3106jr. Yes, with regards to Christianity Norway is overwhelmingly Lutheran, but not in 1449 when coronations began in Trondheim (Nidaros). The Reformation came to Norway almost 90 years later. Further, there has never been a Lutheran archbishop in Norway, and, while the chief prelate has recently been the Bishop of Nidaros, the leadership of the Church of Norway is not tied to the diocese. The first paragraph of this article was correct, if perhaps somewhat incomplete. I will make the appropriate changes. -- Nidator ^{T / C} 17:29, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that before the Reformation all of western Europe was Catholic - but to use the term "Roman Catholic Norwegian Archiocese" is both anachronistic and sounds like a personal agenda is being pushed. The term "Roman Catholic" was not in common use before the Reformation - the Christian Church was simply "the Church" or perhaps the "Catholic Church." No one would write "Roman Catholic Italian Archdiocese" for the Archdiocese of Milan, for example. The point of the article is to indicate where coronations took place - in this case Trondheim at the Nidaros Cathedral. Nidaros/Trondheim is traditionally the chief eccelsiastical seat in Norway -- just as Uppsala is in Sweden, Canterbury in England, Krakow in Poland, Armagh in Ireland, etc. While the state Lutheran Church, the Church of Norway, may not have archbishops or archdioceses, it does not seem to make any sense to mention that Trondheim was a "Roman Catholic" Archdiocese in 1449. What else could it have been? If people want to learn about the the history of the Nidaros/Trondheim archdiocese, this is already linked - with additional links for the current Lutheran diocese of Trondheim. Jm3106jr (talk) 12:56, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objections to the change, but I'm struggling to figure out what my "personal agenda" is supposed to have been. Could you clarify? --Nidator ^{T / C} 13:38, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a rather delayed reply. I found in other Wikipedia articles that edits have been made on what seem to be sectarian lines that might reflect the religious preferences of the author. In other words, if an author had a bias, it could come out in various ways. You were probably trying to be accurate rather than sectarian and I accept that you indeed had no such agenda. You quite rightly note that the leadership of the Church of Norway is not tied to any diocese. Jm3106jr (talk) 00:33, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I found a book with an account of the coronation of Haakon and Maud with the actual texts used in Norwegian and I am translating them so I can edit them into the Wikipedia article, only now I find that the site is protected, so how am I going to edit my translations into the article. I am the person who translated the text of the blessing of Olav V and of the Royal Anthem and of the hymn "God bless our dear Fatherland."173.19.104.54 (talk) 19:38, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: pages moved Chihin.chong (tea and biscuits) 09:18, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

