Talk:Harald Hardrada

Harald's Religion
The article lists his religion as "Roman Catholicism." I think this is problematic for 2 reasons: 1, he spent many years in Constantinople, where he would be attending Eastern churches. 2, the schism between Rome and Constantinople did not occur until 1054, 12 years before Harald's death, and even then it took a while to really set in, so "Roman Catholicism" is an anachronism. It would probably be best just to call him a "Christian" or "Catholic Christian." TheEvilPanda (talk) 13:16, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Plus he fought against the English invasion which was connected with imposing papal authority on England, since Archbishop of Canterbury Stigand was excommunicated by ALL post-schism popes starting with Pope Leo IX, the one the East–West_Schism started with. User:Anonymous — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:1225:7700:A855:7C26:E78A:7169 (talk) 19:23, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Text requires clarification
It is stated that, "Among English-speakers, he is generally remembered for his invasion of England in 1066." This is confusing as it is generally known that England was invaded by William the Conqueror in 1066. Harald III of Norway was defeated by Harold Godwinson near York. After the battle with Harald III, Harold Godwinson turned south to meet William at Hastings. Harold Godwinson lost the Battle of Hastings to William.

The text sounds like Harald III invaded England instead of William the Conqueror. While Harald III did in fact land in England, his aim was to claim the throne from Harold Godwinson. I feel this area needs clarification. --Beowulf cam (talk) 01:19, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I believe the confusion is all in the events. Both Harald and William invaded in 1066, within a very short time. Harold beat and killed one, lost to the other. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:04, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to note that Harald and William were related: William was a nephew to King Henry I of France whose wife Anne of Kiev was a sister of Queen Elisabeth, first wife of Harald. By medieval standards, that made them close kin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.141.185.232 (talk) 07:17, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Does anyone know of a good History?
I am looking for a Biography or any detailed account of Harald III of Norway’s Life. Any help at all would be appreciated. Thanks Joel


 * You can get the main account, King Harald's Saga: Harald Hardradi of Norway: from Snorri Sturluson's Heimskringla. Also check on Amazon for 'Harald Hardrada', which is the standard version though it may be inaccurate.


 * A check on Amazon indicated no actual biographies in English: but with the multiple versions of his name, googling the variants might pay off.


 * --GwydionM 16:19, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


 * There's an old translation here but note that this isn't the only primary source, there are several other kings' sagas which treat Haraldr and he is mentioned, though not by name, in Byzantine sources. Haukur 19:05, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Read "Harald Hardrada: The Warrior's Way" by John Marsden. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.231.208.82 (talk) 05:31, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Requested move
Please discuss the requested move at Talk:Harald I of Norway. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:48, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Closed as no consensus. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:22, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Hii, i have to write an autobiography on Harald and why he should be King. Any help??

Cognomen
Is he really called Hardråde in English? Seems like a strange form... --dllu 23:21, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, he is, quite frequently. You'll sometimes see "Hardraade" too, as the a with the circle over it can also be written as too a's.  Typically you won't see "Hardruler" in English or "Stern-Council," though those are two common translations.  VincentValentine29 21:42, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The Penguin Classics translation of 1966 uses Hardradi. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.93.254.128 (talk) 22:31, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Denmark
As far as I know, Harald was not King of Denmark; he only claimed to be, until about 1062/4. Svend Estridsen was the actual King of Denmark at the time.

Deaþe gecweald 09:29, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

'as far as I know' isnt really much of an argument is it? Read some sources.

Excluding the information on this page, all the information of Wikipedia explains that Harald was not King of Denmark; he only claimed to be, until about 1062/4. Svend Estridsen was the actual King of Denmark at the time. cf. Sweyn II of Denmark.

Because Wikipedia states the above, surely it would be appropriate to amend the information on this page, as you would not want an encyclopaedia to contradict itself.

Deaþe gecweald 09:00, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Harald was King of Denmark the same way anyone else was King of anywhere: He and the armed men who backed him could hold the land and collect taxes. There are no rightful kings. 65.79.173.135 (talk) 20:54, 18 October 2011 (UTC)Will in New Haven65.79.173.135 (talk) 20:54, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Content from Varangians article
The Varangian Guard - norse saga portion of the Varangians article has some things about Harald III thats not mentioned here.

