Talk:Cnut/Archive 2

Rule of Norway 1012-1015/16

On the Eirikr Hakonarson article, in the section here, it says he and his brother Svein were rulers until 1012, and that Hakon was ruler after until 1015. This is contrary to the information in the article here, on the part of Hakon's actual rule. I do not have any definitive sources to make this discrepancy right, either way. Certainly not on the part of Hakon. There are other discrepancies in this across the Wiki. Can anyone help? WikieWikieWikie (talk) 22:31, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

That's what Fagrskinna says roughly. If you can't find anything else you can check the exact wording and go with "According to Fagrskinna ...". I don't have the Historia or the Ágrip handy to check and none of the books I do have here say very much. Whoever ruled Norway day-to-day on his behalf, the Danish king was the boss. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:54, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

The chronology of the different sources is very hard to reconcile on this point. The sagas would have us believe that Eiríkr ruled for 12 years and then Hákon and Sveinn for two years before the arrival of Óláfr. This system is where the 1012 date comes from. But if we go mainly by the English sources it appears most logical that Eiríkr would leave in 1014 and that Sveinn and Hákon would have a very short rule until Óláfr comes. I don't know. The Eiríkr Hákonarson article should, of course, address the problem rather than baldly stating 1012 as fact. Haukur (talk) 00:57, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Well the book I hold here, Gwyn Jones' A History of the Vikings seems to suggest Eirikr was Trondejarl, and his brother Svein was some sort of vassal in the eastern provinces of Trondeheim under Swedish rule, with other northeastern, and south-eastern provinces under Swedish rule too, and the rest of Norway was under Eirikr. It says too, when Eirkr went to war with Cnut he left Norway in charge of his brother, and maybe his to Hakon too. It looks like Svein was left in control of Trondheim and Hakon in the West. Hakon fled from Olaf's initial attack, and the Battle of Nesjar was to follow, with Sveins defeat (another thing is did Svein die here or flee to Sweden?).WikieWikieWikie (talk) 10:31, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect map

On the map which shows the dominions of Cnut at this time is actually wrong, i don't know why but Uppland is also marked with red on this map. Uppland has never been a part of denmark in history, when i googled the sentence dominions of cnut i found the same map on several different homepages but without Uppland being marked. This map is incorrect and should therefor be changed for a different one, for example this one http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/historical/shepherd/cnut_1014_1035.jpg since i'm not a member of wikipedia i can't change this but i recommend you who are to do so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.230.183.143 (talk) 19:13, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I put the source for the basis of the map's alteration (I did it) on the Summary section (click on the Image andd the link will be able to direct your brower to the site). This source is an official Danish, historical referance. It is good enough for me.

WikieWikieWikie (talk) 02:17, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I think this may not be actually a Danish site, it is actually Swedish I think. This must be even stronger evidence though.

WikieWikieWikie (talk) 18:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

There is certainly no evidence that Cnut ruled in Sigtuna. Helge River is situated in Blekinge in the south. If he was the ruler in Sigtuna he most certainly would have described himself as king of Sweden or of the Swedes.When Olof Skötkonung ruled in Sigtuna he called himself King of the Swedes. Part of the Swedes implys that it was probably a small part (Cnut was probably not a very huble person). This all fits better with a scenario where he ruled parts of Sweden that for longer times came to belong for periods to Sweden and other periods to Denmark such as Blekinge and Gotland. 23 Januari 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.228.120.216 (talk) 21:20, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Canute or Cnut

This has been an issue for some time now. We need to be consistent in spelling the name throughout this and other articles. Since the article is currently at Canute, I've changed all instances of "Cnut" to "Canute" to reflect that. To change the name of the page, a request must be made following the instructions at WP:MOVE, so we can get a consensus of which we should use. I for one believe "Canute the Great" is the best title, it's certainly the most common spelling, as someone has pointed out above.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. As a Dane I continue to find it amusing (since "kanut" means something else in Danish), but it is the most common English form. --dllu 14:04, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

The variations stem from the English inability to pronounce "kn" without putting a vowel between them. The correct name is Knut, sometimes spelled with a C, but pronounced with the hard K sound. As "kn" is awkward to English speakers, they tend to add a vowel between them, and that eventually made it's way into the spelling. Back here in Scandinavia, he is still known as Knut.88.131.91.2 (talk) 13:06, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, WikieWikieWikie has moved the page to "Cnut the Great". I'm not sure this is the right title, but I hope he'll fix the double redirects.--Cúchullain ^t/c 07:02, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Since no consensus has been reached on this subject, I reverted his edits and moved the page back (he even tried to disuise the move as a minor edit!). Canute is the "common" name, among historians and other people. Incidently, a Google search (although not scientifically accurate) gives 33 times as many hits on Canute. --dllu 10:45, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I should add that I don't know why my move back to Canute shows up as a minor edit. Possibly because the move that I undid had been disguised as a minor edit, which it obviously wasn't. I hope everybody caught it anyway. :o) --dllu 19:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I tried stirring this debate nearly four months ago, but there was minimal reaction (see section "Canute v Cnut" above) - however the reaction I got, albeit from only one other editor, was favourable. So, I'm stirring it again here; but, to begin with, it would be good to read the earlier section above first, including my comments, before commenting further here. For now, I'll only add that I don't see how "Canute" can be said to be his '"common" name, among historians and other people'. As far back as 1971, the third edition of Frank Stenton's Anglo-Saxon England used "Cnut". I don't know whether Stenton used "Canute" or "Cnut" in the first edition of 1943, but clearly by 1971 this leading historian of Anglo-Saxon England chose not to use "Canute". I'd be surprised to find any modern authority using "Canute", though obviously I'm open to offers. The title of M.K. Lawson's 1993 monograph Cnut The Danes In England In The Early Eleventh Century speaks for itself. As for "other people" (not my words!), I've already expressed views on that in the earlier section. Nortonius (talk) 00:12, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

The part about Cnut being the ruler in Sigtuna must be edited out. There is no proof of this. Being the ruler in Sigtuna, he would have called himself also king of the Swedes. Sigtuna was the "capital" of the Svear, probably also influenced from Götaland (the Geats). The Svear and the Geats were the two dominant tribes that formed Sweden. Sigtuna was very central for the first Swedish christian kings with power over the two big tribes (the Svear and the Geats/Götar). Olof Skötkonung calls himself king of the Swedes and king of Sigtuna. Olof was the halfbrother of Cnut. Why would Cnut not use the same titulations if he ruled amongst the alltime biggest contender of the power in Scandinavia, the Svear? Cnut the GREAT would in my opinion without any doubt have called himself also king of the Swedes if he had ruled in Sigtuna. Saying himself being only ruler of part of the Swedes tells with great certainty that he was just that, and certainly not the ruler of Sigtuna. This part has to be changed! Marty 20090123 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.228.120.216 (talk) 21:49, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Article Cleanup?

There appears to be some repetition in the article (although this seems to be a common problem with the biographies) and some sections, have, way, too, many, commas. The article is also quite long. This means there's lots of good information, but it makes it harder to follow. Is there any consensus on if/when/whether/how to divide an otherwise single entry for readability? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.164.167.46 (talk) 23:41, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I dont think the article can get alot longer. I dont think it could get alot shorter either. There is some reptition in the different sections for the various nations Cnut was king of. These are acceptable though I think. Especially as people who use the contents links should be able to understand the context of the particular section.WikieWikieWikie (talk) 20:31, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree that there is repetition in the article. and believe it might be worth getting rid of it. There may be some overlinking in the second half of the article, common words like artisan, scholar, library and sinful. The British isles are linked four times. I may correct the overlinks if noone objects. EdJohnston (talk) 04:00, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

As regards the recent move without discussion...

...to rid us of that horrible "e": I prefer the silent "e" we Anglophones know so well to a Scandinavian name that looks like a misspelling of a certain English word we likewise know well that modesty prevents me from typing. (I don't care how it is spelled, personally, but I hate to see the silent letter "e", which is doing the important work of telling us how to pronounce the "u" [not as in a certain English word of which Cnut is misspelling], baselessly maligned.) Srnec (talk) 05:55, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

In this case the medieval context, where the silent e didn't exist, misleads on the pronunciation. Canute is rather archaic in any case; almost every modern historian who writes on the subject writes "Cnut". Thus, per WP:RS, this is the standard English name. Note, this is an English name with a good old Anglo-Saxon C, not the Norse version Knútr. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 06:10, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

The point is that this was discussed, recently too, so the move was made without consensus and should not have been made, and so should be undone. --Rumping (talk) 19:53, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Please see WP:BRD for how wikipedia works in these things. You haven't provided a reason, something to discuss, for your revert. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 14:17, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy, WP:NAME, impels us to follow predominant English usage. RHS bibliography shows that Cnut is overwhelmingly favoured in the literature in preference to the archaic Canute:

• 107 works

versus

• 38 works

Cnut is also the name used is Cnut's only modern scholarly biography, M. K. Lawson's Cnut: Danes in England in the Early Eleventh Century (reprinted by Tempus as Cnut: England's Viking King), as well as the popular Cnut: Emperor of the North. Cnut is also the title of the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography article, see here. Using WP:RSs (rather than some internet pedias proven to be less reliable that wikipedia), I honestly don't see that there's any scope for argument here, but feel free to prove me wrong. :) Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 14:45, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Fryde's third edition of the Handbook of British Chronology uses Cnut (p. 28). Lawson's recent biography is titled Cnut: England's Viking King (published 2004). Huscroft's Ruling England (designed as a upper level undergrad work on the period and published in 2005) uses Cnut. Stafford's Unification and Conquest (same sort of work as Huscroft's published in 1989) uses Cnut. Chibnall's Anglo-Norman England uses Cnut. Barlow uses Cnut in many works. Williams' Aethelred the Unready (published 2003) uses Cnut. Bates' William the Conqueror (published 2001) uses Cnut. Rex's Harold II (published 2005) uses Cnut. Walker's Harold (published 1997) uses Cnut. Wormald's Making of English Law (published 1999) uses Cnut. Loyn's Governance of Anglo-Saxon England (published 1984) uses Cnut. Lapidge's Blackwell Encyclopedia of Anglo-Saxon England (published 1999) uses Cnut. Harper-Bill's Companion to the Anglo-Norman World (published 2002) uses Cnut. Williams' English and the Norman Conquest (published 1995) uses Cnut. John's Reassessing Anglo-Saxon England (published 1996) uses Cnut. Chibnall's Debate on the Norman Conquest (published 1999) uses Cnut. Loyn's English Church (published 2000) uses Cnut. The editors of the 1998 edition of the Encomium Emmae Reginae uses Cnut. Higham's Death of Anglo-Saxon England (1997) uses Cnut. Lawson's Battle of Hastings (2002) uses Cnut. Stafford's Queen Emma and Queen Edith (1997) uses Cnut. Hill's Road to Hastings (2005) uses Cnut. Hindley's Brief History of the Anglo-Saxons (2006) uses Cnut. Loyn's The Middle Ages: A Concise Encyclopedia (1989) uses Cnut. Mason's House of Godwine (2004) uses Cnut. Blair's Introduction to Anglo-Saxon England (third edition 2003) uses Cnut. Hudson's Viking Princes (2005) uses Cnut. Burton's Monastic and Religious Orders (1994) uses Cnut. Blair's Church in Anglo-Saxon Society (2005) uses Cnut. Brooks' Early History of the Church of Canterbury (1984) uses Cnut. Lawson's biography in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (2005) uses Cnut. I did find one recently published (since 1980) book on my shelf that uses Canute - Thomas' The Norman Conquest published in 2008. The Royal Historical Society bibliography can be found here.Ealdgyth - Talk 15:14, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

My major point is that there was not a consensus for the page move (see the big box and earlier discussions above). Which is the more common name in English is something to be debated; I suspect among most English speakers Canute is still more common. But in any case moving the page[1] when there clearly is not consensus among editors is dubious; doing it a second time[2] is bad practice and exactly the opposite of what Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle suggests: "Revert-wars do not help build consensus: Try to avoid reverting a revert yourself". --Rumping (talk) 01:19, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

No, it's just that you didn't give any reasons except citing a stale lack of consensus, which in any case was partly/mostly about whether he should be called "the Great" or not. That contradicts WP:BRD intrinsically, besides leaving nothing to discuss. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 09:51, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, moving back a title change which clearly does not have consensus in any of the three discussions above (there were several objections to Cnut in the latest one) and which was made without further discussion on the talk page was reasonable in itself. Making the page move again immediately was totally objectionable. Your belief that there is nothing to discuss just makes things worse. While Google proves little, [3] v. [4] is indicative of which is the more common usage, though those go wider than this particular king; adding his death year of 1035 to the searches [5] v. [6] maintains a 2:1 ratio in favour of Canute. But the key issue at the moment is repeated page moves without discussion or consensus. --Rumping (talk) 00:03, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I believe the matter is relatively clear, but you're not helping my confidence by dodging the evidence which seems to prove Cnut is the preferable name per WP:NAME and WP:RS. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 00:12, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Let's try the WP:RM process--Rumping (talk) 00:59, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

First, while I do personally prefer Canute, my only reasoning for commenting on the move was to highlight what I thought was a piece of silly reasoning about silent "e"s. I also believe that modern academic preference for "Cnut" is a fad, perhaps a good one, perhaps a bad one, perhaps a passing one, perhaps one destined to last as long as the discipline and the language, but still just a fad, not something like a discovery or an improvement. That said, our guidelines (which I don't mind following from time to time) support "Cnut the Great". Srnec (talk) 04:34, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

"King of England"?

