Talk:Cnut/Archive 3

Isn't "CNUT" just an abbreviation on a coin?
Sorry to be a pest, really, but I still have a strong feeling that "CNUT" is not a name at all, but just an abbreviation on a coin, probably of the man's contemporary name Canutus.

Someone thought it was a name, methinks, and then it spread out all over, polluting factual English texts, where Canute was the legitimate English exonym before.

What have we, if anything, to prove otherwise? SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:08, 19 February 2011 (UTC)


 * The name is something I'm interested in too. Googling around for Cnut really on turns up hits for this king. Seems like there was an OE personal name Cnotta, atleast, The personal name is ON Knútr, ODa, OSw Knut, an original nickname from ON knútr, 'knot', occasionally, perhaps, the rare OE Cnotta. ... The surname is usually a nickname from the OE cnotta 'knot', used of a thickset person.-Reaney, Percy Hilde (1995), Wilson, Richard Middlewood, ed., A Dictionary of English Surnames (3rd ed.), Oxford University Press, p. 268, ISBN 0-19-8631464. And see this etymology for the placename Knottingley: *Cnotta + -inga- + lēah.. This says Knut is Middle English.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 11:07, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Interesting, all of it.
 * As for the Scandinavian origin of the name, though, I would guess that an approximate fanciful description of adult human male genitalia was involved, something between a knot, a lump and a knotted lump. Many ancient Scandinavian names have origins that today are not quite rumsrena (approx. "clean enough to be in furnished rooms").
 * The coinage of King Canute II of Sweden shows Kanvtvs, so that’s no help with the main question in this section. SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:20, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Whoever wrote the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, which is the main vernacular contemporary source for this period, used Cnut as the Old-English name of this person. That could hardly have based on someone looking at a coin. Links to online versions of the Chronicle as well a short discussion on grammatical variants are in that section Talk:Cnut_the_Great, in which you also have commented SW (so you presumably read it already). Now please stop whipping this dead horse. Finn Rindahl (talk) 13:45, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * "Someone thought it was a name, methinks..." - SergeWoodzing, I find it so disheartening reading you say that. "methinks"?! Have you really not taken on board what I and others have already said about this? If not, start at the top of the page and read down. I for one am utterly exhausted with this subject; except that I'll be forever opposed to a move away from "Cnut". Regards. p.s. Something that hadn't occurred to me before - if they didn't abbreviate "ÆĐELSTAN" or "ÆĐELRED" (look under "Kings of All England" - "CNUT" is further down the same page, just before "EDǷARD"!), why would they have abbreviated "CNUT"? They had l o a d s of room for "EADVVIG". A numismatist with knowledge of this area would be able to say for sure. Nortonius (talk) 15:27, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, if you'll "be forever opposed to a move away from 'Cnut'", I'll be forever confused about why we are using so much Old English, rather than modern English, on English Wikipedia of anno 2011. SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:28, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * There you go again, SergeWoodzing! Did you read from the top, as I suggested? One might say, "How patronising!", but it really doesn't look like you've followed this discussion thoroughly at all, which is the least that might be expected, seeing as you kicked it off with this edit - so what else can I say to you? If you kick off a discussion, and continue to contribute towards it, is it unreasonable that someone might expect you to follow its progress in detail? For example, I made an edit explicitly addressed to you, and you haven't responded! That's your choice, and, you're not the only one who owes me a response. Point is, some people have brought to this discussion perfectly valid reasons for why they prefer "Cnut", and others have brought equally valid reasons for why they prefer "Canute" - all you seem to do is to ignore the central discussion, and bring in your own variations on "methinks"! "Never mind what people have found and taken the effort to introduce here!" seems to be your approach.
 * All I meant by "I'll forever be opposed to a move away from 'Cnut'" is that, unless the world turns upside-down - which has been known - whenever this discussion over "Cnut" vs. "Canute" comes up, I'd be voting for "Cnut" - and, if you've read what I and others have said about it above, you'd understand why - but, instead of a considered response to what I said leading up to that and following that, you blanked it and came back with a frankly rather inane "tit-for-tat"! How is that an argument, in favour of one thing or another? Hmm? I'm off for a long, cold one. Make of it what you will. Nortonius (talk) 00:10, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I asked a rather simple question here, and I sincerely appreciate anyone who tried to answer it constructively and factually, whether or not he/she agrees with my assumption, which I admit is more of a gut feeling that a Nobel Prize quality mastering of the subject matter.
 * Subsequently to asking that question, I have given a theory as to the origin of the Scandinavian names Knut/Knud, and also have commented on too much Old English. That's all.
 * Frankly I am a bit flabbergasted by all this personal stuff. Let's stick to the question I asked. Please! The overwhelming amount of personal stuff is almost frightening to me, and I have no interest whatsoever in engaging with other editors in that kind of intrusive discussion.
 * I'm sure you work here in good faith, I try to, too. If not, we chould criticise each other about that, for being disruptive.
 * But the rest of all that sort of freaks me out. SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:59, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Look, SergeWoodzing, sincerely, I'm really sorry if this comes over as "personal" - it's not intended, I don't want to put you or anyone else off - but, if you want to know what I think, look up, I've already said it. Ok? Peace? Nortonius (talk) 01:44, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅. Cordially, SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:54, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Good stuff! Thanks, same to you. Nortonius (talk) 18:14, 20 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Hm, very sceptical about that genetical eymology of yours, SergeWoodzing. What are those names unfit for polite company you're thinking of? walk victor falktalk 17:34, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

The lead suggestion is, not to put too fine a point on it, complete nonsense. His Norse/English name is as written. Canutus is a Latinization, which, yes, would go in coinage, but is hardly his original name not being a classical Roman. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 22:32, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

In contemporary Latin charters his name seems to be consistently spelled "Cnut"   Fornadan (t) 08:48, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Influence in the western sea-ways
has made attempts to address issues priviously raised on this talk page, discussed in Talk:Cnut_the_Great, Talk:Cnut_the_Great and Talk:Cnut_the_Great. Thanks for these contributions. I'm not convinced all of it really is an improvement to the article though, some brief comments
 * 1) Cnuts influence in the west was more a product of being king of England than king of Norway/Denmark, it should be a separate section and not sub "King of Norway and part of Sweden"
 * 2) There is, IMO, to much background material on Ireland, and some of it isn't very accurate. "In the western maritime zone of the British Isles the history of Viking settlement is one of bloody struggle between the Gaelic natives, and those they knew as the Finn-Gaill, or 'Fair Foreigners', and Dubh-Gaill, or 'Dark Foreigners'" - the history of the settlements isn't particularly bloody, and Dubgaill and Finngaill are labels mainly used in internal struggles in the 9th century, Finngaill never referre to (as I recall) outside of Ireland.
 * 3) The traditional identification of Finn=Norwegian and Dub=Danish has been challenged by Dumville and Downham, while the reception of their new interpretion varies we should mention it where relevant (but I hardly think that discussion is relevant in an article on Cnut)
 * 4) Gormflaith legendary quarrel with Brian is stuff of legend, from Cogadh and Njals saga - but hardly something that needs to be referred here.
 * 5) citing "Hull, History of Ireland's People, v.I c.III" is hardly reassuring, that is Eleanor Hull I assume - that's extremely dated.
 * 6) Echmarchachs relation to Ragnaill of Waterford has been questioned.

