Kong Sverre - King of Norway from 1177 to 1202, a discussion of the sources trustworthiness and do we know who his parents are?

In the preface of the book Claus Krag writes (I have used google translate):

Sverre was first praised as Norwegian king 13th March 1177, and he died on 9 March 1202. These twenty-five years should leave their mark, more than most governments, so that there is hardly any other individual in the history of Norway who have had the same meaning. Furthermore, there is a consensus belief among all who have dealt with Sverre, he is without comparison the most gifted king that ever ruled Norway.

In this representation, one point is fundamental and implemented in a way that probably has not taken place earlier: The picture we get of the earlier phases of Sverre's rise to power through Sverre's saga, quite unconditionally - as the image he wanted to convey after power was won. It does not mean that everything he wanted presented of the early period, shall be rejected. Much of what happened was ascertainable at the outer level, and this is there every reason to by and large to accept. But for all that must have happened internally in his mind - about Sverres thoughts and especially dreams (an important issue in the saga of him) - we are forced to be critical, and also in terms of what he himself said about his origins and how he learned that he was a prince.

Remi, I don't think this can ever be anything more than counting opinions. No matter what any modern scholar might think or say, it comes down to nothing more than personal opinion.

According to Sverri's Saga, Bishop Hroi of the Faroes had a brother Unås Kambari, a combmaker, who had a Norse wife Gunnhildr. Along with other children, Gunnhildr had a son Sverrir, who was said to be the son of her husband Unås. When Sverrir was five, he went to lived in the Faroes as a foster son of Bishop Hroi. He became a priest, but "when he reached a ripe age he did not shape himself to the priesthood, and was rather unruly." In 1175 his mother made a pilgrimage to Rome, where she confessed that Sverrir's father was really King Sigurðr Mund. Returning to Norway, she revealed the truth about his birth to Sverrir. Initially troubled, Sverrir ultimately used to the story of his birth to gain the thone. Modern scholars doubt the story, as did many of Sverrir's contemporaries.

My vote would be to cut the connection, but document the story with a link in Sverre's About Me.

Let me just tell what Claus Krag has written before we conclude anything. The book has almost 300 pages and i'm only at page 25 :-)

Maybe we can learn a thing or two, all of us. :-)

The summer of 1176 Sverre sailed from the Faroes to Bergen. He was educated a priest from by bishop Roe that was his fosterfather. He was told by Roe to travel to Nidaros to visit archbishop Öystein Erlendson, and entered a ship that travelled north. On the way he stoppe at the monastery on the island Selja. Her he got news of what the archbishop thought about the king Magnus Erlingsson, and found out it was no use to visit the archbishop to get help with his "difficulties".

He found a ship to sail south on, it was the ship of the kings father Erling Skakke. Here he got more news. They sailed to Konghelle and Sverre travelled over land to Östergötland to visit earl Birger Brosa, whose wife was Birgit the daughter of the former king of Norway Harald Gille. Sverre wanted Birgers support, but after a while they heard he sailed on Erling Skakke's ship and they sterted to mistrust him. Sverre had to leave.

After the battle of Re in january 1177, where the Birkebeiners lost, they fled to Värmland, and on March 6th, 1177 they chose Sverre as their leader. One week later, March 13th, they travelled to Baahuslän where Sverre was elected to be king. He was know a king and had solved his "difficulties", now he only needed a monarchy to rule.

1163 is an important year for Norway. Norway got it's first law regulating the succession. It was adopted by the newly crowned king Magnus Erlingsson, his father earl Erling Skakke, archbishop Öyesten and the wisest men in Norway.

In 1163 Magnus Erlingsson was also crowned king, 7 years old, in Bergen. Archbishop Öystein Erlendsson led the seremony together with Cardinal Stephanus of Orvieto, which was sent by the pope. This was the first crowning in the nordic countries. Present were the bishops, the seculars and representation from the peasantry.

@RemiPedersen Det må vel gå an å si at denne saken og dette temaet har to dimensjoner: Den historiske og den som hører til slektsforskningen. Slektslinjer, om enn aldri så lange, må jo være det vesentlige for de fleste som engasjerer seg på Geni. Og da er spørsmålet: Er det i det hele tatt noen som kan dokumentere uten noe slags faglig tvil at de har slektslinjer til en eller flere av de gamle norske, "anerkjente" kongene. Går det, slik sett, et skille ved Håkon IV Håkonsson (1217 - 1263) som mange mener de har dokumenterte slektslinjer tilbake til, via bl.a. slektene Falch og Angell med mye embetsfolk og adel fra før kirkebøkened tid?

