Talk:Magnus Ladulås

Untitled
Dan, Yes, it's nobility. Coshery though is a very uncommon word in English meaning feasting. Is this what was outlawed? And if so I confess I don't see an obvious connection to locking a barn. Can you help me out?  -- Someone else
 * I surely dont know the term, this was written by someone else, I tried to make the explanation clearer, but like I said, I dont know the british word for armed groups of people who, misusing farmers hospitality, came in hords and demanded food. ,we call it in sweden something like violent visit. There is a theory that Magnus ended this "tradition", by signing a paper where this was prohibited.  Dan Koehl
 * Ah, thanks for that, I can't think of an English term, something like pillage or plunder might do, but they are always illegal, and I gather coshery was not? Maybe somebody else will think of a good way to put it. -- Someone else 01:12 Dec 2, 2002 (UTC)
 * Våldgästning in Swedish is definitely not pillaging och plundering. My Swedish-English dictionary proposed coshery or to sorn upon someone. I don't know any other good words for it in English, but it is the tradition where noblemen would enter the house of a servant demanding to be feed. Not stealing food, or burning crops - but simply by force demanding a meal. -- Original Poster.
 * UPDATE: Eureka! I've found a good word for it: "sponging" !! Maybe it's a bit to rare of a word to be put in the main text. -- Original Poster.
 * That violent visit resembles forced quartering of troops in peasantry abodes. Marrtel 11:19, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Could someoone provide the source of the king's genealogy? -- User:Kt2
 * A secondary printed source would be "Royal Families of Medieval Scandinavia, Flanders, and Kiev", by Rupert Alen and Anna Marie Dahlquist, Kings River Publications, 1997 [ISBN 0984126125] --Someone else
 * See Europäische Stammtafeln, and an internet edition somewhere at genealogy.euweb.cz Marrtel 11:19, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

regnal number
Literature assigns different numerals to this ruler. (They did not use official ordinals in his time in Scandinavia.) If he is called Magnus I, there is a clear risk of confusion with his "usurper" predecessor also named Magnus. Whereas Magnus III, also used of him, is not confusing with any other monarch. (The only confusing thing may be that in that case, his grandson Magnus, who here is IV, is in some sources referred to as Magnus II. But it's not III, it is only a numeral smaller than III which is not easy to understand when a successor is in question. But, in this system, he is anyway IV.) Nicknames and such are too difficult to have correctly here, and I do not recommend their use in article name. Marrtel 20:45, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Your are perfectly correct. The only acceptable number (and the only one used in Sweden) is Magnus III. Magnus I and Magnus II were both Danish princes who were recognized for short periods as King of Sweden or subtstantial enough parts thereof. It is also important to use English name versions for readability, whenever possible. In that you are also 100% correct. 217.21.225.53 (talk) 13:10, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * "Referring to Magnus Ladulås as Magnus I is an invention not recognized by any Swedish historians today", it says. Is there any reference to that the III is used? As far as I know, he is always just Magnus Birgersson or Magnus Ladulås in Swedish, never with a number. It does not seem correct to add a retroactive regnal number when "translating" the name./Coffeeshivers (talk) 22:35, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * He is known as Magnus III in the English-speaking world and literature, which is more important to en.WP that what he is called in Swedish. Numerals are almost always used here, whereas not so often in Swedish for the older kings of that country. It is much easier for English readers to distinguish between rulers with numerals than that they be forced to try to figure out and learn the differences between phonetically obstructive Swedish words like like Birgersson or Ladulås. Very few know Swedish. English texts (as all others) need to be able to be read out loud, too, at times, preferably smoothly. Swedish historian Lars O. Lagerqvist, a respected expert, has established the numeral III for this king even in some of his Swedish-language works. SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:18, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Ladislaus
From an edit summary by User:Donkey99

Question: I have never before seen the theory that Magnus' nickname was derived from Ladislaus -- that theory sound like it originates with Monty Python or Spamalot -- I have not made an edit but I a —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jao (talk • contribs).
 * The Ladislaus theory has appeared in several books by reputable Swedish historians in the latter decades of the 20th century. It is quite legitimate. 217.21.225.53 (talk) 13:12, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Magnus III of Sweden. 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/20120126041156/http://www.stockholmnews.com/more.aspx?NID=8146 to http://www.stockholmnews.com/more.aspx?NID=8146

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) 19:50, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Roll-back
I rolled back 2 edits introducing fantasy images to the box. The contemporary bust is more useful than they. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:33, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Regnal number
Which source establishes the regnal number III? I did not find it in any of the sources in the article that I could access. Swedish sources like the Riksarkiver, ne.se or Kungahuset do not give any regnal number. Swedish Wikipedia also does not use regnal numbers for medieval kings: Lista över Sveriges regenter.