Vandalism
I don't know what Harald Hardrada ever did to him, but there was some big vandalism on this page, though I've since removed it and replaced it with the old text. JayPetey (talk) 20:27, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism
I don't know what Harald Hardrada ever did to him, but there was some big vandalism on this page, though I've since removed it and replaced it with the old text. JayPetey (talk) 20:27, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Harald in opera
Two operas at least based on this: one by Kurt Atterberg (Härvard Harpolekare) and one by Judith Weir (King Harald's Saga). Schissel | Sound the Note! 13:24, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Ancestry
I have tightened up the Fairhair dynasty article and inserted a bit more about Harald's relationship to Olaf I into this article. I've also made a note about the scholarly doubts concerning the veracity of Harald's direct descent from Harald I and there made a link to the Fairhair dynasty article and to two scholarly works that set out the case for the generations between Harald I and Harald III being improved for political reasons. (Both are fuller sources and more judiciously expressed than the Sjöström article, and the latter is only available on a pay-site, so I have removed that reference.) I believe the details of the possible reasons and the juxtaposition of this and the traditional viewpoint properly belong in the article on the dynasty. However, I note here that the scholars present a picture of a carefully constructed lineage, not "a collection of legends." And someone apparently suggests that the underlying reason may have been that both kings were descended from Harald Fairhair in the female line, via Åsta Gudbrandsdatter. (I was unable to find a citation for that view.) In any event, the sagas, chronicles, and skáldic verses (of which there are many; Heimskringla is only the lengthiest) all present Harald as descended directly in the male line from Harald Fairhair, so suppressing the genealogical table at the end of this particular article is undue weight. These are the sources we have (and some still accept the genealogy with respect to Harald's grandfather and great-grandfather.) Information at the start of the article to give context to what is said about his early life and a note with reference to the fuller discussion elsewhere are sufficient. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:28, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * When a family 'tree' is just a 'stick', a pedigree is not the most efficient way of presenting the information, and its lack of detailed annotation removes any distinction among what is certain, probable, possible, or dubious. So, why do we use them? They bring together a lot of information in a small space, but when there isn't a lot of information to convey or when that information requires a more detailed explanation than the format allows, they are at best a waste of space and at worst do a disservice. To not show a genealogy that is mostly blank spaces and redlinks is not giving undue weight to anything. The article reports his parents and his supposed descent from Fairhair. That is the only useful material in the pedigree anyhow, making it redundant.  We don't have to show this in graphical form just for the sake of a couple of redlinks that are probably fictional anyhow.  Agricolae (talk) 16:48, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The redlinks are redlinks to suggest that an article could usefully be made, not to indicate that they're not worth articles - remember, Wikipedia is not yet finished. I'll be writing them both soon if no one else gets to it first. I believe the main reason to have a graphic representation of a genealogy is that many people find it easier to take in such information in graphic form. It also facilitates comparisons, in this case particularly with Olav II. And they are used in all royalty articles. So I'm restoring it. I've tried footnoting it to spell out the fact it's derived from Heimskringla and other similar sources - which our genealogies of other kings of the period, including Olav II are, too - but I believe having an actual mention in the article of the scholarly arguments and a referral to the specialized article, Fairhair dynasty, is better. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:40, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * And you're telling me that useful pages could be made for these 'people'? - remember, Wikipedia also has notability standards, standards that are not met by these genealogical place-holders. If you write them, I will likely propose them for deletion. Yes, some people can't be bothered to actually read an article and tables save them the trouble, but in so doing an assumption is inevitably made by the reader that the table bears some resemblance to historical reality/consensus.  By tricking them into thinking that this genealogy contains authentic information, are we really doing them a favor? As to ancestries being used "on all royalty articles", that is mostly true in spite of the violation of WP:RS (few of them document each genealogical connection). There are cases where the pedigree illuminates the political and family structure that informed the actions of an individual, but they are frequently just there because . . . well, . . . just because. I doubt "other pages have them" meets the WP:NOT standard with regard to "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information". Again, how is it a 'better' solution to present a fiction in the chart and then explain it in the article, when apparently the whole purpose of the chart is to save people the trouble of reading the article? and regarding the text you reverted, you again want to bury the correct information, to unambiguously say in the article that Sigurd is great-grandson of Fairhair and attach a footnote that most readers will assume documents the statement. Only those who look at the footnote will find that is says, 'Ha ha, fooled you! This was probably just made up.' To explain the dispute in the article is less elegant than to just pretend there is no conflict, but it is certainly more intellectually honest.


 * "It has been claimed that all Norwegian kings were descendants of Harald Finehair. That is, however, a fiction.  The founder of the Norwegian royal dynasty was Harald Hard-ruler, who died in 1066.  His own claim was as half-brother of Olav Haraldsson. Harald Finehair's dynasty ended with the death of Harald Grey-cloak in about 970, and neither Olav Tryggvason nor Olav Haraldsson was his descendant." Birgit and Peter Sawyer, (in Medieval Scandinavia: from Conversion to Reformation, circa 800-1500, The Nordic Series, vol. 17, U. Minn. Press, p. 61)


 * How many of these do we need before we stop pretending that just repeating the Heimskringla account, in text or table, represents responsible editorship. Agricolae (talk) 21:50, 3 October 2010 (UTC)


 * It's not just Heimskringla. It's a whole body of histories and even skaldic poems. We don't have any statements from Harald III - as one of the scholars says, it is not known what he claimed. What we have is this material. That needs to be in the article. The scholars are speculating. You're right, in recent decades scholarly opinion has been skeptical about the direct descent in the male line, and thanks for one more source. But this is not like the hard sciences, where the most recent view should trump the best. There is one view represented by the texts, and it needs to be in the article - the revisionist view doesn't get to crowd it out because we cannot prove it is right (and particularly with kings, unless we have a new documented - not just argued - one to put in its place that would be a disrespect). Also the Fairhair dynasty article is the place for a detailed discussion of the two viewpoints, which I have now tightened it up to do - it was essayistic in the extreme.


 * I would like to put the "maybe his claim was actually through their shared mother, Åsta" in this article, but cannot find a citation to support it. Do you have one? Otherwise your wording in the paragraph text was not making it clearer, it was saying twice that the Icelandic sources are the source of the official genealogy and adding passives. I'm not trying to bury what the scholars say, but we should not bury what all the texts say. Particularly since they are not so very late in terms of Harald III - what the scholars point out is much later than the events is all the connecting to the Ynglingar.