Det er nok mange som er enig med, Svein-Harald, at det som er dokumenterbart med en rimelig grad av sikkerhet stopper Håkon IV. Men i denne tråden har jeg lyst til at vi konsentrerer oss om Sverre og finner ut av hva som er anerkjent pr. idag. Så får vi se hvor vi havner. Det er godt mulig at konklusjonene blir at vi skal kutte Sverre fra Sigurd, og kanskje til og med kutte Håkon IV fra Håkon III Sverreson, men det siste må bli en annen diskusjon. Kanskje du har lyst til å starte den?

Helt for å ta en diskusjon av gangen. Jo flere temaer vi tar opp på 1 tråd, jo vanskeligere blir det å trekke en konklusjon som leder til en handling (eller en beslutning om å ikke ta noen handling).

@Remi Pedersen Uhyre interessante greier, disse kuttspørsmålene omkring kongerekka. Såpass at det i høyeste grad er en debatt verdig også utenfor Geni.com, bl.a. på avisenes kultursider. Noen her som systematisk følger med i papirutgaver? Søkemotorene fanger vel opp det som måtte være på nett. Hvilken endringskraft har evt. kuttbeslutninger/-konklusjoner hos gravegrupper på Geni? Dette er jo noe som vil kunne slå inn av betydning på bred front – fra lærebøker til Slottets hjemmeside... Til det du spør om: Nei takk, til det er min respekt for arbeidet dere gjør for stor – og min tid for liten! Det eneste jeg kan tilby er nok, på generell basis, å legge inn noen flere navn enn jeg allerede har gjort, fra et slektstre-arvestykke innen familien og et tilsvarende eksternt, fra en i Helgelandsflokken av "storfamilien" Angell/Falch. Enkelte data i de to kildene er i konflikt, men der vil vel det flotte modererende Geni-systemet kunne være til hjelp når det kommer til stykket. Er jeg glad for at et superaktivt søskenbarn for et par år siden leide meg inn i Geni-rekkene? Gjett! Som jeg bemerket til min fetter: – Dette er jo geni-alt! Hva og hvem vi "har i bagasjen" (kfr. TV, spes. den amerikanske serien) er nok til syvende og sist viktigere for den enkelte enn vi kanskje tror. De riktig lange linjene bakover har jeg fra min fars morsside, noe jeg og mine gjennom mange år nå er blitt "fortrolig" med. Men etableringen på Geni har gitt meg, særlig i år, smårødmende "related-treff" på Geni.com, bl.a. inn i den britiske kongefamilien – sånn at en spør seg om alt "underveis" er helt riktig og at en jo klart ser hvilken betydning et eneste kutt i slektslinjen vil ha. På sett og vis var det derfor en stor overraskelse da jeg nylig fant en e-post fra Geni.com om et hyggelig slektsskap – fra min mors farsside; et nasjonalt ikon i nyere tid. "Du er i slekt med Nordahl Grieg!" Javel og takk, Geni. Ingen kutting her, takk! Kongerekka får holde!

There are two persons that are the authors of Sverres saga.

The first part of the saga is called "Gryla" and means scare or horror, and probably suggests something menacing and powerful at the beginning of the saga.

This part of the saga is written in narrative technique which assumes that we as readers are made involved in a number of scenes - as indeed reminiscent of scenes in a movie. We can a lot of the time make out what is in the background. But it also seems to be a lot of background information, especially when it comes to the person Sverre, that deliberately is kept out of what we can see or imagine.

In the preface to tha saga there is written: "Here we will talk about what has happened at a time now in the men's memory that has been said it says here in the book. It shall be told of King Sverre, son of Sigurd Haraldsson. The introduction is written by the book as Abbot Karl Jonsson first wrote, and King Sverre even sat over and decided what was written."