I suggest trimming the background info down to one small paragraph, and spending more time on Hudsons discussion on Cnuts relationship with Dublin - that's what relevant here and I'm glad to see WWW has that article (I don't). I have, however, as mentioned elsewhere on this page, articles by Etchingham and Downham discussing Hudsons argument, and could share these if WWW or someone else wants to put in some work balancing the argument. Regrettably I don't have the time in the foreseeable future give priority to this article myself, there's other stuff I'd rather spend time on presently. Finn Rindahl (talk) 10:34, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Ill get straight to the commentations...


 * 1) Not sure if U are right in saying that Cnut's influence in the western sea-ways was more a product of his kingship of England, than hegemony in Scandinavia. It is probably correct to put this back in its own section though, as kingship of England was certainly a part of it.
 * 2) Inaccurate?? Or simply too wide a scope for a few paras?? Either way, I agree. Seeing as my intentions were to justify the map being in the article, and so the inclusion of the background was to illustrate the specifically Danish connection with Waterford and Limerick, and then to highlight the fact that the hegemony of Munster was broken at Clontarf, after which there is still lacking enough solid evidence for any vassalage of these entities, parsέ. I thought the part of Sweden should have been red in that map anyway, so I dont particularly miss it now.
 * 3) Oh dear, modern historians can only really contend apparent facts to get any notice, huh?
 * 4) Stuff of legend... though not illegible, may be ineligible.
 * Yes, and an expert on Irish sources. What the basis for contention here is I cannot imagine!?!
 * Yes, I should have put brother, or father. Hopefully relative will suffice.

All in all, right on. I will try to address these issues this weekend.WikieWikieWikie (talk) 17:34, 24 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Or maybe this weekend, or the next :WikieWikieWikie (talk) 09:43, 3 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Aha, someone else has done this redit of my work. I have been trying to find some reference material to go into more depth on Dublin relations with Cnut. It is surprisingly difficult to find these though (especially known key articles). I think I should try to contact the journals directly :/ WikieWikieWikie (talk) 08:12, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Isn´t it Knútr, not Knūtr?
in Old Norse? --Againme (talk) 21:19, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism
In view of the constant vandalism, I suggest that an administrator should make this article semi-protected so that it cannot be edited by anonymous editors. Dudley Miles 21:42, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Modern popular reputation of Canute?
I came to this page after reading his name as part of a similie in an article on the BBC News website (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-15107384), which I assume has to do with an enduring characterisation of Canute, but it's not immediately clear to me what that might be. Ought there to be a section in this article about his reputation? 78.86.61.94 (talk) 11:09, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The reference in that article is to Canute attempting to hold back the tide; Canute's name is invoked as an example of someone who tried to stop something that they should have realized could not be stopped. The story is covered here in the section "Ruler of the waves", but perhaps if a source can be found that discusses the figurative use of his name we could add a sentence or two mentioning the modern usage. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 11:48, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

"Cnut the Great?!"
Why is Cnut called "Cnut the Great" in this article? It specifically says on the Alfred the Great article and in every single Kings and Queens book I have that Alfred is the only English king in history to be called "the Great", and here we're calling Cnut "the Great". Can someone please tell me why? The Shadow-Fighter (talk) 19:27, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

You might well ask. In almost 50 years of reading history books I have never seen or heard of Canute being called "the Great". This gross error seems to be based on the title of just one modern book. Cliff (talk) 18:28, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * That would clearly be an error in the Alfred article. I'll take a look. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 21:38, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, the assertion in that article specifically mentions that Cnut also has that title, and its footnote says "Cnut the Great, who ruled England from 1016 to 1035, was Danish." Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 21:41, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

It isn't an error. Cliff (talk) 18:28, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Shall we assume it's because he was great - and a number of learned historians (such his main biographer Laurence Marcellus Larsson) have referred to him as such? Isn't the article's first given source a good one? SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:30, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * "Cnut the Great" is basically the English translation of his Norse name and nickname (see the very start of the article), though that's more properly something like "Knut the Powerful", I guess. Idontcareanymore (talk) 07:35, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

One of the problems with Wikipedia is that re-invents stuff -- Cnut is more commonly known in the English speaking world as CANUTE not Cnut -- which more correctly should be Knut. And is never listed as 'the Great' amongst English Kings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.26.238.245 (talk) 12:12, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

In Danish he has always been Knud (den Store = the Great) _

Call him Knud den Store. He was never "the Great".

Northmania
If Northmania isn't Normandy, where is it? The only reference I can find at states that it was Rollo's name for Normandy. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:51, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I think it's pretty clear that wherever it was ... in this context it wasn't Normandy - " Harthacnut was the semi-legendary founder of the Danish royal house who, according to Adam of Bremen, came to Denmark from Northmania. That's the context - not at all connected with Rollo. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:59, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * In this context I agree that Normandy is unlikely, anachronistic even, and would suggest Norway: see Ohthere of Hålogaland for the image at top right, where Ohthere says that he lived "northmost of all the Nor∂manna". Is it too much of a stretch to say that the home of these Nor∂manna might have been Latinized by Adam of Bremen as "Northmania"? I dunno what modern commentaries make of it. HTH. Nortonius (talk) 16:42, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The article on Harthacnut says that Adam may have meant Norway or Normandy, but no reference is given. Norway seems more likely, but I do not see why Normandy can be ruled out. He could have come to Denmark from Normandy after falling out with Rollo, and a later chronicler could have called it Northmania even if the name was anachronistic in the 910s. As the meaning is not known, I think the statement should be deleted from the Cnut article as not adding to it. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:00, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with that. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:10, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Ditto – it is unclear. I know v little about Adam of Bremen, how careful was he about naming places? Someone might have an opinion on that, I suppose. Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 18:26, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, after all that, I think it's pretty clear Adam means Normandy! Here (Liber II, Capitulum 22), he refers to both "Norveia", presumably Norway, and "Nordmania[m]" in a single section, which seems (to me) to concern the 10th century...? But make of that what you will, it's Sunday and a looong day for me, cheers. Nortonius (talk) 18:59, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * But ... the main point is .. what relevance does what Adam of Bremen say about the legendary founder of the Danish royal house have to do with .. Cnut? Ealdgyth - Talk 19:02, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, only that this guy's Cnut's alleged ancestor, I'm not bothered either way: don't mind me, I had no intention of interfering, I just thought I'd try to help with some background while I wait for a pal to come over with BEER! He should be here in a mo, so you can relax in the knowledge that I won't be butting in again... ;o) Nortonius (talk) 19:20, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Somebody wrote: "Świętosława (see: Sigrid Storråda)" – but that is not the same person, definitely. Unfortunately this misunderstading has been seen in Polish literature after 2000, which is not any proof. Sigrid was daughter of Skoglar-Toste, and they are know from Snorri Sturluson, while Svietoslawa was daughter of Mieszko and therefore sister to Boleslaw I Crhobry – she was married several times, one of the to Swein Forkbeard. Go to this Danish page www.vikingetidenskonger.dk for more – download the document "Valdemar IIs godser i Swecia". 87.57.198.86 (talk) 20:40, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

If one do not know about Cnut or Canute the Great, one knows nothing about English/Danish history. For a start you could consult this book: Bolton: The Empire of Cnut the Great.87.57.198.86 (talk) 20:52, 15 June 2012 (UTC)