The article List of English monarchs states that Athelstan was the first one to use the style "king of the English" (927) and Henry II the first one to use the style "King of England" (1154). So what title did Cnut, who is constantly referred to in this article as "king of England", actually use? S.Camus (talk) 09:36, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Requested move (2009)

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 moved -- Aervanath (talk) 17:20, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

---

Canute the Great → Cnut the Great

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *Support or *Oppose, then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

• Support Wikipedia policy, WP:NAME, impels us to follow predominant English usage. RHS bibliography shows that Cnut is overwhelmingly favoured in the literature in preference to the archaic Canute:

• 107 works

versus

• 38 works

Cnut is also the name used in Cnut's only modern scholarly biography, M. K. Lawson's Cnut: Danes in England in the Early Eleventh Century (reprinted by Tempus as Cnut: England's Viking King), as well as the popular Cnut: Emperor of the North. Cnut is also the title of the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography article, see here. Using WP:RSs (rather than some internet pedias proven to be less reliable that wikipedia) and WP:NAME, article must be at Cnut variant not archaic Canute (with its silent "e"). Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 11:35, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

• Support per the long list of historical works above. Modern historical usage is definitely strongly in favor of Cnut. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:00, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support. Do I really need to restate the obvious? Cavila (talk) 14:36, 1 April 2009 (UTC). As for popular usage, I wasn't familiar with the Canute variant myself until much later, perhaps because I was never subjected to the 'hypercorrective fad' in classrooms which insisted on "Canute" for the legendary ruler trying to hold back the tide. Cavila (talk) 10:14, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support Modern usage by historians, who prefer Cnut, is the best example to follow. EdJohnston (talk) 14:55, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose. We are a work of general reference, and should follow other works of general reference. Cuchullain's list in the last move discussion: Britannica,[7] Encarta,[8] Columbia,[9] Compton's,[10] Hutchinson's,[11], and the Catholic Encyclopedia[12] all use Canute. If that doesn't establish common English usage I don't know what would. should be dispositive, except insofar as the desirable source is the New Catholic encyclopedia, which I do not at the moment have to hand. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:08, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
  • This would appear to be the same fad of hypercorrectness that would spell Aeschylus Aiskhulos. In both cases, there is an argument for it, especially in writing addressed solely to scholars; but we are not. Indeed, scholars should not consult us, except to see what their students are likely to plagiarize from; they have better sources. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:12, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

    Wiki uses WP:RSs (which those are not), and the correct Norse form would be Knútr; Cnut is English. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 11:19, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose Google prefers Canute (see earlier), Google Scholar prefers Canute [13] v [14] even after removing articles written by people with the name Canute, Google Books prefers Canute [15] v. [16], even Google News prefers Canute [17] v. [18]. And I use Canute: I simply don't see Cn- as the start of a modern English word.--Rumping (talk) 06:52, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, those ghits are so reliable, giving us hits like "The CANUTE model for dating polyphase zircons by ion-probe". Check the RHSB for reliable surveys of WP:RSs. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 11:22, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I would say that other people with the name Canute rather than Cnut was indeed indicative of the common English form of the name. Similarly the fact that Saint Canute is a much more common use than Saint Cnut is also indicative, even though he was a different Danish king. --Rumping (talk) 16:00, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Did you try distinguishing between archaic usage (say, before 1940) and modern usage? A lot of the stuff that comes up in Google happens to be old and the same tends to go for out-of-copyright public-domain works, which are from ignored in Google seaches. Cavila (talk) 10:14, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

To me archaic is pre-classical not the twentieth century; I suspect Cnut is more archaic (i.e. Anglo-Saxon as opposed to English) than Canute, which may be why some writers prefer it. Try the official website of the British monarchy[19] for what should be a credible contemporary source.--Rumping (talk) 00:37, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

• I support the move for the same reasons as Ealdgyth. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:39, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. People who use the form Cnut are most unlikely to be looking him up on Wikipedia, whereas Canute is the obvious starting-point for those who are. Besides, if we change to Cnut, then logically we should change to Ælfred, etc., and then where will it end? Лудольф (talk) 18:50, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Ever heard of redirects? Why change to Ælfred? "Alfred" is the standard usage in scholarly works.Cavila (talk) 10:14, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose. Not strongly, though. I think Canute is the popular usage, but either is valid, and I don't see that it matters much so long as there are redirects in place. -- Ian Dalziel (talk) 19:07, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support. Per Ealdgyth. Mike Christie (talk) 02:30, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. This looks like a possible case of evolving convention; a continued trend of scholarly usage may propagate to the wider English language using community in the future. However, wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and I don't think usage has tipped yet. I'm certainly more familiar with Canute and I think that is representative of the general literate public. The fact that references such as Britannica, Encarta, etc. are still using Canute is decisive to me. Webster's lists a full definition with the entry for "Canute", and then lists "Cnut" as a "variation of Canute". I don't know how much more explicit a judgement you can get from a source considered authoritative for questions of English usage. Coming to conclusions different from such a source, based on our own in-house analysis of google hits, scholarly work, and so forth verges on original research. This is certainly something that we (and the editors of Webster's) should revisit in the future, given the evolution of convention. However, it is too early yet.Erudy (talk) 14:14, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

  Webster's dictionary an authoritative source? You gotta be kidding. Try the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography article, see here: Cnut [Canute] (d. 1035), king of England, of Denmark, and of Norway, was the son of Swein Forkbeard (d. 1014), king of England and of Denmark; his mother, whose name is unknown, was a sister of Boleslav of Poland, possibly widow of King Erik of the Swedes. . Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:52, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

  Would that be the man Wikipedia calls Eric the Victorious? ;)--Rumping (talk) 00:37, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

• Support per Deacon of Pndapetzim's first arguments. Inge (talk) 18:27, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

• "The names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors, and for a general audience over specialists." This seems to be a central tenet of the current naming covnentions. The general sources (encyclopedias, dictionaries, non-academic websites) cited seem to indicate that readers will be more familiar and comfortable with Canute. The academic (i.e. specialist) sources push us in the opposite direction. Can any of the supporters of the move (Deacon, Cavila, Ealdgyth, Angus, etc.) explain how the proposed destination (Cnut) is not in tension with the above mentioned principle, keeping Erudy's comments about an evolving convention in mind? Srnec (talk) 02:51, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

  His modern biographies call him Cnut, and one of these is aimed at the popular market. These encyclopedias tend to be re-edited versions of old biographies and retain older spellings as a kind of archaeology, but it is clear that modern usage, not just scholarly usage, prefers Cnut at least as much as Canute. Wikipedia is more like ODNB than sources like Britannica and other such internet encyclopedias proven to be less reliable that wikipedia. Since there is no clear difference, and since wikipedia's aim is to be a first resource and to move readers to the main sources, why use a different name than the ones they use? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 03:08, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

  It should be obvious by now, but the guideline just quoted by Srnec continues "Wikipedia determines the recognizability of a name by seeing what verifiable reliable sources in English call the subject". Even if we ignore all the stuff smacking of specialism and confine ourselves only to general reliable surveys aimed at a wide audience, such as The Anglo-Saxons (ed. Campbell et al, Penguin Book), or even the old classics like Stenton's Anglo-Saxon England and Whitelock's The Beginnings of English Society (1952), "Cnut" has still won the day. Quoting outdated and unreliable works of reference or royalty websites simply won't cut it I'm afraid. Cavila (talk) 22:54, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

  Who decides what's "outdated"? Specialists? Or general readers? And how reliable does an encyclopedia have to be in order to be cited for article naming? I reiterate that the difference between Canute and Cnut is not primarily one of accuracy. It's a stylistic matter. Srnec (talk) 05:29, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

• Support per Deacon and Ealdgyth. Moreover, both forms are presented in the introduction, and we have redirects.--Berig (talk) 07:48, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
• Weak Support, as I'd rather have the proper Knut, but as English language has shot itself in the nee by not nowing anymore how to pronouce the k in kn, let's accept what modern English language scholarly sources prefer. To determine that, we should not use Google searches the way Rumping does above. Let's enforce that the hits mention the King's basic biographic data (year 1035), and that the source is not too old, let's say post 1950: Cnut 845 hits vs. Canute 318 hits. That reflects the ratio Deacon presents above. -- Matthead  Discuß   22:31, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose as he's recorded in our family tree as Canute, the official website of the British Monarchy agrees, and even Wikipedia self-referentially says that Canute is the anglicised form derived from the old Norse Knútr - I say keep it as Canute, and just redirect Cnut and other variations there. Greyskinnedboy (talk) 00:55, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

You seem to be making Deacon's point that the sources that favor 'Canute' will be old, traditional sources. Your family tree is unlikely to have been updated to reflect the views of post-1950 historians. EdJohnston (talk) 03:20, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

• Support. My personal preferences favour Canute, but since the Wikipedians who are likely to work in this area are unanimous in support for the version they claim to see in all their best sources, I say let them have their way. Srnec (talk) 05:29, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support. The most accepted term in the most knowledgeable community (in this case historians) should hold sway. Of course, 'Canute the Great' would redirect there.

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.

Sigtuna?

WikieWikieWikie recently re-added that Canute was king of Sigtuna, without adding references. Haukur pointed out above that this is contentious. Is there evidence for this statement, or should the old version be restored? Additionally, it appears he ruled other parts of Sweden as well; the way WikieWikieWikie has it phrased now makes it sound like he ruled only Sigtuna. This needs to be corrected.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Other recent additions need to be checked out as well, both for factual accuracy and to clean up the wording. I restored the intro to a previous version that was worded better and included all the same info, someone will need to go over the rest of the article as well. I also restored the birth date to ca. 995, which WikieWikieWikie admitted on my talk page was a convention. Is there great dispute on this? If so, it needs to be mentioned in the article, and whatever is done, the date should not be replaced with question marks. This is bad form. --Cúchullain ^t/c 18:05, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I am a bit too adamant on the Sigtuna thing. I must say, though, the Swedish kingdom was only in its fledging state, and lands in the south were Danish territory as the people at the time saw it. See, [[20]], as well as, [[21]], which show, clearly, that Skane was Danish since 899, a time when the Sweden of today was still a patchwork of petty kingdoms, and, that Sweden was a kingdom in 995, which means any conquest of the capital region means the conqueror should be seen as the king. Sigtuna was, as the wiki page, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sigtuna, shows, the capital region.

WikieWikieWikie 18:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, with the risk of over adamancy on the rulership of Sigtuna, and the Swedish kingdom (main part of at least), if the Letter of March 1027, written by the man himself, says, ruler of the Swedes, and the Skanian dominion was Danish, through and through, it can only be Sigtuna to which he refers. It is contentious. Although the situation seems to be that he was under threat from the Swedes, and the Norwegians, even in Denmark, with attacks by the sea. Sigtuna is clearly a contender for the origin of the threat, along with Norway, and the defeat of Cnuts enemies, which he mentions in the Letter, must mean this threat was at an end, and the threateners dealt with. Evidence exists for his dominion, even beyond Skane and Sigtuna, too, which justifies the title REX SW.

WikieWikieWikie 14:31, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

If there is contention, we need to identify it. If the Sigtuna thing is something that is really discussed by scholars, it needs to be properly sourced. If it's only your interpretation, then it should not be mentioned.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:15, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I haven't read through the long posts here, but I noticed the question about Sigtuna. For what it is worth; Historisk Atlas Danmark, ed. by Jette Kjærulff Hellesen and Ole Tuxen, Copenhagen: G.E.C. Gads forlag (1988) shows a map titled "Empire of Canute the Great 1016-1035" (page 10, map "e") which shows England (labelled 1016-35), Norway (labelled 1028-35), Denmark (labelled 1018-35). The same map shows a region roughly bordered by the modern towns of Uppsala, Örebro, Gothenburg, Nässjö and Oskarshamn. This indicated region in simply labelled "Sweden ?". The accompanying text clarifies: "The information in Encomium Emma source [clamining] that Canute the Great should have ruled Scotland are doubtful and these regions are not shown. His reign in Sweden is seen (afspejlet) by coins struck in his name struck in Sigtuna, but it can not be defined better in place or time. The references section (p. 280) gives the following sources behind the map: Brita Malmer: Mynt och människor, 1968, pp. 139-45; Aksel E. Christensen: Vikingetidens Danmark, 1969, pp. 260-71; Danmarks Historie, ed. by Aksel E. Christensen, H.P. Clausen, Svend Ellehøj and Søren Mørch, vol I, 1977, pp. 186-89; Aksel E. Christensen: Knud den Store, Dansk biografisk leksikon [a reference book containing biographies of famous Danes], 3. ed., vol. VIII, 1981, pp. 56-58. The Great Danish Encyclopedia notes in the end of his article: Han vandt også indflydelse i Sverige; de svenske mønter slået i hans navn, som man har fundet, er dog antagelig blot lokale kopier af hans engelske mønter. ("He also gained influence in Sweden; the finds of Swedish coins struck in his name are, however, likely to be simple local copies of his English coins.") The same book's entry on Sigtuna is very short and mentions that Olof Skötkonung stuck coins in the town but it does not mention Canute. This is all I know about this topic. It looks like this theory is disputed but that the author(s) of the map in Historisk Atlas Danmark based it on the coin finds. Valentinian ^{T / C} 20:50, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I have not personally seen a definitive answer to this question. It is definitely a topic of debate though, although no clear evidence (written) survives which can point either way. Unless the 1027 Letter of Cnut's is used, and the coins, as well as pointers that the battle at Holy River was fought at a river near Stockholm, skant other contemporary evidence survives. This is the reason, as well as tactical necessities, which I believe Sweden was under Cnut's rule, albeit obscurely, today. I will endeavor to source as much as I can.

WikieWikieWikie 21:45, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

If there are no reliable secondary sources, it is original research on your part to include the material. From what you are saying, it seems we need to remove the claim entirely.--Cúchullain ^t/c 23:15, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

There you go. I don't know why I didn't just put these refences in before, I have had the book for ages. That is, Cnut: England's Viking King, by the expert on the middle ages, M.K. Lawson, and the pages I reference 95-97 cover the argument on the domains Cnut held in the north pretty thoroughly. Graslund, on the other hand, is an archaeologist as far as I can gather, and the information he provides seems to me as pretty reliable, although I have not read the Scandia article myself, which cover controversy on the Helgea A battle, specifically. I will definitely reference alot more soon.

WikieWikieWikie 16:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

It appears, given the information Valentinian has brought up, that it is at best contentious whether or not Canute ruled in Sigtuna. WikieWikieWikie admits that he hasn't even read the article he gave as a source for that; I'm betting it doesn't even say definitively that Canute ruled Sigtuna. Saying he may have, or that he had some influence there, is entirely different, and it's dishonest for us to claim unequivocally that he ruled over Sigtuna in the face of the contradicting sources. This needs to be taken care of.--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:12, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

This area is out of my normal area of expertise. I vaguely remember hearing this story a few times but that's about it. Dansk Udenrigspolitiks Historie ("A History of Danish Foreign Policy") volume I (Konger og Krige) must have more information, but I've never read this particular volume. Valentinian ^{T / C} 21:31, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I can only agree with Cuchullain as far as the fact it is wrong to claim an unlikelihood as a fact. It is however extremely likely that Sigtuna was at some point under the control of Cnut. Coins minted with REX SW, though not necessarily entirely accurate, mean, if they were minted in the vicinity of Sigtuna, by a monier previously on the payroll of Anund Jacob, although with CNUT on the coins, this area was his. The inaccuracy only goes so far as the fact Cnut probably never was in complete control of Sweden, although Anund Jacob was definitely on the defensive, and the forces under Cnut's command supreme. I never claim that Sweden was his, only that the capital region was, and the claim he was not so far off. I will concede there was never a coronation, as we know it today, although all of Sweden must have made some truce of fealty to avoid conquest. Cnut was, I believe, considerably aged, and the lands of Sweden far too exspansive to conquer fully. Sigtuna though, was enough to drive the point home far enough, if not a deal further.

I only wish I could find the website I link as the reason for the doctor on the map. It was very clear, as well as a recent interpretation of history. On the site it said it was an offical Danish goverment map, which was part of a sequence of all the lands Denmark ever held.

WikieWikieWikie 19:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Surely this is a case of innocent untill proven guily, or right until proven wrong. The case is that Sweden was a kningdom on its first legs at the time, and the Letter of 1027 clearly states, in Cnut's own words that god had aided him in the destruction of his enemies, i.e. the Norwegians and Swedes who attacked Denmark, and that he thought of himself as ruler over not only England, Denmark and Norway, but some Swedes also. The parts of modern Sweden in the south were fully Danish, so other parts must be what he refers to. Surely, with the Sigtuna coins as proof, Cnut defeated the Swedish king, and the capital was occupied. His visit to Rome and Conrad's coronation after Holy River means both the Norwegians and the Swedes were dealt with, and the threat no more. On his return he was made king of Norway, and if he had many more years (with a birthdate in the 980s), he would have probably been made Swedish king too. The source I state being an article which points out that Holy River was the name of a watercourse near Sigtuna at the time. Anund Jacob, king of Sweden, to boot, is out of the picture here, defeated in battle no less, so he cannot be used as counter evidence for Cnuts claims (really Sigtuna is a compromise... of sorts).

WikieWikieWikie 19:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

The now banned User:Anglo-Saxon1 that I see you have had problems with before and ip 86.2.71.155 keep changing the dates for the occupation of Sigtuna. Graslund - who is used in the article as the main source of the identification of the battle at Helgea as being near Sigtuna - puts it between 1026-1030 (less than four years). Until a proper unbanned user can provide a decent source for 1028-1035 I will keep changing it back to the earlier dates of 1026-1030 that Graslund and other sources propose as the maximum. When King Olav left for Novgorod in 1028 he spent time in Narke because "Sweden proper" (the traditional lands of Uppland, Södermanland and Västmanland) still was controlled by Cnut´s men or allies, but when he (Olav) returned to fight the battle of Stiklestad he spent time at King Anund´s court. Therefore the occupation must have been lifted some time between the summer of 1028 and the summer of 1030. User:Anglo-Saxon1´s claims that Cnut took control of Sigtuna two years after he won the battle of Helgea is for obvious reasons pure nonsense.. Please change it back if you see any of his sockpuppets or ip:s vandalise the dates again.

