Talk:Denmark-Norway/Archive 06-1010

Please inform me what was the act or like in 1536, as the article says that Denmark and Norway were at that date amalgamated. ????

In my knowledge, they continued until 1660 as officially separate states, Norway was hereditary and Denmark elective, officially only in personal union. Only in 1660, a formal amalgamation took place. ??? 62.78.105.242 07:46, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

The kingdom of Denmark is the kingdom of Denmark

Please don't rename the kingdom of Denmark to Denmark-Norway. --Comanche cph 16:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC) This article needs to be repaired. --Comanche cph 18:24, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

"Repair" is the wrong word, and Denmark-Norway is the CORRECT term used by historians in both Denmark and Norway. Norway was formerly an independent kingdom and the official titles of the Kings of Denmark at the time was "King of Denmark and Norway, Duke of Schleswig, Holstein, Stormarn, Ditmarsch (Ditmarsken), Count of Oldenburg and Delmenhorst." (note: 2x King)

Norway did not follow Danske Lov (Christian V's Code of Denmark) but his similar "Code of Norway" (Norske Lov). The Dukes of Gottorp also distinguished strongly between Norway and Denmark, since this family claimed to be "Heirs to Norway" but they didn't have the same claim to the throne of Denmark. Trying to rename the former union, to simply "Denmark" is simply incorrect, since it ignores the fact that at the union was comprised of several components with different relations between them: 1) Denmark (Jutland north of the Kongeå river, Funen, Zealand), 2) Norway, 3) Schleswig (a fief of Denmark, but not subject to modern Danish laws, e.g. covered by the "Code of Jutland" (Jyske Lov) but not the Code of Denmark (Christian V's Danske Lov). 4) Holstein a fief of Germany, ruled by the Danish kings but under German law, not Danish law. The Faroes, Iceland and Greenland were territories of Norway, but the colonies in the West Indies, Africa and India were under the sovereignty of the Union.

The distinction is particularly relevant in relation to Holstein which was only annexed to Denmark 1806-1815. At all other times, it was considered an independent country in a personal union with Denmark (and Norway), and calling Holstein for "Denmark" can only be described as factually incorrect. Valentinian ^(talk) 20:51, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

It doesnt matter. They was still the kingdom of Denmark. Today Greenland also is governed by it's own, but still a kingdom of Denmark. Sorry mate, but i am right in this. I don't rename any union? This is wrong to call it "kingdom of Denmark-Norway" There has been no kingdom with that name. --Comanche cph 20:58, 7 August 2006 (UTC) Holstein is anorther story. --Comanche cph 21:22, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm sceptical to calling Denmark-Norway a "former state", but I must also strongly object to any wording that implies Norway was a part of the kingdom of Denmark since this simply is not true. Perhaps "disolved union" or something similar would be better. Greenland was part of the Kingdom of Norway until 1814 and the treaty of Kiel. Fornadan (t) 21:27, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean this not is true that Norway was in the kingdom of Denmark that time? The big politics was governed by Cristian 4th. of Denmark. And all writings was in Danish. --Comanche cph 21:33, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Christian ruled a conglomerate of polities among which Denmark was by far the most influential. However he governed Norwas as King of Norway which always remained at least de jure separate. The laws have been mentioned above. Before the introduction of absolutism the heir often used the title "Prince of Norway" since Norway was hereditary and Denmark elective. Fornadan (t) 21:50, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

The term Denmark-Norway is not a new construction. It was also used by a number of works mentioned by Salomonsens Konversationsleksikon published 80 years ago. A few examples: [1] "Danmark-Norges traktater" (1905) (bottom left), "Dansk-norsk historisk Bibliotek" (1815) (right column), "Danmark-Norges Historie 1720-1814", I-VII (1891-1912) [2], "Danmark-Norges udenrigske Historie 1791-1807", I-II (1875, same page)

Denmark-Norway can best be compared to similar constructions between Poland and Lithuania or - perhaps better - between England and Scotland; the same person governing more than one country. This is the reason why the current constitution of Denmark prohibits the king from ruling more than one country unless Parliament grants him permission to do so. It is quite true that Denmark was the powerhouse of the entire construction but the other portions were not annexed by it. The wars with Holstein-Gottorp clearly prove this.