 * The Świętosława/Sigrid Storråda issue is not a misunderstanding. It is a scholarly theory to explain the inconsistencies regarding the wives of Eric the Victorious and Sweyn Forkbeard. One can certainly disagree with the theory, but one should not do so simply because Snorri says something, because then one must completely disregard what other sources say. However, the main reason that the article tells you to see Sigrid the Haughty is because that's the only article on enwp that covers the issue.
 * Andejons (talk) 08:06, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Unknown daughter
How can Canute have a daughter to Emma in 1012, when he is in Denmark and she is Queen of England married to Ethelred? This section should read one of 3 ways. One: Elfgifu is the mother and she was born in 1013 as the twin of Svein; Two: she was born to an unknown Danish woman in Denmark in 1012 or Three, she was born after 1016 to Emma of Normandy. I am the Blood 03:14, 7 October 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blood3 (talk • contribs)

What's ment by "parts of Sweden" ?
Article states that Cnut the Great was ruler of "parts of Sweden". Does this reffer to the maps of today or of the time ? Scania, Halland and Blekinge were parts of Denmark until 1658. And Bohuslän belonged to Norway. (followed by three danish recaptions of Scania until 1720) If these provinces is that territory that is reffered to as "parts of Sweden", then I stronly suggest to erase the "parts of Sweden" part - if it's no other territoriy that the article reffers to. If the the latter is case, then I instead suggest to be more precise. 83.249.42.164 (talk) 16:56, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It says in the introduction that "The Swedish city Sigtuna was held by Cnut." This means that Cnut's control of Sweden went beyond the regions you mention, which were not parts of Sweden at the time. Thhist (talk) 22:58, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

His mother
This article probably shouldn't give the name of Cnut's mother so definitely because lot of sources state the name of Gunhild as in the Polish/Slavic Gunhild of Wenden, which may or may have not been the same person as Sigrid the Haughty, the daughter of Skagul Toste meaning she was Swedish instead. And there is also the Polish princess Świętosława (which I don't understand why it redirects to the one about the Nordic woman from the sagas). I understand there is a footnote, but there may be a better way to present this and maybe even include it in the article.--The Emperor&#39;s New Spy (talk) 21:07, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Also Template:Cnut the Great tree shows Gunhild instead of Sigrid, some consistency should be reached. The Emperor&#39;s New Spy (talk) 02:48, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually read the article, it explains it well enough, but lacks reference to Świętosława who may not be Gunhild, since Świętosława is said to be Polish and Gunhild Wendish. What source does the name Świętosława come from anyway? The Emperor&#39;s New Spy (talk) 02:51, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Ad 25 - ^ a b c Lawson, Cnut, p. 49. This is still not true, And the claim is not in God's playground either.

Ruler of the waves
The first written account of the Canute episode was in Historia Anglorum by chronicler Henry of Huntingdon, who lived within 60 years of the death of Canute (1035 AD), and not Henry of Huntingdon much later. 2001:470:28:2B1:213:E8FF:FE9D:2E79 (talk) 15:14, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The article correctly states that Henry of Huntingdon wrote in the 12th century - the first version of his chronicle was completed about 1130. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:18, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Ulfberht sword?
I recently saw a documentary on YouTube 'RIDDLE OF STEEL: Secrets of the Viking Sword' that's all about the enigma of a Viking sword called the Ulfberht, worn only by the warrior elite. It struck me that one example shown (first @ 01:51 on the film) is the exact same as the sword we see in the illustration shown int he Relations with the Church section. Unfortunately this is not entirely conclusive and even though one might bet his life this is an Ulfberht we see here, the Wikipedia does not accept such points of fact without the presentation of a reliable source. This information is thusly best kept to the discussion area for now.

Does anyone know of any proofs that may be found for this? If anyone sees, or knows of the above documentary, maybe they will be able to inform on the efficacy of the sword Cnut bears in this somewhat famous image being practically identical to the artefact? I might suggest the tri-lobe design of the pommel supports the idea that these swords were the work of a captured Frankish blacksmith (and vicer verser), or in some way inspired by the Franks after the fact that there is the inclusion of Christian insignia in the form of crosses? I understand though these kinds of pommels may have been a common form so it draws some possible doubt over this supposition, or is this not the case? I wonder, too, if the example shown may even be the very same sword Cnut wears at his side. Surely if it was an Ulfberht it should have been buried with him as a prize posession even of a king, and thusly well preserved, then looted and resurfaced in someone's collection and sold to a museum?

I doubt this has been written about although Viking weaponry enthusiasts will surely find this possible Ulfberht depiction of interest. Is there someone who may want to write an article (even a book) about this? Some scholar with access to the actual artefact, and archives may be able to arrive at this same conclusion. Even though I will myself look into this I am not a professional achademic and will find it hard to gather evidence myself.

WikieWikieWikie (talk) 16:04, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Drowned daughter
The section on Marriage and children notes an unnamed daughter "who drowned in Bosham Creek in 1020". The source given is a local history page on bosham.org, but (with all due respect to Bosham) I don't think a village website mentioning a local tradition counts as a reliable source in this context. I have never seen any references to this daughter in any scholarly literature I have read, and it doesn't make sense chronologically either, as she is supposed to have been born in 1012, but Cnut only came to England and was married to Ælfgifu in 1013. It seems most likely that this is a local belief that appeared in the late 19th century, but doesn't have any real historical basis. I think it should be removed both here and on Ælfgifu of Northampton, unless anyone has other evidence that she existed. --Lanfranc (talk) 13:28, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Merger proposal...
...as per template.

Oppose - The two women are much more than sufficiently established in literature on their own accounts, so there should be separate articles about them. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:19, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

you have a point, but then this article shouldn't go on forever about them, it should just state that the mother is unknown and link to these pages for more information. --dab (𒁳) 11:55, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

epithet inn ríki
The claim that Cnut was known as Knútr inn ríki in Old Norse is unreferenced.

He is sometimes referred to as Knútr inn ríki Sveinsson in literature and some of the references I just pasted seem to imply that he is so called in some of the poems about him. But I now took the pains to check out  Liðsmannaflokkr, the poem referred to in the first reference, and it turns out that he isn't called ríkr at all, the adjective ríkr does occur, but it is part of a kenning, "mighty tree of the ring support". Now it would be silly to claim that Cnut was known as "Cnut, the mighty tree of the ring support" in Old Norse. The third link above seems to explicitly refer to the epithet by glossing it, implying that it is used by Þórarinn loftunga; but the reference given makes clear that again, Knut is not referred to as inn ríki by Þórarinn.

Perhaps he is referred to as Knútr inn ríki elsewhere, but I am now tired of trying to verify claims inserted by other people. Could whoever inserted the "native name" please just state where it was taken from. --dab (𒁳) 11:55, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Problems July 2015
While looking at the page recently I noticed a couple of problems (there may be others) which I thought I should mention, so they would be sorted out. The ones which I noticed were:

1: Ulf is described as being regent in Denmark, which is correct, however he wasn't in the position at that time, in fact it was Thorkell the Tall who was Cnut's first regent until about c.1023. Ullf wasn't Cnut's representative until 1025-26 when the King went back to England, but soon returned and had him killed at Christmas of 1026.