Graslund appears to say he is pushing both the dates and the area of control to their largest reasonable limits. He says it may have been a smaller area and for as short a time as two years. The Swedish National encyclopedia describe it as Cnut having "control of the land around lake Malaren under a limited time after the battle of Helgea in 1026". It is perhaps a bit misleading to use the word "King" (of some Swedes) about Canute as it only was an occupation of a minor part of the kingdom (even if it was the capital and surrounding lands).

An interesting fact is that no "Cnut Rex Sv" coins have been found south of lake Malaren but they have been found at three different places in southwest Finland.. (as well as Norway and northern Sweden of course) This (together with other evidence and official history) in my opinion strongly suggest that this article is on the right track regarding the limited area of Anunds kingdom Canute was in control of.

In short: I have read Graslund and the article is now fairly close to his hypothesis which I think is good since I find it probable. Through their National encyclopedia the Swedish Government acknowledges that the occupation took place so it can definitely be considered proper official history.

Mentions of a coronation should be removed altogether as it is personal speculation. Without a coronation and with merely an occupation of a minority of the kingdom one should not be considered King. There are examples of Swedish kings claiming to be rightful heirs to the Danish crown and then occupying the Danish capital, but no serious historian would call them "King of the Danes". I am not going to try to change anything but it would be interesting to hear more about why his self-proclaimed fuzzy title (used to impress the pope?) should be displayed almost in the same manner as his actual kingships. "Ruler of some Swedes" would be more appropriate in my opinion - even though it would affect the aesthetics of the article in a negative way. Maybe I have my own definition of what a king is? Just some thoughts.. I certainly wont fight for it (except for the dates mentioned above). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Appledelphy (talk • contribs) 05:43, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

birthdate removal

I've again reverted the addition of a 1 December birthdate for Cnut. Both Lawson's Cnut: England's Viking King and the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography entry give an "unknown" birthdate for Cnut. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:50, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I've asked the editor in question to explain what the "enough evidence" is. It does seem just a tad unlikely that Lawson would fail to mention this if there was evidence, but stranger things have happened ... Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:59, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

The ODNB entry, also written by Lawson, gives this on his birthdate "The poem Knútsdrápa, composed for Cnut by the Icelandic skald Ottar the Black, says that Cnut started his military career unusually young, and mentions an attack on Norwich perhaps identifiable with that by his father in 1004. If so, Cnut might have been born in the early 990s or a little before; if not, his earliest campaigns may have been in 1013 and 1014, which would suggest a birth date of c.1000. The thirteenth-century Icelandic Knytlinga saga, which wrongly states that he ruled England for twenty-four years, reports that he was thirty-seven when he died." Handbook of British Chronology (3rd ed.) gives a birthdate of c. 995. Keynes' entry in the Blackwell Encyclopedia of Anglo-Saxon England does not mention a birthdate at all. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:06, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Beeblebrox has just blocked the IP who keeps adding this info. Could it be User:Anglo-Saxon1?? Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:51, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Could be, but might not be (shrugs). Doesn't really matter much, although the same IP added a block of unsourced text to another article that I took back out, asking for a source in the edit summary. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:56, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Two errors

There are at least two serious errors in the article Canute the Great. (1) Swein was a Christian, at least in name, though he tolerated paganism; (2) Canute the Great must not be confused with St. Canute. (Ch. De Wolf)

In fact he was a great benefactor to the church, espeicially New Minster in Winchester although he made grants to Canterbury as well. He also made at least one trip to Rome - to attend the coronation of German emperor Conrad II. Whether or not he was a devoted Christian is another matter. M

The above was unsigned; signing so it will archive. Mike Christie (talk) 04:22, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Automated archiving?

Any objections to setting up automated archiving? This page is getting long. If nobody objects I'll set it up with a six month keep. Mike Christie (talk) 12:00, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I've set up automated archiving; it will leave threads less than a year old, and will in any case always leave the six most recent threads. Mike Christie (talk) 23:34, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Harold or Harald?

Was he preceded by Harold II or Harald II in Denmark? Both spellings are used in the article and only one is presumably correct. -- SGB

I think Harold is an Anglo Saxon name. As no Danish king prior to Canute ruled England, Harald would probably be the name of Canute's Danish predecessor.

In 1066 Harold II Godwinson, the last Anglo Saxon king of England fought against Harald Hardradi, the Norwegian king who claim the English throne. Here the difference between the Scandinavian and the Anglo Saxon names is seen.

The above was unsigned; signing so it will archive. Mike Christie (talk) 04:23, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

It's the same name and was simply spelt as each writer saw fit, whether as Harold, Harald, Harrold, or in just about any other variation you can think of, plus a few Latin versions, adding -us, -e, -i, or -o, depending on case. At the time, it's unlikely that anyone would have considered one spelling correct and the other incorrect, except as to inflection. Sometimes, the same writer would use different spellings of a name within the same document. It didn't matter very much. Moonraker2 (talk) 02:00, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Confused

This part is very confusing:

Among the allies of Denmark was Boleslaw the Brave, the Duke of Poland and a relative to the Danish royal house. He lent some Slav troops, likely to have been a pledge made to Cnut and Harald when, in the winter, they "went amongst the Wends" to fetch their mother back to the Danish court. She had been sent away by their father after the death of the Swedish king Eric the Victorious in 995, and his marriage to Sigrid the Haughty, the Swedish queen mother.

I thought Sigrid the Haughty WAS Cnut's mother? Can we have a re-write of this please ? -Chumchum7 (talk) 23:21, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I thought someone else was Cnut's mother - there are several potential candidates named at points in the article. This could probably do with a rewrite. I note you have added

Thietmar states that Cnut was half Polish: his mother was from Poland, and his grandfather was Mieszko I, the founder of the country. While Cnut was taking control over England, his cousin Boleslaw the Brave was creating a Polish empire in Central Europe.

to the lede. This would imply that Cnut's mum was not Sigrid the Haughty. That sentence is unreferenced, but the references are in the next section on Cnut's origins. Should there be a reference in the lede? Incidentaly, not knowing enough about the history of Poland at this time, is Boleslaw himself descended from Poles or Scandinavians? --Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:29, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. To my mind this sentence shouldn't necessarily imply Sigrid the Haughty wasn't Cnut's mother. There is academic consensus that Cnut was Mieszko's grandson and Boleslaw's cousin; but there is only a degree of academic debate about whether Sigrid was Scandinavian or Polish, and therefore whether or not Sigrid was Cnut's mother. Although, it seems most sources now point to Sigrid having been Cnut's Polish mother, although she may have spent most of her life in Scandinavia. Without question, historians say Mieszko and Boleslaw were Polish rather than Scandinavian. Personally I don't think such an introductory overview requires citation if citation follows in the many body of the article. -Chumchum7 (talk) 13:59, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

And do you feel like having a go at re-writing that confusing sentence? -Chumchum7 (talk) 13:59, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

While Cnut was taking control over England, his cousin Boleslaw the Brave was creating a Polish empire in Central Europe. -- This sentence doesn't give us any new information about Cnut (that he had a polish mother is already said before). It just wants to tell us, well, that Boleslaw of Poland created "a Polish empire" ("in Central Europe") at roughly the same time as Cnut conquered England. Maybe we should add that Cnut "took control over England in Western Europe"? It's an article about Cnut, not Boleslaw, what Boleslaw did at the time doesn't belong here - except if it has some special significance for Cnut, but the article gives none. Only information relevant here is that he was cousin to Boleslaw, and possibly was backed by him in the conquest of England. The sentence sounds exactly as if it was inserted by some Polish enthusiast for the only reason to tell us how grand the ancient Polish were, conquering England and Central Europe and whatnot. Or maybe half of England, because Cnut was only half-Polish... bet he wouldn't have conquered England if he hadn't had Polish genes... Anyway, that's exactly the reason why the sentence is superfluous and should be cut. 88.65.83.15 (talk) 23:59, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

No need to be rude about Poles, but your argument otherwise seems reasonable. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:19, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't intend to be rude about Poles and apologize to everyone who might have been offended. My sarcastic remarks were intended to be directed at over-patriotism, which (as I suspect) is the reason for that kind of writing (i.e. irrelevant information, redundancies, digressions just to bring up your own favorite topics). It really hasn't anything to do with Poles; experience is that people from all nations regularly sin in this way on Wikipedia. I don't think patriotism is bad, but I think it's bad to annoy well-meaning readers with it. 88.65.83.15 (talk) 01:31, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Elen. I've checked the sources and cleaned up that line. My intention was to briefly mention Cnut's heritage in the intro. He wasn't an indigenous Anglo-Saxon, so it is relevant to talk about his descent. The mention of his Polish roots also sets up the later info about his use of Polish troops in England. As to user 88.65.83.15, please take a read of WP:Assume good faith. By the way, I'm not Polish. I second Elen's point that we should not be rude about Poles. Please note that your IP address suggests that you are in Germany. Thanks, -Chumchum7 (talk) 21:01, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm very sorry, I overreacted. As I said before, I did not want to be offensive. I had rewritten the sentence myself, but it is just as ok now. -

I also expanded the paragraph about Canute's mother (it still lacks one or two citations). I don't know if it is too much of a digression now, but I wanted to point out the problems in the sources. I also suggest that the name of Cnut's mother in the infobox should be changed from "Sigrid the Haughty, also known as Gunnhilda" to "Gunhild, original name unknown". The sources that name Cnut's mother always call her Gunhild (see Gunhild of Wenden), and in fact no source calls her Sigrid. The historical identity of Gunhild and Sigrid is a hypothesis, but not the only one. (In any case, neither Gunhild nor Sigrid would have been the original name, which must have been Slavic. As mentioned in Sigrid the Haughty, there is a conjecture that is was Świętosława.) Corinius (talk) 12:42, 27 February 2010 (UTC) (= user 88.65.83.15)

Request for comment

While investigating a new editor's contributions I stumbled across Scandinavian Empire which they have created. I thought it was a candidate for deletion but I do see the term crop up in a Google search. Even so, I'm still feel uneasy about it for some reason. Thoughts anyone? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 02:52, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree it sounds like a bogus phrase. Anyway the Union of Kalmar was bigger than Cnut's kingdom. Still, the criteria for inclusion or delition is at WP:Verifiability. If a legit source refers to a Scandinavian Empire then it should probably stay, no matter how weird it sounds to most of us. -Chumchum7 (talk) 07:21, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Yellow....?

Cnut the Great's domains, in red. Vassals are denoted in orange, with other allied states in yellow.

Under the heading "Overlordship outside his kingdoms", in the caption for the map showing "Cnut the Great's domains", "allied states" are said to be coloured in "yellow". I see this as a (rather sickly) shade of green! I note that this colour is also given as "yellow" in the descriptions for both the WP .png file and its original on Wikimedia Commons. I'd change the caption and descriptions myself, but don't want to get shouted at! And, while I'm about it, the descriptions for both image files point to "Canute the Great", which of course is now a re-direct, and presumably ought to be changed... Nortonius (talk) 10:22, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, it is a curious colour, but labelling it as "green" may cause some confusion. On my screen, it can vary from a dark shade of gold to a sickly shade of green, as you have suggested, depending on the brightness. However, between the descriptions of simply "yellow" and "green", I would say yellow is a closer approximation (at least on my screen). It might be best to see what the other editors think. In the meantime, I will correct the redirect. Hayden120 (talk) 11:36, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Maybe the problem lies in the original choice of colours in the image! Yes, I can well imagine that it'll show up differently on different monitors, I think what makes the green I'm seeing "sickly" is probably a weighting towards yellow; so perhaps a more "central" shade of yellow would've been better. For what it's worth, I made the effort to calibrate my monitor recently, with the approval of a photographer friend - I know that amounts to nothing more than "my say-so", but it gives me some confidence... Thanks for taking on the re-direct. Nortonius (talk) 11:56, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I've now looked at this image on four computers - two iMacs with built-in monitors, a Mac Mini using an Optronix branded monitor, and a PC running Windows XP (sp3): one of the iMacs (my usual computer) and the Windows PC show the sickly green, while the other two show the dark gold you mention! Hmm - shame the image wasn't created using primary colours, as only three are needed... Nortonius (talk) 13:41, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I have changed the shade of yellow. Hopefully it is better :). Best regards, Hayden120 (talk) 12:54, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Aha! I've just been around all four computers I mentioned above, and all are now showing this colour as a clear yellow - that's excellent, thank you very much! Nortonius (talk) 15:06, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Death

Is there any further information on Cnut's death other than "he died in 1035"? 82.37.241.57 (talk) 02:36, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Boleslaw was not Cnut's cousin but his uncle. Cnut was son of Sven Tveskæg and Boleslaws sister, Svietoslawa. There is more to say about the letter of 1027, especielly Cnut's request for tythe, which might also have been a rule in Denmark, when he got there. He was fighting Swedes in 1025 in Uppland, one source says. It was proven last year, that this can be true but for many years it was not trusted. In future books by scholars I think it will be mentioned. That's also why there were coins made. Jan Eskildsen87.57.199.24 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:13, 7 September 2010 (UTC).

Take a look at Cnut's letter from 1027, especially the last 8-9 lines, where he told in details what to do about tythe. Since he was on his way to Denmark before he went home to England, I don't find it unlikely, that the same tythe-rules were apply for Denmark. But of course he did not write to Danes, because he was on his way there. Jan Eskildsen87.57.199.24 (talk) 13:26, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

The letter can be seen here: http://www.elfinspell.com/CanutesLetter.html Jan Eskildsen87.57.199.24 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:29, 7 September 2010 (UTC).

Extract from the letter: "I now therefore command and adjure all my bishops and the governors of my kingdom, by the duty they owe to God and myself, to take care that before I come to England all dues belonging to God, according to the old laws, be fully discharged; 38 namely, plough-alms, the tythe of animals born in the current year, and the pence payable to St. Peter at Rome, whether from towns or vills; and in the middle of August the tythes of corn; and at the feast of St. Martin the first-fruits of grain (payable) to every one’s parish church, called in English ciric-sceat. If these and such-like dues be not paid before I come, those who make default will incur fines to the king, according to law, which will be strictly enforced without mercy. Farewell.” —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.57.199.24 (talk) 13:41, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Encyclopedic style

The style of this article is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. For example, "Cnut, a Viking, was to be one of England's most successful kings." One should state "X considers Cnut to be one England's...". Generally there are too many uncited statements which appear to be original interpretations of some other source. It's more like an essay than an encyclopedic article. Matthewcgirling (talk) 20:16, 15 October 2010 (UTC) The section "Statesmansip" seems to be either original research or plagiarised opinion. Matthewcgirling (talk) 21:11, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Fair points, encyclopedic style is indeed the goal. I think it is maybe a slightly different encylopedic style from that which U refer to as encyclopedias are reference sources, and do not refer their sources so much as may be thought. Additionally the aim of this encyclopedia is not to boil things down to paraphrase, but rather to present entire articles, as complete as can be. The comment U draw attention to is one that carries in general with the modern writers on the topic of Cnut the Great, and so is more of an undeniable fact than a matter of debate. I agree this article could do with more citations, although there are already quite alot. I do not agree individidual writer's opinions should be brought into the article though, as this is in my opinion bad form on the part of an impartial work of scholarship. Consensus, wihtout clumsy denotation of supportive opinion (as in an essay meant for scholarly argument) in the text is preferable here - the only authors worthy of mention in the text are first hand, primary sources, like the original chroniclers from whose work all the current opinion of historians bases itself.

