gormadoc1 "admit[ted] that the Scandanavian countries had Kings from the tenth century onwards" early on in this thread, so Hårfagre (and Heimskringla) became kind of irrelevant after that, I think. The issue is really if there were kings before that.
Some time before the 800s, areas in Norway became more advanced communities/societies. Some of them were structured as
tings; "an assembly of people who exercise legislative and judicial force". I assume this is the type of social structure you have read about, gormadoc1, as it can be presented/understood as a type of democracy.
However, there were also kingdoms. One of the most prominent kingdoms in Norway was Vestfold, which grew a lot during the 800s due to pillaging and trade. On the west coast, there were several smaller kingdoms that never became as stable as Vestfold, but they were still kingdoms.
As for "were they called kings?":
gormadoc1 wrote:understand the concept 'languages evolve'
True, and they are related to each other. The title for these rulers in norse language was "konung", same as modern scandinavian "konge" or "kung", same as english "king". They were called kings.
gormadoc1 wrote:The Vikings started of as a groups of raiders, they settled and conquered lands in mainland Europe around the 8th century.
When Denmark, Norway and Sweden became kingdoms in the 10th century, it was because the raiding leader's decendents had settled and establihed a community thus creating Kings.
I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to say here. Vikings as a "group of raiders" came from well settled areas in Scandinavia, not the other way around.