2: Siward, Earl of Northumbria is according to the article a grandson of Estrid Svendsdatter and Ulf who was mentioned before. This claim is backed by no fact and doesn't even have a reference/citation, it is claim made by scholars.--JoshNEWK1998 (talk) 15:22, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

map
What exactly was the error? If the map is incorrect it should be removed from other WP articles as well and errors noted. That aside this article should have a map illustrating the feach of Cnut's reign.--Kmhkmh (talk) 13:57, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Please check the history. So far as i can see, you inserted the map but accidentally corrupted a ref by inserting ">LawFile:Cnut lands.svgson" in it. You then reverted your insertion of the map but left in the corruption of the ref. That was the error, not the map. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:32, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * No idea how that happened, that must have been an editor/editing accident that I didn't notice. I didn't revert the map however, but just moved it to a different paragraph for visual reasons. Hence your revert did not just undo the editing accident but also removed that map and I thought the latter was the intent of your revert (not being aware of the editing accident). Anyhow I reinserted the map now.--Kmhkmh (talk) 17:55, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Wording
In the section Birth and kingship, I have changed the sentence
 * Cnut's grandfather died when he was two years old and his father, Sweyn Forkbeard, became king.

to
 * Cnut was two years old when his grandfather, Harald Bluetooth, died, and his father, Sweyn Forkbeard, assumed the throne.

as it seems unlikely that Bluetooth could have a grandson before the age of three.__Gamren (talk) 13:20, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cnut the Great. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070313220032/http://www.vikingworld.dk/jellinge49.htm to http://www.vikingworld.dk/jellinge49.htm

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:02, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Not so great WP:COGNOMEN
I understand why Danish articles would disambiguate on the great dk:Knud den Store because there were six Danish kings with the name Knud (see dk:Knud ) and seeing that he ruled so many places he may well have the the cognomen "den Store" (the Great) however there are plenty of sources that state that Alfred the Great is the only English king to have that cognomen. As this is an English language article about a king of England the article title ought not to include the cognomen of Great, and does not need to do so for disambiguation purposes.

A web search will quickly show that the following paragraph is far from unique: "It is for his valiant defence of his kingdom against a stronger enemy, for securing peace with the Vikings and for his farsighted reforms in the reconstruction of Wessex and beyond, that Alfred - alone of all the English kings and queens - is known as 'the Great'."

(My bold emphasis) from

Personally I would prefer Canute as I am more familiar with it, and I have some sympathy with British school teachers, preferring Canute to reduce the sniggers from school children who will inevitably rearrange the letters in Cnut in a similar way as was done in that advertising campaign the company French connection FCUK. However this section is not about preferring Cnut over Canute or vice versa it is about dropping the cognomen "the Great".

Per WP:NCROY the article title ought to be either: "Cnut of Denmark" or "Cnut of England"; or "Canute of Denmark" or "Canute of England".

This similar to William III of England, while the article title of which on the Dutch Wikipedia is Willem III van Oranje. Whether "of Denmark" or "of England" depends on " (Sovereign section in WP:NCROY).

BTW:
 * The DNB article on Wikisource starts "CANUTE or CNUT (994?–1035), called the Great, and by Scandinavian writers the Mighty and the Old, king of the English, Danes, and Norwegians,..."
 * The ODNB start starts "Cnut [Canute] (d. 1035), king of England, of Denmark, and of Norway,"
 * The ODNB start starts "Cnut [Canute] (d. 1035), king of England, of Denmark, and of Norway,"

-- PBS (talk) 20:34, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

I think the title is fine as it is. The attribute "the great" exist in several other European languages as well and seems rather common in reputable literature (Google Books produces over 5000 hits for the English version alone, with plenty of academic publications among them). Also there might be a potential issue of Anglosaxon bias, which one could see expressed in the quote above.--Kmhkmh (talk) 00:04, 22 October 2017 (UTC)


 * See WP:NCROY ""
 * As I pointed out above with William III of England and Willem III van Oranje, the article title ought not to rely on foreign language sources if there is established usage in reliable English language sources (see and the policy section WP:UE and the guideline WP:ESTABLISHED). Also to a lesser extent the name used in academic articles is of less influencee that that used in general histories see WP:AT "Recognizability – The title is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize."
 * "English" in this context has nothing to do with Anglo-Saxon, English kings and queens were on the throne of England until the Act of Union 1707, for example Henry VIII was an English king.
 * Simon Schama writes:
 * "::::To attract this kind of unprecedented allegiance, such a figure would have to be exceptional, and Alfred, of course, fitted the bill. The Tudors thought him inspiring enough to award him, alone of all their predecessors, the honorific appellation of 'Great' in direct analogy with Charlemagne, Charles the Great. And for all the mythology about Alfred, it can't be said that they were wrong. The Anglo-Saxons called him Engele hirde, engele dirling (England's shepherd, England's darling)."


 * — this is a Google book page number and the page number in the hard copy might be different.
 * BTW Schama uses "Cnut" (see for example page 67)
 * "::::In so far as Cnut was a successful Danish colonist, bringing England 20 years of ... it was because he was prepared to govern the Saxon way and from England, rather than as a absentee emperor based in Scandinavia."


 * -- PBS (talk) 12:01, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd be inclined to agree with PBS's argument on this one; tellingly, the ODNB's article on him doesn't mention "the great" at all. Hchc2009 (talk) 12:09, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * It is a bit wordy, but I would prefer Cnut, King of England, Denmark and Norway. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:11, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Not only is it wordy it is also again policy and guidance. ; and " (WP:NCROY). So which of the three you selected do you think best/least meets those requirements? -- PBS (talk) 15:38, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Your first point is incorrect. Prefixing with the title is discouraged, as in King Cnut of England, but John, King of England is approved. You are right that selecting the most prominent country is recommended, but I disagree. Danes and Norwegians would reasonably complain that Cnut, King of England is anglocentric, while Cnut, King of Denmark would confuse British readers. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:17, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Apparently the Duch are not confused by William III of England (and Willem III van Oranje) so I fail to see what Danes or Norwegians have to complain about if an English tile is used. The point is that Denmark may or may not be the more predominant in reliable language sources, but that is something to be decided after it is agreed that "the Great" is not used. -- PBS (talk) 20:19, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

So far I see the overwhelming usage as a given, that was the point of my posting. The potential Anglosaxon bias I was was talking about does not refer to languages, but people wanting to see Alfred (Anglosaxon) as the only one with that attribute but not Cnut (Danish/Viking). There is historic and ethnic context here from which the attribute for Alfred originally arises. Not sure what you what you wanted with English kings, since I made no comment with regard to them. In the posting above English refers to the language and not to the country England or any "English kings".--Kmhkmh (talk) 19:41, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * It is definitely not "overwhelming usage" using a Google Book search as a proxy for a sampling tool of reliable sources Cnut England -Great in the 21st century returns 143 books Cnut England Great returns 149 books. -- PBS (talk) 20:19, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I respectfully disagree, those results seem primarily a problem of your chosen search term (see posting further down).--Kmhkmh (talk) 21:29, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

He is already the primary meaning of both "Cnut" and "Canute", so there is no need for disambiguation. I don't think "the Great" is all that widely used. PatGallacher (talk) 21:23, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