WikieWikieWikie (talk) 16:37, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

All in all some constructive criticism. I feel this section has had an improvement. I am not aware of any reference to the aristocracy of England being restored although it seems more or less correct as all of Cnut's Viking Earls did indeed die before him. There are some considerable gaps in the original sources for these kinds of things though. It should be noted that those Englishmen known to have been brought into Cnut's reign were not part of the Aethelred faction, though - aristocracy is maybe the wrong term.

Finally, I myself wrote the Statesmanship part and will admit it uses a pretty close approximation of the words from authors of the key reference material in use throughout this article. I can see a few references there and I will get them done asap. Any other pointers ??

WikieWikieWikie (talk) 18:55, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Scholars do not agree about Sigrid – in Polen you will hear, that she was the same as Svietoslawa, but that is not the case in Denmark and Sweden, where she is the daughter of a Toste. If you read Danish, look at this site www.vikingetidenskonger.dk and read "Artikel 1" (p18). Jan Eskildsen87.57.198.21 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:25, 24 November 2010 (UTC).

Ancestry

Ancestors of Cnut the Great

16. Harthacnut of Denmark

8. Gorm the Old

4. Harald I of Denmark

18. Harald Klak

9. Thyra

2. Sweyn Forkbeard

20. Björn III Eriksson

10. Olof II Björnsson

5. Gyrid Olafsdottir

22. Thrand

11. Ingeborg Thrandsdotter

1. Cnut

24. Lestko

12. Siemomysł

6. Mieszko I of Poland

13. Gorka?

3. Sigrid the Haughty

28. Vratislaus I, Duke of Bohemia

14. Boleslaus I, Duke of Bohemia

29. Drahomíra

7. Dubrawka of Bohemia

15. Biagota

This was done for two reasons. First, another tree has just been shown, so it is redundant. Second, it contains too many connections which are uncertain, dubious, traditional or disputed. 1) the ancestry of Gorm as son of 'Harthacnut' is a common reconstruction, but not universally accepted (see Harthacnut's page, which discusses the issue). 2) that Thyra was daughter of Harald Klak is dubious - it seems chronologically untenable. 3) that Gyrid even existed, and that if she did that she was daughter of Olaf Bjornsson, if he existed, and the next generation is dubious as well. 4) Ingeborg, daughter of Thrand and her father are completely legendary (if even that - there has been a continuous pattern of addition to these pedigrees over the centuries). 5) that Sigrid the Haughty is the same as Cnut's mother is problematic, Sigrid likely being a legendary composite. 6) that Cnut's mother was polish (broadly but not universally accepted by historians, 7) that Miesko was son of Seimomysl, as opposed to his connection back to Piast being a late legend. 8) Gorka is dubious, 9) Biagota existed, but is only known from coins so we don't know to whom she married. Each of these merits a discussion if it is to be included, but that would give these obscure aspects of his supposed progenitors an undue weight, and it is a disservice to present them all as if they had the same degree of probable accuracy as materials in other genealogies using this format, particularly when it is redundant.Agricolae (talk) 17:57, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

citation needed for Old English Cnút

This has been marked with {{says who?}}, edit summary :"citation needed for unsourced claim that "Cnut" with a long 'u' is "Old English" rather than just an abbreviation of Canutus on a coin" [22]. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle in this transcription [23] reads Cnut, variant spellings along with Cnut in some of the manuscripts are "Cnutes" (genitiv?) and "Cnute" (dativ??). I could not find occurences of "Canute" or "Canutus", my search was not very thorough though, basically ctrl-F in Firefox... If someone with a better understanding of AS&ASC than me could look into this it could hopefully be sorted out quite quickly. Finn Rindahl (talk) 12:57, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Your understanding of "Cnutes" as being genitive and "Cnute" being dative Old English forms of masculine noun "Cnut" in the ASC are spot on, see e.g. here, and compare modern English translations, where you can see that these forms have been translated as appropriate. As for how it's actually pronounced, I personally know of nothing citable - though this (from 2:47 to 3:08) gives the pronunciation of Rik Mayall's comedy character Adonis Cnut - "Not 'Canute'", says "Dr. Awkward, Professor of Pedantic"! Equally uncitable but equally indicative is this. W.G. Searle's Onomasticon Anglo-Saxonicum, originally published 1897, only has "Cnut", but doesn't indicate pronunciation - which is a shame, as he specialised in names, hence the book, but there it is! Someone else might be able to add something more modern and citable. Nortonius (talk) 23:58, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, I guess Adonis Cnut probably doesn't qualify as an reliable source for this, despite being "the cleverest man in England and Oxford's leading moral philosopher" :) Further, how "Cnut" is pronounced in modern English doesn't really tell how it would be pronounced in Anglosaxon. The ASC is a reliable source that "Cnut" in Anglosaxon isn't just "an abbreviation of Canutus on a coin" however, but if it should be written with a macron for long 'u' that would probably need additional sourcing. Finn Rindahl (talk) 13:22, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Please! Let's not have Cnut be the only word in the English language ending in -ut that is pronounced to rhyme with shoot - all as per an invention by English WP. Leave the "says who" tag, supply a reliable source (that's a continued challenge) or remove the invention - please! SergeWoodzing (talk) 05:36, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Knút(r/s)

Try Knútr, Knúts, and Knút bare in googlebooks. The vowel is lengthened in the Norse. I don't have the time or the library to say more. DinDraithou (talk) 05:55, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Norse? I believe this is English WP where an English text is supposed to make some kind of sense, to 90% of its readers, according to English phonetics. SergeWoodzing (talk) 06:06, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

OK, I see how you solved this. Good. When people see "Norse" they'll skip on to the rest of the text that interests them (we hope). SergeWoodzing (talk) 06:09, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

This name surely confused insular writers and we can't expect any consistency from the beginning. So how it might appear in this or that Anglo-Saxon, Gaelic, or descendant source is unhelpful. DinDraithou (talk) 06:23, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I just wanted to add that the definite article is spelled in more than one way in Old Norse. Thus you will find all of "Knútr enn ríki", "Knútr inn ríki" and "Knútr hinn ríki". There can be no doubt that the vowel is long in Old Norse, see e.g. Eiríksdrápa 10.4 Knútr langskipum útan ("Knútr, the longships from without") where it is confirmed by rhyme. Haukur (talk) 09:27, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Bosworth doesn't indicate vowel length in OE Cnut.[24] Haukur (talk) 09:36, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

OE specialists I know pronounce the u long ... for what that's worth. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 14:31, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I think we are supposed to be writing English WP in English for normal readers of English, not for OE specialists and the occasional pushers of "Old Norse". I suggest starting WP projects in OE and/or in "Old Norse" as a constructive idea for some of you, but God I wish you would leave modern English alone! SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:16, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

You need to get a grip on reality, my friend; Cnut is the form in modern English, all three/four recently works recently about him being entitled such. Repeating falsehoods over and over again will not turn them into truths. ;) Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 21:49, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

No evidence for that. What has been shown here is that specialized literature tends to use Cnut, but is evenly divided when it (as with Richard Fletcher's book) addresses the general reader. The story of Cnut and the waves is still only a tenth as common as the conventional spelling. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:56, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

If you check the evidence here and in the last RM, you'll see that it has been shown without doubt that modern reliable sources overwhelmingly use 'Cnut'. Now there might be a lot of trash and republished older works out there using 'Canute', but just being in print doesn't give a source any weight. Balance that against the 4 most recent works dedicated to Cnut all using this form (three bios, including one non-academic bio one, + article collection ) and the fact that 80% + of decent sources use Cnut, there's no case here. And all three recent bios are addressed to the "general reader" too; Fletcher, a specialist in another topic, is not particularly notable. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:44, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Knut bolded in lede

I changed the bolded Knut to Knud in the lede with this edit summary:

• changed from swedish to danish spelling assuming he is not known in english by the former

This was reversed with this summary:

• Why? Google Books indicates this is something like five times as common in English.

Why on earth would anyone refer to a Danish-English king in English by a Swedish name? Doubting strongly that those indications are relevant to this article and this person, I would like to see more specifics on that. Till then I am reverseing the reversal. SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:16, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I am happy to oblige. There is no reason I can see for regarding the modern Danish name as so important that it should be bolded in the lede rather than relegated to a footnote. It's not much used in English and it was not used in Cnut's day, thus has no particular historical relevance here. Also note that Knut isn't particularly Swedish. When used in English it's probably mostly intended as an anglicization of the Old Norse name. The process which turned the Old Norse final /t/ (a stop) into Danish /ð/ (a fricative) is called lenition. It did not take place in Swedish and it had not taken place in Danish in the 11th century. Are there any other aspects of the question which you want me to go into more details on? Haukur (talk) 18:38, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Knud should be removed. It is not a form used in English texts, modern Danish forms generally being regarded as irrelevant [for personal names] by historians writing about early medieval Scandinavia. Wouldn't of course object to it being there if we were informing the reader that this what he is called in modern Danish. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 21:47, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Knud has been removed, or rather re-re-re-replaced with Knut - I think some 1500 hits in googlebooks on the phrase "Knut the great" is enough to keep that version along with Cnut/Canute (as names used in modern English), I will not start kicking&screaming if it is removed though. Knud is now in a note as the modern Danish name, along with Norw, Swed. and Polish modern names. Case closed? Finn Rindahl (talk) 23:12, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

 Done And I'm so glad you "will not start kicking&screaming". Sorry if I ruffled feathers. SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:30, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

PS his official contemporary name was Canutus - nothing else. SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:35, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Old/Middle Irish

(formerly belonged to the end of the section right above)

Old/Middle Irish somewhere in the article, since he was overlord of the Scots for a few years? I haven't quite moved out of the 10th century yet, which will be when I've finally finished Ivar of Waterford (died 1000), but finding a few mentions of Cnut in the annals, which mention British events, shouldn't be difficult. Maybe you've come across some, Finn? DinDraithou (talk) 23:25, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I only checked the obvious place (sa 1035), Annals of Ulster reads Cnút mc. Sain[sic], ri Saxan, do ec. and Annals of Tigernach Cnutt mac Sdaín, rí Saxan mortuus est. "Cnút" with the Irish fada is also what is used in RIA New History of Ireland, but personally I preferr Cnutt :) But seriously, I really don't think Cnut has enough ties to Ireland to inlude an Irish version of his name. Finn Rindahl (talk) 00:07, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

You beat me to it. He's also in the Chronicon Scotorum and Annals of Loch Cé. After giving the notices, I was going to say the following: These are the only mentions I can find in the Irish annals of Cnut so far, all reporting his death in 1035. The Irish have never been consistent with their spelling so we should probably accept the fada (long vowel sign) given in the Annals of Ulster, because this was a foreign name. I don't know what to do about the patronymic. But the bigger problem is that Cnut gets no imperial style. The Irish had their sources, so? Hmm. (In fact Cnut would seem to exist nowhere but in 1035 in the Irish sources.) DinDraithou (talk) 00:12, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

We're definitely sidetracking here, but the interesting part is that he is called "king of the Saxons" with no mentioning of Dene/Gaill - obviously the annalists didn't consider him to have a claim over the "foreigners" of Dublin/the Isles. Finn Rindahl (talk) 00:32, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

(I was intending to start a new thread before you posted, and hope you don't mind that I've gone ahead and done this now.) It's an important thing that he isn't styled king of the Danes or Foreigners. I've just performed the always interesting feat of checking the Annals of Clonmacnoise and can't find him there because they appear to be lacunose in that decade, but I am struck by the fact that they are reporting the deaths of Holy Roman Emperors and French kings. AClon are curiously nice to the Norse-Irish here and there, even styling Máel Sechnaill mac Domnaill's wife Máel Muire ingen Amlaíb (Sitric's sister) Queen of Ireland at her death in 1021. So Cnut's authority in the Irish Sea and surrounding waters was just about zero, Sitric himself being one of the three most powerful kings in Ireland during this period. One important result of this inquiry will be that the Uí Ímair, or their females, will soon have a few (more) titles added to their box. Queen of Ireland is really important. See AClon p. 170 for 1014[1021].[25] DinDraithou (talk) 01:33, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Rather unsurprising though; he was uncontestedly King of the Saxons and Angles within months of his inheritance of the Danish Kingdom - and the Irish presumably heard about him from Danes who held that he was King of England from his father's death. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:33, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

There are many reasons to think Cnut did have authority over much of the Irish Sea, but the simplest of all is that the Norse of Ireland would have wanted to be enriched by the overlordship of the man who, was to all effect, ruler of the Scandinavian world. Having a lord was not seen as debasing if the lord was powerful enough. @Pmanderson there was no distinction between "Saxons and Angles" among the English of the 11th century, and the Irish word Saxan just means 'English' (the translator is at fault here). Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:50, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Kindly do not teach your grandmother to suck eggs; that was a phrasing intended to make it easier for any observer who does not know that there had been a unified English kingdom for a century and a half to leap from Sassenach to England. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:52, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

'he was uncontestedly King of the Saxons and Angles'?Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:35, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually only the translator of the Annals of Loch Cé, William Hennessy, gives "king of the Saxons" (published 1871). The rest say "king of England". As far as these "many reasons" it looks like more circular reasoning is required for expansion. The tradition is that the Norse of Ireland after a certain point did not think "that way" or were regarded by their so-called Scandinavian brothers and sisters "that way". From the early 10th century the English themselves couldn't even figure out who were the Gaels and who were the Norse-Gaels, and the Irish sometimes couldn't either, if you read the scholarship. By the time of Cnut the Uí Ímair were as Irish as the Romano-British Saint Patrick as far as the rest of the world were concerned. DinDraithou (talk) 06:36, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not totally sure what you are saying here; but, though the details of the relationship between Cnut and Sigtrygg Silkbeard are unclear, there was a relationship and the power difference meanas it was probably a kind of disguised/respectable clientship. There is room for arguing against this, sure, but I think if you reflect you, you are being too sceptical. Don't forget that Sigtrygg founded his cathedral, Christ Church Cathedral, Dublin, after Christ Church Cathedral Canterbury, and the bishops of the latter were probably consecrating Dublin bishops. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:35, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

That's pretty circular. If there was a relationship it cannot be demonstrated to have been direct. Next, while the Uí Ímair were viewed by the English as Irish, in Ireland in the 11th century they were still trying to maintain a distinct identity and that is the reason for the church business. Although he was probably wealthier than either, Sitric was busy trying to deal with Donnchad mac Briain and Flaithbertach Ua Néill each invading Dublin with their colossal armies. Now you can go ahead and imagine some submission to Cnut as the result, but first you need some evidence of a direct relationship. Finally, there is the fact that at this time the most powerful kings in Ireland, whether recognized High Kings or not, were of comparable strength to any king of England or Denmark or Norway. Those three kings in Scotland submitted because they were comparatively weaker. A strong High King of Scotland himself was about the equal of one the five provincial kings in Ireland. If Cnut had tried to march an army into Ireland it probably would have been suicide. Sitric may have had his problems with Donnchad and Flaithbertach but any one of them could have destroyed such a force, which is why we hear of zero Danish or English presence in Ireland. Surely Cnut would have tried it if he could have. All he seems to have managed to achieve was the assassination of Sitric's son Amlaíb in 1034, while the unfortunate prince was traveling. Also the Gaels themselves were increasingly active on the sea, and the Uí Ímair had interests in Wales dating from the 960s or before. You should read Downham and so on. DinDraithou (talk) 20:49, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I think your scepticism is overblown but acknowledge the exact details of the relationship cannot be reliably depicted, so I'm not sure you're really taking on board what I am saying. Cnut would not have wasted his time marching to Dublin, as Sihtric probably have would wanted Cnut's patronage and influence. I don't understand why you assign such important to the "English" view of the Dublin Norse's ethnicity ... bare in mind btw that Cnut wasn't English, he was a Scandinavian who conquered England. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 21:20, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