Thus, had it not been for Sverre, it would therefore not have been any saga, or it would at least have had a different content of the first important part. The reason Sverre established links with a sagawriter is obvious: He would give his version of the story. Nor is it accidental that the part of the saga, Sverre had contributed to, did not go so far. Sverre had a particular need to write about the first period. It was by treating this period he could explain and justify precisely that he became king.

On the other hand, unlike most other lines we DO have a source written at the time it happened.
Proves? I can't even prove for you that my father is my father, - how can we demand that lines before out own generation can be proved. We just have to follow the sources we have.

Karl Jonsson was from Iceland. Born around 1135. In 1159 he lived in Thingeyrar monastery in North-Iceland. He was an abbot there till 1181. Four years later, in 1185, he travelled to Norway. Neither the icelandic sources nor the norwegian sagas say anything about Karl's stay in Norway. But sometime during his stay he had to get a connection to Sverre. Anyhow- they met. Karl could have had plans to write a saga about Sverre before he came to Norway, and therefore tried to look him up, and when he got the job he did what Sverre asked him to do.

Karl stayed in Norway for 3 years. He was back at Thingeyrar in 1188. By then this part of Sverre's saga had to have been finished. But it is very much that suggest that Karl wrote more than just the few chapters Sverre dictated. The whole presentation up to and including Magnus Erlingsson defeat in 1184 constitutes a natural whole, and is also probably written by Karl.

In Sverre saga there is only about 5-6 pages that tells Sverre's story before 1176, but these pages is a vital part of Sverre's history.

Sverre grew up so far away from the palace that was possible. Nobody thought he had any connection to the royal family in his youth. That is why it became so important for Sverre through "Gryla" to show that he still had a legitimate calling to be king. Admittedly assumed the call royal lineage, and if Sverre still had to go through life as a comb maker son, as in his childhood, he would never have become king. But all this changed, and even in a way that included the participation of higher powers, both earthly and unearthly .....

Sverre's saga makes it clear that Sverre's right to the kingdom was related to Gods intervention in the development, and that HE promotes Sverres just cause. All of this is written in the "Gryla" - as Sverre himself wanted it to be. It's his story we meet.

This is what Sverre's saga is telling:

It starts with some simple information about a man named Unas. He was a comb maker and was married to a norwegian woman named Gunnhild. Unas and Gunnhild had a son named Sverre, supposedly in 1151.

There was great dreams as warnings/notifications about this boy. Specially told by his mother. These dreams are told in details in the saga.

5 years old Sverre was sent to the Faroe Islands to his uncle bishop Roe to be raised there. Roe was Unas brother. He was trained to become a priest and later became one. That is all we know about his childhood and early teenager. The comparison of detailed renderings of dreams, says a lot about the kind of presentation "Gryla" is - and is not.

Through the detailed stories of the dreams the reader is getting prepared for a revelation about Sverres background that is very different than anyone, included himself, has believed.

When Sverre is 24 years old he gets to know the truth about who he really is. While "Gryla" say very little about Sverres early years, this part is very detailed. But only certain aspects of the case is mentioned here just as conspicuous is everything not mentioned.

Gunnhild has traveled to Rome. Here she went to confession. She reveiled to the priest that her son really was of royal blood. The priest told the Pope. He set as conditions for absolution that Gunhild would now allow her son to know who his father was, and as soon as possible. Sverre was told the summer the year after Gunnhild was in Rome. His reaction was. It gave Sverre lot to think about, and he remembered his and other peoples dreams. Now these dreams kindled a desire in him to avenge his enemies.

Pure propaganda.

Først og fremst synes jeg at det er fullstendig idiotisk å ta en diskusjon som dette på Engelsk.
Det føles litt mye som "lost in translation". Vet vi egentlig hva som opprinnelig ble skrevet?
Stort sett er det meste spekulasjoner uten referanser til originalkilder. Vi kan hverken bevise eller motbevise at han var sønn av Sigurd munn. Det eneste vi har er en samtidig kilde, noe som er veldig uvanlig.

