2005[edit]

Does anyone know if the spire really was added during the reign of John II? Shouldn't it be John III, he rebuilt a lot of churches and castles.

Not sure, will check it out.

By the way, this article looks exactly the same as this website: http://www.encyclopedia-glossary.com/en/Riddarholmskyrkan.html

EDIT:

according to the Swedish Wikipedia, the foundation of the Spire was laid (some sort of new hall was added) in the 15th century, possibly by Johan II, but the spire itself wasn't added until 16th century by Johan III.

I can't confirm this with any official sources right now, not even the official Swedish Royals page described it, but I'll keep looking

Fred26 13:59, September 9, 2005 (UTC)


The following text in Swedish, taken from a pdf ( http://www.ukforsk.se/svenparm/Sv6/Sv6-S-gard.pdf ) found through Googling (I haven't scrutinized the origins of the text), says that the design for the spire was ordered by the king in 1584, and that building commenced in 1589. This would make the king in question John III of Sweden.

Till det gamla franciskanerklostrets kyrka i Stockholm, som genomgått en fullständig ombyggnad åren 1568-1576, beordrade kungen 1581 borgmästaren att där låta bygga en hög och vacker spira. Ritningen behagade inte kungen. Den 24 mars 1584 skrev han till Vilhelm Boy och beordrade honom att göra ändringar. Utförandet av Vilhelm Boys förslag blev fördröjt till 1589. Genom en skrivelse den 6 januari detta år tillsades borgmöstare Olof Gregersson att låta bygga tornspiran efter Boys förslag och klä den med koppar. Tornspiran var enkel, smal och 291 fot höjd. Den förstördes 1835 av ett blixtnedslag.

This is supported by Guide till Stockholms Arkitektur which says that the tower building was added 1569-1590, although it does not explicitly mention the spire. / Alarm 23:02, 9 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm currently browsing through the Biography of Johan III by author Lars Ericson (ISBN 9185057479) There are references to "Willem Boy" (yes Willem according to the book) being contracted to first and foremost build royal tombs in Riddarholmskyrkan and to improve the old royal tombs. This included the new resting place for Gustav Vasa and his wives, and later it would include Johans wife Katarina. Willem Boy worked sporadicly from the time of Erik XIV to the time of Johan III in association with another architect called Arendt Palardin. It says that "their work was finished in 1590 but it doesn't say very plain if they worked on the spire itself or if it was added later. I've only skimmed the book but found no (logical) reference to a spire. Perhaps we should investigate this Arendt Palardin to see what he was involved with and draw some clues from there?

Fred26 15:18, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved per request. Unopposed for a week. Favonian (talk) 19:20, 9 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Riddarholmen Church → Riddarholm Church – The grammatical (Swenglish) interpretation of the Swedish name is incorrect. It's like Church of the Noble Island now, but should be like Noble Island Church. SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:52, 2 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Name[edit]

