Jump to content

Talk:List of Danish monarchs

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

English names of monarchs missing

[edit]

I'm still missing some of the english names for the danish monarchs.

I hope someone can help out.

Christian, Sunday, June 9, 2002

I added entry for Frederick II - because he is the father of Anne of Denmark and father in law of James I of England 

Richhill, Saturday, June 15, 2002

Your page are do not like my page http://da.wiki.x.io/wiki/Sagnkonger

Adam of Bremen was a serious chronicler. I wonder whether the dubiousness of the kings preceeding Gorm the Old has anything to do with their being Swedes.--Wiglaf 08:20, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There was no ethnic or linguistically between danes and swedes at the time. The line is started at Gorm the Old because it from there is complete and all kings decendents

Answer: Harald Blue tooth is the first danish king, Gorm the Old is likely only to be king of Jutland. The division of Denmark (Rule olso apply to Sweden and Norway) into smaller kingdoms, is a repaeting event in danish history

The coat of arms is wrong!

Harthacanute/Canute the Hardy/Hardeknud

[edit]

Harthacanute is the name usually used in English for King Canute's son, the name Canute the Hardy being less well-known; but that refers to his reign in England, not in Denmark; the article Harthacanute says: He succeeded his father as King of Denmark in 1035, reigning as Canute III. The use of both Canute and Cnut on this list is inconsistent (since the spelling Knud is consistent in Danish, why do we have the first king called Harthacnut, with the spelling cnut, and the next two called Canute? I suggest the father of Gorm be called Harthacanute (despite the use of Harthacnut for his Wikipedia article title) to match the spelling of the later kings in English, and that Canute the Hardy be called Canute III on the list, since there's no logic in translating him as the Hardy when the previous king of the same name was not so translated (we need here an English translation of what the Danes call him as a Danish king rather than a copy of what the English call him as an English king). This would leave everything consistent, the only remaining anomaly being the article titled Harthacnut, a change to which might be addressed as a separate matter. qp10qp 18:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A bit late perhaps: There is a general and spesific debate on how to name monarchs here. I believe the monarch articles should in the overwhelming majority of cases follow the common convention. As to the spesific problem I suggest making your changes and see what happens. They seem logical and if it makes the list more consistant it's probably good :) Inge 18:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Names used in the Great Danish Encyclopedia

[edit]

These names are used by the Great Danish Encyclopedia (Store Danske Encyklopædi):

  • Knud 1. Hardegon, Hardeknud Svendsen (d. 934.) In the text, he is referred to as "Hardegon".
  • Knud 2. den Store (ca. 995-1035) (=Canute the Great)
  • Knud 3. Hardeknud (1020-42). In the text, he is referred to as "Hardeknud".
  • Knud 4. den Hellige (d. 10 July 1086) (literally: Canute the Holy)
  • Knud 5. Magnussen (d. 1157). In the text, he is referred to as "Knud"
  • Knud 6. Valdemarsen (1163-1202). In the text; referred to as "Knud".

I don't think the "full names" are used normally. Canute the Great and Canute the Saint are referred to by these names. Not sure about Canute III but I guess "Hardeknud" would be the name normally used for him. He died very young and never left any lasting impact. I don't know much about the disputed origins of Canute I, but I noticed that the Great Danish Encyclopedia refers to him as "Hardegon". Regards. Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 10:57, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Someone has moved the page Harthacnut of Denmark to Hardecnudth of Denmark, on the grounds that that is his oldest name. I think this is getting silly now. It's not so much a question of what these kings' earliest names were as about how they are best spelled in English (or else we would have to call William I Guillaume I. And there has to be consistency between kings' article pages and the list here, surely — not to mention consistency between spellings of different kings with the same names. The convention on Wikipedia is that names should be the ones most commonly used in English; the trouble with this early Hardecanute/Hardecnut/Hardecnudth/Hardeknud/Harthacnut/Harthacanute/Hardegon chap is that he isn't much known in England and so hasn't achieved a regular name. But I think his name should somewhere include the spelling "canute", as that is the most comment English way to spell that name, the second most common being "cnut". As for Hardecnudth. I note that this list gives knud as the spelling of the last part as the Danish version; the extra th, for me as an Englishman, adds nothing but consonant pile up.qp10qp 18:01, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Houses"