 * Consensus seems to be that the grandfather and great-grandfather are notable - hence the redlinks. The fact they haven't been written up yet, including by me - you will appreciate that searching Google Books is much harder where alt. chars. are involved, and I'm not going to make the articles without citations, standards are higher now - does not mean they don't merit articles. By the same token, there is clear consensus that we have genealogy diagrams in kings' articles, not to encourage skipping the text but to supplement it. Just as we have info boxes and sometimes mention the same fact more than once in an article. It's not our place to judge people lazy; this is part of the apparatus of an article that makes it useful to readers and, yes, attractive. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:28, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I entirely agree with Agricolae - writing in a footnote that the main text probably does not represent the facts, is just strange. The article should reflect the newest scholarship on the matter.--Barend (talk) 08:54, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


 * We have two choices. We can only include the saga version in the text, then in the footnote nobody is going to read say that several modern scholars think it is silly nonsense, or we can say both in the text. If you have style issues with the footnote, then rephrase the footnote - the take-home message is that the link is not found outside of the prose portions of the sagas (as opposed to also being found in historical records or the interspersed scaldic verses withing the sagas taken by most modern historians to be 'authentic source material' - when Snorri had a source, he usually said so and quoted the verse, but not for these connections), and that these scholars think the genealogical connection is bogus.  As to the common link being through Asta, I am unaware of anyone suggesting a genealogical link though her, other than what the Sawyers are saying - that it was as half-brother of Olaf that Harald succeeded Magnus, not as descendant of the revered founder of the nation.
 * As to it being a consensus that genealogies be included in articles, I know of no such consensus - was there a vote that I missed? As I said, sometimes they are helpful, sometimes they represent a pointless bloating of an article, and sometimes they do a disservice, hiding intense disagreement among the scholarly community by representing wild guesses and pet theories in exactly the same way as they do indisputable facts.  I spend a good bit of my editing time removing bogus genealogy, most of which would have added no useful insight even were it true.
 * The intervening 'kings' being notable? Don't make me laugh. Even in the sagas they are treated as genealogical place-holders that play no role other than linking one Harald to the other. What are you going to say about them?  "He appears in the sagas as father of X and son of Y and modern scholars think neither he nor his father actually existed."  That is about all there is. This in no way satisfies Wikipedia notability standards. Agricolae (talk) 15:44, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, I have rephrased it to put all the info about the scholarly doubts, and the link to Fairhair dynasty, in the text. It seemed like undue weight to me because the section was headed "Early life and wanderings in the East," not "Who were his ancestors?", so I have added "ancestry" to the header of that first section. I looked at Sawyer on Google Books but the sentence is simply referring to Krag's work, which is already referenced, so I looked at the rival and slightly newer survey work by Knut Helle and added 2 page refs to him instead. He actually questions Harald III's descent from Snæfrid (Snøfrid) rather than the identity of the 2 Halvdans; I'm going to add that as well as the Sawyer reference to the Fairhair dynasty article.