Denmark was officially an elective monarchy until the passing of Lex Regia in 1660, and until then many Danish kings stressed that they were heirs to Norway by blood, so if Denmark had chosen a different king at any these points in history, the union of Denmark and Norway would have collapsed resulting in the Oldenburgers ruling only Norway. It was this scenario that the Gottorpers were pointing to when they stressed that *they* were heirs to the Norwegian throne, and they continued stressing this long after the introduction of Lex Regia.

On a side note; Commanche, you commented about Christian IV, but I hope you're aware that e.g. many of this king's official paintings at Rosenborg use inscriptions in German, not Danish. I visited Rosenborg last weekend, and I checked. During the time of Frederick III, the language of the court was German, not Danish. It is an old joke among historians to begin debating if Frederick III actually spoke any Danish at all. From a cultural point of view, many of the Oldenburg monarchs were more German than Danish.

But to get back to the point: Constitutionally speaking, Norway was generally considered a separate realm and different from Denmark, although Norway had very little effective independence. The Great Danish Encyclopedia describes the situation after 1536 thus: "Den fælles statsadministration regnede fortsat med to riger, men Norges position blev lydrigets." (The joint governmental administration continued to count two realms, but Norway's position became subordinate to Denmark) (see the article "Norge"). The word "Former state" might not be ideal, so perhaps "dissolved union" is better. I agree with the points summed up by User:Fornadan. Valentinian ^(talk) 23:13, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

It's a term! Not a kingdom. Not a united kingdom! But the kingdom of Denmark. It's like Sweden-Finland. --Comanche cph 08:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Denmark-Norway is a historical state and a former union of two kingdoms, three duchies and two counties. Calling the Duchy of Holstein or the County of Delmenhorst for "Denmark" is factually incorrect. They were ruled by the kings of Denmark, but also part of the Holy Roman Empire. The name "Sweden-Finland" is a more recent construction, but "Denmark-Norway" does not fall into this category. Valentinian ^(talk) 08:54, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

No it was ruled by one king. It's not two kingdoms. The Norwegian royal line was dead that time. Today the Kingdom of Norway comes from the Danish dynasty. It's the same as Sweden-Finland. A term. --Comanche cph 09:07, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

You think in terms of the way the system works today, not the way it worked back then. In a dynastic state the physical person of the ruler holds the territories together, not a law. The same ruler could easily hold more than one crown, meaning that he ruled on different conditions and with different powers in several of his realms. Europe's history has many such examples; the history of the Habsburg Dynasty is full of them, just to name the most obvious candidate. Valentinian ^(talk) 09:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Another famous example is Sigismund III Vasa who ruled both Sweden and Poland-Lithuania at the same time. A third example is Augustus III of Poland who ruled both as Elector of Saxony and king of Poland-Lithuania at the same time. Valentinian ^(talk) 09:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

No the big politics was decided in København. It's like Greenland today. --Comanche cph 09:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

For the benefit of Commanche, I'll write this post in Danish.

Det er irrelevant hvilket system man bruger i dag, men dengang kunne den samme hersker kan have forskellige magtbeføjelser i forskellige riger eller provinser. Det er ren og skær middelalderjura, ikke noget som helst andet. Om den person bor fast i København eller rejser rundt konstant og holder Danehof i Nyborg, Roskilde og mange andre steder, det kommer ikke den sag ved. Din sammenligning med Grønland holder ikke vand, for Grønland var oprindeligt et norsk biland, som Norge (og Danmark) tabte kontakten med omkring 1410, hvis ikke før. I 1700-tallet genoprettede man dansk-norsk suverænitet ved at grundlægge en række kolonier på øen. Disse blev i 1953 annekteret under Danmark, hvilket betyder at Folketinget afskaffede de grønlandske kolonier, slog områderne sammen til ét og samtidig indførte dansk lov på øen. Almindelige danske love var ikke gyldige deroppe før da. Fra 1953-78 blev Grønland regeret efter dansk lov. I 1979 giver Folketinget grønlænderne selvstyre, hvilket betyder at en del magt blev overført til Godthåb / Nuuk. Men det eksempel er totalt anderledes fra hvordan en fyrstestat fungerede. Mange fyrster ønskede rigtignok at få samme magtbeføjelser, samme skattesystem, samme mål- og vægtsystem og samme lovbog indført overalt de regerede, men fordi den lokale adel normalt var både traditionsbunden og vogtede over deres egne særrettigheder, skete det kun sjældent. Det var politisk meget lettere at fortsætte som man altid havde gjort selvom det store billede hurtigt blev til en gang rod. Det administrative system i Sønderjylland blev f.eks. først ryddet op efter området kom under preussisk styre. Indtil da var det et gigantisk rod. Hele Frankrig fik først samme mål- og vægtsystem efter den Franske Revolution og alle dele af Frankrig fik først samme lovgivning efter Napoleon tog magten. Under de franske konger havde de forskellige dele af Frankrig haft forskellige love, privilegier (særrettigheder), forskellige skattesystemer, forskellige vægtsystmer osv. osv. Norge blev på et tidspunkt annekteret til Danmark, men det skete først sent i processen og Danmark og Norge blev aldrig underlagt samme lovgivning. Den annektion blev som bekendt heller ikke anerkendt af især Gottorperne, som var en meget magtfuld gren af det danske kongehus. Der er en god grund til at mange mønter præget i København kun viser det danske våbenskjold, mens mange af dem præget i Kongsberg kun viser Norges våbenskjold. Artiklen siger korrekt nok at navnet "Danmark" ofte blev brugt for hele konstruktionen, men det udtryk er lige så upræcist som når folk kalder Nederlandene for "Holland".