[edit]

We have had patri- and matrilineality in the Danish royal house since the Viking Age, so it is one big family or "house" from Hardeknud/Gorm onwards till the present day. Danish historians will sometimes use the terms "House of Oldenburg" and "House of Glücksburg", but never start a new house with Svend Estridsen. --dllu 14:05, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True. I've been puzzled by that as well. It seems this page is mainly edited by non-danes, and apparently with some kind of swedish bias. Carewolf 11:08, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. The same goes for the article on "legendary" kings, where the author seems to insist that Denmark was ruled by a "Swedish dynasty" in the early 10th century, when in fact we know next to nothing about these people. Most likely, they only held power in a small part of the country. And as a Danish historian I can say that most historians do not start with Gorm; the general consensus today is that several of the kings in the 9th century were just as historical as Gorm - maybe even more.
And just to clarify my comment above: women couldn't officially become Queen (Regnant) before 1953. Margrethe I only managed to do so via a series of fortunate events and some skillful political manuevering. However, the throne could be inherited through a female line, which is exactly what Svend did. He inherited the throne from his grandfather through his mother. Heck, he even took her name as a matronym to acknowledge it!
This is also the reason why all the monarchs since Hardeknud/Gorm really belong to one big dynasty, although the Oldenburg and Glücksburg houses have been established in tradition (and the "break" was much bigger at those occations), so they should stay. The "House of Svend" shouldn't. Instead, some of the pre-Gorm kings should be added to this page, which I might do soon unless someone has a valid objection. --dllu 11:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't like the first "houses" either but Oldenburg and Glücksburg are ok due to convention and because the royals use these terms themselves. Does anybody know if the other "houses" is due to an English tradition? I guess the average Dane would normally consider the Queen to be a Glücksburger - if anything at all - but it looks like English practice is to group the Glücksburgers under the Oldenburg heading. My knowledge about the medieval situation is too sketchy to tell if the English tradition also differs in this respect. Valentinian T / C 12:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Glücksburg is usually grouped as a "cadet branch" (so I learned I new English term today :oP) of Oldenburg in the Danish tradition too - because it is one, plain and simple. Chr. IX was a descendant of John the Younger, Duke of SH-Sonderburg, who in turn was the second son of Chr. III.
Similarly, Oldenburg is a cadet branch of the "House of Gorm" or whatever you want to call it (A term often used in Danish is the "Jelling Dynasty", but I'm not particularly fond of that). Chr. I was a great x4-grandson of Erik Klipping.
See the official site kongehuset.dk for the visual presentation. --dllu 15:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What I meant is simply that I found it a bit odd that Wikipedia refers to Prince Philip as an Oldenburger rather than a Glücksburger, that is all. You are quite right that the Glücksburgers are a cadet branch of the House of Oldenburg. Back to the original mess, I agree that "House of Gorm" and "Jelling Dynasty" are both inadequate. Another option would be cheating; simply using the terms "Viking Age monarchs" and "Medieval monarchs". Valentinian T / C 15:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
House of Harald Blåtand? Anyway the politics of wikipedia is not to do independent research so we should use whatever is most common among experts. If that is "Jelling Dynasty" we should use it, and then include criticism if necessary. Carewolf 10:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It seems the user Wiglaf that was adding all the swedish nonsense to the monarch list has quit the wikipedia project, so it should be safe to revert it without edit wars Carewolf 10:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please, no Danish nonsense provided by Carewolf and Haabet[1]. Carewolf's support of the OR provided Haabet (who is banned from Danish WP) is a disgrace.--Holger the Dane 11:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, the Royal House has three sections on their own web site: "Gorm den Gamle", "Oldenborg", and "Glücksborg", so maybe "House of Gorm" would be the most "correct" name? I still think it sounds a bit funny, though.
As for the Viking Age/Medieval idea, it is debatable when the VA ended. You could say Svend was both the last Viking an first Medieval king. I still vote for one long list from Gorm to Christopher III. (But the years for the first Hardeknud are pure conjecture, and the reference was deleted, so we don't even know where the author got 917). Also, I think the kings before Hardeknud/Gorm should be listed here too. They are no less "legendary" than Gorm or any other Viking king, just because they are only mentioned in foreign sources - in fact, that probably just makes them more "real".
I'll wait a bit, but if there are no objections, from Swedes or anybody else ;o), I will close the gap before Svend E., correct the years, and add the 9th century kings that are considered historical by any serious historian. --dllu 11:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objections to one long list covering everyone before Christian I. "Early Danish monarchs"? "Viking Age / early Medieval period"? Sounds great if you could add more information about those monarchs that are backed up by something else than Saxo. Valentinian T / C 11:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Holger, what are you talking about? I reinstated one correction from Haabet, where half of it turned out to be wrong. Sorry Carewolf 12:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You appear to be critical of foreign editors[2][3] whereas you uncritically have accepted a crazy addition by Haabet. Please, be mature enough to look beyond nationality in the future, if you want to be taken seriously by other editors. Among the Scandinavian countries only Denmark appears to provide editors such as user:Haabet, user:Comanche cph and user:Arigato1, which is highly disturbing.--Holger the Dane 13:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Timeout! Stick to commenting on the subject at hand not the contributors. Regarding the material, stick to well-sourced material, e.g. the Great Danish Encyclopedia / recent scholarship by well-respected historians etc. Valentinian T / C 13:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Ok, I have merged the houses and added some of the earlier kings. A couple of them don't have individual entries yet, but I will do that soon, if nobody beats me to it. :o)