– All coronations in Norway and Poland were "royal coronations". Therefore, the word "Royal" is redundant and very misleading, since it implies that some of these coronations were not "royal". Surtsicna (talk) 13:26, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support. - To me, it's not that big of a deal which title the article uses, but the proposed new title of "Coronations in..." that leaves out "Royal" is simpler. Hence, I would support this move for that reason alone, plus the one given by Surtsicna. - Ecjmartin (talk) 17:05, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per WP:TITLE and reliable sources. The title indicates what the article is about unambiguously, thus identifying the article's subject and distinguishing it from other subjects, such as Papal, or any other (including Miss Norway) coronations. But mostly, I'm concerned how this proposal is not listed at Royal coronations in Poland at the moment, where the controversy started. Poeticbent talk 15:33, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You are opposing it per WP:TITLE and reliable sources? The reliable sources say that Norwegian monarchs were not crowned but "royally crowned"? Sigh. I really think it would be time to drop popes from this discussion; there were no papal coronations in Norway nor in Poland and none are expected to take place any time soon. As for the Miss Norway coronation argument, I can only sigh once again. Anyway, I started the discussion here because this was the first page I had moved to the proposed format. The link is there, perfectly visible. Surtsicna (talk) 20:04, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The question is, have there been any coronations held in Poland that were not coronations of Polish kings? And the answer is yes. There have been, for example, coronations of Gypsy kings; they were, technically, royal coronations in Poland. And what about coronations of icons of Virgin Mary with crowns blessed by popes for the occasion? Considering that Virgin Mary is the Queen of Heaven and Earth (in Catholic teaching, that is), and specifically a spiritual Queen of Poland, these would also count as royal coronations in Poland. That's a stretch, I know, but if you want to be 100% unambiguous, then maybe Coronations of Polish kings and queens or Coronations of Polish monarchs would be the right title? Or perhaps Coronation of the Polish monarch, in line with Coronation of the British monarch? — Kpalion^(talk) 10:13, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for commenting. Coronation of the Polish monarch and Coronations of Polish monarchs would be problematic because wives of monarchs were also crowned and the article deals with their coronations too. I don't see any issue with the simple title Coronations in Poland (or Coronation in Poland) - as you yourself said, bringing Gypsy kings and Virgin Mary into the story is a bit of a stretch, since the primary meaning of the word coronation is "the act or ceremony of crowning a sovereign or the sovereign's consort". Surtsicna (talk) 11:47, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support We also define coronation thus, so "royal coronation" is really redundant. Other acts called coronation are done so by extension. (I could refer to my recent coronation as an admin, and you'd know what I mean. You'd also think me pompous.) No one is seriously going to seek out such a title expecting to find the details of Mary iconography decorating. --BDD (talk) 06:01, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Even if you're dealing with Gypsy coronations, they should be included in coronations in Poland just like they should be in royal coronations in Poland. You're still dealing with a royal coronation. Drop out the unnecessary adjective per WP:PRECISE. Red Slash 15:43, 4 May 2013 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

1905 Coat of Arms in 'list of coronations' section

I agree that the Coat of Arms from 1905 is not the best choice to use in the places where it appears (in the 'list of coronations' table); however, the recent changes made that table look much worse than it did, when the COA was included. I reverted back to the old table; I'm all in favor of replacing the 1905 COA with something more appropriate--such as an image of each monarch if we can find one--but to simply delete the COA and leave the table in the state it was left in was not the right way to go, in my opinion. I did replace two of the COA's with appropriate images for each monarch concerned, but until we find a better image to replace the other two with, the 1905 COA should stay. - Ecjmartin (talk) 17:46, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The user broke the table by removing the image of the coat, so I agree with your decision to revert. That said, I do think that we should replace it with something as soon as possible or, if nothing suitable can be found, remove it without damaging the table. It does not add anything to the entry about, say, Margaret of Scotland's coronation - it simply has nothing to do with her. Margaret's entry seems to be the only one left. Do you have any suggestions? Surtsicna (talk) 19:44, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, why do we need those images anyway? They do not depict the coronations themselves; the table, of course, is supposed to list coronations rather than crowned people. Personally, I really like the table used in the list of British coronations. It presents all the essential information about the coronation itself without going into unnecessary detail. Surtsicna (talk) 20:26, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I like the images being there: if nothing else, they add some 'life' to the table by giving us an image of the person who was crowned. I do agree with you that the 1905 COA image should be replaced ASAP with something better (maybe I can look into that, this weekend); also, if I can crop the Haakon VII coronation image to an upright orientation (should be easy to do), I'm going to post it to commons and then add it to the table--that way, we'll have at least one actual coronation image, itself. But I would prefer to see the other images stay, myself. - Ecjmartin (talk) 22:00, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I replaced the old Haakon VII image with a new, cropped one I found on Commons (saved me some trouble!). I also added an image from H VII's coronation, but that one went to the article body, not the table. I'll see what I can find to replace the COA image, in the next day or so... - Ecjmartin (talk) 22:32, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted the COA image, and just left it blank. I think that unless we can find an image of Margaret of Scotland (which I've been unable to do, after visiting several sites), this would be the best solution. - Ecjmartin (talk) 15:36, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]