 * The latest scholar to publish on an issue is not ipso facto the most authoritative source. And I believe both of you are forgetting that the medieval sources are also important sources. If we throw out Heimskringla and the other sagas in which Harald appears, we lose most of the events of his life. These are just as much histories as any other medieval sources. Also as I'm sure you both know, medieval royal genealogies pretty much always go back to gods and to Adam and Eve - which was not thought of as falsification so much as making clear what everybody knew must be so. Just as the Donation of Constantine is a false decretal in the sense that it was written up later, but everybody knew it must have existed. Absent DNA testing, they are the genealogies we have and should be presented as part of the encyclopedic data; with the section at the start and the addition of "as in Heimskringla" to the header on the diagram, I hope I'm now making it clear enough that modern scholars doubt the details. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:01, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I strongly agree that we can't just throw out the sagas. But where there is scholarly consensus today that they are probably not correct, then today's scholarly consensus takes precedence. I am not at all saying that the latest scholar to publish is ipso facto right. Scholarly consensus is the point.
 * I am very skeptical indeed to your statements about the value of false genealogies. It is valid and relevant to mention that Snorri gives this or that genealogy, but I agree with Agricolae that giving it such a prominent place as a separate diagram, is giving it undue weight, and can easily be interpreted as an acceptance of the veracity of the genealogy. It is also worth mentioning that we don't know that Harald's contemporaries believed that he was descended from Harald Fairhair. There is also a view that this genealogy was only invented later, to allow kings who were undoubtedly descended from Harald Hardrada to extend their genealogy all the way back to Harald Fairhair.--Barend (talk) 11:56, 6 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I am not forgetting that "the medieval sources are also important". Rather, I am not accepting that they are as important as you would make them. The sagas both reflect and helped form the medieval conception of Harold. However, just because medieval people believed something need not suggest that we, as Wikipedia editors, must do the same when there has been over a century of critical scholarship that reveals the apparent flaws in these medieval beliefs. The saga writers were not writing scholarly history. They were writing fireside stories based on history, and if the events had to be twisted or gaps filled for the sake of the story, that's what they did.  They invented quotations and genealogies, even people and battles. Medieval pedigrees may have traced from Adam and Eve but that is no reason to repeat such nonsense as if it were fact in a Wikipedia written in the 21st century, just because "they are the genealogies we have".  If modern scholars dismiss the pedigrees as fiction, we have no business ignoring these scholars just because someone at some time in history let their enthusiasm or creativity get the better of their scholarly integrity. Our job is not to just spew an indiscriminate collection of a millennium of though, much of it now dismissed.  It is to reflect current thought, and if older opinion is included, to clearly label it as such, providing a clear indication that it is no longer believed to be the fact.  We should not give it priority over modern thought on the subject.  Tagging a bogus pedigree with 'as in Heimskringla' does nothing to solve the problem: it still forces the reader to read the article before they learn that modern scholars dismiss Heimskringla's pedigree, while if they do read the text, the pedigree becomes superfluous and redundant. Agricolae (talk) 04:06, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Our job is to give the whole picture, and the information in the sagas (and poems) is part of that. I cannot agree that having a genealogy diagram is undue weight, and the explanation of what doubts have been cast on it - with a link to a fuller discussion - is at the start of the article. (IMO that's undue weight, since there is no new descent for Harald to replace the one in the sources, but I've bowed to what you two are saying and I hope you now feel I have summarized the scholarly points of view fairly.) Scholars are not, however, saying that the material in the sagas - and Ynglingatal - is "fireside stories" or even legends. They are in fact saying the opposite, that the genealogy was carefully crafted. The Turville Petre article is particularly clear on this. The only thing I have found called a "fairytale" in a reliable source is the Snøfrid episode. These were the official histories and genealogies. Also the doubts seem to have started 30 or 40 years ago, or do you have another scholarly source? Varying spellings and alt. char. search problems (plus Google Books' continuing relative weakness on European books) make it hard to do a thorough search; I'd like to be sure I've referenced Fairhair dynasty adequately. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:28, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Our job is to give the modern consensus, not that of the 17th century. To demand a new descent before replacing the old would suggest that when the truth isn't known, a falsehood would be preferable to indicating the answer is unknown. Some scholars are, in fact, saying that the material in the sagas are fireside stories. As to Ynglingatal, they interpret this to be an authentic record of the near-contemporary events (e.g. Ragnevald and Olaf, and less so for the earlier generations), and a significant source for Heimskringla - it is particularly the portions of the sagas that are based on the contemporary Ynglingatal that are thought reliable. Still, Ynglingatal predates Fairhair and his descendants, and Snorri et al seem not to have had any such contemporary source for the later period. When they say the genealogy is carefully crafted, they don't mean it is a careful rendition of history. They mean that it was created with care, to tell a particular story.  This careful crafting led them to become the 'official genealogies', not because they were historically accurate but because they were politically/socially accurate - they portrayed a history consistent with the self-image of the people at the time they were compiled, not at the time that the events they described occurred. Agricolae (talk) 05:49, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure where you get 17th century and 500 years after the fact - the Icelanders were undoubtedly in part motivated by the desire to make clear how Icelandic families of the settlement era were related to the kings, and in part by the desire to get regnal dates established as reference points for those family histories, and these needs were 11th and 12th century ones. But I am not saying carefully crafted as an attested historical reconstruction. There's a wide gulf between that and "fairytales" - as expressed by your "politically/socially accurate." I think you are making too much of a dichotomy. In any event, the Heimskringla version is part of our mission, even if we have to say, as the section and the header to the family tree currently do, that these are "Heimskringla's version" and explain that many scholars doubt them. Hence I've put back the portions of the genealogy that you left out - I appreciate the compromise of leaving the diagram but excising them, but they're part of the picture, and we are making clear that many scholars doubt its veracity. I've also restored my wording in the paragraph that discusses the topic because "invention" seems way too strong and other than that, the formulation I had seems more emphatic, with "especially in regard to Harald's descent" at the end of the sentence. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:38, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 500 years after the fact - Snorri is telling about events as early as the 8th century (earlier even). 17th century - that is about the last time that all historians agreed that the practice of history entailed simply repeating whatever anybody in the past had written, without giving a toss over accuracy. The motivations you describe are just as much motivations for invention as for recording authentic history. There are similar sources that say the grandfather of Siward of Nortumbria was a bear who raped the Earl's grandmother. By your logic, we would have to put this bear into the genealogical table because it is 'part of the story'. The ancestry table and the text are are working cross-purposes.  You keep insisting that a table is necessary to provide a quick summary of the important information, but also that we do not need to mention in association with the table that it is all thought to be nonsense by modern scholars.  