Talk:Christopher of Bavaria

2006

The dates of birth and death as given in the body text, and as given in the info-sidebar, do not match. --82.211.249.10 18:42, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks for pointing it out. Valentinian ^(talk) 13:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Move/Name change

I moved this back again to conform with other Kings Christopher of Denmark and with Kalmar Union kings Christian I of Denmark and Christian II of Denmark as well as e.g. John, King of Denmark and Magnus IV of Sweden. The move is uncontroversial in my opinion, as I see no other way of making the naming consistent and doubt anyone else really does if thought through conscientiously. Please do not move it again in anger or haste without discussing. Nothing has ever been discussed about his name here, so I doubt for that reason too that it can be a controversial move. SergeWoodzing (talk) 06:20, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I am positive you understand that this move would be as controversial as moving Eric of Pomerania to Eric VII of Denmark. Christopher of Bavaria is his most common name and it should remain so, don't you think.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 06:56, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

A Google book search yields 2,030 hits for "Christopher of Bavaria" and 128 hits for "Christopher the Bavarian" while there is only 59 hits for "Christopher III of Denmark".--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 07:11, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

SergeWoodzing, you are well aware of how controversial this move is. You yourself have participated in a discussion where the issue of his name was raised, at Talk:Eric of Pomerania. It hasn't been raised at this talk page, but it cannot be claimed that it's never been mentioned. Now, this is clearly a controversial move as two users have opposed it (not counting those at Talk:Eric of Pomerania). The page has been titled Christopher of Bavaria for years. You assumed moving it wouldn't be controversial and you moved it - OK; QEIILS reverted it because there was no discussion and she had arguments against the move - OK; you moved it back - not OK because it leads to an edit war. I am going to move the page back to Christopher of Bavaria because in cases such as this one, we should respect status quo. Feel free to request a move. Surtsicna (talk) 13:46, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Requested 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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move. It is clear that there is no consensus for this move. I have considered all opinions given here and it is clear to me that consensus is that using the common name is more important than consistency in this instance. Dpmuk (talk) 11:51, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

---

Christopher of Bavaria → Christopher III of Denmark — To conform with other Kings Christopher of Denmark and with other Kalmar Union kings Christian I of Denmark and Christian II of Denmark; as well as e.g. John, King of Denmark; Albert, King of Sweden and Magnus IV of Sweden. "of Bavaria" where Christopher was never king and (unlike Eric of Pomerania) never ever ruled in his own right under any title, is too confusing - King Christopher of Bavaria of Denmark, Norway and Sweden - for frequency of use standards to be the determining factor in this case. SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:01, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this seems to have gotten rather infected rather quickly (see pervious section). I therefore invite previously uninvolved editors to comment, as that would be more valuable to the debate than some of the rest of us rehashing our old standpoints ad infinitum. SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:07, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

For those who are going to vote, please take into account the arguements on both sides. It's consistency versus a widely used common name.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 07:04, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Oppose: It is incorrect that Christopher never ruled in Bavaria. He was not king there, as it was not a kingdom. However, he did rule a part of it, which he inherited from his father, Duke Johan 3. of Neumarkt, in 1443. (One source on the web for this, is here, only in Danish). That is not the main reason why I oppose the move, but best to set the record straight. I oppose the move for all the reasons that have already been stated. Christopher is not known in any historic litterature as "Christian II of Denmark" and Denmark only constituted a part, less than half in terms of population and economic importance, of his holdings. The article should be under the name that everyone would expect to find it - Christopher of Bavaria.--Barend (talk) 13:41, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I have noticed many times over the years that it seems to be very important to many Scandinavians (for reasons I do not understand) that three Scandinavian kings are named with these confusing native formats (Eric of Pomerania, Albrekt of Mecklenburg and this one (Christopher III of Denmark not II). In this case that is particularly inappropriate as it is particularly and unnecessarily confusing to English readers who have no reason to get it. Christopher (this one) lived and died in Denmark, making only occasional visits to Norway and Sweden. He never went back down to Bavaria after being elected king up in Norden. Debrett's, an English expert source that knows what it's doing, never refers to this King of Denmark etc as anything but Christopher III. Such sources should be respected here, primarily, not a multitude of sources, due to their frequency, that stem from Scandinavians, their translations to English (for better and for worse) and their will to impose their own eccentric naming idea (above) on everyone else. The king is called Christopher the Bavarian in his native German. That makes some sense, at least. Compare text usage for yourselves:

