Talk:Cnut

When did Canute become "Great"?

I never saw the phrase "Cnut the Great" until I saw this article a few years ago. I grew up learning that only Alfred had this designation. Indeed Alfred, the savior of his country and his people, seems to merit this epithet better than Cnut.

Alfred understood that his people needed history to remind them of their loyalties. So he instituted a chronicle, a record of current events, unique in Europe. The saviour of the English language, he was also the founder of English prose. No other English monarch is remembered as "Great". "The Story of English", McNeil, Cran & McCrumb, 1986.

A separate section on nomenclature is typical in Wikipedia and this change, if it indeed is an accepted change, should be mentioned somewhere in the article.68.196.10.68 (talk) 16:46, 27 December 2021 (UTC)captcrisis

That is an interesting question and one I have sometimes wondered about. Among modern historians the term seems to be mainly used by Timothy Bolton - it is the title of his well regarded biography. I have looked to see whether he discusses the term, and presumably he does but I cannot see where without reading the whole book. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:41, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Designations might change over time. Cnut the Great was "Emperor of the North" and founder of the shortlived "Northsea Empire". In Danish he has 'always' been refered to as Knud den Store = Cnut the Great (or Magnus when latin is used). Perhaps it's a characteristic of our time, that we in some connections seek to sort of synchronize the expressions used in various langauges? But to use the designation "the Great" can some times be a fairly modern phenomenon. Take the Danish King Godfred/Gudfred (c. 804-810), until the 1980'ies no one ever called him "den Store" and untill around 2010 this expression was only rarely used, but since then it has become more common to use and perhaps in another decade or two he will predominantly be refered to as "Godfred den Store"? Oleryhlolsson (talk) 18:47, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Just plain (non-great) "Canute" is the almost unanimous verdict on Ngram. ThuDauMot (talk) 01:18, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Cnut being one of 'the Great's is by merit of being a king of multiple kingdoms. Alfred being the only English monarch called the great is true, because Cnut was Danish not English, whereas all other kings were English/British or the group they were from became English/British, like the normans Kind Regards, NotAnotherNameGuy (talk) 19:53, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

The waves

I've readded a line about the story of canute and the tide to the lede - a section has been added to the main body since this seems to have been deleted and it's almost certainly the sole thing anyone not versed in Anglosaxon history will know about him so it's weird not having it in the lead.. 37.245.43.126 (talk) 12:21, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Also known as Canute the Great

I do not believe this reversal was helpful or constructive, especially when source citations were left (disrupted now) for the name form "Canute the Great" as his a.k.a.. I will restore that name form and correct the citations unless someone can come up with a good reason not to. Several more reliable sources available through Google show us that "Canute the Great" is at least as well known as "Cnut the Great". SergeWoodzing (talk) 09:17, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

But you removed Cnut the Great, of which there are more instances on google and it's equally reliably sourced. I don't see any reason to not also include Canute the Great, apart from inelegance in an endless list of minor variations on his name - there seems to be extensive discussion of this on talk that comes down on the side of using Cnut rather than Canute in general, so Cnut the GReat seems like the better one to list if we have to choose. 37.245.43.126 (talk) 11:44, 10 October 2023 (UTC) 37.245.43.126 (talk) 11:44, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

"Canute", being the only academically established English exonym used for centuries for Danish Knud and Swedish Knut, can hardly be called a minor variation. I would like to see 3 or more reliable sources for "Cnut the Great". When "Canute the Great" is reinstated, there will be at least that many sources cited for that name form. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:20, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't think we need to ref bomb the article but as you've asked:

The British Library - https://www.bl.uk/people/cnut

The British Museum - https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/term/BIOG105835

The National Portrait Gallery - https://www.npg.org.uk/collections/search/person/mp14455/canute-or-cnut-the-great

Yale University Press - https://yalebooks.yale.edu/book/9780300243185/cnut-the-great/

BBC World Service - https://www.bbc.com/mediacentre/proginfo/2019/24/the-forum

English Historical Review - https://www.jstor.org/stable/575068

The Empire of Cnut the Great - https://brill.com/display/title/15086?language=en

etc etc

There's consensus above (and in the archives) that this article should use Cnut rather than Canute as the primary name. It makes sense that the coverage of this epithet should reflect that when it's use is well sourced, unless we end up with "Cnut, also known as Cnut the Great or Canute or Canute the Great". I think that's getting silly.

Canute is clearly not the only academically established exonym, and modern scholarship uses Cnut, which was the conclusion of the earlier discussions. 37.245.43.126 (talk) 13:58, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

We are discussing an a.k.a. here, not the article name.

It seems necessary to repeat and clarify: "Canute", being the only academically established English exonym used for centuries for Danish Knud and Swedish Knut, can hardly be called a minor variation. It is not a minor variation.

The term "Canute the Great" should not be quashed in the lead. It's too well known and well referenced for that. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:41, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

But it all flows on from the article name.

It is not necessary to repeat, especially when its not the case that it's the "only academically established exonym". it's clear from the sources above, and previous discussion that Cnut is well established and in modern writing at least, more common.

When I say minor variation what I mean is that the degree of difference between Cnut the Great and Canute the Great is small and that I don't really see the need to list "the Great" twice in the AKA. If the argument is whether it should follow just one of Cnut or Canute then we should go with the consensus for the article.

alternatively we could go with something like "Cnut, also known as Canute, sometimes given the epithet the Great, was King of...." 37.245.43.126 (talk) 12:38, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

OK by me.

I would however like not to be misinterpreted on the same detail twice in one discussion. "Canute" is the only academically established English exonym to have been used for centuries, which was used for centuries, always in use for centuries for Danish Knud and Swedish Knut. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 08:15, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Your view is clear. 37.245.43.126 (talk) 04:54, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Catholic Church

“was a source of great prestige and leverage within the Catholic Church and among the”. At this time there was no distinction between Christian churches. Better to use Rome or Constantinople for instance. 24.135.96.71 (talk) 18:45, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Removed mention of the Catholic Church per WP:LEAD, as it is not mentioned anywhere in the article body. TylerBurden (talk) 22:06, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Vinland Saga

He's a main character in a recent critically acclaimed anime which depicts his ascent & reign. I think this is worthy of a sentence, at least. Rianinspace (talk) 12:56, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

If you can provide WP:RS showing that this is notable enough to be added, sure. TylerBurden (talk) 21:37, 1 April 2025 (UTC)