A pair of examples of English usage: Britannica calls him Magnus I. Cambridge History of Scandinavia call him Magnus Birgersson: Based on Google Ngram, the most common name in English texts is Magnus Ladulås, but Magnus Birgersson is not uncommon either. (but of course Magnus I and Magnus III cannot be compared with due to Norwegian namesakes). Jähmefyysikko (talk) 11:43, 25 April 2024 (UTC)


 * I'll answer to myself: Lars Lagerqvist assigns in his Kings and Rulers of Sweden : A Pocket Encyclopedia the number III for Magnus. However, even he gives it in parentheses since it is ahistorical: Magnus (III) Ladulås. He arrives to III by starting the count from Eric the Victorious, as explained in the introduction. Britannica seems to start the count from Eric the Lisp and Lame, thus arriving to a different number.
 * I did a search for the conventional English name. Looking at the Internet Archive library and searching for "Sweden + history", I find the following books which mention this king. Here are the names they use:
 * Magnus Ladulås:
 * Both Magnus Ladulås and Magnus Birgersson ( and ), (Magnus Birgersson in the chapter title, but Ladulås in the text)
 * Just Magnus (but Ladulås is mentioned):
 * This is by no means an exhaustive survey, but to me it seems like the Magnus Ladulås is the WP:COMMONNAME, even in the English literature. Except for Lagerqvist, none of the sources above use the regnal numbers.
 * I will make a move request below. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 07:44, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 26 April 2024

 * 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. (closed by non-admin page mover) ASUKITE  15:29, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Magnus III of Sweden → Magnus Ladulås – Move per WP:COMMONNAME. I have studied some sources above (see ), and most of them call him Magnus Ladulås. Some use the name Magnus Birgersson, and none use Magnus III without putting the number in parentheses. Magnus III is neither a common name, nor an official one. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 07:54, 26 April 2024 (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.
 * Oppose Fine as is. Swedish-language sources do not count re: what he should be called in English. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:28, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The above sources are in English. Even Debrett's Kings and Queens of Europe, which you endorse on your user page, calls him Ladulås. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 13:17, 26 April 2024 (UTC) [Ed. 18:59, 26 April 2024 (UTC)]
 * Indeed, here for example Magnus III refers to the king of Norway while the king of Sweden is called "Magnus I, Ladulås". Here he is also called Magnus Ladulås, and this is a good English-language source. Mellk (talk) 14:39, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 13:22, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose - This is English Wikipedia, not Swedish Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 14:10, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Support. The evidence presented shows that he is most usually called Magnus I Ladulås in English-language reliable sources. This also correlates with the authority control data and sources I've examined such as John Morby and Michael Maclagan. This appears to be another case of wikipedia forcing an unusual numeral without actually examining the sources. Magnus IV should also be looked at. DrKay (talk) 15:53, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. Improvement over current title. Mellk (talk) 15:37, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Support as COMMONNAME in line with English-language sources presented above. Rosbif73 (talk) 08:40, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. And the Magnuses probably have the least least problematic numerals of the medieval Swedish monarchs. Andejons (talk) 07:57, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment Will we also have another lesson in Swedish pronunciation (as if we didn't have enough of them already)? Magnus III us such an easy and intelligent solution to such problems. People who don't knoiw Swedish have no idea how to pronounce Ladulås. Why should they? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:44, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Edit does not take
Can anyone explain why this edit does not show? SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:31, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not really sure what you mean, because the link did show, though I have now reverted that edit as it is better to leave the original URL intact along with an archived URL if the original is dead. If you want more help, change the help me-helped back into a help me, stop by the Teahouse, or Wikipedia's live help channel, or the help desk to ask someone for assistance. Primefac (talk) 12:55, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * My error. Sorry! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:39, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Official list of medieval kings of Sweden?
About these edits:. The list of monarchs on the Royal Court website cannot really be be regarded as an official list of kings and queens of Sweden. The purpose of that list is merely to popularize the monarchy by introducing some of its history, and taking it as an official statement would be reading way too much into it. If the Royal Court really made a commitment to a specific interpretation of medieval history, they must have published it on some other place, not just on a lowly website. Besides, that list is not even online anymore (except on WayBackMachine).

There is another problem: In modern literature he may be referred to as either Magnus I or Magnus III. The Swedish Royal Court lists him as the third king named Magnus. This is WP:SYNTH, since there is an implied conclusion that the numeral III would be the correct one, but the source for the second sentence says nothing about regnal numbers.