• King Christopher the Bavarian of Denmark, Norway and Sweden
• King Christopher of Bavaria of Denmark, Norway and Sweden
• King Christopher III of Denmark, who also ruled Norway and Sweden

I am also especially inviting non-Scandinavians to comment on what looks like common sense in this case. Please! SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:50, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I sincerely apologize for having an opinion while being Scandinavian. However, I have to point out further factual mistakes in SergeWoodzing's posts. Saying "Christopher lived and died in Denmark", is not correct. He had probably never been to Scandinavia, certainly never lived there, before he was 23 years old, and he died aged 31. For the last 8 years of his life, it is correct that he spent most of his time in Scandinavia, surrounding himself with Bavarian counsellors. It is correct that he never made it back to Bavaria before his sudden death, he was one his way at one point, but apparently turned back in Lübeck because of a political emergency in his Scandinavian realms. Comments from anyone, Scandinavian and non-Scandinavian alike, are obviously welcome.--Barend (talk) 09:47, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Why apologize? Nobody was criticizing you that I know of? Nor did anyone complain about (also) having the opinions of Scandinavians here. As to the issue: to my knowledge (and I have studied him carefully) Christopher never left Scandinavia after he was king, and when he was king (which is the only thing that makes him notable enough to have an encyclopaedic article at all) he lived (spent almost all of his time) and died in Denmark. He was then known only as Christopher III of Denmark or Christopher the Bavarian, never as Christopher of Bavaria. Why don't we go with Debrett's on this? We have no better authority, neither Scandinavian or other. SergeWoodzing (talk) 02:44, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I have to correct a couple more mistakes. A minor point is that Christopher did leave Scandinavia after becoming king, he at least went to Lübeck, which is not in Scandinavia. More important is to correct the claim that he "was then known only as Christopher III of Denmark or Christopher the Bavarian". I have also studied Christopher extensively. I have never seen an original source referring to him by either of these two names. In all sources I have seen, he was either called simply "Cristopher" (as seen here), or (translated into English): "Christopher, by the grace of God, King of Denmark, Sweden and Norway, the Wends and the Goths, Duke palatine of the Rhine and Duke of Bavaria", or variations thereof. The Norwegian version (as seen here: "Cristoffer med guds nadh Danmarks Suæries Norghes Wendhe oc Gotha konwngh paladzgrefue vppa Riin ok hertogh j Beyarnæ". In Latin: "Cristoferus Dei gracia Dacie, Suecie, Noruegie, Slauorum Gotorumque rex, comespalatinus Reni et dux Bauarie".(In "Norges Gamle Love 1388-1604 første bind, Christiania 1912". The medieval scribe is to blame for the spelling, not me.) If anyone has evidence that he was ever called "Christopher III" at the time, I would like to see it. Finally, I am sure Debrett's is excellent for names of English aristocrats, but I have never seen it used as an authority on Scandinavian Medieval History. I am much more interested in seeing what "The Cambridge History of Scandinavia" and similar books call him.--Barend (talk) 19:12, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility) whih reads in part It is generally advisable to use the most common form of the name used in reliable sources in English ("common name" in the case of royalty and nobility may also include a person's title), but there are other things which should be considered: ease of use, precision, concision, and consistency among article titles; and a system constraint: we cannot use the same title for two different articles, and therefore tend to avoid ambiguous titles. English is not always consistent, and it is a long-staning principle of English Wikipedia to reflect this rather than to try to correct it. Andrewa (talk) 18:25, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

You say we should be consistent, but should not be consistent? I don't get it. Why not trust Debrett's? SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:44, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