Overgangen fra Fyrstestat til Nationalstat hænger sammen med opblomstringen af den filosofiske og politiske retning, der kaldes Nationalismen omkring midten af 1800-tallet. Den sagde kort sagt at hvert folk skulle have sin egen stat at bo i. Derfor kom alle multinationale stater - dvs. både den danske Helstat - men også Østrig og De Forenede Nederlande (Holland/Belgien/Luxembourg) under pres interent - fx gjorde belgierne oprør mod "Holland", ungarerne gjorde oprør mod Østrig, polakkerne mod russerne og rumænerne mod ungarerne. Grunden til at Danmark overhovedet røg ud i Treårskrigen i 1848 var at Holsten var medlem af det Tyske Forbund hvilket gav de andre tyske stater ret til lovligt at blande sig i Holstens interne anliggender, men omvendt var resten af Monarkiet ikke medlem af dette forbund. Det er årsager som disse, der gør at både danske, norske og tyske historikere taler om det "danske monarki" som fællesbetegnelse for hele konstruktionen. Den centrale person i dette system er kongen af Danmark, men udtrykket dækker også over at klaveret spillede anderledes i nogle af hans andre lande. Du forveksler kort sagt "Det danske monarki" med "Kongeriget Danmark". De to var ikke synonymer dengang, det blev de først efter nederlaget i 1864. Valentinian ^(talk) 10:21, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Tak for læsningen. :o). Men det forklarer stadig ikke at Norge ikke var det Danske kongerige dengang. Husk også på at Norges flag var det Dannebrog. --Comanche cph 10:42, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

En fyrstestat har normalt kun 1 flag, for hvis fyrstens hær eller flåde brugte mere end et ville der opstå forvirring på slagmarken. Men det er stadig ikke korrekt at omtale Norge som "Danmark" på det tidspunkt. Når man i samtiden brugte udtrykket "Tvillingerigerne" / "Dobbeltmonarkiet" så var det ikke grebet ud af den blå luft. Af de årsager jeg har nævnt ovenover. Valentinian ^(talk) 10:57, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Danmark har aldrig været et fyrstedømme [3] Jeg vil ikke omtale Norge som det var Danmark. Men Norge var under det danske monarki. Dobbeltmonarkiet var sandsynligvis et udtryk/term af fremmede, da der var opstået forvirring omkring Norges suverænitet. De fleste gange blev Danmark brugt til at omtale både Danmark og Norge i den tid. --Comanche cph 11:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Comanche, again you find yourself in dispute with several merited editors over a subject you alone have objected. Maybe you have something to learn? I will not repeat the well founded and exhaustive arguments given above, but add my vote of agreement and add some references supporting them.

• Aschehoug og Gyldendals Store Norske Leksikon (BRI-DEK), Kunnskapsforlaget, 1999 (among others, pages 609, 621).
• Norsk Forsvarshistorie Krigsmakt og kongemakt, Ersland & Holm, Eide forlag, 2000, espeshially from page 216 onwards.
• Norsk historie 1625-1814, Dyrvik, Det Norske Samlaget, 2004, p. 86 for one.