I replaced the above with ...he may be referred to as either Magnus I, or Magnus III, depending on whether Magnus Nielsen and Magnus Henriksen are assigned numerals or not. I think this makes the numbering transparent. Note that the difference between two counting systems is not fully explained by which Magnuses are considered proper kings, as there are sources which include the above two Magnuses as Kings of Sweden, but only assign regnal numbers for Magnus Ladulås and Magnus Eriksson.

This may result in too much weight on the discussion about the numerals in the introduction. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 20:05, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The official royal court website, whether or not it is a part of the Swedish government, which is not 100% clear to anyone, is a reliable source. It cannot reasonably be considered "lowly". It lists him as the third king by the name of Magnus. All these other changes/additions and comments are without any source. Reverting to sourced and relevant info. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:03, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * PS we can add at least 5 more reliable publications with lists that show the same thing, in case any neutral user might agree that the royal court website is "lowly". --SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:16, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The most serious offense here is the WP:SYNTH, and you have not commented on it. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 13:42, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * There has neither been any "offense" committed here (other than perhaps highhanded previous lead editing about which I have written again to that user) nor is it correct to interpret WP:SYNTH into a simple, correct, relevant statement supported by 2 reliable sources. Wikipedia guidelines are not meant for any one of us to interpret with bias with the only intent seeming to be to get our own way without any support of sources. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:11, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * If trying to make the statement neutral (not accepting any single source as the truth) is bias, then I am biased. In order to proceed, perhaps we should ask for a third opinion on whether placing these two sentences after each other is editorial synthesis or not? In my opinion, this way of using the sources is very similar to the first example in WP:SYNTH. The Royal Court website does not discuss regnal numbers, and thus cannot be used to advance a position about the "correct" numeral. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 18:33, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The sentence comes after new wording on numerals. It states, well sourced, a fact that is perfectly relevant in that regard. There can be no constructive reason of any kind to censure that fact. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:27, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * A similar statement, also supported by the Royal Court's list would be: The Swedish Royal Court lists him as the third king named Magnus, and the first Magnus of the Folkunga dynasty. This too is editorial synthesis if combined with the earlier sentence. The reader is led to draw implications that are not explicitly stated in the source. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 05:17, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Let's stay on topic!--SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:50, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting comment.png 3O Response: I agree that Woodzing's addition was SYNTH. However, unless that book I can't access directly says something like depending on whether Magnus Nielsen and Magnus Henriksen are assigned numerals or not, that is also SYNTH. I'd recommend simply adding the archived link as an additional citation after "Magnus III". (Also, I did not get what Jä's reasoning for questioning the archived source was. Aaron Liu  (talk) 19:58, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you! What wording would you suggest, and where, to explain to a reader why this king has been called Magnus III in English by several reputable writers? Are we to take your input as opposition to explaining that at all, if you mean that the royal court website is somehow inappropriate? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:58, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't think the royal court website is inappropriate, and I didn't understand J"a's first paragraph either. It's just that per WP:OR, we can't be too sure that the references differ because of the other two Magnii. If you really want that claim to stay, add it with a at the end. My proposed wording is to just cite the archived reference and add nothing else (or at most add the other two Magnii with a citation needed as said above) after "Magnus III".  Aaron Liu  (talk) 03:28, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Apparently, my question wasn't clear enough, I'll try again: How do we explain to a reader why this king has been called Magnus III in English by several reputable writers if we cannot cite the royal court's listings in English and Swedish? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:56, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * If you want to, you should put that in with a in place of the source.  Aaron Liu  (talk) 15:06, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't that be the same as disqualifying the royal court's 2 listings as a sources? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:44, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't see the connection. I meant he may be referred to as either Magnus I,[sources] or Magnus III,[sources incl. royal court] depending on whether Magnus Nielsen and Magnus Henriksen are assigned numerals or not.[citation needed Aaron Liu  (talk) 11:27, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the input Aaron. I am fine with the solution of just stating the regnal numbers and nothing else. I also agree that my suggested addition was indeed SYNTH. My point in suggesting this was to try and develop a statement that both could agree on. But since there seem to be no sources that comment on the regnal numbers of the Magnuses, this necessarily becomes WP:OR. I don't quite see the reason for including those citations as they do not support the statements that precede them, but I can live with that. [deleted 07:31, 17 May 2024 (UTC)]
 * The Royal Court list to be is somewhat separate issue. I don't think the list itself is inappropriate, the question is just what status we should assign to it. It was first introduced in this article as the official position of the Swedish government, a statement later softened by another user by replacing the "government" with "Royal Court". The Swedish version of the list was also introduced as the "Official List".
 * In my opinion, it is just a traditional list of Swedish kings, and by publishing it on their website, the Royal Court is not making an official statement on how history should be interpreted. The beginning of that list fades into history and not all of the kings are based on very solid historical evidence. Pertinent to this discussion, the first Magnus is also sometimes considered a pretender: . Apparently there is some doubt whether the second Magnus managed to consolidate his power on a wide area. Certainly there is no law or edict to determine the official list of medieval kings. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 04:55, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * There is no reasonable basis to question the royal court's official lists. They don't publish fiction, the Swedish government pays for everything they do, everyone relies on all their information and they treat each monarch on the list as king or queen regnant of Sweden or they wouldn't be pn there. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:03, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The list itself seems just fine and in agreement with other regnal lists one can find. However, the list in itself is not actually an explanation of why he is sometimes called Magnus IV. As other Swedish kings shows, regnal numbers can be the result of pseudohistory (the Erics and Karls) just as well as perfectly reasonable scholarship (the Johns).
 * Andejons (talk) 14:00, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Why do you think sv:Lars O. Lagerqvist and Ulf Sundberg call him Magnus III? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:44, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
 * That is not the question. The question is if it is acceptable to use the Royal court as source for why anywone would call him Magnus III, when the Royal court does not use that numeral. If Lagerqvist calls him Magnus III and list Magnus Nilsson and Magnus Henriksson as Magnus I and II, I would say that referring to Lagerqvist would be far more suitable.
 * Andejons (talk) 10:58, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Counting the numeral may be a stretch accepted by WP:CALC, though I agree that we can't use it to source any reasons it doesn't state. Aaron Liu  (talk) 11:30, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I disagree with using CALC here. It is mostly a guideline for calendar arithmetic, unit conversions, and similar operations which produce numerical data. Here it would be used to generate a name, and that is no longer an arithmetic operation. Also, lists which include all four Magnuses but still call him Magnus I (e.g. Morby, Liljegren) serve as counterexamples: they show that the third position on the list does not necessarily imply the numeral III. The Royal Court has made a conscious decision not to use a numeral, and if we really want to cite that list, then the citation should be placed after the name that it can be used to support: Magnus Ladulås[Royal Court]. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 07:19, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @Andejons, could you clarify: What exactly do you suggest we do with Lagerqvist, i.e. after which sentence would we cite him? Jähmefyysikko (talk) 07:52, 17 May 2024 (UTC)