PS Re: "ease of use" and '"concision" and "precision" and "consistency among article titles" - see the three choices above and give this an honest thought or two! SergeWoodzing (talk) 02:49, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

It all depends on how you look at something. Nothing in this world is crystal clear. I am sure anybody interest in this man will have the patience to read the first sentences and see that he was also King of Denmark, Norway, and Sweden. Why don't you think

• Christopher the Bavarian, King of Denmark, Norway and Sweden
• Christopher of Bavaria, King of Denmark, Norway and Sweden

--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 04:11, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

No, I didn't say we should be consistent, and neither does the guideline. It's a factor, in that we should try to be consistent where it doesn't cost us something more important. The most important consideration is ...the most common form..., I thought that was clear in the quotation. Andrewa (talk) 11:03, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. He's usually (or more commonly) called "Christopher of Bavaria" in reliable sources as shown for example by simple gbook, gscholar or library searches. DrKay (talk) 20:48, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

And it is my opinion (which is being ignored here) that we should disregard frequency of use in this case in favor of guideline's "ease of use" and '"concision" and "precision" and "consistency among article titles". SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:51, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

The current title is natural, concise, recognisable and precise. It is also neutral as it does not choose one of his realms over the other two. Your choice is longer, less recognisable, and chooses one realm over the others, which can be perceived as bias. Consequently, the current title meets more of the conditions mentioned in the guideline. DrKay (talk) 20:58, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

It's a valid opinion and I respect it but don't agree. If you can convince a rough WP:consensus to support this opinion, perhaps citing WP:IAR, then the move will go ahead regardless of policy. And we might then tidy up the policy to reflect this development. But no change of vote. Andrewa (talk) 03:24, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

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.

"Archking?"

I do not agree with this reversal. There is no such title in English and the attempted translation from Danish has no source. I will revert this again soon unless someone can come up with a good reason not to. SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:39, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

With the coronation of Christopher of Bavaria in Ribe (1443) he was pronounced "archirex" in Latin (Danish: ærkekonge) to symbolise distribution of power between the chruch and crown. I dont know see any other translaition to English than Archking Tinkaer1991 (talk) 23:09, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

We need an English-language source which includes the word. Your translation is not sufficient. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:37, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

I added an english source which used the Latin word? Can you accept it if i change the page to the latin phrase then? Tinkaer1991 (talk) 20:18, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

You can add that, with that source, somewhere in the artcle's text, but that title, being unknown in the English language, should not be given at the top of the article as if it were prominent to Christopher. It's as if one writer found one single instance of Christian I having been called Super regem one single tiime, and we added "Super King" as his title. Inconceivable. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:50, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Thats a wierd comparison. Christopher were litteraly crowned archirex in his coronation documents, therefore i think its the only reasonable name to put. Also the prominence of the name is big. Its common to refer to christopher III as "ærkekongen" (English: The Arch-king). Hungarian historian, János Bak also refer to him as "Archirex of the North". I personally think that both the archbishop of Lund, Hans Laxmand and king Christopher III intentionally wanted the title to be prominent. - Tinkaer1991 (talk) 18:47, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

I have worked on and written about the Scandinavian kings in English since 1965 and have a personal library today of over 500 volumes on these subjects. Nothing has been provided here as a realiable source to substantiate that Christopher has ever been called "Archking" or "Archrex" or anything similar in any English text anywhere. Until that has been done, there is no reason to continue to discuss this. Wikipedia articles use material backed by reliable sources, nothing else. Our personal opinions are not relevant. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 01:09, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

for the second time i gave you a english source supporting my claim of archirex, made by a reliable Danish mideaval historian, Janus Møller Jensen, and published by one of the finest universities in Denmark, namely the university of Southern Denmark. This is just one of many sources which i can provide, yet it looks like you have rejected it. - Tinkaer1991 (talk) 13:28, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

No, we have as yet not seen any source in the English language which uses the term "Archking" in the English language. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:21, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

never claimed that, it uses archirex which i also earlier stated. I then asked you if it was okay to then change it from archking to archirex yet i didnt get a clear answer. - Tinkaer1991 (talk) 15:27, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

This translation potentially violates our policy on original research. We must follow the sources. How do English language sources refer to Christopher? Can you demonstrate the prevalence of the title Archking in English language sources? If not then we must use King. Polyamorph (talk) 14:59, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you!