Also, the earlier argument that 'such trees are used on other pages' is exactly why we need to be careful here. On those other pages, the pedigrees are intended to reflect scholarly consensus. If on this page it simply means 'someone told this story, but modern scholars dismiss it' then we had better be damned explicit about it or the reader will assume it is as reliable as the others. Just saying "Heimskringla's version" at the top doesn't cut it, because it means nothing to someone without the context that Heimskringla is now viewed as historically inaccurate. I have given an explicit quote that a pair of modern historians think the ancestry of Harold Haardrada is an outright fabrication and yet all we get is that the 'Fairhair dynasty has been improved'. Even this vague dancing around the issue will never be seen by those using the pedigree for its intended purpose, to allow them to not bother reading all the detailed text. The article seems to be trying its very hardest to keep the unholy naked truth of modern scholarship from the tender eyes of the casual reader. Agricolae (talk) 17:37, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, the article has right at the beginning a big statement that many modern scholars don't believe the sources, which also carefully says what kinds of sources they are, footnoted to a whole raft of places (including those who are saying it is a careful construct of medieval genealogy as well as those who use dismissive terms like "fairytale". Then at the bottom the table is qualified with a statement about whose version it is - again an unusual warning note. I still think this is undue weight, but have accommodated your concerns - which appear to amount to only following the scholars' leads, so I wonder once more how much of Harald's deeds, recorded in the exact same medieval sources, you consider adequately sourced? - because I agree, scholarly consensus needs to be reported in the article. But so does what the closer to contemporary sources say. References to 17th century historiography are a red herring here. What is not is NPOV. The genealogy we have for Harald is part of the story; it needs to be there. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:23, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know how else I can say this, but I am clearly not getting my point across. Saying 'from Heimskringla' provides no clarity to the very audience the table is for, those who can't be bothered to read the text (else a table would be redundant, as it would be were it accurate). Even in the text, it doesn't have a big statement. It has a statement so vague that you have to dig out the references to finally figure out that they are saying it is all bogus. How many of Fairhair's actions are adequately sourced? None of them. He is reported broadly enough that his existence is generally accepted, but little more. He is a semi-legendary king, the first sources even conflicting as to which family he belonged (before they figured out they could invent a link to the Rognvald pedigree in Ynglingatal). That Snorri is closer to contemporary is the red herring.  That is like saying that Geoffrey of Monmouth, being closer to the time of the first settlement of Britain, must then be more accurate than the products of modern scholarship.  The various pages on the History of Britain do not just give the Monmouth version and bury the criticism by saying that scholars think Geoffrey 'improved' British history. For NPOV, you don't get there by obfuscating the opinion of the scholars you are citing. 'Invented', 'concocted', 'made up out of whole cloth', 'fabricated', 'falsified', 'fraudulent' are all more accurate descriptions of the opinions of these scholars. 'Improved' is so vague it could just mean that they added a title or some biographical details, given them a claim to some place they would not have had, or an extra political marriage. That is not the claim.  It is that Harald had no descent whatsoever from Fairhair. NPOV does not mean presenting one point of view as if it were fact and then try your hardest to minimize the other. You are obscuring what these authors really think, not protecting neutrality.  These scholars say it is bogus. You say that we should just show the silly story with no indication, where it is shown, that scholars dismiss it as rubbish.  Talk about POV, this is deception on the level of 'pay no attention to the man behind the curtain'. Agricolae (talk) 21:37, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe you are overstating their position. Some scholars, in some places, use words like "fairytale" for specific stories, such as the Snøfrid one. There are some rash statements in some places, particularly that genealogy journal article. But the very point of the scholars' arguments is that the connections between the kings were made into a unified narrative for political purposes. For example, by deriving them from the Ynglings rather than the Skjǫldungs. I believe "improved" is a good statement of that, but ok, you think it's obfuscatory, I have taken your last suggested wording and modified it again, let's see if this version still seems to you to be clear to the reader. One of the things I think most important in clarity is to send anyone who is interested in a discussion of the issue to the Fairhair dynasty article. I like your addition of a modification to the actual header in the genealogy table - I had wondered if that could be done, but didn't know enough about how these tables are generated to know whether it could. But 'legendary' is just not the right word. And if you think people will be puzzled by reference to Heimskringla then they can look for it elsewhere on the page, the article in all its versions has said right at the outset that Heimskringla is the source of most of our info on Harald's life. Which is why it is my view that what it gives as his ancestry has to be in the article. I hope that makes it clearer that I am not simply being obstructive here, or clinging to old things for their own sake as you seem to imply? The article needs to say what it is the scholars reject, or else we might as well just write "We don't have any birth certificates, parish records, DNA, or video of these people so we cannot be sure they were who they claimed to be, or did what they have been said to do." That would be silly. We cannot know things from that period with the certainty with which we know things from the modern period. The scholars are saying that in this instance fabrication is plausible, indeed likely. I agree that should be in there, but I think you're overstressing it - and implying that it only applies to Harald III. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:20, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * "Improved" covers everything from a touch of makeup to a nose-transplant. It is too vague to have meaning. As to the focus, this is an article on Harald, so why would you focus these comments on the dynasty in general, when the relevant part of the invention, for this article, is that Harald's ancestry is invented?  No, not just Harald's is invented, but this is an article about Harald, and so the invention of his pedigree is the most important point to be made, and the general fabrication of the rest of the pedigree is of secondary interest. With the table, you are arguing to show dubious information in a prominent format, and then force the reader to dig out the fact that Heimskringla is more foundation legend than history when it comes to these early generations. The inclusion of a pedigree implies that what is in the pedigree is accurate, and that all parts of the pedigree are of equal accuracy unless explicitly indicated otherwise.  Why his precise invented ancestry has to be in the article at all escapes me, but that it should be there without the least indication that those two 'kings' are figments of Snorri's (or someone's, at least) imagination is too important not to distinguish them from the other individuals, who appear to be historical entities. Just saying the pedigree is invented doesn't cut it. If you don't like 'legendary' and would prefer 'invented', 'made up', 'dubious', 'of doubtful existence' or 'utter nonsense', fine, but if this pedigree is to be given, the distinction should be explicit. Agricolae (talk) 01:09, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 'Politics' implies that it had to do with the governmental maneuverings of the time of Snorri. Certainly this played a role, because the Norwegians were still producing long-lost princes 'discovered' in other lands, and once successful, it would have been somewhat treasonous to suggest that an earlier king lacked a legitimate connection, as it would have implied a similar question regarding the more recent occurrences. However, there was more to it than that.  Dynastic continuity was not only a claim of then-current politics, but a political philosophy - that right to rule was inherited in the blood, that successful kings were, by their nature, royal, and that unsuccessful claimants were of lowly ancestry.  Likewise, genealogy was used as a socio-political construct deployed to explain the accretion of lands to the kingdom.  Rather than outright conquest or a slow expansion/absorption of neighboring states, their view of legitimacy required that there be a marriage to explain each of these events.  That is likely why the Ynglings are given their marriages, to explain how each of the specified lands came to be part of the kingdom.  