[edit conflict] :"probably would have wanted Cnut's patronage and influence". Can you support that? What I'm responding to is you acting like an authority when you're not. It's pretty irritating as I happen to know the primary sources rather better and have the leading scholars on my side. Hudson thinks he's one but isn't. But I'm glad to have provided you with the knowledge that a direct relationship cannot be demonstrated. Use it in health. DinDraithou (talk) 22:14, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure Deacon has read Downham, it was in fact partly based on his recommendation I bought her book way back when ;) The excact relationship between Cnut and Dublin remains unclear, a previous version of this article went (IMO) to far in portraying an actual overlordship from Cnut over Dublin and even Ireland, as discussed above in Talk:Cnut_the_Great#Overlordship_outside_his_kingdoms. This article could probably benefit from a discussion of the pro&cons, with sources more knowledgable on Ireland (like Hudson vs Etchingham&Downham, refs in previous discussion) than Forte&al who were previously cited. We'd have to keep it short though, as nothing indicates that Ireland was high on Cnuts political agenda at any time. Finn Rindahl (talk) 21:55, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

"Cnut the Great" is synthesis, only one book mentions it, it would seem. We can go with the Victorians and have "Canute the Great", or with modern historians and have "Cnut". In English tradition he was always called "Canute", and was remembered for vainly ordering the tide to stop (unfairly, but that's historical memory for you). He was not "great" to the English, though the Danes are justified in calling him such. ðarkuncoll 00:33, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

You're in the wrong section, Tharkun. And before you revert me again please check Echmarcach mac Ragnaill. He was not king of Man until 1052, while this article has been implying it was within his domains before he became king of Dublin. This may have been the case, but there is no evidence for it. See also Kings of Mann and the Isles. DinDraithou (talk) 00:45, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Just to point out that DinDraithou made 4 reversions to this article and keeps on removing my warning from his talk page. ðarkuncoll 01:07, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I invite everyone to join this discussion here, which concerns edits made to Cnut's article. DinDraithou (talk) 03:34, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Map - domains of Cnut

There's been an edit war, mainly over this map. As commented in previous thread, this map is inaccurate with regards to the Hibernio-Norse cities of Ireland, and I suspect there may be other inaccurasies as well. Now, the caption of this mape was "Cnut the Great's domains, in red. Vassals are denoted in orange, with other allied states in yellow." The Irish cities are coloured orange. There's no indication (to my knowledge) that Limerick, Cork, Waterford and Wexford were vassals or even allies of Cnut, these cities had very limited independence at the time and were under overlordship of Irish regional kings. As for Dublin, some kind of "vassalage" in the relation Cnut-Sitric has been suggested, but has also been contested. There does seem to be consensus among scholars that there was some kind of alliance however. So I propose either to reinsert the map with a caption explaining all of this, or better - to change the map removing the Irish cities except for Dublin and changing the colour of Dublin to yellow for "ally". Regarding sources, see Talk:Cnut_the_Great#Map_-_domains_of_Cnut Finn Rindahl (talk) 10:48, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

• I have very strong reservations to using this map as it is, and I'm not surprised it has sparked an edit war. First, I'm not comfortable at all to using the terms "vassals". Not at a time of vassalage had just been "invented" in the Frank empire, causes all sorts of ambiguity. This compounded by the uses of "ally", more confusion about the differences. Then Poland looks all wrong, borders don't match at all with other maps I've found. I think we're best of using only the areas that Cnut ruled, for which there is no trouble in finding sources. You can see this map I've uploaded on the right. ^walk victor falk ^talk 14:37, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

The term 'clientship' is probably better than 'vassalage'. No opinion about whether the map should be included, but the oranging of the Norse cities in Ireland isn't one of its bigger problems (I talk about several anachronisms in the northern British area). If the map must be included simply state 'possible clients' rather than 'vassals', and no-one really should have a problem. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:06, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

• • (edit conflict x2, posting anyway)Now, "vassalage" isn't embedded in the map, but in the caption, and that could easily be amended. But if there are problems with the representation of Poland as well, then probably we're better of using a map with just his kingdoms (but in a different section than "Overlordship_outside_his_kingdoms"). Thanks for making such a version, given the circumstances I think it's best to await comments from more users before readding any map to the article though. Finn Rindahl (talk) 15:09, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Why Cnut rather than the more common Canute?

Why is the title of this article so strange, using a rare name format - "Cnut" - that is relatively unknown to English literature? SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:05, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

This article used to be under the title "Canute", but it was moved to "Cnut" - this has been discussed a number of times, but most recently see Talk:Cnut the Great/Archive02#Requested move, of April 2009. It's not really so strange - depending on what you mean by "English literature", and if you look at all the images in the article of things that were created in England at the time he was king: on all the English coins, and in the English manuscript illustration, his name is given as "Cnut"; also, modern historians writing in English tend to call him "Cnut". That's how he was known in England when he was alive. I've seen that some people say that calling him "Cnut" is a "fad", while others say that it is "accurate". Wikipedia has its policies on these things, but generally they end up being based on "consensus". Either way, whether "fad" or "accurate", now you know that "Canute" was actually "Cnut", in his own lifetime, and is that such a bad thing? Obviously I don't think so! Hope that helps. Nortonius (talk) 02:12, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I certainly take the view that Canute is the most common English language name of the subject and is consistent with reliable sources. WP:Article titles advises that titles should be "recognizable to readers" and gives the example "Guinea pig (not Cavia porcellus)". At Talk:Lady Arbella Stuart pressure is mounting to move the article to Lady Arabella Stuart, despite the fact that she always signed her name 'Arbella', with Agricolae commenting "the form used by the person is not the standard for Wikipedia nomenclature." Moonraker2 (talk) 07:29, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

The issue here is that while biographers of Arbella/Arabella generally use Arabella, most modern scholarly biographies of Cnut use... Cnut. Seems a bit odd to title the article "Canute" when the sources used for the article use Cnut. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:12, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Cnut looks (at first) like a half-anglicanization of Danish Knud, Swedish Knut. The only established English exonym for those names is Canute. Exonyms are established by intelligent and knowledgeable linguists who know what they are doing, usually based on local phonetics primarily. They exist because it is supposed to be easy and reasonably accurate to pronounce foreign words with as good a measure of phonetic feasibility as possible in the language at hand.

Writers such as his main biographer Laurence Marcellus Larsson ("Canute the Geat", Putnams, London 1912) also knew what they were doing, as have all major encyclopedias, plus Debrett's and Burke's, when it comes to this man's name in English.

In this case, the phonetic intention in the exonym is that the name Canute is to rhyme with shoot in English, not with butt or nut such as with Cnut. I believe his royal name was in Latin during his lifetime, certainly not Cnut, and that the coins, if they had that name, had it only as an abbreviation of his Latin name Canutus. I will also go so far as proposing that whoever got lots of trendies to start using Cnut as a royal name in English has put one over on all of us and had many a good laugh at us over it. Horrendous! And WP should not go the errands of tricksters and/or linguistic ignorami. SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:01, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

PS: The Danish version of his name rhymes approximately with soothe in English - Kenoothe - and the Swedish version is pronounced approximately Kenibt stressing the second syllable. SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:04, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Check the sources list for this article - they all use "Cnut", including the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. We need to follow the sources in this one, the sources we should be using to write the article. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:12, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Guess you didn't read any of the facts I gave you about this name. Like I say, somebody put this Cnut garbage - King Nut - over on us rather recently, and we should not go for it here, no matter who else has. SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:19, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

A small point that I think is important here - in British English, i.e. the form of English in which the form "Canute" developed (no?), it doesn't "rhyme with 'shoot'": it's pronounced "Kernyoot", or perhaps more accurately "K'nyoot", the emphasis being on the last syllable; and "Cnut" doesn't rhyme with "nut" or "butt", it's pronounced "K'noot". And, I don't believe for one moment that "Canute" has anything to do with linguists and exonyms - I believe it's just how the name mutated in English over time, just as "Willelm" (e.g. in the Bayeux Tapestry) is now "William" ("Guillaume" in modern French). I can see that there's a paradox there, but perhaps it has to do with "William" remaining in use, whereas, in modern English, "Canute" is relatively rare, and occurs more in history books than in phone directories etc.? I also don't think it's reasonable to describe the modern writers whom Ealdgyth listed here as "tricksters and/or linguistic ignorami" - they include most of the leading lights among medieval historians of the last 60 years or so. Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 19:40, 21 January 2011 (UTC) p.s. You say "I believe his royal name was in Latin during his lifetime, certainly not Cnut, and that the coins, if they had that name, had it only as an abbreviation of his Latin name Canutus." I'd point again (as I did earlier) to this image, which appears in the article, and is contemporary with the man himself (for which see e.g. here), where the text is in Latin, and his name is given as "Cnut".

This has already been done over at Talk:Cnut_the_Great/Archive02#Requested_move, where the community chose the current name. "Canute" is an archaic rather than modern form, the form "Cnut" being preferred by modern historians. Canute the Great already redirects here for anyone somehow only familiar with that form. Cheers, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:26, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Does conformity have anything to do with it (if we now are to pronouce this guy nut)? In other words what about the other kings WP has correctly as Canute in English? Should we go cnuts with them too to appease so-called "modern [alleged] historians" ? SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:38, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

And Google then must be unmodern? Since comparatively there's hardly a thing about "Cnut" there. That's the hardest cnut to crack in this discussion, if you ask me. SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:40, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I suspect the "common name" a few decades ago would have been "Canute". I don't know much about the chap himself, but I have been guddling about at Kings of Mann and the Isles recently and I'd say the majority of sources there, especially the modern ones, use "Cnut". I can't say for certain but I think several of them are proven, rather than alleged historians. Ben MacDui 19:03, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

According to common English phonetics (remember those, anyone?) - British, American, global - Cnut rhymes with butt, slut and nut. Anything else is a personal invention by people who choose to mispronounce the name, but phonetics are like mathematics, you just can't have your own way. The 'u' in Cnut cannot be long, no matter how you wish it could. SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:45, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh - you mean like "enough" rhymes with "cough" and "bough" and "though"? Sorry matey, but I think you're ploughing your own furrow there, good luck with it though! Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 22:53, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

No. There is no clear phonetic rule for -ough (and several other such cases). For -ut there is. SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:11, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Would it help if I said that, if you go to some places in the UK, for example Birmingham, you'll hear the luck I wished you pronounced in a way that sounds to my London-born ears more like "look"? About a "clear phonetic rule" for "-ut", would you let me point you to "Tutankhamun", which I've only heard pronounced "Tootankamoon"? Or "computation"? Nortonius (talk) 23:35, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

No. We're not talking dialects, were talking standard English phonetics that most people intelligently go by (many by instinct!) when trying to pronounce unfamiliar words right. And we're not talking about words where the 'u' is made long by following vowels. Nor about people that choose to toot for -ankhamun - that's their prerogative.

We're talking end of word: -ut only here.

The difference between cute and cut might be particularly enlightening in this instance? In standard English. SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:18, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok, that's a fine example of how English can work, but my mention of accent (not "dialect") was intended to suggest that the hard and fast phonetic rules you're sticking to can't be made to predict specific instances - rather, it's the other way around. Try telling all those people who say "luck" in a way that might sound to you and me like "look" that they're wrong! I remember wondering how Australians pronounced "ute" - long before I ever imagined this discussion - back then, I'd seen the word in print, but didn't even know what it meant: when I actually went to Australia, I learned that it was Aussie-speak for "utility vehicle", or "pick-up truck", and that it was pronounced "yoot". All I can think of to say now is, why don't you put in a call to all those in Ealdgyth's list that I mentioned earlier (that are still alive, anyway), and ask them to say "Cnut" back to you? But, I'm stepping away from this particular dead horse now - I'm with Mike Christie (below) on this one. Nortonius (talk) 00:49, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

It should be Canute, as it's spelt in the modern English language. FWIW, alot of the pre-Stuart Scottish monarchia bio article titles, need fixing. GoodDay (talk) 23:17, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I refer, again, to the list of sources for the article, where the biographies all call him "Cnut". So obviously, it's spelt Cnut also. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:07, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

To be reliable aren't those sources rather shaky? Why do they not appear or hide so very well on Google? SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:13, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Google doesn't distinguish old sources from new, or sort by reliability. Serge, this has been discussed before; it's fine to bring it up again, but please either add information that wasn't present in the earlier discussion, or else call an RfC if you feel other editors than the regular editors of this page need to be involved. I don't think the current discussion is changing anyone's minds. Mike Christie (talk – library) 00:21, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

"Modern sources" is the claim I keep seeing, but they aren't on Google and are supposed to be reliable?

When was frequency of use abandoned as standard policy for questions like this? I don't believe the pronunciation issue has ever been addressed before, has it? With standard phonetics in mind, which are going to mislead most of our readers in pronunciation, I see no reason to adandon freqeuncy and turn this one king - alone among the other Canutes - into a cnut case which in my opinion continues to embarass English WP. SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:31, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Cnut: England's Viking King, Cnut: Emperor of the North. I found them easily enough on Google. The others should be findable also, but since the first two were found, I'm not sure I'm seeing that the others won't be. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:38, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Who are M. K. Lawson and M. J. Trow? The latter a teacher and "historian" who mostly does fiction and crime stories. Reputable academic historians? SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:52, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Apparently so - like M. R. James! Nortonius (talk) 01:13, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

"Apparently" as in fact, or "apparently" as in your personal assumption? Where is there any evidence of that, apparent or factual? SergeWoodzing (talk) 01:27, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

"Apparently" as in "I've read Lawson, it's clearly a scholarly and citable work, and Trow's résumé looks much like James's." Mate, I honestly get the impression that you're not going to accept anything I say, and that, as you said of others earlier, is your prerogative. As I said earlier, I'm with Mike Christie's comment (above): "either add information that wasn't present in the earlier discussion, or else call an RfC". Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 01:46, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

You asked for modern reliable sources; without leaving my desk I found Campbell's The Anglo-Saxons, Whitelock's English Historical Documents, Snyder's Age of Tyrants, and Zaluckyj's Mercia, all using "Cnut". I can keep looking if you like, but I'm willing to bet that Yorke, Higham, Stenton, Bassett, and Blair overwhelmingly use "Cnut". These are all reliable sources. I think it would be useful if you could provide a list of modern historical works that are both reliable sources and that use "Canute". Mike Christie (talk – library) 01:33, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I am with Serge on this. Canute, the English for Knud, is derived from the Latin Canutus, which may have arisen in the 11th century because Pope Paschal II couldn't say or wouldn't have "Cnutus", but it grew up and it survived. We need a compelling reason to demolish traditional forms of names, and I don't see it here.