 * I would suggest something like this, maybe in a footnote: "Historians A and B, who calls him Magnus III, list Magnus Nilsson and Magnus Henriksson as Magnus I and II".
 * Andejons (talk) 08:02, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Sounds fine, it's verifiable and serves the reader well. A footnote would be preferable, as it can be a bit awkward to have the names of some specific historians in the introduction. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 08:11, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * OK by me also, but not as a footnote. Suggestion: "Historians have called him Magnus III,[citations here] after Magnus (I) Nilsson and Magnus (II) Henriksson". --SergeWoodzing (talk) 08:33, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * This is quite different from Andejons' suggestion above. It also does not mention the name Magnus I. How would you introduce that? Using numerals in parentheses would also require an explanation. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 08:40, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Andejons' version, citing initially only Lagerqvist would also be fine in body text (as opposed to a footnote). Other reliable sources could be added later, if they exist. Jacob Truedson Demitz should be dropped, since he is not really a historian, the book is self-published, and there is some COI involved. How about Sundberg, does he really use those numerals? In this book, he uses the name ‘Magnus III Eriksson’ and gives Magnus Birgersson no numeral. These texts are also from his books, yet there are no numerals. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 09:18, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Sundberg wrote the preface for Demitz's book, e.g. " Far too much writing on Swedish history begins with King Gustav I (1520s), which leads to quite a loss of historical perspective. It is gratifying that Demitz gives early Swedish history some of the attention it deserves." He obviously wouldn't have done that is he hadn't reviewed the entire book first.
 * Andejons's suggestion does in fact have "Magnus I", if one reads the whole sentence and is really interested in finding consensus. I suggest putting the numerals in partentheses since they are not commonly used, no special explanation required. That's how that's normally explained without having to go into detail.
 * New suggestion: "Some historians have called him Magnus III in English,[citations here], listed thus after Magnus (I) Nilsson and Magnus (II) Henriksson"." --SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:05, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The statements in the body of the book cannot be attributed to Sundberg, since he is neither the author (except of the preface) or even the editor of the book.
 * And sorry, I was unclear in the "Magnus I" part. What I meant is that A's version can be combined with the earlier statement, like this:
 * In modern literature he may be referred to as either Magnus I or Magnus III. Historians A and B, who call him Magnus III, list Magnus Nilsson and Magnus Henriksson as Magnus I and II.
 * If your either of versions is combined with that, there is repetition:
 * In modern literature he may be referred to as either Magnus I or Magnus III. Some historians have called him Magnus III in English, listed thus after Magnus (I) Nilsson and Magnus (II) Henriksson.
 * So I presumed that you did not plan to include the first sentence. The question is, how would introduce the name "Magnus I" for Magnus Ladulås?
 * As for the parentheses, the reader should not be assumed to be familiar with the names and numerals of medieval Swedish kings, so constructions like Magnus (I) Nilsson do need to be explained.
 * And sorry if my criticism was too blunt, I am indeed trying to find the consensus here. Is there something specific in Andejons' version that prompted you to suggest your own, or would you be fine with Andejons' version? Jähmefyysikko (talk) 08:07, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Andejons's version cannot be readily used because of "A and B" where we either need names or just "Some historians[ref Lagerqvist] have called him ... [and the rest of Andejons]". I believe we would reach consensus then. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:30, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * That's still synthesis, though if we are absolutely sure that this is the reason, WP:IAR away I guess. Aaron Liu  (talk) 20:52, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It does not seem like synthesis to me. The implied conclusion that the existence of two earlier Magnuses on the Royal Court list (or any list without numerals) would make the numeral III the natural choice for Magnus Ladulås is no longer there. Is there an obvious alternative thesis being made here? The essay WP:What SYNTH is not warns that SYNTH is actually a rather subtle concept, and should not be applied too broadly. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 07:49, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * To me, there is a very clear implied conclusion that the disparity in the regnal numeral is due to Nilsson and Henriksson, which, again, needs a reliable source to not be SYNTH. Which section of that (explanatory) essay are you referring to?  Aaron Liu  (talk) 16:32, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * You were asked to give your WP:3O which you did, and we appreciated that. I have never seen, however, a 3O helper get so involved in arguing on the article's talk page with more and more input and argument. That, to me, is highly unusual. We are trying ernestly to reach consensus here. I have asked you several times for your own suggestion as to how an explanation to the reader could be worded about why Magnus III is used by reputable historians. Couldn't it be time for you to make such a suggestion now. Or else withdraw? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 07:30, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I have already provided my suggestion. In fact, I've provided two routes that both seem alright to me:
 * Keep it the way it currently is.
 * Add a comment about Nielsen and Henriksen (whether it's a sentence or a hatnote doesn't make much difference IMO) with a synthesis inline right after it; the reason of the tag will explain the situation and ask not to remove the claim.
 * Aaron Liu (talk) 13:02, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The way it currently is is the way that is the one with clear SYNTH problems, with a reference to the Royal court.
 * Andejons (talk) 14:25, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Ah. I meant to only include In modern literature he may be referred to as either Magnus I or Magnus III. by option 1, thanks. Aaron Liu  (talk) 14:38, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @Aaron Liu: I was mostly referring to the general spirit of that essay, but of the specific sections, this might be the most relevant: #SYNTH is not a rigid rule. In this case it might be helpful for the reader to have the two earlier Magnuses spelled out.
 * On the other hand, focusing on such superficial issues as the numerals is not very encyclopedic, especially when none of our sources comment on them (in the context of the Magnuses), so I am also fine with Aaron's option No. 1 in which no clarification is provided. The option No. 2 is dubious: Using tags is not an excuse to add unsourced content. It also would not be a stable solution, since the unsourced sentence could be freely removed by an editor passing by. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 11:31, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * That section is just an extension to WP:IAR. I don't see why adding the content without a tag would be an improvement over including the tag. Aaron Liu  (talk) 11:40, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Oh, I am not suggesting of using my earlier sentence. The sentence that we were putting together in the above would refer to Lagerqvist. But since the current state of the article is more of less fine with me, I think I will not continue this discussion unless someone else provides strong arguments in favor of adding the sentence (or sources, but for those I am not hopeful). Cheers, Jähmefyysikko (talk) 11:55, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Magnus IV
I addressed a similar issue as above at Magnus IV of Sweden (diff). In this case there are three possible ordinals: II, III and IV. The middle one, III, is quite rare in 20th and 21st century literature (it was more common in 19th century), but since there was a reasonable citation, I did not remove it. Note that I did not insert the Royal Court citation there. Feel free to add it if you think it belongs there. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 20:32, 15 May 2024 (UTC)