I wont lower myself to the level of namecalling, but there sure is a lot of cleaning up to do in this subject, especially in the separate articles on various Viking kings... --dllu 17:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that looks really good. However, we really need some references or explainations to the pre-Gorm entries. Where did you get them? Carewolf 09:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After have looked at Holger the Dane contributions, it seems like his only reason to be here is to accuse editors for vandalism and removing context describing Danes or legendary Danish kings. I have reverted some of his edits. Huskarl 09:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As early as his 7th and 8th edits ever, Huskarl not only reinserts original reseach by the blocked user:Arigato1 (aka user:Comanche cph), he also makes the same language error ("removing of" instead of "removal of").--Holger the Dane 15:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
PS, since I don't want to accuse anyone unfairly of being Comanche cph/Arigato1's sockpuppet, I have added a checkuser request on Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Arigato1.--Holger the Dane 15:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Language error? Mate i think you should relax a little before acusing others for sockpuppet, as you do here. That is not a nice way to act. Just keep to the subject as user:Valentinian have pointed out for you. I simple reinserted what you have removed about the relationship with widukind and sigurd ring, witch in german texts is known as "Siegfred". And your >removal< of Harald Wartooth is Sigurd Rings oncle, -witch really shows that you just remove what you feel like without knowing anything about it. All sites i have read about, says the same.

