Talk:List of rulers of Frisia

Untitled

The source that I added comes from the Radbod page, from which this information was gleaned. I can only surmise that the reference contained there is the reference for this material (once contained there). Srnec 19:36, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Pier Gerlofs Donia

I've added the text beneath to the article-page, -)-(-H- (|-|) -O-)-(- 12:52, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

---

In the early 16th century, Pier Gerlofs Donia a legendary Frisian folk hero, freedom fighter, declared himself King of the Frisians. He died fie years after it, without succesors (his rebellion had been overrun, and the Arumer Black Heap-members where killed).

Hoaxes

Everything from the Oera Linda Book is a hoax, of course, but Tharkunkoll is right that the potestestates of the Middle Ages are also figments of Friesian imagination. For starters, I will revert to the version by Dougweller. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:02, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm confused. He's complaining that things are a hoax, but he added them himself. That doesn't seem to make sense.--Doug Weller (talk) 20:11, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that. I do not quite understand Tharkunkoll either. In my opinion, phantastic friesian historiography should be removed here, but I know that there is a high tolerance on enwp for this kind of stuff. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:20, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Tolerance or ignorance? I hadn't realised the problem completely. Just found this description of a course at the University of Amsterdam:

"One of the characteristics of Frisian historiography and literature from the Middle-Ages up to the nineteenth and twentieth century is the existence of a comprehensive corpus of fantastic, apocryphal and mystified historic works, which deal with the origins and identity of the Frisians. Well known examples are medieval myths of origin like the Gesta Frisiorum or the Tractatus Alvini, sixteenth-century humanistic scholarly books by e.g. Suffridus Petrus, Ocko van Scarl en Martinus Hamconius and nineteenth-century forgeries like the Tescklaow and the infamous Oera Linda Book. This tradition of spoofs, hoaxes, fakes, forgeries, and invented traditions will be the subject of this course, in which we will elaborate on some specific questions, i.e. to what extent is there continuity or discontinuity in this literary and historical tradition? Is there a connection between the writing of fantastic, mystified or even forged history and the peripheral geographical location of certain regions (which seems to have been the case not only in Friesland, but also in e.g. Bohemia and in Scotland)? Is there a European pattern in this? What's the connection between a felt Frisian historical destiny and (quasi-)religious, nationalistic views? What are the differences between forgeries, mystifications and inventions of tradition? What can we say about the exact relation between fiction and fakes?"

I've taken out everything but the kings source from the Merovingian Chronicles (supposedly). What's the story about those?--Doug Weller (talk) 21:05, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

That was a good quote in english about this corpus of friesian history! I will weed a bit in the Merovingian period. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:40, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

And now Tharkunkoll puts it all back in, without taking part in the discussion here, claiming in the edit summary in classic wikipedia style that this is "info", that should not be removed. Reverting without discussion is just edit warring. Right now he is on his own, soon he will get a friend, nobody else will care, and the mythologists will win. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:28, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I've restored your version because you weeded the Merovingian period, moved the legendary stuff to the bottom where it should have always been, then added a section on literary hoaxes including Tharkuncoll's stuff. Of course, if anyone had time, it looks as though an article could be written on Frisian literary hoaxes.--Doug Weller (talk) 06:15, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there is certainly enough material for an article about fantastic friesian history, but "hoax" is probably not the best word to describe the phenomenon. Of course, the Oera Linda book is a real hoax. The stuff about folk-mother etcetera should not be here. If it is really impossible to delete "info" on enwp, I think it should be moved to the article Oera Linda.

The list of potestates is equally apocryphical. These guys were invented by friesian antiquaries and geneologists, but were not real hoaxes. The historians combining mythical ancestors in lists with regnal dates believed this. (Just like Eric XIV of Sweden believed that he was number 14.) The Oera linda book was a spoof of this kind of history writing. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 06:56, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

All the claimed rulers should be here, legendary, or hoaxes or real, and clearly labelled, we want to add information not remove it. Some of those characters are very well known, so they should all be here, along with the mention of how reliable the information is. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:35, 1 June 2008 (U

Look at other lists of monarchs and kings, they don't seem to have anything but historically attested rulers, with other articles for legendary ones. Doug Weller (talk) 21:00, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

