This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
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)
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).
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)
"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)
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)
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)
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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:18, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
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)
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).
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)
"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)
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)
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)
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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:18, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)