For me it seems like you only are here for destroy all the text that decripe them as Danes, witch those persons clearly were. I was wondering why you on your user page have two big photos of the Danish flag and the legendary Danish hero "Holger the Dane" witch also is your name user name..... Do you try to camuflage something? --Huskarl 18:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's stick to the subject. You claim that a Danish king named Sigfried was identical to Sigurd Ring which sounds highly speculative and that Sigurd Ring was buried in Lejre and not in for instance Skiringssal in modern Norway, where he died. The addition of such assertions needs to be backed up with references. It is as simple as that.--Holger the Dane 19:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the Lejre part. But you have still not answered why you have removed part that he was nephew of Harald Wartooth (Harald Hildetand) and that he was Danish. --Huskarl 21:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The lead should only contain information that is not contradicted by the article itself. I hope you agree on that. Some sources say that Sigurd Ring's father was born in Russia, while the Danish Gesta Danorum says that his father was the king of Sweden. This makes it peculiar to call him a "Danish king of Denmark" in the intro. Moreover it is equally unreasonable to call him the "paternal nephew" of Harald Hildetand (which he was in some sources) when Gesta Danorum says that Sigurd was Harald's maternal nephew.--Holger the Dane 12:22, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly what does danish mean at that timeperiod? Also claiming nationality of kings makes little sense, since they intermarry more with foreigners than locals. A king of Denmark is a Danish king, even if most of them came from Germany. A king of Sweden is a Swedish king even if he came from Denmark. Carewolf 06:04, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree.--Holger the Dane 12:22, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@Carewolf: The names and years in the list of the pre-Gorm kings are off the top of my head. However, I have worked quite a bit with this specific period, and I assure you they are valid. I'm not at home and don't have access to all my own books at the moment, but as soon as I do, I will of course add references and articles on the red-links. --dllu 16:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Haabet and Huskarl's recent edits

[edit]

I wonder if anyone would like to have a look at user:Haabet's recent edits of Guthfrith.--Holger the Dane 12:36, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like a very incomplete disambiguation page which we should have; there are lots of Viking Age Guthfriths/Gofraids to disambiguate if nothing else. I'm more concerned by the edits to the last part of Kings of the East Angles. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:49, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am more concerned by this information:
Guthfrithus was the name of the father of Siegfried in the German Nibelungenlied, and Guthfrithus correspond to Gudroed (father of Sigurd Fafnersbane) in the corresponding Nordic legend.
Is this correct? As far as I know, Sigfried's father was called Siegemund in the Nibelungenlied, and Sigmund was Sigurd's father in the corresponding Nordic legends.--Holger the Dane 13:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're right. There's no Guthfrith in the Völsunga saga or the N. Lied. --dllu 17:01, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently, User:Huskarl has reverted back to Haabet's version and is accusing me of being a Swedish nationalist movement in another edit.--Holger the Dane 11:26, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Danish contributor indefinitely blocked

[edit]

Danish User:Arigato1, aka User:Huskarl, aka Comanche cph, etc., has been indefinitely blocked together with a slew of his sockpuppets (see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Arigato1). If you find another unreceptive and stubborn user sprinkling "Danish" all over articles on Scandinavian kings, it may be another incarnation of this Danish editor. If you suspect that he has returned, please report him to an admin.--Holger the Dane 21:38, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We need a new dummy image

[edit]

If anybody has an idea for a new dummy image for the missing portraits it would be very welcome. The problem is that the coat of arms of Denmark can only be traced to the reign of Canute VI. Weak indicators point towards his father Valdemar I, but the use of this symbol before these two kings is a complete anachronism. Valentinian T / C 21:54, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kings/Queens

[edit]

I would like to suggest that the queens be added to the list besides their kings, or that they at least should have their own list. I would be more than happy to do so! Niels H.L.N.

Sounds like a good idea, but I think a distinct list might be the best option. Have you seen List of Norwegian queens? And btw, such a list might better be named "List of Danish royal consorts" (or something along those lines) in order to include Prince Henrik. Valentinian T / C 00:01, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]
Image Copyright problem
Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:Danish king frederik 9 and kjartan mohr, faroe islands.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Kife 14:41, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

The image Image:CanuteGreat.JPG is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --04:50, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Duke of Holstein

[edit]

From 1815 to 1864 the Kings of Denmark were also Duke of Holstein, as member of the German Confederation. I totally miss that in the article about the Kings of Denmark. Why is this fact neglected? Demophon (talk) 18:25, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is complicated Gnupa/Knud pay tribute to the German emperor 934 and was a part of the empire. And Frederick IX (d. January 14, 1972) was duchies of Schleswig and Holstein despite as all titles was repealed in German.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Haabet (talk • contribs)