To give a few examples: All in all you get about 100,000 Google hits for "cnut the great" (Google books: 5,000 Hits) and even 316,000 Google Hits for "canute the great" (Google books: 22,800). And it isn't just used in (some) common academic literature, encycopledias or biography collections but it pops up pretty much everywhere from history books to children books and from scholarly journals to your daily newspaper or weekly magazine. And also constently in time, that is from the early modern and enlighment periods to very recent publications. A few samples: To me that looks like an overwhelming use, despite a few individual publications that like to reserve that cognomen for Alfred, hence the current page name is fine.
 * Britannica: Canute (I), byname Canute the Great, Danish Knut, or Knud, den Store, Norwegian Knut den Mektige (died Nov. 12, 1035), Danish king of England (1016–35), of Denmark (as Canute II; 1019–35), and of Norway (1028–35)
 * Bolton: The Empire of Cnut the Great. Brill
 * Bolton: Cnut the Great. Yale University Press
 * Smyth's book King Alfred the Great uses Cnut the Great: on p. 77, 163
 * The Middle Ages: Dictionary of World Biography, Band 2: Canute the Great. Routledge
 * Encyclopedia of world Biography: Canute I the Great. Gale
 * Telegraph: On this day in 1016: Canute the Great – Viking king of England, Denmark and Norway – is crowned in London
 * The Britain Guide: Kings and Queens: Canute the Great 1016-1035
 * The British Museum: Single Combat between King Edmund II, and Canute the Great
 * The New Yorker: Accounts vary as to how exactly a chess game between King Canute the Great and one of his most trusted Viking chieftains, Earl Ulf...
 * History for kids: Canute The Great

Having said that however personally I care less about the page name (as the actual name in the database) but more for the names given in bold in the lead. We have many entries in WP that have several common names, as long as they are all mentioned in the lead and according redirects exist, it seems a mere technicality which of those common names is used as a page name/primary name in the database.--Kmhkmh (talk) 21:27, 24 October 2017 (UTC)


 * We can put to one side the general Google hits on webpages because that does not reflect usage in reliable sources, this was something discussed and finally accepted back in 2008, when WP:COMMONNAME was changed from "source" to "reliable sources". With the returns of Google Books the gross statistical figure returned has little to do with the actual number returned for example the search on ["Cnut the Great"] returns between 180–190 books.


 * The titles at the first sentence can something like "Cnut or Canute (year-range), king of England (year-range), Denmark (year-range) and Norway (year-range), also known as Cnut the Great". — List the Kingdoms in order of the year-ranges so that we do not have to choose which is the most important in the lead.
 * -- PBS (talk) 12:14, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * How do you dtermine the number of "actual" books from the google books search? And how do we assess whether 280 is a lot or not? To assess that properly you'd need the total number of books mentioning the same cnut/canute with using the cognomen the great anywhere.--Kmhkmh (talk) 15:26, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Try click every five pages listed until you get to one that is not, then click on one between the last +ve and the -ve one. One can not assess if 280 is a lot, but one can contrast and compare two searches if they both return about 200 entries than one can not claim that one is overwhelmingly more common than the other. I personally would put overwhelmingly to be about 95% to 5% or greater, another might consider 90% to 10%, shrug that is probably something that editors using good faith can agree to compromise over. The England helps to remove false positives for other Cnuts. The problem with searching on "Cnut the Great" is that it is difficult to construct the opposite, and altering the search criteria by more than a word or so throws up funny results in Google search for example my version of Google Book search returns the following:
 * "Cnut the Great" "About 7,280 results" actual 174
 * "Cnut the Great" Denmark: "About 4,120 results" actual 123
 * "Cnut the Great" -Denmark" "About 7,250 results" actual 133
 * -- PBS (talk) 14:14, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Coronation
According to the infobox, Knut's coronation took place occurred on 6 January 1017 in London; but according to the text of the article, "His coronation was in London, at Christmas, with recognition by the nobility in January the next year at Oxford." So there's a contradiction there. I looked up the reference given for the latter (Stenton's Anglo-Saxon England, p. 399), but, I have been unable to find any mention of Knut's coronation at this page in Stenton's book, or in any of my books, for that matter. Neither the ODNB nor the Wiley Blackwell Encyclopedia of Anglo-Saxon England mention a date for Knut's coronation. Actually, according to the Encyclopedia, "There is reason to believe that the Danish conqueror Cnut and his sons Harold Harefoot and Harthacnut were not anointed, but crowned and enthroned in secular ceremonies." Can anyone shed more light on this? I believe there are changes to be made here. – Swa cwæð Ælfgar (talk) 11:27, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, the Handbook of British Chronology (3rd ed. with corrections 1996) gives no coronation date at all for Cnut. I can't find anything in Stenton either that supports the notion of him being crowned. It does support (from p. 393, rather than 399) the "with recognition by the nobility in January the next year at Oxford." phrase, but nothing preceding that. Unfortunately, my copy of Lawson's Cnut is packed up. Stafford in Unification and Conquest mentions Cnut's coronation charter - but never an actual coronation. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:18, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The Royal Mint is convinced that Cnut was crowned - it has issued a commemorative coin. See . The Central Council of Church Bell Ringers commemorated the 1000th anniversary on 6 January 2017, and there are also newspaper reports on that day saying it was the 1000th anniverary, but I cannot find an RS. Lawson in DNB says that according to Ralph of Diceto, 12th century Dean of St Pauls, Cnut was crowned by Lyfing Archbishop of Canterbury in London, but he does not give a date. Williams in Kingship and Government in pre-Conquest England p. 101 says that Cnut was probably crowned in London in early 2017, citing Ralph. It seems that there is no RS for a date. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:28, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the answers. I have removed the date in the infobox. It can be reinserted, of course, but not without a proper reference to back it up. This is sadly yet another case in which something that was stated on the English Wikipedia has spilled over in many other languages… :( – Swa cwæð Ælfgar (talk) 21:12, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * On the French article, another editor added this as a reference: Mike Ashley (1999), British Kings & Queens, London: Robinson (ISBN 1841190969). What do you think? – Swa cwæð Ælfgar (talk) 10:58, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I think the Handbook is definitely a better source, and if it contradicts Ashley, we go with the Handbook. Since the ODNB agrees - and Ashley's just a tertiary source itself (does he even give a source for that info? I have Ashley, and it's fine enough, but it's packed away...) we should stick with the more scholarly sources such as the Handbook and ODNB. Wouldn't be the first time a "Popular" book gives information that the scholarly sources don't. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:36, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I now have Lawson and have corrected accordingly. I have a different edition to the one cited previously, but I assume that is not a problem so long as it is clear which edition is being cited. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:14, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you! – Swa cwæð Ælfgar (talk) 20:02, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Deletion in Conquest of England section
The section began discussing an unnamed marriage: "This wedlock formed a strong alliance between the successor to the throne of Sweden, Olof Skötkonung, and the rulers of Denmark, his in-laws". It was removed in November with the edit summary " the original souce is unreliable" and said: "Among the allies of Denmark was Bolesław I the Brave, the Duke of Poland (later crowned king) and a relative to the Danish royal house. He lent some Polish 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'm restoring it as why the source is unreliable was unexplained. Fences &amp;  Windows  23:46, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Article title
If he is "more commonly known as Canute", shouldn't this article be at Canute the Great or Canute per Wikipedia guidelines?24.149.45.52 (talk) 03:53, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * This has been discussed several times before. See the archives above. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:42, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Basically, they've chosen to override WP:NAME for reasons of their own. Since they are just "guidelines", as long as their consensus holds, this article will continue to be at this inappropriate title. 128.151.71.16 (talk) 21:33, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * You have a serious case. However I feel disinclined to open one of these long-running naming disuptes where there are some legitimate arguments on both sides, and everybody accepts that the other title should be a redirect.  There are bigger problems on Wikipedia. PatGallacher (talk) 11:48, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * It's really nonsensical. Proper English is 'Canute', Nordic history has been discussed in English for many centuries, there are well-established traditional renderings of the names and changing them is entirely pointless (what's next, shall we 'correct' Denmark to Danmark and Norway to Norge?). Next, if it's supposed to reflect the Old Norse form, why not Knut with a 'k'? If it's supposed to be modern Danish, why not Knud with a 'd'? This 'Cnut' is just an odd nonce hybrid and an embarrassment for Wikipedia. If the consensus has been to do this, then people should work on changing that consensus, because it's stupid. --95.42.29.86 (talk) 02:40, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

