e into a sheaf of grain.

[3] Svart, _Aehrapred._, pp. 46-47; and Tegel, _Then stoormecht._, pp.
1-2. On this point our authorities agree. Tegel gives a table showing
Birgitta to have been a great-granddaughter of Karl Ulfsson, who,
according to the same table, was a great-grandson of King Erik X. As the
descent is traced through a line of females about whom history is
silent, we lack the means with which to disprove the assertion of our
chroniclers.

[4] Until recently, historians have asserted that Margaret, at the
coronation of her nephew, signed a document providing, among other
things, that the three kingdoms were thereafter to be governed by a
single sovereign, to be elected alternately, if his predecessor died
childless, by each kingdom; that, in case of war in one kingdom, both
the others were to come to the rescue; and that each kingdom was to be
governed strictly according to its own laws. As a matter of fact,
Margaret signed nothing of the kind. The document which gave rise to
this error is still to be seen in the Private Archives at Copenhagen. It
is dated at Kalmar, July 20, 1397, purports to be the work of sixteen of
the chief Swedish magnates, and declares that unless the terms which it
contains are drawn up in six copies, signed by the king, the regent, the
Cabinet, and others, there shall be no lawful union. These six copies,
so far as we know, were never drawn up or signed. But unhappily the
union had been already formed at the coronation a month before, and,
seven days before, these very magnates with fifty-one other persons had
attached their seals to an affidavit of allegiance to their new king.
This affidavit, dated at Kalmar, July 13, 1397, is also still preserved
in the Private Archives at Copenhagen. Both documents are printed in
full in O. S. Rydberg's _Sverges traktater med fraemmande magter_,
Stockh., 1877-1883, 2 vols. 8vo, vol. ii. pp. 560-585.

[5] _Handl. till upplysn. af Finl. haefd._, vol. i. p. 187.

[6] Svart, _Gust. I.'s kroen._, p. 2, and Tegel, _Then stoormecht._, p.
3. Tegel makes this incident occur in the child's seventh year, in 1497.
Here we have another proof that Tegel places the birth of Gustavus too
early. If the child had been born in 1490, this incident could not have
taken place till still later than his seventh year, for Hans did not
become king till 1497.

[7] _Kongl. och furstl. foerlijkn._, pp. 383-384.

[8] Tegel, _Then stoormecht._, p. 3.

[9] In Reuterdah