Ah, no. These data were missing, because the article was only half-written. No Danish monarch held a distinct Holsteinish title before the election of Christian I of Denmark as count of Holstein in 1460. Several earlier monarchs physically ruled Holstein, but they didn't use a separate title for the area. The Holsteinish title was used from 1460 and henceforth by all future monarchs until the death of Frederick IX in 1972. Since the German titles has lost all practical content following the German-Danish war in 1864, Queen Margrethe II decided to abolish them completely when she ascended the throne in 1972. This decision also solved the legal intricacies about whether these titles were inherited according to Danish law (i.e. that females can inherit them) or by the German Salic practice. Before the 1851 Treaty of London, the titles to Holstein, Stormarn, Ditmarschen, Lauenburg and the title in pretence to Oldenburg were considered to be inherited under Salic law, and that of course also applied to the previously abolished title to Delmenhorst. Frederick IV specified in 1721 that the ducal title to Schleswig should be inherited under Danish law, but this status was rejected by Schleswig-Holsteinish nationalists during the 1848-51 war. Since the Duchy of Lauenburg only entered the orbit of the Danish monarch by 1815, the 1846 "Open Letter" of King Christian VIII specified that Lauenburg and Schleswig both followed the same line of succession as Denmark proper. In the same proclamation King Christian VIII admitted that the succession law of Holstein was a matter of dispute but he ruled that Danish succession practice should apply there as well. It should be noted that of the king's many titles, only the titles relating to Denmark, Schleswig, Holstein and Lauenburg held actual content. Following the 1848-1851 Dano-German war, the 1851 treaty of London tried to sort things out by expressly specifying that henceforth, all lands under the Danish monarch should be inherited under the same law as the one applying for the royal title to Denmark, but again, the entire issue was permanently settled in 1972 when the minor titles were simply abolished. Queen Margrethe's decision was also reflected in the 1972 change to the royal coat of arms, which removed the symbols for the Wends, Goths, Holstein, Stormarn, Dithmarschen, Lauenburg and Delmenhorst. The symbols for Oldenburg and Schleswig were maintained though, but without the titles traditionally accompanying them. The Oldenburg symbol is today interpreted as the family's original coat of arms, and hence retained for sentimental reasons. The Schleswig arms is retained "because of special concerns for this region whose history differs in great respects from the history of the rest of the country" [4] which is a more diplomatic way of saying "because the people of this region still has traumatic recollections of the 1864-1920 Prussian rule and because Germany refused to recognize the 1920 border until after Germany's defeat in World War II." 83.89.16.138 (talk) 22:50, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Marriages at Copenhagen

[edit]
  1. Can anybody find where most of earlier kings and queens of Denmark were married before the construction Christiansborg Palace?
  2. Were they married at Copenhagen Castle or Copenhagen Cathedral?
  3. Where in Copenhagen was Margaret I of Denmark married?
  1. Where in Copenhagen was Anne Sophie Reventlow married the second time?

I've been guessing Copenhagen Castle for all the queens but I'm not too sure about this; it could have occurred at Copenhagen Cathedral.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 05:36, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Any is married at Copenhagen Castle. Margrethe II of Denmark is married at the Naval Church of Copenhagen. I think as Margaret I of Denmark was married in the Nidaros Cathedral.Haabet 21:13, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Style

[edit]

style of the danish monarch redirects here, yet it isn't mentioned here. 98.206.155.53 (talk) 18:41, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Christoffersen of Denmark

[edit]