There is a long list of sources in the References and Further Reading sections that mostly use "Cnut." The better question is why the lead sentence states he is "more commonly known as Canute." This is not explained or sourced in the body of the article. WP:LEAD states that "Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article." The claim that he is better known as Canute should be discussed and sourced in the body, or this should be removed from the lead sentence. Perhaps "also known as" would be warranted under the sources cited, but "more commonly" does not appear to be supported. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 05:01, 5 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I agree and have changed it. I think that "previously more commonly known as Canute" would be correct, but this would need RS sourcing as you say. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:27, 5 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I stand corrected - I think I was misled by the sentence in question as well as the comments on this talk page, and, I imagine, by an overrepresentation of vintage literature in my own readings. Odd or not, this 'Cnut' has apparently become the norm (and, on second thoughts, it can also be justified with the use of 'c' in Norse texts at the time, as opposed to modern standardised Old Norse). That said, the coinage 'House of Knytlinga' is still ridiculous, as I've stated on the talk page of that article.--95.42.29.86 (talk) 21:34, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Um... on quick glance "Cnut" looks perilously like "c*nt". Might want to change that to "Canute". Just sayin'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.89.176.249 (talk) 00:57, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

King of Sweden?
No reliable source says that Canute was king of (all of) Sweden & the Swedish government does not recognize him as such. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 08:38, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Recent edits
I do not want to get in an edit war but I have several problems with your last edit. 1. You cite Trow's biography. According to the article on him at M. J. Trow he is mainly a detective story writer. He is not a specialist on the history of the period and he is not a reliable source according to Wikipedia criteria. There are two excellent biographies of Cnut by specialists, Timothy Bolton and M.K. Lawson. 2. The other source you cite is ASC, which is a primary source which needs assessment by experts. 3. "didn't last by the time of Cnut's death". "didn't" is colloquial and "last by the time of Cnut's death" is ungrammatical and has no clear meaning. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:43, 4 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi Dudley, thanks for reaching out. My problem with the edit beforehand was its inaccuracy and the contradictions it made with other articles discussing the same event, as well as within this same article under the paragraph detailing his western influence. No sources were given for it either, and I found none after making a cursory search. The sources I cited for the facts I laid out were existing citations found on other articles, and while I'm willing to let go of the Trow biography, if it turns out that his biography was false, I'm not sure why the latter source is problematic if there aren't any conflicting primary sources. Finally, I don't see what's unclear and ungrammatical about the sentence you mentioned; "last" is being used as an intransitive verb here (as in, "continue for a specified period of time"), and the subject was the aforementioned influence Cnut had over Malcolm, which is a valid structure. AnyGuy (talk) 01:02, 5 June 2020 (UTC)


 * At the very least, I would like this factual issue, which my edits were meant to fix, to somehow be solved. If my edits are still faulty, then I'd rather that a better fix be applied, instead of just reverting the article back to its inaccurate state. AnyGuy (talk) 01:21, 5 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I have checked other sources and most do not suggest that Cnut ever had much power in Scotland, and none suggest a decline at the end. The best source on Cnut is the 2017 volume in Yale English Monarchs, Timothy Bolton's highly praised biography, which is not listed in the Wikipedia article. This does not have Scotland or Malcolm in the index. M. K. Lawson in his biography pp. 101-2 mentions ASC E, which gives a fuller version than D, and says that three kings, including Malcolm and Macbeth, submitted to Cnut. Lawson puts this in the context of reports of earlier attacks by Malcolm on England, and says that the 1031 visit, if not misdated, suggests further trouble. Alex Woolf in his 2007 history of Scotland, From Pictland to Alba, pp. 247-8 does attribute some power to Cnut. He describes the warfare between different factions and says that "Every time that Cnut appeared on the scene everyone had to stop moving." He suggests that the 1031 visit may have been to support Macbeth against Malcolm. In his chapter on Scotland in Pauline Stafford ed., A Companion to the Early Middle Ages, Britain and Ireland, p. 262, Woolf's only mention of Cnut (which I can find) is to say that it may well have been to his advantage to encourage division in Scotland. I think the sentence should be deleted as Cnut's influence in Scotland was too marginal to be mentioned in the lead. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:48, 5 June 2020 (UTC)


 * If that's true, then I agree, it ought to be removed. AnyGuy (talk) 18:27, 5 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Should this entire paragraph be removed too?


 * "In one of his verses, Cnut's court poet Sigvatr Þórðarson recounts that famous princes brought their heads to Cnut and bought peace.[citation needed] This verse mentions Olaf Haraldsson in the past tense, his death at the Battle of Stiklestad in 1030. It was therefore at some point after this and the consolidation of Norway that Cnut went to Scotland with an army,[69] and the navy in the Irish Sea,[70] in 1031, to receive, without bloodshed, the submission of three Scottish kings: Maelcolm, the future King Maelbeth and Iehmarc.[6] One of these kings, Iehmarc, may be one Echmarcach mac Ragnaill, an Uí Ímair chieftain and the ruler of a sea-kingdom of the Irish Sea,[40] with Galloway among his domains. Nevertheless, it appears that Malcolm adhered to little of Cnut's power, and that influence over Scotland died out by the time of Cnut's death.[7]" AnyGuy (talk) 18:30, 5 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I suggest deleting the paragraph and replacing it with: "According to M. K. Lawson: 'Cnut no doubt had important relations with Scotland, but they are obscure.' He may have fought a war against KIng Malcolm II of Scotland early in his reign and, according to manuscript E of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, in 1031 he went to Scotland and received the submission of three kings, including Malcolm and Mælbæth, probably Macbeth." The ref is Lawson's DNB article on Cnut. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:09, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Adding nasty litte hatnote
I am flabbergasted that an experienced editor would be doing stuff like this (reverting several times to add it without using this page) & that it seems important to herim to add the word "cunt" at the top of this article. Hacked? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 08:55, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Possibly relevant, although unpublished
https://www.academia.edu/18175950/The_Underrated_Monarch_An_Examination_of_King_Cnut_in_England Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:51, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Legend
In the discussion on the name of this article, one editor notes " WP:LEAD states that "Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article."  Yet we have a claim that Canute/Cnut is generally known as a mistaken king who thought he could stop the tide. Nowhere else in our long article does the word tide appear.  I have never heard this version.  As a school-boy, I read the version where it shows his wisdom, and I came across the same version a number of times in other texts. In checking while writing this note, I did in fact see scholarly reference to the version that casts Canute in a negative light (https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1467-9248.2009.00784.x : "The story of King Canute (Cnut) is well known."). so perhaps that version is better known (to youger people?).  In any case, the reference to the king and the tide needs to have a citation.Kdammers (talk) 05:01, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree. I have heard both versions, but the one portraying him as foolish always as an outdated misconception. The story is so common that it is worth adding, but pending someone editing with reliable sources I have deleted the statement in the lead. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:03, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Either way, it is quite strange and unsatisfactory at the moment that there is no mention of any version of this story. Like doing a Wikipedia article on Lady Godiva which makes no mention of her riding naked through the streets of Coventry! 16:48, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I had the same thought. The story has its own article - King Canute and the tide - so it seems to me it should at least be mentioned in this article, although with an explanation that it is believed to be a fictional legend. 170.223.207.71 (talk) 17:08, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I have added a section on this. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:56, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The two pages (this one and King Canute and the tide ) certainly need to be linked, and linked much more explicitly than they are at present. In the UK, this is more or less the only thing Cnut is famous for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.80.61.143 (talk) 05:37, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 29 December 2021

