Talk:Riksdag of the Estates

Riksdag of the Estates is not the right name

I think Riksdag of the Estates is not the right name. The name was "Riksdag" in Swedish, or "parliament" (in English). So the correct name of this article in English should be Parliament of the Estates of Sweden or something like that. -Ulla 08:20, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

It is a difficult question. Basically, the parliament of the Estates was not that much different from e.g. the English or French parliaments: there were the lords temporal (nobility) and lords spiritual (clergy). The most important exception was the inclusion of peasants, not just the burghers and the rather democratic way of electing the representatives of clergy (not just bishops). Therefore, calling the organ parliament would be well founded in reality. It is just that using the word parliament feels very anachronistic. Maybe a better word would be diet, as in Polish history.

As a Finn, I like the word riksdag. That is because in Finland, the Riksdag of the estates (Finnish: valtiopäivät, Swedish: riksdag) was not dissolved until 1906. The new, unicameral form of parliament (Finnish: eduskunta, Swedish: riksdag) is not called valtiopäivät (Swedish: riksdag), 'the Diet', except in ultra-formal contexts. (Valtiovalta Suomessa kuuluu kansalle, jota edustaa valtiopäiville kokoontunut eduskunta. English: The highest power of state in Finland is vested in the people, represented by the Parliament, assembled on the Diet. Swedish: Statsmakten i Finland tillkommer folket, som företräds av riksdagen.). --MPorciusCato 10:42, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Do you have any example of anybody referring to ståndsriksdagen as "Parliament of the Estates of Sweden" or anything like that? I have never seen the specific combination "Riksdag of the Estates" either, but in my experience English-language authors writing about Swedish history use the Swedish term "Riksdag" for the Swedish parliament, or occasionally the "Diet", which is a term closer to the Swedish word (from Latin Dies=day). Check out the books of Michael Roberts or Anthony F. Upton, for instance. They both use two terms interchangeably, or may occasionally write of "the Estates", when they need to stress that aspect of the Riksdag. Olaus 14:35, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Riksdag is the Swedish word, used even today in Swedish for the Parliament of Sweden, but the term Riksdag of the Estates seems like a bad combination of words in English, at least to me. Diet could be better, but in the days of the Estates, the name was just "riksdag", i.e. parliament, or just "riksens ständer", i.e. "the national estates". I am not sure what to acctually suggest instead. Perhaps just "Parliament of Sweden until 1866"? -Ulla 21:06, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure you meant to write rikets ständer, which would translate as estates of the realm. The wording national estates would smell like the early phase of the French revolution of 1789. You know, English uses quite routinely the national names for the parliaments. Ireland has Oireachtas, the Polish have the sejm, Iceland has Allting and the Russians have a duma. Calling any of these modern institutions parliament is correct. However, when we talk about the riksdag of the 18th century, we may commit anachronism if we talk about parliament. The only parliaments at that time are the English, Irish and French parliaments (the last were courts of law). If we use the word parliament for the riksdag of the 16th to 18th century, we confuse people. --MPorciusCato 06:37, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

No, I meant to write just what I did. In the time of the ståndsriksdag, the proper way of writing was riksens ständer, even if rikets ständer is more correct according to the Swedish grammar of our days. In Category:Parliaments by country, most parliaments, including the Swedish one, has names like "parliament of [country]", so I understand this to be the Wikipedia standard. -Ulla 10:30, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that the English Wikipedia and its "wikipedians" are far too keen on inventing previously unknown terminology for Swedish historical institutions based on what appears to be nothing more than their own views and whims. When there is an established terminology used in English texts by specialists on the topic, Wikipedia should adopt that, not invent its own. The Riksdag, as I pointed out above, seems mostly to be known as "the Riksdag" in English-language texts (with or without the italics), and it seems that the current official name of the Riksdag, as used in English texts, is also the Swedish one.

I would suggest that you find a reasonable number of representative works by historians writing in English on Swedish 19th century history. Those are most likely to have felt a need to distinguish the two different types of riksdag. How about looking through the volumes of the English-language Scandinavian Journal of History for relevant articles? Or Swedish history dissertations, which generally come with an English summary (Finnish dissertations probably do, too)? One needs to look at a few different works first, both historical overviews and more specialised studies, to make sure one does not pick up the idiosyncratic usage of an individual author, but something that is somewhat commonly used. In some cases, there is likely to be an English-language translation that is accepted. In others, it may turn out that most English texts simply use the Swedish term in italics. Olaus 08:58, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I stand corrected. In my view, the name of the article is correct and I definitely do not want to replace it with any of the names discussed here. Further research is definitely needed to get acquainted with the existing English literature. --MPorciusCato 09:30, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I had no intention to correct anything you said, but was directing my reply towards Ulla (as I did above). I probably indented my comment wrongly. Anyway, my main point is the same one you make in your last sentence: before any translations can meaningfully be discussed, more research is needed. (A "project" on Swedish history could possibly be useful, but I am not sure how much time I want to invest in this, so I am not going to take any initiatives of that kind.) Olaus 10:04, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

As I just now stated above, I disagree. The present name is a strange mix of Swedish and English. If Wikipedia should use the Swedish name, it should not be Riksdag of the Estates but ståndsriksdag. If Wikipedia should follow its own practice and name the article in the manner of present day parliaments (se the category I link to above) it should be Parliament of the Estates of Sweden or Diet of the Estates of Sweden or something similar. -Ulla 10:30, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I am not defending the current name, except in so far as pointing out that the word Riksdag in fact is used by English-language authors on Swedish history, and not translated into "parliament" (at least not by the authors I am familiar with). My more general point is that there really is no basis for a meaningful discussion about which terminology to use in Wikipedia for any specific Swedish thing until somebody has investigated what terminology is actually already used in English by subject-area experts. In this case you need to find authors who have a need to distinguish the ståndsriksdag from the later two-chamber riksdag, and see what terminology these authors use. It is quite possible that an established English term already exists. Olaus 07:58, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that the present name is perfectly fine as it is, because it is as unambigious as it possibly gets, and there is no risk of confusion with either the general term Riksdag or the present day Finnish and Swedish legislatures. As far as I have observed with respect to Swedish history written in the English language, this institution is translated as either: the Riksdag, the Estates or the Diet. Given that Riksdag is the official English langauage term for the present day Swedish legislature in Utrikes namnbok the objections above raised by Ulla of a "strange mix" is thus rendered null and void. RicJac (talk) 01:05, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Peasants is not the right word

Only land-owning farmers were represented. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:58, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree; "peasant" has the flavour of serfs and tenant farmers but the majority of the Swedish agricultural population consisted of free farmers. Unfortunately, though, there is no English term quite equivalent to "bonde/husbonde" or the Finnish "talonpoika", which indicate belonging to a "house" (farm, estate) rather than an occupation. The riksdag representatives that the "peasants/farmers" elected were usually well-to-do landowners who could be considerably better off than their local clergy or small-town burghers.--Death Bredon (talk) 17:24, 20 July 2022 (UTC)