Should Eric Christoffersen of Denmark be considered a King of Denmark? This source said he was elected in 1321 and crowned king in 1324 , so should we include him just like Valdemar the Young? --The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 01:23, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The text you refer to mentions him on a list of Danish princes, and mentions that he was "crowned as king ('crown prince')". In Denmark, the junior co-regents are not included in the standard lists of Danish monarchs. Such a co-regent might be crowned while his father still lived, to avoid inheritance disputes following the (senior) king's death. In other words: no need to crown the next king, since he had already been crowned; Denmark was an elective monarchy until the 1660s (Lex Regia), and during the early Middle Ages, it was not certain that a king would always be succeeded on the throne by his son, though this was normally the case. It seems a fair analogy to compare the junior king with a modern crown prince.
To examine them one at a time:
1) Valdemar the Young is somewhat notable, but he never accomplished anything and power lay in the hands of his father, Valdemar the Victorious.
2) Christoffer's son is completely insignificant; a junior "king" (crown prince) under a powerless puppet king; his father was stripped of his entire country, ended up "ruling" a single house in Sakskøbing, eventually being thrown in jail by his creditors who'd taken over the country.
3) "Valdemar III" (1325-1329) was an underage boy installed as a puppet king by foreign creditors that ruled in his name. Not to put too fine a point on it, it is hard to decide whether Christoffer or "Valdemar III" was the most worthless and powerless "king" in Danish history, but my personal hunch would be to award this title to Christoffer while not considering "Valdemar III" a legitimate monarch at all. This line of reasoning might also explain the exclusion of "Valdemar III" (1325-1329) from the list of monarchs on the website of the Danish monarchy. [5] While highly dubious, (he was underage, under the complete control of Denmark's main creditor, Gerhard III of Holstein), "Valdemar III" (1325-1329) is somewhat more likely to be included in the list of monarchs, since Valdemar Atterdag is also referred to Valdemar IV, so his inclusion makes the numbers fit. While Valdemar III himself is dubious and insignificant, he is somewhat notable due to the "Constitutio Valdemariana", which was issued in his name by Gerhard III of Holstein, who was also this "law's" main beneficary.
The most dubious of the three is Christoffer's son, Erik. For what it's worth, I'm not an expert on particular era, but I am a native Dane, hold a cand.mag. in history, and have read quite my fair share of books on Danish history during the last 30 years, but Christoffer's son doesn't ring a bell at all. He is even more obscure than the "Scanian Oluf" which is never included either.
While not standard practice, I seem to recall occationally having seen Valdemar the Young referred to as "Valdemar III", and he is referred to by that title on his tomb in Sorø Ringsted, but I don't recall whether this inscription is original. Numbering Valdemar the Young as "Valdemar III" might also explain why Valdemar Atterdag is referred to as Valdemar IV, again excluding the underage puppet "Valdemar III" (1325-1329) installed by the Holstein creditors.
The similar list on the Danish wikipedia seems rather traditional since it excludes both Valdemar the Young or Christoffer's son, but does include "Valdemar III" (1325-1329). The list on the website of the Danish monarchy excludes both Valdemar the Young, Christoffer's son, and "Valdemar III" while its text briefly mentions Valdemar the Young as Valdemar II's chosen successor and "Valdemar III" as a puppet installed by foreign powers. Christoffer's son isn't mentioned at all.[6] In my opinion, both the exclusion and inclusion of "Valdemar III" (1325-1329) in the main list might work, but Christoffer's son and Valdemar the Young should be excluded from the main list, but can be referred to in accompanying text. Valentinian T / C 14:27, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of Danish monarchs. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:08, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gorm's reign

[edit]

What is the historical basis for assigning a year to the beginning of Gorm's reign. I am unaware of any evidence that allows this to be determined. Agricolae (talk) 19:13, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