After being told who his father was, Sverre had a dream before he left the Faroe Islands to go to Norway:

Sverre found he was already in Norway, where he had received a high standing - he almost thought he was elected bishop. He noted that there was great unrest in the country. He saw that St. Olav stood on one side, and on the other side, King Magnus and Earl Erling. Sverre even believed that he had to join Olav and he did. Han ble godt mottatt. En morgen da kong Olav var ferdig med å vaske seg, ville en annen av de femten-seksten mennene som var hos kongen, ville vaske seg i det samme vannet. Men Olav skjøv bort denne mannen, og ropte isteden på "Sverre Magnus" og bad ham vaske seg i vannet. Ikke før hadde Sverre gjort det, så kom en mann løpende inn og fortalte at kongens fiender samlet seg utenfor. Olav bad mennene gripe til våpen, men sa ellers at det ikke var noen fare siden han selv skulle ta sitt skjold og gi dem vern. Samtidig ga han sverdet sitt til Sverre, sammen med sitt merke, og ba Sverre bære det for all fremtid. Sverre carried this against the army of Magnus and Erling, and he finds them withdrawing as soon as he sought forward .....

This dream is very important to Sverre.

What is pure propaganda, Justin?

The first part of Sverres saga or the history professors interpretation of it?

Bjørn is saying that it is stupid of me to try to do this in english. Maybe it is, and maybe something is lost in my translations, but I'm doing this in english because there are a lot people that can be interested in this that don't understand norwegian. But if I'm wrong, I can continue in norwegian. Please, let me know.

I'm going to retell the essence in Claus Krag's book about Sverre anyway, and I feel that doing it in english on a predominantly english speaking site like Geni, is just the right thing to do.

But if there are not a single non-norwegian speaking person except Justin, that would like me to do this in english, I will keep doing it in norwegian. That will narrow the possibility to get a good international discussion among interested Geni users, but if that is what you want, then that is how it shall be. Please, let me know what you want me to do here to.

Bjørn, I know you don't like the idea of severing the link between Sverre and his father, but please don't conclude anything yet. Please, hear this history professor out. I'm trying to retell what he is saying as best I can. And if someone of you is wondering about something, please ask.
I'm trying to write only the important parts of his book, but to do that, I feel we need to get some basics of the saga, so I'm doing that here.

I'm sure some of you will find this boring and maybe take a long time. I have the book for a month, so I will probably use that month to write what the professor thinks, his arguments and conclusions.

There will probably be a lot of post by me in this tread. And if a majority wants me to shut up, please tell me so, but then you will probably also miss a lot of of the professors points.

If I get a low response, I will continue the way I'm doing.

Sorry, Remi. I thought you were done telling about the book, or I wouldn't have interrupted.

I think Sverre's story was propaganda. If I tried to be King of Norway, I would make up a story like his, and my elderly mother would swear to it ;)

I do want to hear Claus Krag's telling, though. Please continue as long as you want. I don't think you will get an English audience except me. I hope I'm wrong. If you want to continue in Norwegian, I can still follow the story and Krag's arguments. On the other hand, if you take the time to do it in English, it will be here as a reference in the future for English-speaking people.

Please continue Remi, its interesting to know if Krag has something new to tell us. But I doubt there will be anything more than speculations. If you read Sverres saga there is no doubt that Sverre told the author what to write:
http://www.olhov.net/sverre1.html

But although this is propaganda, there is still no evidence that what is written is wrong...

Det er det store problemet: Det er stort sett bare spekulasjoner. Som jeg sa i den opprinnelige diskusjonen: Gi meg argumenter utover spekulasjoner.

Maybe you will get your arguments, Bjørn. As I said, you should not be so judgemental before you know all the arguments.

I will probably use the whole month (and maybe some) to read and write the essence of the book. So far I'm at page 54 of 258.

I will then continue in English to the best of my ability.

If you have any questions, please ask.

Sverre cold not have had this dream before he left the Faroe Islands. It requires knowledge and a political-ideological determination he must have gotten after he came to Norway. Additionally informs Sverre in the saga that he came to Norway without any clear understanding of the situation of the country or of his own role. Here the saga is cintradictory. But the dream shows how talented Sverre became as an ideological propagandist. It represents just such a position that he could advantageously promote around 1185, to support the kingdom he had won.

I have to mention one more dream that may be of importance.

Right after he joined the birkebeiners in March 1177 Sverre dreamt that he was praying in a church in Norway. An old man came over to him and said he had a secret message to him. Sverre looked closer at the old man and noticed he was very old, had long white hair and beard, full-length clothes, and the sight of him gave Sverre aw. The man told him not to fear because he was sent from God.