For a recent use in a reliable source, see L. M. Larson's Canute the Great, c. 995-1035, and the Rise of Danish Imperialism During the Viking Age (2010). Moonraker2 (talk) 01:58, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Now that (Larson) is something new - to me, anyway - but I can't help thinking it's a bit disjointed to argue that we should follow a "may have arisen" spelling attributed to an 11th century pope in Rome, when English people clearly called him "Cnut", which I think is really the point here - i.e., I'm thinking of that illustration from the New Minster Liber Vitae again, where a contemporary English scribe writing in Latin gave his name as "Cnut". Are popes now the arbiters of how we spell things? Nortonius (talk) 02:12, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Pronunciation, not popes. The 'a' is in there because without it the 'c' is mute and we get nut for a name. That's English. Phonetics. Pronunciaton. Common sense (sorry!). Add frequency to that. SergeWoodzing (talk) 02:30, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

To add to what Mike said, the article collection The Reign of Cnut: King of England, Denmark and Norway (containing articles by Sawyer and Keynes among others) and the latest biography Timothy Bolton's The Empire of Cnut the Great: Conquest and the Consolidation of Power in Northern Europe in the Early Eleventh Century. MK Lawson's biography is of course the standard one used by university students and scholars. Cnut is also the title of the ODNB article. The whole etymology/pronunciation road will lead nowhere, and I would echo Nortonius' advice in this regard. Cnut is the main form of his name in respectable English sources, like it or not, and it is very unlikely the page will get moved (certainly not with these arguments). All the best, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 02:51, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

We need to be frank about uncertainty. No one can say now for sure how the spelling 'William' came to triumph over a multitude of others, but it did. I see no enthusiasm for renaming our first Norman king "Willem", despite the inscription on his coins. Moonraker2 (talk) 03:06, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

My position exactly, even though the big phonetic difference in this case, especially difficult for English readers to try to negotiate, strengthens it in my feeling. Why risk having a King Nut when frequency too says we can avoid it? SergeWoodzing (talk) 03:20, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Moonraker2, if the great majority of modern reliable sources used Willem, then so would Wikipedia. Your arguments don't seem to me to have a bearing on the naming decision at all, because that depends on reliable sources. If you can find a modern reliable source that uses the argument that you make, please cite it. Our personal opinions about these things are irrelevant; we are not authors, we are editors. Mike Christie (talk – library) 03:31, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

There doesn't appear to be any compelling evidence to rename from Cnut to Canute, certainly current scholarship uses the original, not anglicized—in line, generally, with English language historical scholarship to use a person's true, not anglicized name. "Canute" versus "Cnut" over time here, just as an FYI, not to start arguing. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 17:48, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

That applies, I believe, only to modern persons (after the year 1900 or so) who all have legal names that cannot be translated. The use of phonetically established exonyms för historical persons is still very important to make language as readable as possible, especially orally. Canute is the only correct English exonym for Knut, Knud, Cnut, Cnut and is the most frequently used name for this person throughout academic English literature. SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:05, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, no, for example, current scholarly works on Poland-Lithuania now pretty much all use Jogaila (Lithuanian) then followed by Jagiełło (Polish), for the founder of the first royal dynasty of the Polish-Lithuanian state—and with appropriate diacritics. This is in non-Lithuanian, non-Polish English-language scholarship, so it can't be interpreted as being some sort of nationalist bias. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 21:11, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

And the other question then would be, why not "Knutd" which is the proper Danish? But seriously, hasn't this all been discussed somewhere and archived? PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 21:26, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

The proper Danish is Knud, not Knut which is Swedish. Canute is the English for historical people (before 1900 or so). SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:34, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you all for all this input! I think I have exhausted whatever I have to contribute to this discussion right now, and I hate to make a pest of myself by just repeating things over and over. But please, you guys, don't make a mockery of English WP by our having an article about one of the major players of that time look to most of our readers like he was King Nut - please! SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:32, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Well, a look through talk history shows the last time this conversation it took place, including a non-consensus move and move back, it lasted an entire year (!) and ended (back) at "Cnut." It certainly doesn't hurt to suggest, but this ground appears to have been well-trodden already! As for unfortunate names, my middle name is "Janis" (Jānis), which is NOT a girl's name, but it is what it is. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 21:38, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Mike Christie, we can agree there's no serious argument for renaming William as Willem, but my point is that it simply isn't relevant to this discussion that Canute's coins carried his name as "Cnut". If PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА is suggesting we should be aiming to rename articles here in line with the trend of "English language historical scholarship to use a person's true, not anglicized name", then I can't agree with that. There is nothing wrong with exonyms, and in most cases people in the Middle Ages did not have a "true name", with a fixed spelling in the modern sense. Moonraker2 (talk) 21:50, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I tried to bow out as gracefully as I could, but it didn't work.

It is not my feeling that the issue of established phonetic exonyms was brought up last time. It is a very important issue to me (not to enough other people) because I work with language and with trying very hard to get it workable through phonetic empathy, so that text can be read to the blind and to children with a minimum amount unnecessary phonetic impediment. That includes Wikipedic texts.

I do not appreciate anyone making accusations or insinuations that I started a new discussion here just to rehash what already has been said. That's sort of insulting, to me. SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:11, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Ak vai. First of all, I don't personally care if the article is named "Frank the Hot Dog Man". My experience is that when it comes to names of a historical individual, cases can be made in both directions: "native" or "anglicized" which can be advocated based on English-language scholarship and/or usage. My advice was only, after looking through talk history, that as a full year was spent in contentious discussion regarding the article name ending where things started—also seeing some of the same editors appear as in earlier discussion—there was little chance for renaming.

I certainly did not "insinuate" anything, so, SergeWoodzing, take a deep breath, we're all on the same side. Trust me, if I had an opinion in that regard, I wouldn't waste words crafting insinuation. Since you are interested in readability aloud of English-language text, perhaps in this instance we could start by asking the most appropriate question, which is, what needs to be added to the article to insure proper pronunciation rather than leaving it to chance? PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 00:27, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for asking and for what looks at best like a little apology, at least like a plea of innocence. I appreciate it, whatever it was, and I am almost constantly taking deep breaths - believe me!

We must begin, as I've tried to explain, with the name of this article (and a few others I could mention, not too many). The article must have a name, that cannot be avoided. It should be Canute the Great in this case.

Good advice other than that, which I now will add to the harangues about these things on my user page to clarify (?) my stance, is this:

• Always try very hard to be phonetically empathetic!
• Don't expect readers of English to be interested in learning phonetic symbols or listening to recorded pronunciation in other tongues: most people aren't interested in language lessons, many get justifiably annoyed and lose interest.
• Always avoid using any personal and place names in other languages that can be difficult for a reader of English to pronounce or even have the slightest clue to help them try.
• Don't put such names in texts ever, if the text can be clear enough and valuable enough without them, and (if so) also remove them wherever you see them, replacing them, if necessary, with the king; another Swedish town; a Polish government authority; an esteemed Lithuanian author; his Portuguese mentor; etc etc etc. What makes this particularly good advice and particularly smooth policy in WP work (as compared to set, printed texts where we often have to do battle with authors and publishers to get them to understand) is that here, we can pipe-link directly to the person or place in question, so that readers that are especially interested can go there, learn the tricky foreign names and try their best to pronounce them, if they need to and want to (not very many are interested).
• If curious, check users' work to see if they are unnecessarily pushing more or less unpronounceable personal and place names in their own languages (other than English) into these texts, and try to convince them not to do that. Many good contributors are not conscious of the havoc they are wreaking here in doing that, it just comes naturally to them (but to no one else outside of their nationalities) that such-and-such or so-and-so for example can be called Mmowefjüdipneflisnöpåbwsz and that anybody should be able to handle that. People are usually unaware, a few can be pushy and obstinate about this.

SergeWoodzing (talk) 02:49, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Blimey SergeWoodzing, I wish you'd mentioned your work with the blind etc. earlier - honestly, your insistence on hard-and-fast phonetic rules looked, to me at least, like sheer bone-headedness - surely any linguist knows that language is a living thing, to which hard-and-fast rules rarely (if ever) apply - but in fact you simply hadn't explained what your agenda was! It doesn't change the fact that, among all those scholars that I mentioned earlier were listed by Ealdgyth, "Cnut" is pronounced "K'noot" - believe me, I've lived the life, studied for six years under one of the people Ealdgyth listed, and that is how it is pronounced. Calling such people "tricksters/linguistic ignorami" wasn't a smart move as far as I was concerned, because I can tell you that these are people whose very bread and butter is analysing and arguing over the precise interpretation and reduction of ancient texts to a form which "fits" with modern English, i.e. in the writing of history - and it includes the study of Old English linguistics and pronunciation, and indeed aims to arrive at standardised spellings. But! Now that I see what it is you want to achieve, I think Vecrumba's latest post (above) points in the right direction.

As it stands, the article attempts to indicate the pronunciation with "Old English: Cnūt", but this could easily be changed to something like WP:IPA for English "Error: {{IPA}}: unrecognized language tag: k"; also, the article lacks an audio file for the name, which is something I've seen often enough but can't for the moment think of where, I'm sure someone else can sort that out. Any good? Anyway, suddenly it seems to me that this isn't a discussion about the title of the article, but rather about its accessibility - I hope very much that any genuine concerns there can be fully met. Nortonius (talk) 01:00, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Easy accessibility for subject-matter non-experts, whenever possible, is more important to me than the opinions of the experts, or than referring readers to audio files and/or special symbols, which my experience tells me they aren't going to go for. Easy accessibility is easily accomplished here by using a phonetically easy, established exonym. Established phonetics and established exonyms. I very heartily recommend to everyone that we appreciate the connection between them and do out best to put them to good use, whenever we can. Here, we can. SergeWoodzing (talk) 02:49, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:Article titles advises that titles should be "recognizable to readers". The name "Cnut" may be recognizable to recent academic specialists, but to English-speaking people in general it isn't. As Serge says, anyone can pronounce Canute: that's a real advantage of most such traditional versions of names. To pronounce "Cnut", you need to be able to read a device such as IPA, and I do not suppose one Wikipedia user in fifty can do so. Moonraker2 (talk) 05:28, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Your first point, about recognizability, is a good one, and I think that if the reliable sources were more evenly split between the spellings -- say, 40% used "Canute" -- this would be a strong argument for using that spelling. Since the sources are so strongly for "Cnut", however, I don't think is enough. With regard to pronunciation, this is not generally a successful argument; see Đurađ Branković, for example. I have no idea how to pronounce that first letter, but we retain the spellings and accents used in reliable sources. I think if you want to change this approach, you need to make the case more broadly than just here; you would need to post at WP:Article titles, for example. Mike Christie (talk – library) 12:49, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Anyone can mispronounce Canute, sure. It's usually pronounced with the stress on the "a". -Ian Dalziel (talk) 13:07, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Not that I've ever heard, and I am over 60 years old and have heard it pronounced thousands of times by hundreds pf people. SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:11, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

People need to get over the fact that the English chose at some point in time to rename Cnut, Canute (probably to assuage the same Victorian sensibilities which chose to demote this Viking king from a conqueror of England, to a counterpart of greater warlords, and really only a mad prince who never grew to fill his boots (see article pre-WikieWikieWikie). If U look at the coinage, it is clearly CNUT. And on the point he should not be 'the Great'... well, mindless bickering is all this seems to me. Kings who conquer their neighbours and bring about eras of prosperity for their people are traditionally known as 'the Great', as do the Danes see it. I suppose those who have issue with this might rather want to call him 'the Interloper', or 'the Fool'?? Cnut the Great befits this international English websites scope, as well as good reason. Oh... and if Wikipedians want to maintain an aire of scholarly fortitude, I suggest people stop useing Google searches as any proof of correctness, or incorrectness. All this does is hightlight differences of opinion, rather than the weight of, yea, good reason. WikieWikieWikie (talk) 07:53, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Refs pointing to talk page archive with copyrighted material

There's a few references to Angelo Forte&al that is (supposed to be) pointing here, links are now broken. I'm reluctant to fix those links however, I'd rather remove them and the sections they're pointing to - as (like Nortonius pointed out in 2008) these are links to copyrighted material pasted into a wikipedia talkpage. Finn Rindahl (talk) 21:33, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I've removed them; they could be replaced with direct citations to that source, if anyone has it. Mike Christie (talk – library) 00:25, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

No reason to remove the citations completely, the book is listed in the reference list and Angus obviously had it at hand when adding those links. If anyone wants to verify the links the content of those pages could still be found in the archive history, anyway. I've reinserted them without wikilinks. Best regards, Finn Rindahl (talk) 10:21, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I wrote those excerpts to support the content of Cnut the great#Overlordship outside his kingdoms, and that of the prelude. Someone did not believe the references were real. If it infringes on copyright to cite references in the discussion where citation in text is not appropriate, fine. Altho, if we look at the discussion pages as an extension of the article, maybe they should stay. WikieWikieWikie (talk) 08:15, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Overlordship outside his kingdoms

The section in the article with this title is a little ridiculous, using not the best secondary sources and possible involving not a little SYNTH. It's pretty much a fantasy case. If Cnut had any presence in Ireland at all it would appear in the Irish sources. Sitric may have cooperated with him a little but Dublin was well protected, watched over by the Gaelic Irish dynasties. Furthermore, Limerick had an O'Brien-appointed governor, and Waterford was semi-independent but allied to the O'Briens. Cork and Wexford were insignificant. So much of this section needs to be removed from the article. DinDraithou (talk) 00:30, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

• Flanagan (RIA, New History of Ireland, p. 903) mentions briefly (connected with possible consecration of Dúnán at Canterbury): "...Since in the aftermath of the battle of Clontarf (1014) [Dublin] was relieved for a time from the overlordship of Irish kings, [it] may have been drawn into orbit of influence of the Anglo-Danish empire of king Cnút,..." - note that this interpretation is rather different the statement in the article sourced with Ranelagh currently: "After Brian Boru's victories over Sigtrygg Silkbeard, and the Battle of Clontarf, in 1014, the Vikings were wont to opt for a commercial life in Ireland, rather than one of conquest."
• On a different issue, even if Echmarcach submitted to Cnut as ruler of Galloway (or of Man or...) in 1031, that doesn't need to imply that Cnut had overlordship over Dublin after Echmarcach seized control there five years later. Our article doesn't say that he did, though it could seem to be implied by context.
• The map does seem to be OR, if we keep it the caption would need to be rephrased. Finn Rindahl (talk) 13:34, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

"orbit of influence". "may have been". We would certainly know about it if Sitric, a more important figure than Echmarcach, submitted to Cnut or a representative. Even in Echmarcach's and Scotland's cases genuine vassal status can't be demonstrated. And certainly likewise with Wales. Cnut's empire was very much an ethnic one, Anglo-Scandinavian, and built much from his personal qualities. Less from force. His presence beyond England is pretty weak and this submission in 1031 was late. One can imagine Echmarcach hoping to increase his wealth and influence in opposition to Dublin this way. But curiously his break comes several years later when Cnut dies and Sitric kills Ragnall of Waterford (who might himself have been a claimant) in the same year. Then we have the Ua Briain, with their influence in Waterford and the Isles, to consider. Nothing adds up.