According to Adam of Bremen he reigned in 936, and his son Harald Bluetooth was alive and old/grown enough to have his own opinions on various matters. What we don't know is when Gorm began his reign. Before the dendrochronological dating of the burial chamber that many (but not all) scholars belive to be the chamber of Gorm the Old, his reign was often listed as c. 930 - c. 943 in Danish textbooks - but these years was no more than 'qualified' assumptions. Oleryhlolsson (talk) 09:09, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, according to the same Adam, Hardegon (usually interpreted as Harthacnut) succeeded Sigtrygg, son of Gnupa, during the tenure of Archbishop Hoger (909-915/7), and he then reigned for about 30 years. Were Gorm to succeed him, then a 936 date is reasonable. However, this conflicts with Widukind, who shows Gnupa leading the Danes in 934, and there just isn't time to fit in Sigtrygg and a long reign for Hardegon within two years. Adam's chronology is thus problematic, particularly if we assume that Gorm was ruling 'Denmark', as opposed to 'in part of Denmark' at the time he rebuffed Archbishop Unni. The alternative is to go with the version represented by Olaf Tryggvassons saga, and have Gorm defeating Gnupa, which one can then place in the 934-936 range, but one can't do this without impeaching Adam as a source for the whole Hardegon scenario, and one has to be careful in concluding he is entirely out to lunch for one part of his narrative, yet entirely accurate for the other. I can live with ca. 936, though I would prefer a stronger indication of the uncertainty (for example "ca. 936?" or something similar).Agricolae (talk) 21:15, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note that before Gorm, and probably also including most of the reign of Gorm, Denmark probably wasn't unified. There was likely multiple "king of the Danes". Besides, we can't really trust most of the sources from that time which is why kings predating the beginning of history in Denmark (the raising of the Jelling stones and what is documented on them) are considered pre-historic and legendary. Carewolf (talk) 09:31, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I for one don't agree with the scholars that identifies/interpret Harthacnut as Hardegon so I think we should be carefull about this assumption. This line of thinking was more or less blown apart (deconstructed if I should use a 'finer' word) by Lis Jacobsen in 1929. I know, that some historians in the 1980s have tried to rehabiltate the notion, that Hardegon and Harthacnut is one and the same person, but I must admit, that to this day I haven't read a convincing disprove of Lis Jacobsen's line of arguments. I therefore tend to se Hardegon more like a commander or chief of the army than an actual king. About Gorms reign I would think it probably would best cover and easily explain the uncertanties about his reign if we wrote something like ? - 936 - c. 958 or  ? - 936 [first mentioned] - c. 958 Oleryhlolsson (talk) 11:42, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, there is the other hypothesis - that Hardecnudth Vurm appearing in some editions of Adam without the 'filius' is the original, and means that Gorm and Harthacnut were the same person: [7]. I don't think this is very common, but I have seen it before. Agricolae (talk) 17:47, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, I have read this interpretation too - it's hardly convincing, and Lis Jacobsen, for one, also renounced / rejected this posibility categorically. Oleryhlolsson (talk) 19:26, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on List of Danish monarchs. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:08, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:07, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Inconsistent date listing

[edit]

I read "House of Pomerania (1396–1439)" and below it "1412 – 1439". I am well aware of who was wielding the power until 1412 (Margaret I) but, still, the dates should be consistent and use 1396.

ICE77 (talk) 22:43, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Length of Margrethe II & Frederik X's reigns

[edit]

Why are Margrethe II & Frederik X's reigns marked as one day longer, then they actually are? GoodDay (talk) 16:59, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Frederik X: house?branch?

[edit]

We know for a genealogical fact that Frederik X belongs to the House of Monpezat. What's to say he considers himself a member of the House of Oldenburg, Glücksburg branch? Is that a fact at all? Do we have any reliable source to substantiate such a thing? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:09, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We do have this page from their official website which celebrates 150 years of Glücksburg monarchs occupying the Danish throne. Unless an official announcement is made that says the ruling house is the House of Monpezat, I think it is safe to assume that there has been no change in the name of the ruling royal house (similar to House of Windsor). Keivan.fTalk 02:28, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In connection with the sucession of the throne, factual information will be updated continuously on kongehuset.dk.

I guess we are in for a ride with what this primary source(?) might update their page with. When that disclaimer disappears for example and Fredrick X isn't listed there will we take it as a non inclusion or if he is listed there what will we update House of Glücksburg with? This will be fun! 2A02:1406:1:23F7:39FA:4650:1DC0:291B (talk) 17:17, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I assume we just have to wait for an announcement of some sort, which secondary sources will most likely report on. In the absence of such announcement, the "status quo" should be maintained. Keivan.fTalk 20:01, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Refer to Talk:Frederik X#RFC on House for further comments and debate on the issue. Keivan.fTalk 20:04, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Greenland

[edit]

Is there any proof of any political union between the Greenland Norse settlement and any state of the Kalmar Union? EliasHalldor (talk) 20:43, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Danish_monarchs&oldid=1257606422"