What you've done is created a short section in the middle called legendary rulers. Fair enough - but why have you used Hamconius's dates and names in that section? At least be consistent, or have some knowledge of the subject. TharkunColl (talk) 22:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah, Tharkunkoll is engaging in discussion! Let's first discuss the stuff that was never meant to be taken for history: the Folk-mothers and all the other stuff from the Oera Linda book. That is the same thing as for example the List of Kings of Rohan. If you want that kind of fictional history in wikipedia, it belongs to the article Oera Linda. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Was Hamconius meant to be taken as history? In any case, that's not what I asked. I asked why some of Hamconius's data was put into the legendary section. TharkunColl (talk) 23:09, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Because they are legendary, of course, none of them known from contemporary sources. Hamconius had their names from Suffridus Peters and from Andreas Cornelius. Very credulous writers all of them. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:25, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I find Mythical kings of Sweden, Legendary kings of Sweden (candidates for merger?), Legendary Kings of Magadha, Legendary early Chola kings, List of legendary kings of Britain, Semi-legendary kings of Sweden, and Legendary Danish kings. For me the only issue is what we would title an article for the non-attested rulers of Frisia. Doug Weller (talk) 06:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Legendary kings of Sweden is a disambiguation page for the other 2 Swedish articles. Doug Weller (talk) 06:05, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• One issue is that most of the names in the list are legendary. This is because most come from the distant past. There has not been a Frisian king or Queen for over a 1000 years. The potestaats are partly historical at least and not entirely legendary, but are not in the category of hoax or fabrication. So we cannot really compare this list with Britain or Sweden. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:49, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

margraves

margrave of Frisia redirects here, yet there is no mention. in fact there is very little on Frisian rulers at all. It appears that for most of the time Frisia was not ruled by a single ruler, but several titles had frisia in them, yet, I can only find information are the current regions of Frisia. Tinynanorobots (talk) 04:34, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of rulers of Frisia. 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/20080413063227/http://www.geerts.com/holland/holland-1.htm to http://www.geerts.com/holland/holland-1.htm

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:18, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Title

Hi @Marcocapelle, given our recent renaming of Category:Medieval Frisian rulers to Category:Medieval Frisian nobility, I was thinking of renaming its parent Category:Rulers of Frisia to Category:Nobility of Frisia. But given that this is the main article, that might not be a good idea. Do you think we should rename this list first to something more defining like List of monarchs of Frisia? I've already moved the non-hereditary appointed functions like stadtholders and potestaats to separate lists, so that won't be a problem.

One thing that I do think is a problem is that, aside from the famed Frisian Kingdom (which may actually better be described as a duchy given Category:Dukes of Frisia, but I digress), the region now known as Frisia has never been a political unity. This list is therefore actually more like the sum of separate lists of monarchs of this Frisian Kingdom + West Frisia + Middle Frisia + East Frisia + Dux and Margraves + unsorted Fictional rulers (for which I created Category:Fictional monarchs of Frisia). Given your (not entirely unreasonable) opposition to Low Countries as a region for categorisation, might we also have reason to split this Frisia-based list into lists about these more specific, historical/political regions? Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 21:33, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

• @Nederlandse Leeuw: I would not oppose keeping this together. My opposition against Low Countries is based not the least on the fact that it is an anachronistic term, and that problem obviously does not exist here. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:40, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

  @Marcocapelle alright, assuming we accept "Frisia", what can we best make of "rulers"? Is it "monarchs"? Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 08:01, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

  @Nederlandse Leeuw: monarchs is fine with me. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:37, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

  @Marcocapelle Alright, shall I proceed with renaming this article to List of monarchs of Frisia then?

  I'm still not entirely sure if the Category:Rulers of Frisia should be renamed to Category:Monarchs of Frisia, primarily because Category:Potestaats of Friesland will then up in the "Monarchs" tree (and Potestaats weren't "monarchs"). The easiest solution seems to be to re-parent Category:Medieval Frisian nobility to something else, like Category:History of Frisia, but individually re-parent all its children except Category:Potestaats of Friesland back to Category:Monarchs of Frisia. Shall I do that? Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 19:31, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

  • This is a separate discussion that does not belong here. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:53, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

    @Marcocapelle It does, because renaming this list has potential WP:C2D consequences for the Category:Rulers of Frisia. Anyway, if you're okay with it, I'm gonna carry out what I've suggested above. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 21:18, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

     Done. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 21:47, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

  Move now reversed. As the rulers were not all monarchs, the title should not have been changed. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:41, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Disputed

This page should be severy reviewed, as lots of historical phantasies, half-truths and misunderstandings have slipped in again. I skipped the worst cases (three fully fictitious kings), but I suppose there is a lot more to be done. As I remember it, some years ago the article was cleaned up and the so-caaled apocryphical (fictituous) history was placed in the end, but now new loads bogus have been added. It is, morover, not clear, what status of these various rulers is: dukes, counts, kings or warlords. And the different territories add to an almost incomprehensible mix of uncomparable things. I suspect some recent autors have been using 19th-century popular histories, which were outdated the moment they were writen. Apart from Henstra (of which the content apparently has been neglected by several authors), much relevant literare, recent articles and handbooks have not not cited. It is moreover disturbing that several names and terms are given in Frisian and not in internationally accepted and comparable terms.Otto S. Knottnerus (talk) 10:23, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

I rewrote the general stuff. The sections on different parts of Frisia should be read with great caution. In case of doubt: the authorative conclusions of Henstra (2012) can be recommended.Otto S. Knottnerus (talk) 04:53, 10 April 2024 (UTC)