Talk:House of Estridsen

Danish Name
At least the article should mention that "House of Estridsen" is a term never used in Denmark.
 * But you can use the expression: Svend Estridsens efterslægt in Dansih. Oleryhlolsson (talk) 17:37, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
 * That's not the same. Using the "House" concept about the pre-Oldenburg monarchs is anachronistic. It was a concept that was introduced from Germany. Scandinavian royal families in the Viking era and early/mid Middle Ages thought of lineages not Houses defined solely by agnatic descent.--Batmacumba (talk) 23:21, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * What a house of royalty is named, and well-known as, in our time is not dependent on earlier practices. Wikipedia gives current information about facts and terms widely used in our time. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:42, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * But it needs to be sourced that the term "House of Estridsen" is indeed widely used (the entire intro to the article is currently unsourced), and since it's a Danish royal family it also needs to be noted that it's not a term used in Danish historiography and that it's a modern term unrelated to historical practices. That's not POV but relevant background info.--Batmacumba (talk) 13:17, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, Scandinavian royal families in the Viking era and High Middle Ages thought in terms of royal lineages and families not royal houses defined solely by agnatic descent, which was a concept introduced from Germany in the Late-medieval Era, so using royal house about the Estrith dynasty is anachronistic - and that should be noted. While Danish historians at times use the phrase "Svend Estridsens efterslægt" (the descent of Svend Estridsen) - as Oleryhlolsson noted - they do not generally use the concept of a royal house about the pre-House of Oldenburg monarchs. All Danish kings prior to Christian I are considered members of the same dynasty.--Batmacumba (talk) 13:43, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I have added a source, Nationalencyklopedin. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:18, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Without further discussion here this reversal was performed claiming that Nationalencyklopedin is an unacceptable source. First of all, we do not edit war like that, but we use the talk page to reach consensus (where more editors can opine). Secondly, the dismissal of that encyclopaedia as a source in this case is so non-constructive that it borders on disruption. I will revert this again in a day or two unless someone else agrees that that encyclopaedia is wrong. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:53, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The problem is that NE doesn't cover the two English terms (as it´s in Swedish) and that it uses the Scandinavian ätt/æt concept, which is not identical to a noble house in English. So it doesn't address the first half the problem that "sources missing" was inserted to address and it uses a different concept to address the second half, that makes it an unsatisfying source - and by removing sources missing it now looks like these issues are properly addressed, which they aren't (which should be obvious for at least the English terms as it's a non-English source. Why not look for English sources rather than just throw in a Swedish?--Batmacumba (talk) 14:09, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Maybe olso meantion that the whole reason why he (S2) choose to call him self Estridsen was a way to say that he was part of his maternal grandfathers house and not his fathers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.93.31.22 (talk) 15:41, 2 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I agree, it seems rather duboius to claim, that »with Estridska ätten which translates with sufficient accuracy as "House of Estridsen"« implying that ätten in Swedish should be equal to House of in English. The Swedish word ätt is here at Wikipedia linked to the English article Norse clans. In this article the concept of ätt is in English described as: »The original meaning of ætt/ätt seems to have simply been "those who are related".[1 ("Ätt" i Elof Hellquist, Svensk etymologisk ordbok (första upplagan, 1922).) ] A person could technically belong to several clans, but usually the identification of an individual came with ancestry of most prestige.«. Therefore the Nationalencyclopedin dosen't seem a good source for this article headline "House of Estridsen". On the other hand, I've found a source in English using this particular expression, namely The Royal Collection Trust that takes care of The Royal Collection in UK. An engraving of Svend Estridsen in the collection is described with the words: "Sweyn II was an early king of Denmark from the House of Estridsen, who reigned from 1047 to 1074". I think this sources for the use of this expression in the English language is as good as it get, and I have taken the liberty to add this source to the article. If someone still find, that an additional note about how this expression relates to similar expressions in the Danish language then by all means, I'm open for the addition of such a note. Oleryhlolsson (talk) 15:56, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Fine now, I think. But it's going to be an awful lot of work for anyone (or any two) who may want to make changes at Swedish Wikipedia where ätt always is used to name every single royal or noble house there is. What has been written here about the word is either misinformed or (intentionally?) addresses only one part of the meaning of it. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 07:43, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Coat of Arms
Whats with the cartoonish coat of arms on the wiki page? If you link the article in say discord, a more realistic arms is depicted in the embedded preview. I can't find the more realistic one within the article to swap them over

I can't link a specific template page for it but pretty sure wiki policy to use the more realistic Coat of Arms globally Kind Regards, NotAnotherNameGuy (talk) 01:56, 8 March 2022 (UTC)