Re: SV: Wolter talk report



inger wrote:
>
> Seppo Renfors <Renfors@xxxxxxxxxx> skrev i
> diskussionsgruppsmeddelandet:43379608.AEC38E60@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> >
> > inger wrote:
> > >
> > > "Seppo Renfors" <Renfors@xxxxxxxxxx> skrev i meddelandet
> > > news:43354FC7.EDBE1419@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > inger wrote:
> >
> > [..]
> >
> > > > > Yes but they were same event if it's him who forged it in 1520's.
> What
> > > > > better 'proof' for rights to claim that land, the land they lost,
> could
> > > have
> > > > > been put forward than writing down what he knew about the Tiundetaka
> > > voyage
> > > > > of 1355 to Fall 1363? The Tiundetaka voyage he knew well about.
> > > >
> > > > I see what you mean. Only I cannot agree that the 1520's scenario is
> > > > the case. As I said earlier, the stone does not support a former
> > > > "ownership" of land either. The major problem is, it is illogical *IF*
> > > > one was to consider a 1520's "forgery".
> > > >
> > > > The major logical points against your theory are:
> > > >
> > > > (A) Location - it is far too far inland and in a much too obscure
> > > > place to serve as "evidence". It could not be expected to be found
> > > > again.
> > > >
> > > > (B) the story itself - for a "land claim" it would require the
> > > > equivalent of the "National Flag stuck in the sand" but in words to be
> > > > believable.
> > > >
> > > > (C) You are missing the voyage to find the stone to prove the "land
> > > > claim" - in fact you are missing the land claim as a whole!
> > >
> > > No. I got that covered too. Only not told about it.
> > >
> > Then we cannot know about it, can we, and have nothing to support the
> > notion with.
>
> more than one here can. They know about it and it's thanks to some of them I
> have gained information from archieves and other places which I wasn't aware
> of. Sometimes it takes me a long time to realise what's in copies of
> documents and or per-viewed articles from this and there edited in 20th
> century.... that I have to admit. Happened tonight and have happened in the
> past. I have had problems with my mailprogram so I have been working 3 hours
> with that tonight. During coffee-brakes happened to read one such article
> from 1945.
> In it I found references to three annals I wasn't aware of to have
> importance for a specific case. One Norwegian and two Swedish btw. It's
> natural that I didn't notice it when I studied the article in 1995. I wasn't
> especially interested in the VM debate, nor was I aware of the Kensington
> Runestone controversy back then, but I could have thought about it when I
> later was. Now there are more interesting information in the article but to
> that I will return. That article was sent to me by a non-English scholar via
> snailmail..... the sender is one who knows what I have at hand.
> > > >
> > > > (D) A document in the King's vault/archive would be a far more
> > > > believable claim to territory. There is no need to travel to North
> > > > America to plant a rune stone, in order to claim it.
> > >
> > > That they had. But as you probably know King Christian ordered a voyage
> to
> > > retake l o s t l a n d..... What god would a paper in the King's vault
> in
> > > Denmark have out in the wild terrain of what later became Minnesota? The
> > > Norse Greenlander lived there up to 1490 when they moved to what later
> > > became Wisconsin's shore to the Lakes....
> >
> > I assume you refer to either King Christian II or III of Denmark now.
> > Christian II was king of Denmark/Norway 1513-23 and Sweden 1520-23. So
> > at some point in 1520 there has been a "retaking of lost land" of
> > Sweden. Frederik I was King from 1523 - 1533. Christian III was sent
> > abroad in 1520, in company with Johan Rantzau, is true - only that
> > "abroad" was on the continent of Europe - where he made the
> > acquaintance of Martin Luther and became a strong follower of the
> > protestant version of religion (breaking the nexus with the Pope and
> > the "Tiundetaka"). The country was without a King because of that for
> > a year, and Christian III was not invited to take the throne till 1534
> > due to events described below.
>
> I am not talking about Christian III. I will return with more information.
>
> >
> > In 1534 Lübeck entered and occupied the entire eastern part of Denmark
> > under the leadership of Count Christopher of Oldenburg. Christian III
> > companion, Johan Rantzau, put down some peasant rebellions, led by
> > Clement, in northern Jutland. He also defeated the Lübeck in 1535 at
> > the battle at Øksnebjerg. At about the same time a
> > Danish-Swedish-Prussian fleet, led by Peder Skram, beat Lübeck's fleet
> > at Svendborgsund. SO there is no question there was indeed a retaking
> > of land - but that was back home.
>
> As I said I am not talking about Christian III
> >
> > Due to his change in religion, the catholic bishops did not approve of
> > and had been against Christian being appointed King. So remove any
> > threat to his throne from that direction he had all the catholic
> > bishops in Denmark arrested on August 12, 1536. From that point on he
> > made no more waves as a King and co-operated the privy council.
> > Christian III died on January 1, 1559.
>
> I am not talking about Christian III.
> >
> > There really was no "window of opportunity" to present a claim for
> > North America from any "King Christian". You have a change of Kings
> > during the critical periods you point to, that prevents your claim
> > being plausible. Right smack bang in the middle of the needed
> > "discovery" time frame you refer to C III was at war at home and would
> > not have had designs on foreign lands - or the money to pursue it
> > with. In any event the episode with Lübeck demonstrates the way "lands
> > claims" were made in those days.
>
> I am not talking about Christian III. What I am talking about is confirmed
> diplomas. What's interesting is that you have to look into all three
> countries Diplomatrium.

While there are many Kings named "Christian" only the III fits within
your given time frame. The II wasn't King late enough to avail himself
of the conspiracy you referred to.


--
SIR - Philosopher unauthorised
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The one who is educated from the wrong books is not educated, he is
misled.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
.

Relevant Pages
Quantcast