The direct translation of archirex from Latin to English is archking. Most English sources refer to him as king of course just like in Danish, Swedish, Norwegain and German sources, since that is what he was commonly and culturally known as. Altho English sources refering to his fine and special title, mainly call him archirex The only reason i added it as archking rather than archirex is simply because this is a english article, and i dont see any other translations of archirex. I am solely for the change of archking to archirex if that is necessary Tinkaer1991 (talk) 15:43, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Most English sources refer to him as king of course just like in Danish, Swedish, Norwegain and German sources, since that is what he was commonly and culturally known as. In which case we follow the sources and refer to him as King. If there is some discussion of his archirex title in reliable sources, then that can be added to the main text. Polyamorph (talk) 16:03, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

This should be done with a sense historical factuality in mind. Just because he is culturally known as king, does not imply that it is historically accurate. Rather we should not decide this with historical ignorance. The title archirex is highly unknown by the people and also some historians, which along with the generalization of the title king, has led to his commonly used (tho factually wrong) title as king of Denmark. Tinkaer1991 (talk) 16:56, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

No. As I have already stated, per WP:OR we follow the sources. If the sources use the title "King" then so do we. The title can always be discussed in the main text or as a footnote, provided reliable sources are cited without violating WP:SYNTH. Polyamorph (talk) 17:48, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

I have to accept that, even tho i disagree. Altho i will write about the title in the main text. - Tinkaer1991 (talk) 18:39, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

All - I did a quick scholarly search for you both on this interesting very interesting subject.

Christopher of Bavaria came under strict control of the Council of the realm, but was clearly prepared to act as an independent ruler of the expan- sive kingdom if given the opportunity. He took the strange title of arch king, archirex, a term unknown elsewhere in the world. The title illustrates that he was the preeminent king of an empire, and not simply a king of three different countries, and that he, as ruler of one of Europes largest empires, was immediately under the German emperor himself.

The Union Empire

Michael Bregnsbo, Kurt Villads Jensen

The Rise and Fall of the Danish Empire, 91-114, 2022

doi:10.1007/978-3-030-91441-7_5

There weren't a "lack" of sources naming them archirex and some used translations such as "arch king" but what I found most interesting while reviewing the texts is that we are here repeating history in this very comment section when we don't know what to do with the title. The title is a fact that I think we all can agree upon and it is very unique. How do we include it in this very article should be our discussion not if it wasn't a thing or not.

"Some scholars translate archirex into "arch king" while in Denmark it is commonly referred to as ærkekongen." Or just don't use the English variant. Surly we must be able to include latin and danish titles without translations? Not having an English translation of a title doesn't mean the title didn't exist.

Best 2A02:1406:5:DC19:D47A:1A26:3A2A:E64C (talk) 15:30, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

I completely agree with this. I personnally dont care if we use archking or archirex in the title, but the clear fact is that he was styled as such, and therefore the title should beused in one way of another. - Tinkaer1991 (talk) 15:34, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you all! We have come a long way since the absolute demand insisting that "Archking" must be added at the top of the article.

Proposal: (add new 3rd paragraph under "Coming to power"): For himself he used an otherwise unknown title as arch king, archirex, because in his opinion he ruled an empire, not simply three different countries, and thus ranked immediately under the European emperor. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:46, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

i Support this proposal Tinkaer1991 (talk) 21:49, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

I presume therefore that the 'Title' section would then be deleted as a repetition? The proposed text is insignificantly different from the current text. DrKay (talk) 22:01, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

I assume, yes. I think the original text in the 'title' section was just copied from Monarchy of Denmark#Style Tinkaer1991 (talk) 10:56, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

References