I see that this article used to be named "Riddarholmen Church" but was moved to "Riddarholm Church". In my opinion this makes no sense at all. Both the Royal Palaces (who are responsible for the upkeep of the church) and Visit Stockholm, the official tourist site of Stockholm, call it "Riddarholmen Church". "Riddarholm" in fact is not a name nor a word in Swedish but a neologism invented here on this page. The name of the island which gave name to the church is "Riddarholmen". The church is called "Riddarholmskyrkan" in Swedish after the island. Swedish grammar does however not apply to English. (What "Riddarholmen" would be translated to in English has also nothing to do with anything.) I suggest that the article is re-named "Riddarholmen Church". Yakikaki (talk) 12:59, 8 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Riddarholmen Chuch" means "Church of the Riddarholm" = inappropriate name. Swenglish by Swedes is not as relevant as correct English. The church is not (not) called "Riddarholmenskyrkan" in Swedish. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:36, 9 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for your input SergeWoodzing, I believe I understand your point and appreciate that you want to discuss the question. However, I believe that you may be mistaking part of the name of the place for a definitive article? It's a bit messy, but simply put it is the case that some place names in Swedish have incorporated a definitive article (much like in e.g. French, as in La Ciotat or Le Havre; you wouldn't say "University of the Havre", you say "University of Le Havre"). So it's still in full a name, i.e. a proper noun. Therefore it's not actually the case that "Riddarholmen Church" would mean "The church of the Riddarholm", since Riddarholmen is the complete and indivisible name of the place. The key about the church name is that it's composed of two elements: the place name and the building - name + church. When you put the name "Riddarholmen" together with "kyrkan" ("the church") in Swedish, you as it happens ends up with "Riddarholmskyrkan" because of the way the Swedish language operates, but it doesn't mean the name Riddarholmen in any other way can be split up like you suggest; there's no place called "Riddarholm". If on the other hand the place name would have been e.g. Vaxholm, well then I would have agreed with you, it should obviously be "Vaxholm Church" — because Vaxholm is the place name. So if we want to keep the structure of the name as it is now, I would keep arguing that it should be "Riddarholmen Church". The only alternative as I see it is if we consider the whole of "Riddarholmskyrkan" as a proper name (and there may be arguments for this) and use the Swedish name in full for the English article. Do you see my point? Yakikaki (talk) 11:59, 10 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Swedish is my 2nd language & I've taught it (& English) since 1968. I'm not doing any "mistaking". In Riddarholmskyrkan there is no "-en-". Riddarholmen - the Island of Knights - in the name of the island. The church is Knights' Island Church not (not) Church of the Knights' Island. Knights' Island Church in standard English is Riddarholm Church, as well as here, here, here, here, here & here, etc etc etc etc... Please stop this! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:32, 10 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK. I'm putting it up for suggested move. I've explained my reasons why and hoped we could sort it out here but it doesn't seem so. Yakikaki (talk) 14:05, 10 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Good idea to rename the church so that all those travel sites (with good knowledge of English), which you ignored, will be wrong? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:10, 10 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The island ("islet") of Riddarholmen is written just like that as a separate name. Dropping the "-en" part of the word, which is a determined article, in order to combine it with another word (in this case with an "s" added as a binder), is a specific feature of Swedish grammar. It is the import of Swedish grammatical rules that is "Swenglish". In English, Riddarholmen will be the subject of standard English grammar as applied to loan words, i.e., the grammatical status of the final letters will not be second-guessed, irrespective if this offends the aestetic sensitivities of Swedish-speaking people such as myself. Tomas e (talk) 16:35, 11 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Requested move 10 May 2020[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved. Sceptre (talk) 07:37, 22 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Riddarholm Church → Riddarholmen Church – I've sketched out why I believe the current title is wrong on the talk page. "Riddarholmen Church" would make sense since Riddarholmen is the name of the location of the church. "Riddarholm" is not a place. Both the Royal Palaces (who are responsible for the upkeep of the church) and Visit Stockholm, the official tourist site of Stockholm, call it "Riddarholmen Church", and these seem to me to be far more reliable sources than trevl.eu and some other sites which are quoted in the discussion on the talk page. Yakikaki (talk) 14:12, 10 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The church's name, literally, is Knight Island's Church, corresponding, even when literally translated, with common English usage in church names. It is neither The Knight Island Church nor The Church of Knight Island. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:36, 14 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You are applying your own personal opinion of lexicalization in Swedish words, as used in the Swedish language, to the meaning of that word in English. It doesn't work that way, and "Riddarholmen church[sic]" does not (not) "follow a common pattern in English", neither with the erroneous small 'c' on church, nor as per common English usage for church names. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:36, 14 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Grammar is the same in every language as far as translating it correctly goes. Michelin and the other linguistically knowledgeable websites know that, and it would be a shame, literally, if Wikipedia diverts from what is normal for church names in English. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:36, 14 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's rather sad to see that Michelin's educated & correct name form does not make sense to you. I didn't tell them what to call the church. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:36, 14 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ah, you mean we should put all our trust in a website that can't even spell Slottsskogen correctly in its native form [1] and that can't use the correct official English name of the Museum of World Culture [2]. Found those two glaring errors by just checking their names of places in my home town. Yeah, that seems like a reasonable approach. Seriously, you must be joking. – Elisson • T • C • 19:02, 14 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Extra Ccomment by the nominator a supporter to approve h nomination because 3 Swedes (who want us to use Swedish words in English) agree, no matter what major international tourism organizations think. How convincing is that in the real (English) world? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:36, 14 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am the nominator, not JIP. By the way I also support the move in accordance with my arguments above. Yakikaki (talk) 19:04, 14 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oops, sorry!  Fixed
  • Well, the two last of those examples are actually perfectly in line with our arguments here. The name of Högalidskyrkan in English should be Högalid Church, not Högalids Church, because Högalid is the name of the place. Just like Riddarholmen is the name of the place. It's not more difficult than that. And what your point with Slottskyrkan is I don't understand. According to your own logic, I can only assume you would want to rename it "Slott Church". Which is even more absurd than Riddarholm Church. Yakikaki (talk) 20:07, 14 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Umm, sv:Högalids distrikt ... Again: the Swedish name is not (not) Riddarholmens kyrka. It is Riddarholmskyrkan = Riddarholm Church. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:59, 16 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Categories