Maybe someone with the know-how could alter the map? DinDraithou (talk) 19:03, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

This issue is discussed in some detail in Downham, Clare "England and the Irish-Sea Zone in the Eleventh Century" in Gillingham, John (ed) (2004) Anglo-Norman Studies XXVI: Proceedings of the Battle Conference 2003. Woodbridge. Boydell Press. ISBN 084383 0728 - her conclusion, after discussing Óttar Svarti, church politics (i.e. Canterburys possible claim of supremacy), numismatic evidence and the cooperation between Sigtrygg and Cnut in Wales. Her conclusion: "The two rulers co-operated closely in trade, in their policy towards Wales, and perhaps in religious matters. However, there is nothing in English or Irish sources which demonstrates that Knútr was the overking of Sigtryggr." She also points to a work by Hudson where he, she says, "has provided the fullest argument that Óttarr svarti called Knútr king of the Irish because he was overking of Dublin." That might be worth while checking out, it is Hudson, Benjamin "Knútr and Viking Dublin", Scandinavian studies 66, 1994, p 319–36, at 321. If Hudson supports this even more firmly than Lawson, that view may indeed merit inclusion - but it should be qualified with other sources as well. Finn Rindahl (talk) 12:41, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to Brianann I have this paper of Downham's, and she is at her best here. Hudson we can't rely on to support his claims properly, something he is not in the habit of doing. He uses endnotes in his substandard Viking Pirates and Christian Princes to try and force the readers into buying his theories and not check the primary sources themselves... or compare his work with that of other scholars. When he does cite whatever he is selective and will ignore entries or reasoning contradicting him. He may be the lone American scholar but I find these practices borderline dishonest, or he's simply not able enough to be a reliable source. Downham is able and she is right. There is no evidence for any submission. She knows her primary sources (concerning this subject) far better than these others being cited. DinDraithou (talk) 17:49, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

While I also hold Downham in very high regard, we (Wikipedia) can't just dismiss an acknowledged scholar like Hudson, who has written directly on this matter we're discussing here and is being frequently cited. However, Etchingham also discusses, and does not seem to be persuaded by, Hudsons interpretation in Etchingham, Colman (2001) "North Wales, Ireland and the Isles: the Insular Viking Zone". Peritia. 15 pp. 145-87, at pp 161f. (thanks for sharing that article a while ago DD :) Finn Rindahl (talk) 20:08, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Well I'm not sure what to do with it all. Is Cnut's article the right place to discuss this unsupported claim? North Sea Empire looks better. In any event I've replaced the Battle of Clontarf, which broke the Irish far more than the Norse, with the Battle of Tara here. That article really needs expansion. Sigtrygg later had some successes after Clontarf, but the Uí Ímair were no longer a major threat after Tara in 980, as you know. DinDraithou (talk) 23:44, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

It seems all the editors usually contributing to early medieval English history are preoccupied with discussing the name of this guy. As for his relations to Ireland, Etchingham and Downham quoted above should be excellent sources, perhaps add Seán Duffy in Stafford, Pauline, A Companion to the Early Middle Ages: Britain and Ireland, c.500–c.1100 where he discusses the "external aspect" of Clontarf. I might take another look at this later, but it's not a high priority for me right now I'm afraid. Finn Rindahl (talk) 00:00, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

That map that was brought down was from an official Danish historical research site. I saw it long ago altho the link died, and I doctored an older map 'Domains of Cnut, 1014-1035' (in North Sea Empire now) to fit its main purpose for me being to illustrate Cnut's presence among the Swedes (being beyond the then Danish region of Scania), while someone else found it for me, with the happy addition of the Vikings in Ireland - who were of predominantly Danish stock. If some of the Norse-Irish city states being under Cnut's protection is disputed then I guess this is the next challenge for this article. The deleted excerpts were supportive of these being part of Cnut's wider hegemony, though. It is surely a shame to loose this map on the basis of the endless qualms over the independance of the people on the island of Ireland. It is true Vikings were fiercely independant, and so with the implication of submission in the word vassalage, I can see the problem - particularly in consideration of a certain level of homeage paid to the Gaels too. If though we consider that the Vikings of Ireland were in constant communication with their homeland, and no doubt paid homeage to its king, this seems to be a bit of a moot point. A referable fact that no doubt constitues the dreaded OR here, is that to recieve the submission of the kings of Scotland, Cnut's fleet was in the Irish Sea, and so surely one or two, if not all - does one seriously think there would be any dispurgence among Waterfordians or Limerickians, against a king who recently accepted submission of the Norwegians to his kingship after a trip to Rome to stand alongside the Holy Roman Emperor, and was on his was to recieve further fealty from the greatest powers of their region :(?) - the Vikings of Ireland sent contingents with him, as a vassal does; in allegiance with a greater power. The use of vassalage being supported by the fact of the fierce independance of the Viking colonies, because if they did not feel obliged to sail, they would not have sailed. Also, for the Iermarc to be submitting to Cnut, this tangibly indicates there was an intervention by him in the struggles for the kingship of Dublin, on behalf of Silkbeard.... and with the Gaelic kings submitting also, this is indicative of Cnut's will to stamp Danish hegemony on the entire scope of Vikings, Ghall Ghaedil, and Gaels, who had anything to do with the Western Maritime Zone of the North Atlantic Archipelago - after the Battle of Clontarf (I see now the error) the Vikings were in fact already comfortable with the stablity of their existence in Ireland. WikieWikieWikie (talk) 09:32, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Canute/Knud/Knut—Let's toss in Canute Porse († 1330), duke of Halland

This Canute matter is complicated, and I am somewhat undecided. Anyway, in the article on Ingeborg of Norway, I recently changed her second husband's name from Knut or Knud (used indiscriminately) to Canute.

One reason in this case (but not the only one) is to avoid having to choose between Danish Knud and Swedish Knut. Canute Porse served under the Swedish and Danish crowns during different periods, and Halland and adjoining regions are likely to have been to some degree independent during his time.

http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knut_Porse

http://da.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knud_Porse

http://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knud_Porse

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knut_Porse

Accusativen hos Olsson (talk) 10:15, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Dukes_of_Halland

Accusativen hos Olsson (talk) 10:34, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Requested move (2011)

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 not moved: no concensus (but somewhat majority for 'oppose') after 25 days discussion. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:49, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

---

Cnut the Great → Canute —

• As this ngram should show, Canute is overwhelmingly the more common form. It is not correct Anglo-Saxon or Danish, but this encyclopedia should be written in Modern English; the Anglo-Saxon Wikipedia is the third door on the right. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:26, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
  • The Anglo-Saxon Wikipedia version is at ang:Cnut se Micela. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:43, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
  • This ngram, comparing "Canute the Great" with "Cnut the Great", gives a slightly different story: the two are comparable in usage in recent years. I looked at some of the 2008 records to see if I could understand why the usage of "Canute" bumps up again, and it may be partly an indexing mistake on Google's part -- the records I saw for "Canute" in 2008 included books by Charles Kingsley and Edward Bulwer-Lytton. Mike Christie (talk – library) 13:08, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose per last WP:RM request. Cnut is more common in modern reliable sources, Canute is an archaism. It's quite tedious to see this discussion again. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:30, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

As an addendum, I don't have a big problem with the article being at Cnut rather than Cnut the Great (incontestably WP:PRIMARYTOPIC). I do note however that the nickname 'the Great' is employed in the title of the most recent book on Cnut, Timtohy Bolton The Empire of Cnut the Great : Conquest and the Consolidation of Power in Northern Europe in the Early Eleventh Century (Leiden, 2009), and has close to two and a half thousand hits on gbooks [26]. The contention below that the nickname is not in wide use is clearly not an accurate one. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:45, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support, as modern english is preferred. GoodDay (talk) 20:33, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

You mean oppose, right? Cnut is the preferred form in modern English. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 10:46, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Nope, I mean support, as Canute is the only spelling I've ever seen 'til this article. GoodDay (talk) 15:31, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support Canute the Great Canute the Great or Canute as per my somewhat educated opinion here. Because there are a number of other bios for kings and princes named Canute, such as these, that name alone should not be used. Our Canute page should be made into a disambiguation. SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:37, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose - so we're supposed to write the article from the highest quality reliable peer-reviewed sources - almost all of which call him Cnut, but yet the article title would be at Canute instead of what the recommended sources call him? Somewhere in the archives is a listing of all the academic sources which call him Cnut. While I'm all for common name .. it seems bizarre to call the article something different than what the sources we'd use to create the article call him. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:48, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Our result should be derived from reliable sources, it should also communicate. To rephrase Deb's comment: since we have to disambiguate the vastly ambiguous Cnut/Knut, we should use the most recognizable disambiguation - the common spelling: Support as nom, therefore; and Canute, which redirects here, is primarily used for this king. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:06, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
    • As a side note, I'm fine with plain "Cnut" rather than "Cnut the Great". The important thing is to avoid the "Canute" which isn't supported by the reliable sources that would be used to construct this article. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:23, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support - I also think this helps distinguish this Cnut from all the other Cnuts, and does so better than Cnut the Great. Deb (talk) 20:59, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I am not aware of any other Cnuts, much less all the other Cnuts. There are Knuds (Danish), Knuts (Swedish) and Canutes (English), or contemporarily Canuti (plural of Canutus, Latin), as far as I know. SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:23, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose per this discussion and the last RM. How often do we need to repeat this discussion? Finn Rindahl (talk) 21:16, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
  • When !voting, I had not noticed that it was proposed to remove "the Great" too, apologies for that. I have no objection to removing "the Great".Finn Rindahl (talk) 14:19, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Often enough to arrive at whatever is best for English WP, not for special interest lobbbyists. SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:23, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

But SergeWoodzing! You made it quite clear in this edit that you are a "special interest lobbyist", in the course of this discussion - I expressed sympathy with your viewpoint, but you didn't seem to be inclined to take it on board. Frankly, in light of this, I see your contributions to the present discussion both here and below as being little more than sniping from the sidelines - your insistence that "Cnut" can only rhyme with "butt" really doesn't cut the mustard: honestly, from what you've said, would you not be better off putting your efforts into expanding this article? Regards. Nortonius (talk) 02:24, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

As often as mere anglophones prefer articles in this English Wikipedia to be written in English. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:29, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose per Deacon of Pndapetzim, Ealdgyth and Finnrind. As Deacon of Pndapetzim says, "It's quite tedious to see this discussion again." To Ealdgyth's list of "all the academic sources which call him Cnut", I might add that, as I mentioned elswhere on this page, personal name specialist W.G. Searle's Onomasticon Anglo-Saxonicum, originally published 1897, also only has "Cnut" - it isn't a fad, nor is it new. Nortonius (talk) 21:38, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
  • The Onomasticum Anglo-Saxonicum is an excellent reference on Anglo-Saxon usage - which I do not dispute; but this article is not written in Anglo-Saxon and ought not to be. That's a different Wikipedia.
  • I was not party to those discussions - and when readers keep coming along and making the same complaint, continually referring to the consensus of a small body of editors is not an adequate response; indeed, it is against policy to do so. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:48, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Are comments under your name here not you being "party to those discussions", going back nearly three years? And, "consensus of a small body of editors"? That's not how these decisions are made, as you well know, and I know from experience - er, going back nearly three years! Nortonius (talk) 23:22, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Were this seriously meant, it would be a claim that we are bound to silence by a discussion three years ago; that would demonstrate bad faith. Please remember to put smiley-faces when you say things like this. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:31, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Well to start with, seriously (yes really!), here's a smiley face: :o) I don't want any of this to turn sour; and I wouldn't be the least bit inclined to silence you - that wasn't what I had in mind at all, I was just confused by what you meant about you not "being party to those discussions", because it looked to me like you were party to at least some of those discussions - I ducked out of WP almost completely for a while there, after my experience in 2008, but I remembered that discussion. So, what did you mean? :o) Nortonius (talk) 23:47, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. Can't say I'm in favour, not at all. After all, if you were going to buy a modern (relatively) mass-market paperback on CanuteCnut, it'd have Cnut prominently in the title. And likely more potential readers watch Time Team than have read 1066 and all that. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:17, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

  Not necessarily; this has Canute - and I've never seen Time Team. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:24, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. (I'll put my oppose down here though there's a section split in the middle of the !vote bullet list; if someone would like to refactor a bit it wouldn't go amiss.) I think this is an unusual case in that the expected spelling among those who have only heard the story of holding back the tide is almost universally "Canute", and the scholarly spelling is overwhelmingly "Cnut". I can't think of another case where the difference in the two usages is so marked. I think the argument for "Canute" is strongest when it relies on common usage, not scholarly usage; but I don't see a similar appeal to common names in other articles. I wouldn't mind betting that most native English-speakers would use "Bombay" rather than "Mumbai", and "Calcutta" rather than "Kolkata". So I don't see a precedent or a rule we can use here; we don't go for a principle of least surprise, it appears. It has to be a common sense consensus, and given that a person looking for information about Cnut (and anyone looking at this article must be assumed to be likely to look him up elsewhere, too) would find nothing in most books' indices under "Canute", I don't see how we can use that name. Mike Christie (talk – library) 00:32, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

  Just to add a note on the topic "the Great"; I have no strong opinion on whether this should be at "Cnut the Great" or "Cnut"; I think just "Cnut" might be slightly better, in fact. I do think that wherever this article ends up, all four of Cnut, Cnut the Great, Canute, and Canute the Great should lead to this article without going to a dab page, as is currently the case. Mike Christie (talk – library) 10:57, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

  I agree with this comment about redirects. I do not think Mumbai is parallel; unlike some other Indian cities, I think twenty years of ethnic politics has in fact made it common English usage, and the world coverage of the Mumbai terror attacks shows this. A different city government might well change this - in another twenty years - but that would be crystal-ballery. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:45, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

• Strong support, per Septentrionalis and others: 'Canute' is the most common English language name of the subject and is consistent with reliable sources. It has been used in some academic publications by specialists during the past year, which clearly demonstrates that it is not "archaic", as claimed. WP:Article titles advises that titles should be "recognizable to readers" and gives the example "Guinea pig (not Cavia porcellus)". That strikes me as a fair parallel: like 'Cnut', Cavia porcellus is used by a small inner circle of specialists, whereas the population at large overwhelmingly prefers 'Guinea pig' and 'Canute'. Moonraker2 (talk) 02:32, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

No offence, but I'd say that comparison with "Cavia porcellus" is extremely misleading, if not spurious: that form has no validity in Classical Latin, is a modern formulation created by zoologists for zoologists, and no-one would dispute that most people would understand "Guinea pig", but wouldn't have a clue about "Cavia porcellus" - including me! All animals known in the English-speaking world had their own English-language names, long before zoologists placed them in a "zoological family tree", and gave them classified names after e.g. the Linnean pattern, viz "dog" vs. "Canis lupus familiaris and Canis lupus dingo"; whereas, plainly, "Cnut" is a form that has had currency amongst English speakers both in the lifetime of the individual concerned and in modern times. The majority of modern experts in the field of English history use "Cnut" - and, how would we have any up-to-date, reliable sources to cite for this article if we didn't cite them? We'd be stuck in a sort of dumbed-down, "coffee table" world, where ongoing research isn't reflected, and I for one can't accept that - take "Cnut" from most of our sources and translate it into "Canute" for the purposes of WP? Not I! Nortonius (talk) 03:09, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

No offence taken, Nortonius. I also mean no offence in disagreeing with the relevance of your ""Cnut" is a form that has had currency amongst English speakers both in the lifetime of the individual concerned and in modern times." The best contemporary source for "Cnut" is the inscription on his coins, but those of William use the spelling "Willem"! In any event, a variety of spellings "had currency" both then and now, so that doesn't help us. 'Canute' is the English exonym for Canute, and alternatives to it in my view are mere fads. Moonraker2 (talk) 04:27, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