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Dudley Miles (talk) 11:21, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Cnut the Great → Cnut, King of England, Denmark and Norway – The epithet "Great" is very rarely used in academic sources. Timothy Bolton's biography is titled Cnut the Great, but I have not found any other example in a quick trawl of books with his name in the title written (or edited) by W. B. Bartlett, Alexander Rumble, R. Frank, M. K. Lawson and B. T. Hudson. He is also shown without the epithet in the index of The Anglo-Saxon World by Higham and Ryan, A Companion to the Early Middle Ages, Britain and Ireland, ed. Pauline Stafford and Making England 796-1042 by Richard Huscroft. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:42, 29 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose – not the idea of renaming, but the target. He was king of England, Denmark and Norway, though that probably makes for a rather cumbersome title. Favonian (talk) 11:04, 29 December 2021 (UTC) Struck oppose in light of modified proposal. Still mulling over the new one. Favonian (talk) 11:33, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes I thought of that and went to change the target. You beat me to it. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:09, 29 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose Cnut, King of England, Denmark and Norway - it is far too cumbersome. User:力 (powera, π,  ν ) 19:12, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Where Cnut already redirects here, why not just go with that? Calidum  19:16, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I support "Cnut". Isn't that usually how we name articles for monarchs? Not "Name, King of X"? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:21, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I prefer the title I proposed as it is clear, and clarity is more important than brevity, but I am OK with Cnut as a second choice. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:06, 29 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose Whether the article sholud be called Cnut the Great or Canute the Great is not my primary concern, but one of the two seem to be the natural choise, that everyone can relate too. McNeil, Cran & McCrumb was fairly incorrect when they stated in 1986 in reference to Alfred the Great that No other English monarch is remembered as "Great".
 * Looking for the various variations of the name and designation in Google-searches I came up whit the following results:
 * "Canute the Great" - ca. 84100 hits on Google
 * "Cnut the Great" - ca. 80000 or 74700 hits on Google
 * "Canute, King of England" - ca. 8830 hits on Google
 * "Cnut, King of England" - ca. 7450 hits on Google
 * "Cnut, King of England, Denmark and Norway" ca. 6720 or 6570 or 2460 hits on Google
 * "Canute the Great, King of England" - ca. 5520 or 5420 or 5070 hits on Google
 * "Cnut the Great, King of England" - ca. 4830 or 4490 hits on Google
 * "Canute the Great, King of England, Denmark and Norway" - ca. 2580 or 1110 hits on Google
 * "Canute, King of England, Denmark and Norway" - ca. 1690 or 842 hits on Google
 * "Cnut the Great, King of England, Denmark and Norway" - ca. 1240 hits on Google
 * [the searches didn't always come out with the same figures]
 * As for books that uses either "Canute the Great" or "Cnut the Great" in the title of the book I searched Amazon.com, British Library and a few other places, and came up with the following titles:
 * Legum Regis Canuti Magni Quas Anglis Olim Dedit Versionem Antiquam Latinam Ex Codice Colbertino, Variantibus Lectionibus Atque Observationibus Additis Cum Textu Anglo-Saxonico (Classic Reprint) Hardcover – 1 Sept. 2018, Latin edition by Canute The Great (Author), Publisher ‏ : ‎ Forgotten Books (1 Sept. 2018) [Google translation: The laws of King Canute the Great, which he formerly gave to the English, from the old Latin version of Colbert's Code, With Various Lessons and Observations Added to the Anglo-Saxon Text ], [original year of release: 1826]
 * Edda; Or, the Tales of a Grandmother. History of Denmark, First Part, from the Earliest Ages to the Death of Canute the Great, Paperback – 10 Dec. 2015, by Philojuvenis (Author), Publisher:‎ Leopold Classic Library (10 Dec. 2015) [original year of release: 1849]
 * Canute the Great; The Cup of Water, Paperback – 23 Nov. 2009, by Michael Field, Publisher: BiblioBazaar (23 Nov. 2009) [original year of release: 1887]
 * Canute the Great by Laurence Marcellus Larson (Ph.D. Associate Professor of History in the University of Illinois), The Knickerbocker Press, 1912
 * Queen Emma and AElfgifu of Northampton: Canute the Great's women, by Miles Warren Campbell, Publisher: ‎Mediaeval Scandinavia (1 Jan. 1971)
 * The " 'imperial " Rule of Cnut the Great: a Re-Examination of the Nature of His Hegemony in England and Scandinavia, by Timothy Bolton, Publisher: ‎University of Cambridge (1 Jan. 2005)
 * The Empire of Cnut the Great, by Timothy Bolton, Publisher: BRILL (1 Jan. 2008)
 * The Ipswich Mint c.973 - c.1210. Volume II. Cnut the Great to the End of Edward the Confessor 1016-1066, by J.C. SADLER, Publisher: Privately published (1 Jan. 2012)
 * Cnut the Great: The Life and Legacy of Scandinavia's Most Famous King, by Charles River Editors (17 Oct. 2017)
 * Cnut the Great by Timothy Bolton, New Haven; London: Yale University Press, 2017
 * And a coming publication (to be published next year):
 * Anglo-Danish Empire: A Companion to the Reign of King Cnut the Great (The Northern Medieval World), by Richard North (Author), Erin Goeres (Author), Alison Finlay (Author), Publisher: Medieval Institute Publications (September 13, 2022)
 * As we can se, five of these titles was published several years before McNeil, Cran & McCrumb came with their statement about Alfred the Great.
 * And to me it seems, that the number of books published with "the Great" in the title is increasing by each decade (two titles 2000-2009; three titles 2010-2019; and so far one title in 2022 and still 8 more years to go before we reach the end of this decade (two already in the 2020's if we also count the title: CNUT, What a great king... by Albert Eichel, Lined Notebook / Journal Paperback – 7 Jan. 2020, Independently published [7 Jan. 2020])) - and it is particular worth noting, that the 2022-title is co-authored by many scholars, so it seem to me, that the community of medievalists and historians has agreed upon, that it is most practical to use the designation "the Great" probably because it's short and everyone can relate to this designation (except from the languages hailing from The Iberian Peninsula most other languages seem to use what would be "the Great" in their languages as designation).
 * And as for the expressions "Cnut, King of England" or "Canute, King of England", I came up with only two books, that had a title like this, namely:
 * The Reign of Cnut: King of England, Denmark and Norway (Studies in the Early History of Britain), by A.R. Rumble, Publisher: Leicester University Press (1 Jan. 1994) & Cnut: King of England, 1016-1035, by M.K. Lawson, Tempus Publishing Ltd; 2nd edition (1 Aug. 2004)
 * ..... not much to build a case in my opinion.
 * Therefore my recommendation is to stay put with Cnut the Great or alternatively change it to Canute the Great. Oleryhlolsson (talk) 21:14, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * If I google search just on "Cnut" I get 1,580,000, vastly more than any of your searches. If other editors are happy, I will close this requested move and open a new one to change the title to "Cnut". Dudley Miles (talk) 22:31, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, my point isn't the google-searches but how the name "Cnut the Great" is treated in books, among scholars and in various other languages, if you fail to grasp this I don't know what else you might fail to grasp? - and "Cnut" as a search dosen't make any sense, since it's an ordinary name. Oleryhlolsson (talk) 23:27, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * As you are guilty of such lack of courtesy I will point out that your reply is disingenuous. The first section on your comment was precisely on google searches and the total on searching 'Cnut' is relevant as the vast majority relate to the subject of this article. If you search on 'Cnut the Great' you will find books using that term even though they are a small minority of the total books about him. Cnut is better as two editors have commented above. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:10, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 2 January 2022