That is likely why Fairhair was given so many wives, to give legitimacy to his conquests. Finally, not only legitimacy but simple desire to connect to the famous people of the past gives it all a social aspect. Just as famous Scandinavian heroes were interpolated into their genealogies, this would have been a motivation to Snorri et al. The dramatic Ynglingatal is too good to lose. While there is an attractive pathos in the tales of heroic peoples/states being forever extinguished (e.g. The Iliad, Y Gododdin, The Last Samurai), it usually doesn't take long for someone to claim descent from these people (respectively, in the above cases, the Aeneid and Historia Regum Britanniae; the Kings of Gwynedd; and pretty much the whole Japanese nation). And so rather than losing the Ynglings and their Ynglingatal, the Fairhairs had to be connected to them, not just for political reasons of legitimacy, but also so that tale would become their tale. Thus the awkward second late marriage of Godrod and late-born infant son raised in the land of his mother (in other words, from somewhere else - representing a different polity) Halfdan the Black who later 'succeeded' his 'nephew', the last and greatest of the Ynglings of Ynglingatal, and later why Halfdan is given a wife connected with Sigurd Hring, and Sigurd Hring connected with the legendary Ragnar Lothbrok. All of these contributing motivations can hardly be adequately described simply as "politics". Agricolae (talk) 14:52, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm staying away from this for now because your latest version is at least a little less insulting (although you seem bent on suggesting Harald had no father!), and the reference to Fairhair dynasty and the genealogical table are there. But I still think you are being both anachronistic and black-and-white. For one thing, you miss the substitution of Yngling ancestry for perfectly acceptable Skjǫldung ancestry (if it were just a matter of connecting someone to famous ancestors - there already was an "origin legend"); for another, you seem to see virtue in removing the context that the entire genealogy was a product of canny operatives, it wasn't just "OMGs we need an origin for Harald Harðraði" - whereas I see it as otherwise insulting to the guy. Perhaps an important part of it is that I see Snorri and Ari and co. as smooth operators; you seem too ready to equate their careful work with Hans Christian Andersen or A.A. Milne. Snorri was a traitor precisely because he worked for the Norwegian crown. Perhaps "politics" implies more trivial things to you than to me, just as to me "legend" always implies belief or at least that this is a story one is supposed to believe in. Anyway, as Fhmann said, the issues and arguments are here on the talk page. And the article does now report both the Heimskringla version and the scholarly doubts. Maybe other collaborators can take it a step further. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:50, 4 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry to jump in but the overlapping interests call for my POV. Something which was considered true for millennia (I'm not even quite aware of this particular picture you're discussing) is then by scholars in the last 30 or 40 years questioned. One can't help wondering why no one questioned it before! This is what I, one wikipedia editor, consider the "antithesis of genealogy" and it is happening worldwide right now. Scholars and academics are always looking for old genealogies in order to throw them to the ground, as if they could authoritatively question sources which might have been available all this time, and suddenly no one knows where to find them anymore. Calling on genealogical sources is somewhat like a poker game. It is somewhat better to reveal them after someone has questioned them. So there you go, it is too late in my opinion. The authoritative source here is, IMO, Yngvadottir's, but what is an opinion worth... --Fhmann (talk) 12:26, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't get your poker analogy but scholarly history in 2010 is fundamentally different than most scholarly history in 1800 and before. Why did no one question these folk stories? Because it never occurred to them to question them, because they just took whatever sources they had available and tried to fuse them into a narrative. Even mutually incompatible stories were merged together in awkward fusions that in turn became the new 'history'.  Then historians started to look at actual original documents and discovered that these contemporary records, written at the time of the people in the stories, sometimes showed the sagas and other such traditional accounts to be completely false.  Out of this discovery came something called scholarship, where you don't just collect whatever comes to hand, but you evaluate the quality, the reliability, of the information and you compose a narrative that attempts to reflect historical reality rather than some fusion of history, mythology, propaganda and fiction.  This has nothing to do with 'looking for old genealogies in order to throw them to the ground', it has to do with pursuing the truth, rather than just accepting as truth whatever was written by a storyteller living 500 years after the fact and having motivations distinct from those of a modern historian.  To say that all it takes to be authoritative is to escape close scrutiny for enough time is to abandon modern historical methods entirely.  This is an encyclopedia for the 21st century, not the 17th century when 'this is what has come down from ancient times' was good enough. Agricolae (talk) 05:34, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * If you don't get the poker analogy, you're probably not ready for it, no pun intended. If no one is questioning your position for such a long time, why would you bother giving extra evidence? And scholars consistently miss the fundamental question, which is, sources don't last forever. They get lost and destroyed. So if you're saying latest scholarly work actually recovered concrete evidence which dismisses the traditional version, then it might not be that bad. But in order to dismiss something, you need evidence on the contrary. The lack of evidence on its favour, after such a long time, is irrelevant. Unfortunately, that is what most scholars base their deconstructions on. Genealogy has never been the field of scholarship, it is something else, a tougher field in my opinion. Scholarship and academy are not authoritative for it imo. Families are. --Fhmann (talk) 10:07, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Enough with the poker gibberish. Where to start . . . That this went so long without a demand for evidence is not unique. The made up descent of the Stuarts from Banquo went a similar long time without being questioned, and it is complete and utter nonsense. Yes, sources don't last forever, but sometimes they don't exist to begin with. Scholars have not found direct evidence to doubt this particular aspect of the Heimskringla pedigree. They have found evidence that places other aspects of it in a negative light, and they have looked at the way Snorri is careful to actually cite his sources when he had them - he quotes them right in the text.  When he doesn't do this - those are the same places where there have been contradictory sources found, and they usually are places where the stories themselves bear the hallmarks of invention, suggesting a useful pattern in evaluating his text. This is what scholars have done. Further, anthropological evidence shows genealogies to be readily fungible to match current political and social realities, and there is no reason to suspect this hasn't happened in the past. It is exactly because genealogy has not, in the past, been a field of scholarship but instead a way of placing one into a pseudo-historical family context that such genealogies cannot be trusted to represent history.  Most Norman barons had come to England after the Conquest, frequently with Henry I or Henry II, but by the 14th century, they all had pedigrees from men present at Hastings.  By the 17th century, when the social fad had changed, these had been upgraded to trace them to people in England before the Conquest, completely invented people. They did not 'discover these descents', they were created to fit with expectations, but all were credulously accepted until about 1900. Your view of genealogy would fit better into the 19th century than the 21st. It is now approached in a scholarly fashion, and that sometimes means a long-cherished fantasy falls by the wayside. It is just burying your head in the sand to pretend that scholars are at fault, rather than the invented genealogical tradition. Anyways, you can't have it both ways. If genealogies have never been the product of scholarship, then they are inherently untrustworthy. Agricolae (talk) 15:22, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I truly appreciate your answer, and at the same time it makes me rest my case. Those who think like me, if they exist, will read it and see in it the confirmation of our beliefs. Those who don't, well it'll still be interesting either way. About this particular issue, I could care more. --Fhmann (talk) 17:03, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Serious quote error
"Harald's Denmark campaigns were unpopular at home, most notably in Trøndelag in the north, and this was manifested in some districts' withholding taxes to show their displeasure. Harald dealt with this opposition with brutal force. Sturluson comments that he 'had the farmers seized. Some he had maimed, others killed, and of many he confiscated all of their property'"