The old man tells Sverre that his is Samuel, Gods prophet, and that he has a message from God. Samuel anointed Sverres hands, kissed him and told him that he should become king one day and that God would help him.

If he told this dream to his follower in 1177 it wouldn't mean much, but in 1185, after Sverres victory over Magnus, this dream would look quite different. Were in fact not even this dream been fulfilled?

The saga continues the to talk about how Sverre and his followers won and lost battles in different place in Norway. When they have good fortune it's all the right doings of Sverre. When they loose the birkebeiners do something against Sverres advice. When they come into difficulties like storms on the mountains or using rafts over water with to many people onboard, they are miraculously saved by Sverre asking for Gods help or making a speech involving God. A lot of these stories have similarities to some of what is written in the Bible.

After the Gryla part the saga carries a different feel. It becomes more objective. The two parties becomes more equally presented. We hear from both camps, and in a couple places even Sverre is making mistakes and is a questionable character.

Sverres age

Many living at the same time as Sverre doubted that he was the son of Sigurd Munn, and the saga let the doubts get clear. One example from a negotiation meeting between Sverre and Magnus, in 1181, when Sverre suggested that they should share the kingdom. The saga lets Magnus answer that it was impossible for him to share the country with Sverre, "a man who I do not think has the ancestry to be king, either here or elsewhere."
The saga contains virtually nothing that can concretely support the claim of Sverres descent. It does not say one word about where and when Gunnhild and Sigurd Munn met or how the relationship between the two otherwise was. No one is mentioned that should have known that the two knew each other or had a relationship It must mean something that any such information is lacking - even as much as it might have had to say on Sverre's credibility if there had been something. The likely explanation is that Sverre had nothing to tell, simply because he did not know anything.
Sverres age is of vital importance. The saga tells he is born in 1151, or maybe the year before. We can deduce this because it says that he was 24 years old when his mother came to the Faroe Islands and told that he was a king's son. There are indications that Sverre was older. Sigurd Munn was born in 1134. Sverre was a priest before he left the Faroe Islands. When the priesthood ordination is drawn into the discussion about Sverres age, it is due to the fact that canon laws minimum age for such an ordination was 30 years, indicating that Sverre was born around 1144-1145. But people could get dispensations from this rule. But there are several indications that Sverre was older than the saga would have it. Sverre was the oldest child of Gunnhild and Unas, and we know about other children. A sister of Sverre married a man called Svina-Stefan. They had the son Peter Stöype, who is mentioned early in the saga, probably the same person who is called Svina-Peter in the saga. Peter was one of the leading birkebeiners in 1184, and a spokesman for Sverre at an important meeting with the townspeople in Bergen. At that time he had to at least be 21-22 years old, probably older. Then he should be born 1163-64, and if his mother, Sverres sister, was 17-18 years old at his birth, it means that she was born around 1146, and Sverre was her older brother. There is no way that there could have been a relationship between Gunnhild and Sigurd Munn before 1145, since Sigurd is only 11 years old at that time.
Other indication are that Sverre had a wife before he left for Norway, Astrid daughter of bishop Roe, and Sverre was a father of 2-3 sons and 2 daughters. 2 of the sons were named Sigurd and Haakon, the saga tells. Saxo on the other hand, say that Sigurd’s original name was Unas.
Finally there is an interesting piece of information in the Icelandic annals. During the year 1168 states, quite laconic: Sverrir í Orkneyjum – “Sverre in Orkney”. This has to mean that Sverre travelled there this year, and since the trip is mentioned it had to last a long time, at least 1 year.
Sverre's saga also provides a piece of information that makes a stay abroad quite likely. Sverre was involved in a fight on the Faroes, probably he killed someone, and Brynjolv, son of the governor of the Faroe Islands, was after him. In the saga is the discussion of this matter placed so that one almost gets the impression that everything happened just before Sverre went to Norway. The conflict meant that he had to get away. But it interferes with the context on another point in the saga, since it is the message of Gunnhild that will lead to Sverres travel to Norway. And her visit to the islands is also mentioned after the conflict with Brynjolv.
The saga is here, in other words unclear, or perhaps even contradictory. It can hide a time discrepancy behind this ambiguity. Sverre probably had to travel abroad during the conflict with Brynjolv. So he travelled to Orkneys in 1168, this sounds like the right thing to do when his adversary was the son of the norwegian governor. His wifes father, bishop Roe, probably had enough influence to get a settlement between Sverre and Brynjolv and his father, which made it possible for Sverre to return to the Faroe Islands. Also such a stay in Orkney rhymes well with that Sverre was born 1144-1145 and not 1151.