This post is completely misguided. 'Fad'? No it's not. All three modern bios of him (one of them non-scholarly) use 'Cnut'. Canute and Cnut are both modern 'English exonyms', the latter is just more common in reliable sources while the former is an archaism. This is like suggesting Scottish people gets moved to Scotch people and claiming 'Scotch' is the only exonym because it is archaic. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 10:46, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. It is clear the great majority of scholarly texts use this form. Besides, I am temperamentally inclined to support those who do rather than those who talk about how they should be doing do it. Ben MacDui 07:51, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support The Britannica, the Chambers Dictionary of World History, and the Oxford Encyclopedia of World History, all call him Canute. I note that on Wikipedia most Scandinavian rulers called Cnut, Knut or similar in their own language are anglicised as Canute e.g. Canute I of Sweden, so to be consistent we could have to move several articles. PatGallacher (talk) 17:33, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose - firstly I should make clear my special interest (POV) in being descended from the man himself - all the family genealogy records refer to him as Canute, as this was the common form in England for the past two hundred years or so - however - preference should be for the article being correctly titled, not what makes some people comfortable - now we can talk about whether it should be Cnut, Knut, Canutus, or whatever, by there are few modern references that maintain that the correct form is Canute - and - so long as all the different forms redirect here then we cannot claim that people will not find this article because it's not called Canute so this is largely a non-argument Greyskinnedboy  Talk  23:22, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. Use the spelling which the most reliable sources use. Haukur (talk) 23:37, 3 February 2011 (UTC) Added: I haven't formed any particular opinion on 'the Great'. Haukur (talk) 19:25, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose Canute (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) should be restored to its disambiguation page form. 64.229.101.119 (talk) 23:49, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
• I'm not sure which title we should use, but Google Ngram Viewer, especially at these early stages, isn't very good evidence. Bigrams, or worse, trigrams, on the same subject as unigrams, aren't going to show up very accurately. Also, if Cnut was used, it may have been as, for example, "King Cnut", which at least breaks above the bottom in Ngram Viewer; and could Canute refer to other people frequently enough to skew the results? —innotata 19:53, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose We should avoid archaisms. Canute does not reflect modern use. Dimadick (talk) 06:33, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
• Move to Cnut. It seems that the best sources use "Cnut" (see Ealdgyth's posts); we should follow them. However, Pmanderson appears to be correct that "the Great" is not used especially often. Cnut currently redirects to this article, so we can easily move the article there. Ucucha 17:39, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
• It's a coin toss Check those two ngrams side by side: [27], [28] ^walk victor falk ^talk 19:11, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support removing "the Great", as that certainly isn't common English usage. No real opinion on how to spell the name; I thought both spellings were well known (hence the "Silly Cnut" cartoon recalled from my youth).--Kotniski (talk) 12:34, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Not common usage?! see google Books, Scohlar]. ^walk victor falk ^talk 18:40, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

OK, not entirely uncommon, but I get many more hits (on Books, at least) typing in just "King Canute" or "King Cnut".--Kotniski (talk) 11:44, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

• My instinctive inclination would be to support, based on an intuitive sense that "Canute" is the more standard English usage, whatever more recent scholarly works say. On the other hand, you have the more recent scholarly works tending strongly towards "Cnut," so consider this a weak support. john k (talk) 02:58, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose & derride idea of getting rid of 'the Great'. Cnut the Great is acceptable, and there has already been a switch away from Canute. On the other hand Support move to Canute the Great if someone can get a free image of the statue on the west side of Lichfield Cathedral, where the inscription reads Canute [[29]].... I could possibly get there this summer.WikieWikieWikie (talk) 20:21, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
• Keep, 'the Great', as per [[30]] & [[31]], & track 12 of Rebellion's Sagas Of Iceland album, Canute the Great (King Of Danish Pride). It is unfortunate this suggestion even arises as it indicates a serious disrepect by certain historians for the historical figures, and national histories, they base their work on. It seems this Wiki article has it right: List of people known as The Great, respectful of the useage of this epithet in Cnut's 'own language'. WikieWikieWikie (talk) 20:53, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Sources

Article titles should be neither vulgar nor pedantic. Is the usage of reliable sources as one-sided as the opposers make out? Of the first three:

• Campbell's translation of the Encomium uses Cnut, at least as reprinted.
• Forte's collection uses Canute
• Tshan's translation of Adam of Bremen uses Canute

I stop here because Gwyn Jones isn't available on line. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:29, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Peruse Talk:Cnut the Great/Archive02#As regards the recent move without discussion... where I listed a large number of sources that use Cnut (and one that uses Canute). Ealdgyth - Talk 21:33, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I think we all agree that there are quite a few (a large number I don't know) sources that use Cnut in more modern (not necessarily more educated) literature. But that is not the issue here, I believe. The issue is what most reliable sources use plus what is common sense (aside from my little phonetic worries about our going cnuts). SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:42, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

An interesting, if ex parte, list. Gwyn Jones is not mentioned; can one conclude that this distinguished literary historian uses Canute?

Quite seriously, the sources actually used are more likely to be a random sample of reliable sources as a whole than the results of a search on Cnut. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:48, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

That distinguished literary historian uses Knut However, as Ealdgyths extensive list shows, in modern scholarship Cnut is predominantly used.Finn Rindahl (talk) 22:02, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

It's actually just a listing of all the books on my shelves and how they refer to Cnut/Canute/Thatolddeadguy. I did not exclude ANY listing if they mentioned him specifically. I did not list any sources I checked that did not mention him. I'm working on a fuller pull from my shelves (which includes works purchased since the last discussion), and again, I'm not excluding any Canute mentions. I didn't mention Jones because I no longer own a copy of him (the copy I had from my student days literally fell apart and has not been replaced). Ealdgyth - Talk 22:10, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

• (ec) No, she hasn't. That she could not do without seeing - and stating - how often Canute is used, in sources addressed to the common reader as well as to specialists; she, understandably, collects the latter. It would be equally easy, in another field, to find academic articles about P. Ovidius Naso, but we call him Ovid, or P. Cornelius Scipio (but we call all of them Publius). We are not written for the specialist, and we seek titles which our readers will understand. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:19, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

• Knutsford, which is named after him, calls him Canute, has a pub called the King Canute and memorials which refer to him as Canute (Sveinsson Knut). I could go for a change of name to Knut Sveinsson, but what is quite certain is that no one who is bothered about using the correct Norse name would suffix it with "the Great". That is an inconsistent attitude which gives the lie to any concerns about "correctness" or "scholarship". Deb (talk) 12:53, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

POV

Ealdgyth cites many uses of Cnut behind the link in the section above - but none of Cnut the Great. Now Knud den Store may well be as established and as neutral in Danish as Alfred the Great - or Ethelred the Unready - are in English; but in English it expresses a point of view, quite strongly. This will not do. Unless Ealdgyth can assure me that I am leaping ahead of the evidence, the article should be so tagged. Even if we must use the obscurantist Cnut, this is not acceptable disambiguation. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:02, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Is "obscurantist" not POV? Just sayin'... Nortonius (talk) 23:05, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

No. It's a judgment about article text and titles - and as such wholly appropriate to a talk page. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:20, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

A "judgment", exactly - so, it's your POV - don't worry, we all have one! :-) Nortonius (talk) 23:24, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

For example, I contest the POV that we are writing for the eleventh century. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:43, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Yep, you do - but I'd say that's misconceived, in that I believe we are writing for the 21st century - Anglo-Saxon Wikipedia is indeed three doors along! :o) Nortonius (talk) 23:54, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I hadn't gotten to it (although I won't dispute the tag, I'm not that concerned either way). I was a bit busy still pulling books. Now, who is going to put them all back in order for me? (The perils of a large library is trying to keep it in some semblence of order). Ealdgyth - Talk 23:09, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Further list

To add .. Greenway's edition of Henry of Huntingdon's History of the English People (1996) uses Cnut, Blake's edition of the Liber Eliensis (1962) uses Cnut, Fairwether's translation of the Liber Eliensis (2005) uses Cnut, Swanton's editon of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle (1998) uses Cnut, Lyon's The Middle Ages A Concise Encyclopaedia(1989) uses Cnut, Pulsiano and Treharne's A Companion to Anglo-Saxon Literature (2001, 2008) uses Cnut, Matthew's Britain and the Continent 1000-1300 (2005) uses Cnut, Ward and Chadwick's Not Angels, but Anglicans (by the Canterbury Press and Church Times) (2000) uses Cnut, Lawrence's Medieval Monasticism (3rd ed. 2001) uses Cnut, Carpenter's Struggle for Mastery (part of the Penguin History of Britain series, aimed at the general reader) (2004) uses Cnut, Fletcher's The Barbarian Conversion (1997) uses Canute, Maddicott's Origins of the English Parliament (2010) uses Cnut, Trow's more generalist biography (2005) is titled Cnut, Clanchy's England and Its Rulers (1983, 2006) uses Cnut, Saul's England in Europe (1994) uses Cnut, Frame's Political Development of the British Isles (1990, 1995) uses Cnut, Campbell's Anglo-Saxon State (2000) uses Cnut, Nicolle's Medieval Warfare Sourcebook: Warfare in Western Christendom (1995, 1999) uses Cnut, Keen (ed) Medieval Warfare (1999) uses Cnut, Dictionary of Ancient and Medieval Warfare by Stackpole Books (1998) gives Cnut (appending the Great also), McLynn's 1066: The Year of Three Battles (1999) uses Cnut (with Canute in parentheses in the index), Marren's 1066: The Battles of York, Stamford Bridge, & Hastings (2004) uses Canute, Aylmer and Cant (eds) History of York Minster (1977) uses Cnut, Chaplais' English Diplomatic Practice in the Middle Ages (2003) uses Cnut, Hadley's Vikings in England (2006) uses Cnut, Reynolds' Fiefs and Vassals (1994) uses Cnut, Walker's Medieval Wales (1990) uses Cnut, Hudson's Viking Pirates and Christian Princes (2005) uses Cnut (and appends "the Great" in the index, in quotation marks), Powell and Wallis' The House of Lords in the Middle Ages (1968) uses Canute (but you'd expect him to, given his politics), Tellenbach's The Church in Western Europe from the Tenth to the early twelfth Century (1993) uses Cnut, Barrow's Kingship and Unity: Scotland 1000-1306 (1981) uses Cnut, Beeler's Warfare in Feudal Europe (1970) uses Cnut, Dodwell's Anglo-Saxon Art (1982) uses Cnut, DuBoulay's Lordship of Canterbury (1966) uses Cnut.

Note that I've not doubled up authors - Bates, Crouch, Chibnall, Williams, Mason, Barlow, Lyon, Stafford, Loyn, Lawson, Higham, Blair, Hill, Huscroft all use Cnut in multiple works on my shelves, which I've tried to not duplicate too much.

I would call the following as "general readership" works: (note these are repeats of either the above list or the earlier one)

• Hindley's Brief History of the Anglo-Saxons (2006) uses Cnut
• Lawson's Battle of Hastings (2002) uses Cnut
• Thomas' The Norman Conquest (2008) uses Canute
• Ward and Chadwick's Not Angels but Anglicans (2000) uses Cnut
• Carpenter's Struggle for Mastery (2004) uses Cnut
• Fletcher's Barbarian Conversion (1997) uses Canute
• Trow's Cnut obviously uses Cnut
• McLynn's 1066 (1999) uses Cnut
• Marren's 1066 (2004) (it's a handbook for the battlefields) uses Canute

The following would be college level textbooks, for upper level classes:

• Huscroft's Ruling England (2005 and listed on the earlier list) uses Cnut
• Stafford's Unification and Conquest (1989 and listed on the earlier list) uses Cnut
• Chibnall's Anglo-Norman England (1980's somewhere, it's from the earlier list and was one of my college texts) uses Cnut
• Barlow's Feudal Kingdom of England (1980s for my edition, since then printed in a newer edition but from the earlier list where it falls under "Barlow" because he's prolific) uses Cnut
• Loyn's English Church (2000) uses Cnut
• Lawrence's Medieval Monasticism (2001) uses Cnut
• Clanchy's England and its Rulers (1983, 2006) uses Cnut
• Walker's Medieval Wales (1990) uses Cnut
• Tellenbach's Church in Western Europe (1993) uses Cnut

Of note is the three translations - Fairweather's Liber, Swanton's Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, and Greenway's History, all of which use Cnut and none of which is aimed at a scholarly audience (they don't have the usual appendices or the side by side listing of the original language with the translation)

I haven't even begun to list the various collected works or other more serious scholarly works that use Cnut, I'm keeping on the less-scholarly end of my library. 22:59, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

OK, so only Encyclopedia Britannica and Burke's and Debrett's use Canute??? I wonder why they do? Expertise? SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:04, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Who would rely on Debrett's and Burke's for medieval peerage information??? Ealdgyth - Talk 23:06, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I would and have for years, for correct English exonyms. SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:09, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Is this an offer to abide by what Complete Peerage calls him? ;-> Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:14, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

In general, for "early" medieval stuff, books containing the word 'peerage' in their title are no more reliable than comic books. The non-expert shouldn't go near them (though for experts the best ones do have many useful citations!). Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 10:36, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I use Keats-Rohan's Domesday People and Domesday Descendants over the Complete Peerage, as those two works are slightly newer. (Note I didn't pull up what those works call C-boy). Ealdgyth - Talk 23:18, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Assume y'all know about the highly respected books on European royalty that both B's and D' publish? For regular, non-specialist readers. SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:14, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I will consult; but where I come from prosopographies tend to list M. Tullius M.f. Cicero and Imp. Flavius Claudius Julianus - neither particularly useful as an article title. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:37, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks; thorough and useful. I still think this title must be gone as partisan. (Neither Richard Fletcher nor I share Powell's politics.) I observe that the list of books more or less of our desired register is closest to an even split; I will consider whether another form of Cnut is desirable and justified. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:14, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Shame we can't ask Dr Who to just go and ask the old fellow what he thinks - for one thing, I bet he'd be blown away that we were even having this rather circular discussion (hands up, I'm not claiming to be aloof from it, after all!) 1,000 years later! :-) Nortonius (talk) 23:34, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

If he knew we had a huge international language to work with responsibly and try to communicate in as well as we can, I think he'd appreciate the importance of pronunciation in that. I'd venture to estimate that 70-90% of our non-specialist English readers will know how to pronounce Canute (because it so clearly rhymes with salute), whereas less than 2% will know how to pronunce the other cnutty name version and won't bother with language lessons. They'll just lose interest, and that what we are supposed to try to prevent, methinks. SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:11, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

See my comment above, under the heading "Requested move", at 02:24, 3 February 2011 (UTC). Nortonius (talk) 02:42, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Cnut/Canute and "the Great" or not

I believe some of the opposers/supporters have commented only based on Cnut vs Canute, even if the proposal is to move from "Cnut the Great" to "Canute. In my first comment I opposed changing Cnut to Canute, though I don't object removing "the Great". I added an additional comment expaining this, and I see also Deacon of P. has added a comment to the same effect. There does not seem to be consensus to change Cnut to Canute, but I think there might have been consensus to move to "Cnut the Great" to "Cnut". If those who have commented only Cnut/Canute without mentioning the part about "the Great" could clarify their opinions on this as well that might save us a new RM straight after this is (I expect) closed as "no consensus". Finn Rindahl (talk) 18:11, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Just saw this diff - I might add, as others have elsewhere on this page, that I have no particular inclination to keep "the Great", it's not common in literature that I'm familiar with. I can't say I've seen any great defence of "the Great" either, e.g. vs. any other qualifications, OTOH he can't very well be "of England", as he was "of" other places too... Nortonius (talk) 20:07, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

"the Great" is indeed common in English literature, beginning with Dr. L. M. Larson's very well-referenced biography - Canute the Great - for Putnam's in 1912. No reason to remove it here and leave it in many other article titles. SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:26, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

But it is not surprising to see it omitted. Indeed, almost all of Ealdgyth's specialized works do so - and the exception appears to be one mention in an index. Those who insist that Cnut - and only Cnut - is modern usage find no comfort in Canute the Great, publ. 1912. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:49, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

No "POV" there, obv.! ;o) Nortonius (talk) 17:51, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

*See my ngrams in the RM !vote above. Whether Cnut or Canute is chosen, "the Great" should be included in the title. Only people with one name and one name only should have a one-word article title: Anaxagoras, Anaximander, Anaxarchus, Anaximenes, Anaxilas, etc. Also, Indonesian_names#Example_1:_Single_word_name, like Sukarno and Suharto. Cnut had a patronym, Sweynsson as son of Sweyn Forkbeard, in addition to his "Great" nickname/epithet/cognomen. Notice how common they were: Forkbeard, Bluetooh, Fairhair, Bloodaxe, the Old, the Brash, the Victorious, and so on, so that all kings are identified by either an epithet or patronym and a a first name. WP:NCROY follow this logic: no monarch is identified by first name alone; there is no just Victoria but Queen Victoria and no plain Elizabeth but Elizabeth I. ^walk victor falk ^talk 23:40, 7 February 2011 (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.