This quote actually refers to events after the Battle of the Nissa, when Harald demands taxes from farmers already paying them to Hakon Ivarsson, Earl of the Uplands. It has nothing to do with the Denmark campaigns. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.93.254.128 (talk) 22:35, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Last pagan king of Norway?
The Wikipedia site on 'Vikings' refers to Harald as the last pagan king of Norway, but would he have fought beside Olav II at Stiklestad or allowed to marry Yaroslav's daughter if he had not been baptized? Does anyone know of any source that denies or any reason to assume that he was not baptized and thus at least nominally a Christian? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.52.199.50 (talk) 05:42, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Harald was most definitely baptized. This is clearly wrong.--Barend (talk) 15:50, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

"Harald III" is not the most common name

 * 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 moved. Andrewa (talk) 20:31, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Harald III of Norway → Harald Hardrada — This article was moved from Harald Hardrada in September 2009 without discussion here. But book searches do not support such a move:
 * "Battle of Stamford Bridge" + Harald III - 60 hits
 * "Battle of Stamford Bridge" + Harold III - 89 hits

Some of the hits with Harald III may refere to Harald III of Denmark. I propose to move this article back to where it came from. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:21, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "Battle of Stamford Bridge" + Harald Sigurdsson - 78 hits
 * "Battle of Stamford Bridge" + Harald Hardrada - 420 hits
 * "Battle of Stamford Bridge" + Harold Hardrada - 629 hits


 * Support - As is the case with almost every medieval Scandinavian ruler Harald Hardrada is more well known by his nickname/patronymic than his numeral  Fornadan (t) 18:37, 6 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Support Yes I agree, in English-speaking contexts he's Harald (sometimes Harold) Hardrada. I suspect there was a well intentioned organisation of all these article names according to a country-neutral scheme, but they are rarely the common names. As to the patronymics, in addition to their tending to be less well known to English speakers than the nicknames (Harald being an extreme case), there are big problems with varying spellings. There is a spelling problem with Hardrada too - non-English-speakers prefer Hardrade or the Norse Harðraði. But Hardrada is hands down the commonest version of his name in English. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:10, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Support, relatively well-known, common name in English.--Kotniski (talk) 09:01, 14 January 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.