Gunnhilds role
Gunnhilds trip to Rome and its consequences. As a historical account is the story of the Rome-trip completely unrealistic. There is little reason to believe that Gunnhild - a simple Norwegian artisan's wife - at all should have done such a journey. There is even less reason to believe that the pope, or anyone in his circle, should have been concerned about this woman's fairly trivial sins. Some has accepted Gunnhilds Rome-trip and confession – but thought that the Popes concern was Sverres priesthood ordination. A priest should normally in fact be legitimate. Gunhild had to tell her son, as necessary dispensations could be obtained. This reasoning does not hold, because according to the saga Sverre was born after the marriage of Gunnhild and Unas. Thus he was for ecclesial jurisprudence legitimate and his ordination to become a priest must have been completely unproblematic.
And such the saga portrays it, it cannot in any case have been: Church leadership in Rome could not have wanted to pull the ground from under Archbishop Øystein's life's work - having gotten regulated the throne succession of Norway in accordance with the principles the church generally advocated. The Law of Throne Succession of 1163 should hinder throneclaimants of Sverres type to coming out at all. While Magnus reigned and there were good prospects for continued peace, the church could not have any interest in weakening the Law of 1163. Everything indicates that Gunnhild never traveled to Rome. And then there is no reason for her to travel to Sverre to tell him he is a king’s son. She probably took the trip, but not for that reason. She also probably stayed in the Faroe Islands the rest of her life, because the saga doesn’t mention her after 1175. Which in itself is strange if her son is a king’s son. It could also have been important for Sverre to have her around so she could confirm his descendancy.

A likely solution?
The story in “Gryla” represents what Sverre wanted to tell after 1185, to consolidate his kingdom. Are we suspicious - or just cautious - we can neither rely on the particulars nor the totality of what's in the saga. One reason is the story's clear propagandistic aims, another all is all the improbabilities, a third that the story is so little concrete and so anonymous and not at all witnessed. It has such a form that also at the time when it was written, obviously escaped verification and could neither be proved nor disproved. Exactly that was probably no coincidence ......
Sverre sailed from Faroe Islands to Bergen as a brotherson to the bishop of the Islands. He was a priest. He was doubtful about continuing as a priest. He traveled north along the coast to Nidaros (Trondheim), he should almost certainly make a visit to the Archbishop there, but made a stop at the small island of Selja where there was a Saint-Alban monastery. While there the ship with Erling Skakkes made a stop at the monastery. Sverre probably met Erling here and got invited to follow his ship south. He stayed onboard all the way to Konghelle in today’s Sweden. From there Sverre traveled to Birger Brosa, probably at Erlings request. After a while Birger’s men found out that he had been on Erling’s ship, and accused him of being a spy (which Sverre probably was). And this is an important fact. Sverre didn’t tell Birger that he had been onboard Erling’s ship, but he was exposed to the fact by Birger’s men. Several of Birger’s men wanted to execute him as a spy, but Sverre came up with a story. He could have said that he stayed onboard Erling’s ship to spy on Erling. And he didn’t travel to Birger Brosa because Erling told him so, but because that was what he wanted. And he explanation was that he was the son of Sigurd Munn. Which meant that he and Birger Brosa was on the same side in the conflict about the Norwegian throne.
This explanation fits the facts. Birger and his men didn’t trust Sverre, so they tried to get him drunk so he would reveal himself, but Sverre didn’t fall for that. So they accepted his story. Birger made it public knowledge that a likely son of Sigurd Munn had come to him in Sweden. Then came the battle at Re in Vestfold where Birger’s king to be Öystein Möyla was killed and Birger thought that the intelligent and gifted Sverre could be used as a king to be. First Sverre refused and suggested one of Birger’s sons, their mother was a sister of Sigurd Munn. But Birger answered that Sverre was the right guy and Sverre didn’t dare to refuse anymore.