Fairhair Dynasty - Dynasty Itself: Traditional View Vs Artificial Construct

Dynasty Itself: Traditional View Vs Artificial Construct

The Fairhair Dynasty is traditionally regarded as the first royal dynasty of the united kingdom of Norway. It was founded by Harald I of Norway, known as Haraldr hinn hárfagri (Harald Fairhair or Finehair), the first King of Norway, as opposed to "in Norway", who defeated the last petty kings who resisted him at the Battle of Hafrsfjord in 872.

According to the traditional view, after Harald Fairhair first unified the kingdom, Norway was inherited by his agnatic (male) descendants. In the 13th century, this was codified in law. Unlike other Scandinavian monarchies and Anglo-Saxon England, Norway was never an elective monarchy.

However, in the first centuries after Harald Fairhair, there were several periods during which the country was effectively ruled not by a king but by one of the Jarls of Lade, (Old Norse Hlaðir), from the northern part of Norway. The first such period was from about 975 to about 995 under Haakon Sigurdsson (Hákon Sigurðarson, often called 'Jarl Haakon'). Also, although Harald Fairhair's kingdom was the kernel of a unified Norway, it was still small and his power centre was in Vestfold, in the south. And when he died, the kingdom was divided between his sons. Some historians put emphasis on the actual monarchical control over the country and assert that Olav II (Olav the Stout, who later became St. Olav), who reigned from 1015, was the first king to have control over the entire country. He is generally held to be the driving force behind Norway's final conversion to Christianity and was later revered as Rex Perpetuum Norvegiæ (Latin: eternal king of Norway). Some provinces did not actually come under the rule of the Fairhair kings before the time of Harald III (Harald Hardrada, r. 1046–1066). Either of these may therefore be regarded as further unifiers of Norway. And some of the rulers were nominally or actually vassals of the King of Denmark, including Jarl Haakon.

It is undisputed that later kings, until Magnus IV (Magnus the Blind, r. 1130–1135 and 1137–1139), were descended from Harald Hardrada: the 'Hardrada dynasty'. However, many modern historians doubt whether Harald III was in fact descended from Harald Fairhair (for example questioning the identification of Halfdan in Hadafylke with the father of Sigurd Syr or Harald Fairhair's fathering of Sigurd Hrise on a Sami girl called Snæfrid) and whether he in fact made such a claim, or whether this lineage is a construction from the 12th century. Sverre Sigurdsson's claim to be the son of Sigurd Munn is also usually considered to be false, which would make Inge II (Inge Bårdsson) the last king of a dynasty.

Scholars now consider the Fairhair dynasty at least partly the product of medieval invention. One motive would be to increase the legitimacy of rulers by giving them a clear royal ancestry dating back to the foundation of the kingdom. Another was to provide pedigrees for other people by connecting them to the royal house. Versions of the royal descent are preserved in various works by Icelandic skalds and historians, some based on now lost works: Þjóðólfr of Hvinir's Ynglingatal, in Nóregs konungatal (which preserves information from a lost work by Sæmundr fróði), and at greatest length in Snorri Sturluson's Heimskringla (which preserves information from a now lost version of Ari Þorgilsson's Íslendingabók). These differ in some respects. Joan Turville-Petre explored the relationship between them and argued that the original aims were to establish a framework of regnal years for dating and to connect Icelandic chieftains to them, and that the Vestfold origin of the dynasty was deliberately altered and they were connected to the Swedish Ynglings rather than the Skjǫldungs to fit Icelandic tradition. Claus Krag argued that an important motive was to establish a hereditary claim to Viken, the region around Oslo, because the area had been paying taxes to the King of Denmark.

Turville-Petre speaks of a "decisive reconstruction of Harald 's ancestry probably carried out by Icelanders, some two hundred years after his time" which made Halfdan the Black the progenitor of a dynasty which stretched in three branches from Harald Fairhair to Olaf Tryggvason, Olav II and Harald. - in fulfillment of prophetic dreams, according to Heimskringla, in which the genealogy reaches its full form.

One particular point of doubt raised by historians is whether Harald III's father was actually descended in unbroken male line from a younger (and somewhat obscure) son of Harald Fairhair, and Olav II in another obscure but unbroken male line. It has been suggested that their claims to the throne were bolstered by genealogical invention because although they shared the same mother, Åsta Gudbrandsdatter, the mother's descent was unimportant in inheritance according to traditional Germanic law.

In this critical view, only three generations of Fairhair kings reigned, from 930 to 1030, for 40 years altogether. The kings Olav Tryggvason and St. Olav, their family ties with the Fairhair dynasty perhaps a 12th-century invention, ruled for 18 years altogether and Harald Hardrada then founded a new dynasty. There may be as many as 6 dynasties altogether subsumed under the title of Fairhair dynasty: Harald Fairhair's, Olav Tryggvason's, St. Olav's, Harald Hardrada's, Magnus Erlingsson's and Sverre's.

Read more about this topic:  Fairhair Dynasty

Famous quotes containing the words traditional, view, artificial and/or construct:

    Americans want action for their money. They are fascinated by its self-reproducing qualities if it’s put to work.... Gold-hoarding goes against the American grain; it fits in better with European pessimism than with America’s traditional optimism.
    Paula Nelson (b. 1945)

    In a period of a people’s life that bears the designation “transitional,” the task of a thinking individual, of a sincere citizen of his country, is to go forward, despite the dirt and difficulty of the path, to go forward without losing from view even for a moment those fundamental ideals on which the entire existence of the society to which he belongs is built.
    Ivan Sergeevich Turgenev (1818–1883)

    Description is revelation. It is not
    The thing described, nor false facsimile.
    It is an artificial thing that exists,
    In its own seeming, plainly visible,
    Yet not too closely the double of our lives,
    Intenser than any actual life could be....
    Wallace Stevens (1879–1955)

    The difference between style and taste is never easy to define, but style tends to be centered on the social, and taste upon the individual. Style then works along axes of similarity to identify group membership, to relate to the social order; taste works within style to differentiate and construct the individual. Style speaks about social factors such as class, age, and other more flexible, less definable social formations; taste talks of the individual inflection of the social.
    John Fiske (b. 1939)