Edmund?
At the end of the Battle of Stamford Bridge, the Anglo Saxon Chronicle states... "And the King's son, Edmund, Harold let go home to Norway, with all the ships." The "let go home to Norway" seems to suggest that Harald Hardrada had a son, Edmund, as well. Does anyone know who this is referring to? --Jasonkclark (talk) 05:24, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Presumably Olaf Kyrre  Fornadan (t) 10:00, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Height
One quote I think I remember (hah!) was that Harold Godwinsson promises six feet of English earth to all the invaders with Tostig and Hardrada, "Or rather more for Hardrada, as he is taller than most men"; is it known if there is anything to this? Was Hardrada seven feet tall? Auto 20120918 1800Z  109.154.21.249 (talk) 17:53, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Unusually tall for his time, yes. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:45, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Triquetra caption
The caption to this image states that the triquetra "was first used on coins by Cnut the Great, and Harald adopted it as part of his process of claiming the Danish throne". Although the statement is sourced, it appears to be incorrect. For example, this 10th century coin of Amlaíb Cuarán bears a triquetra. Maybe someone can double-check the source. I think it's either flat-out wrong, as century-old sources often are, or else it might actually refer to the symbol's first appearance on coins minted  in Scandinavia.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 05:22, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It seems I made a slight error when entering the entence. The source actually says: "[(Discussing Harald's coin)...] But also the "shield-mark" (i.e. the triquetra) originates from Denmark. It was introduced by Cnut the Great on his coins from Roskilde, and was likewise used by his successors. Cnut had adopted the shield-mark from the ancient Danish kings in Northumbria, and without doubt wanted to characterise himself as a Scylding (the Danish legendary kings). When Harald Sigurdsson adopted the same mark on his coins, it was apparently to claim his right to Denmark as heir to Magnus Olavsson and the Scyldings." It thus seems it should be "first in Denmark" (probably Scandinavia too though). I will try to rewrite the sentence accordingly. Thhist (talk) 12:24, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Preparing GA nom
As regulars of this article are aware, I have been improving this article over some time, and are now thinking to nominate it for Good Article. Before I do so, it would however be helpful to hear the opinion of other editors who follow this article. What I am asking is if someone think there is something missing in the article which should be added, or if there are things that could have been done in a better way. A more specific issue that I think will be problematic for a GA nom is the "In fiction" section ("In popular culture" content), which is wholly unsourced, and possibly consists of a rather random selection(?). I don't know what is most appropriate to do, but I would considering just removing the entire section, or at least revamping it with only significant sourced content. What do you think? Thhist (talk) 10:17, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: The article's now been put up for a GA review. Thhist (talk) 20:57, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Silly spelling
"Hardrada" is an absolutley impossible spelling. Mainly due to the ending a-letter. It's spelled Haardraade. In modern (= post 1950's) Norwegian Hårdråde. Hence acceptable in English could be Hardrade - but where on earth does de ending -a emerges from ? It suggests that the king was a woman ! Boeing720 (talk) 23:37, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Only if you're used to Spanish and Italian :-) "Hardrade" reads in English as if the second bit should rhyme with "made"; that -e as a rendering of Old Norse -i doesn't occur in English, which uses final -e to indicate vowel length. "Hardrada" is the traditional English form of the epithet. (I suggest you search for "Harald Hardrada" on Google Books - it's all or part of the title of several works in English). Yngvadottir (talk) 04:09, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * English epithet ? (???) What about the Norwegian and Danish epiteth then ? Wikipedia is supposed to use a global point of view, and since it was a Norwegian king, his true and Norwegian name ought to be used. But "Hardrade" (instead of "Hårdråde" or "Haardraade") is a well enough compromize, I think. There are the same amount of Danish-Norwegian litterature of "Haardraade/Hårdråde". Using "Hardrada" is pure British bias, I'm sorry to say. When the English arrived to central Africa, India or Australia etc, then they were concidered to be "more civilized Humans", since they had managed to make the long journey. But the Vikinger - who indeed came to England, not the other way around, is still concidered as "savages". Howcome ? The Vikinger were from the 8th century and a quater of a Millenium ahead the worlds leading sailors (navigators) and ship builders aswell as they, when necessary, became the most feared enemy trough the times. Yet they could read and write, adapt Chistianity, and they were tall and well fead (proven by skeleton findings). Why should only the British own the history ? Boeing720 (talk) 04:26, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Erm - you're making a lot of unwarranted assumptions, beginning with the "British" thing - this is the English-language wikipedia. The point here is WP:COMMONNAME. "Hardrade" is a meaningless spelling in English. The epithet is spelled "Hardrada" in this language. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:31, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The British do not own history, but on the English language Wikipedia, we use the most common name used in English language reliable sources (WP:COMMONNAME), which has been explained to you before. Actually, a search in Google Books for "Hardrade" does turn up many sources, including Encyclopedia Brittanica. But far more sources use "Hardrada." Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 04:36, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The Dano-Norwegian form/spelling is quite irrelevant, since the language that he and his Norwegian contemporaries used was Old Norse and not Dano-Norwegian. There is also no reason for the modern Norwegian, strongly altered form to be used in English; nations and languages don't hold some sort of permanent copyright over the exact form of names in other languages. It is normal for languages to have their own versions of foreign names, and you can't maintain the original form of every name: Czech Praha is Prague in English, Greek Aristotelēs is Aristotle, etc. The ending -a is what nouns of the old Germanic weak declension get in Old English, whereas they get -i in Old Norse, so Hardrada is the natural Anglo-Saxon counterpart of the Old Norse name according to the laws of the development of the two languages.--94.155.68.202 (talk) 14:11, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Harald Hardrada. 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/20121020001633/http://snl.no/.nbl_biografi/Harald_3_Hardr%C3%A5de/utdypning to http://snl.no/.nbl_biografi/Harald_3_Hardr%C3%A5de/utdypning
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131002113602/http://www.aftenposten.no/nyheter/iriks/article1472089.ece to http://www.aftenposten.no/nyheter/iriks/article1472089.ece
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071023040702/http://lind.no/nor/index.asp?lang=&emne=asatru&vis=s_e_harald_hardrade to http://lind.no/nor/index.asp?lang=&emne=asatru&vis=s_e_harald_hardrade

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) 01:27, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 March 2022
Please add the category Category:Royal reburials 67.173.23.66 (talk) 17:54, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ --Ferien (talk) 22:05, 13 March 2022 (UTC)