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: Moved  (t · c)  buidhe  10:32, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Cnut the Great → Cnut – I recently proposed a move to Cnut, King of England, Denmark and Norway, but I closed it for lack of consensus. Two editors suggested just Cnut, which currently redirects to Cnut the Great, and I agree that deleting "the Great" from the title would better correspond with modern usage. It is common for the most widespread usage to be the Wikipedia article title with a hatnote for other uses, as with Napolean, Æthelstan, Charlemagne and Socrates. Cnut the Great is still used in some academic sources, but they are a small minority. The only historian using "the Great" among the sources for this article is Timothy Bolton, and it is significant that the original 19C DNB uses Cnut the Great, but not the updated 21st century version. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:19, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support move. Obvious primary topic for "Cnut", and I don't think we'll need any new hatnotes.  O.N.R.  (talk) 05:25, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support—I'm pretty sure Wikipedia is the first place I ever saw Cnut referred to as "the Great". Clearly he is not referred to in this manner enough to warrant the current title. Unfortunate that its been named like this for so long, but oh well...! Aza24 (talk) 07:09, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support—I agree with the above comments. Amitchell125 (talk) 14:26, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose The first scholarly biography in English that I know of was Canute the Great by Laurence Marcellus Larson in 1912. The English name form Cnut is latter-day invention which has abandoned the intelligent English exonym previously established for centuries for all kings & princes called Knud or Knut in the Scandinavian languages: Canute Established exonyms are essential to oral readability, and it makes no sense to me that we should have the article named with a cumbersome invention which hardly anyone will know how to pronounce in English. Furthermore, why among all the other royal men we call Canute should this one be treated as if his only importance was to Britain, thus moving him to Cnut standing alone? How often is he called just "Cnut" (all alone) in academic work? Please check again how often this man has been called Canute in scholarly writing in English, and move him, if at all, to Canute the Great. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:07, 6 January 2022 (UTC) PS: Enc. Brit. doesn't even acknowledge "Cnut" at all. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:10, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * We go by the modern academic usage, not on what makes sense to Wikipedia editors. The Britannica point is interesting. The online version has Canute the Great and no Cnut. The author is given as Dorothy Whitelock, who died in 1982, but updated November 2021. Whitelock uses the spelling Cnut and no 'Great' in her 1954 The Beginnings of English Society and 1979 English Historical Documents. It is therefore likely that her version has been changed by a Britannica editor. My 1973 Britannica has an article by Alistair Campbell, who died in 1974. It is under Canute, but also has Cnut and no 'Great'. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:52, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

"Cnut the Great"?
The lead now has the name "Cnut the Great" bold. Is he really widely known by that name? He is widely know as "Canute the Great", but Cnut the Great? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:31, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Cnut is the spelling used by almost all modern academic historians and Cnut the Great is the title of the biography by Timothy Bolton in the Yale English Monarchs series. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:49, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Possible editorialized line currently in the opening.
In the second paragraph of the opening, there is currently a sentence which reads "Cnut sought to keep this power-base by uniting Danes and English under cultural bonds of wealth and custom, as well as through sheer brutality." There is no source attached after the sentence, although there is a Swedish-language source attached later in the paragraph. If that is the source being used as justification for this sentence, I have so far been unable to find anything in it that supports the inclusion of the claim "as well as through sheer brutality." In light of that, this phrase currently seems like an unsourced opinion inserted into the rest of the paragraph. If there is a different source for that claim that is listed elsewhere in the article, it would be helpful to have it linked there as well. If anyone would like to take a look at the currently listed sources in that paragraph, it would be helpful to see if there's any justification for the current inclusion of that phrase there. If not, we should probably think about removing it. MojaveSummit (talk) 22:07, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The standard rule is that the lead does not require referencing as it should be a summary of the referenced main text, but as with this article many editors do not know the rules and add referenced text to the lead. In this case I do not see anything in the main text to support "sheer brutality", so unless I have missed something I think the comment should be deleted - even though it is a truism that all kings survived by brutality. Dudley Miles (talk) 07:25, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

"Cnut the Great"?
The lead now has the name "Cnut the Great" bold. Is he really widely known by that name? He is widely know as "Canute the Great", but Cnut the Great? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:31, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Cnut is the spelling used by almost all modern academic historians and Cnut the Great is the title of the biography by Timothy Bolton in the Yale English Monarchs series. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:49, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Possible editorialized line currently in the opening.
In the second paragraph of the opening, there is currently a sentence which reads "Cnut sought to keep this power-base by uniting Danes and English under cultural bonds of wealth and custom, as well as through sheer brutality." There is no source attached after the sentence, although there is a Swedish-language source attached later in the paragraph. If that is the source being used as justification for this sentence, I have so far been unable to find anything in it that supports the inclusion of the claim "as well as through sheer brutality." In light of that, this phrase currently seems like an unsourced opinion inserted into the rest of the paragraph. If there is a different source for that claim that is listed elsewhere in the article, it would be helpful to have it linked there as well. If anyone would like to take a look at the currently listed sources in that paragraph, it would be helpful to see if there's any justification for the current inclusion of that phrase there. If not, we should probably think about removing it. MojaveSummit (talk) 22:07, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The standard rule is that the lead does not require referencing as it should be a summary of the referenced main text, but as with this article many editors do not know the rules and add referenced text to the lead. In this case I do not see anything in the main text to support "sheer brutality", so unless I have missed something I think the comment should be deleted - even though it is a truism that all kings survived by brutality. Dudley Miles (talk) 07:25, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

"Cnut the Great"?
The lead now has the name "Cnut the Great" bold. Is he really widely known by that name? He is widely know as "Canute the Great", but Cnut the Great? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:31, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Cnut is the spelling used by almost all modern academic historians and Cnut the Great is the title of the biography by Timothy Bolton in the Yale English Monarchs series. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:49, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Possible editorialized line currently in the opening.
In the second paragraph of the opening, there is currently a sentence which reads "Cnut sought to keep this power-base by uniting Danes and English under cultural bonds of wealth and custom, as well as through sheer brutality." There is no source attached after the sentence, although there is a Swedish-language source attached later in the paragraph. If that is the source being used as justification for this sentence, I have so far been unable to find anything in it that supports the inclusion of the claim "as well as through sheer brutality." In light of that, this phrase currently seems like an unsourced opinion inserted into the rest of the paragraph. If there is a different source for that claim that is listed elsewhere in the article, it would be helpful to have it linked there as well. If anyone would like to take a look at the currently listed sources in that paragraph, it would be helpful to see if there's any justification for the current inclusion of that phrase there. If not, we should probably think about removing it. MojaveSummit (talk) 22:07, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The standard rule is that the lead does not require referencing as it should be a summary of the referenced main text, but as with this article many editors do not know the rules and add referenced text to the lead. In this case I do not see anything in the main text to support "sheer brutality", so unless I have missed something I think the comment should be deleted - even though it is a truism that all kings survived by brutality. Dudley Miles (talk) 07:25, 20 April 2022 (UTC)