Inge 12:07, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

(after edit conflict.) Commanche, du blander to begreber sammen fordi ordene ligner hinanden. Et "Fürstentum" er en tysk opfindelse, for Fürst er en særlig rang på tysk, på linie med hertug. Titlen blev aldrig indført i hverken Danmark eller Norge, og derfor bruges ordet brugt lidt anderledes på dansk. Situationen bliver så forplumret af, at den tyske betydning af ordet hoppede over grænsen dengang Prinsesse Benedicte blev gift med Prins Richard af Sayn-Wittgenstein-Berleburg, for Berleburg er netop et Fürstentum / "principality". På historikerdansk bruges en fyrste også som synonym på en monark generelt, og når historikere nogen gange vælger at bruge det netop det udtryk, skyldes det at man derved kan undgå at skulle udpensle i detaljer om personen er konge, hertug, "fyrste" (i den tyske betydning), storfyrste (i den russiske betydning), storhertug, eller noget helt andet. Det er for at man derved kan udtale sig generelt om mekanismerne i den slags stater, for den er normalt den samme.

Den type statsdannelse, hvor en enkelt person holder konstruktionen sammen (fx pga. arv, men ikke pga. en lov hedder på dansk netop en "fyrstestat". På fagsprog en "dynastisk stat".) Som sagt bruger man på tysk ordet "Fürst" i en anden betydning, og det kan være forvirrende at den betydning er hoppet over grænsen. I øvrigt har jeg læst mange gamle bøger for år tilbage, der brugte udtrykket "Dobbeltmonarkiet" eller "Tvillingerigerne". De udtryk er ikke af ny dato. Valentinian ^(talk) 12:10, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Norway was under the Danish kingdom that time and used Danish flag. Things was decided in Denmark by the Danish monarchs. The kingdom of Denmark have never "officiel" changed it's name. The kingdom of Denmark is and was the kingdom of Denmark. Norway-Denmark is a "term"! Not a kingdom!

• Frederick II of Denmark
• Christian IV of Denmark

So you are saying that these articles are wrong?

Look what i found to you in the website of "Royal Danish Ministry of foreign affairs"

• http://www.um.dk/publikationer/um/english/denmark/kap6/6-4.asp

--Comanche cph 17:07, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Please refrain from foul language

I would like to point out, for the benefit of non-Scandinavian speakers, that user Comanche_cph called me "fjeldabe", which roughly translates as "mountain ape", in his last edit summary for this article. That same edit was, by the way, his fourth revert in 91 minutes. I find it very sad that people feel the need to break wikipedia rules of behaviour in this fashion. I hope comanche_cph is not surprised that people are unpersuaded by his arguments when he pursue them in this fashion. --Barend 17:00, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Relaxing dude. It's a normal saying. No hard feelings ;) --Comanche cph 17:10, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

(after several edit conflicts)

"You know it to be true" is a cliche from Star Wars, not an argument in a discussion. Countries back then *did not* have official versions of their name. That is something a number of countries later decided to write in their constitutions but constitutions were not used back then, and such petty information was generally not added before the 20th century. You asked for references for the use of the phrase "Kingdom of Denmark-Norway", so here are a few references: [4] (The Danish Ministry of Education), [5] (a professional portal on Danish history, footnote 1 - note that this is the name of somebody's thesis (Danish: speciale)), Tøjhusmuseet [6], Museum Tusculanums Forlag (a publishing house, specialising in history) [7], the largest website about Danish naval history [8], a Norwegian article [9] and here is a little more Norwegian material [10], [11], [12], [13] Inge has provided other references, I have done the same before, and I could find more, but I see no reason to waste any more of my time. The articles about monarchs are named accordingly to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles), urging to use the name most easily recognized. Section IV is particularly interesting. Conclusion: So Denmark-Norway can be described as both two kingdom and a union of two kingdoms. I have no problems with Barend's edit. However, I DO have a problem with you with calling him nationalist names. Valentinian ^(talk) 17:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

"May the force be with you. Always" Non of this tell about it. Please stop using false links. Look at www.um.dk and www.denmark.dk. It was ONE kingdom. Not two kingdoms. --Comanche cph 17:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Comanche: When you insult other users you can not expect to be taken seriously. It will not be received in a relaxed manor. It is not a normal saying at all and hard feelings will arise when insults are being handed out. Inge 01:23, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Kingdom of Denmark-Norway or kingdoms of Denmark and Norway

As the debate above has shown, Denmark and Norway were two different kingdoms. I have therefore made a change to the start of the article, removing the wording Kingdom of Denmark-Norway, changing it to simply Denmark-Norway...consisting of the kingdoms of Denmark and Norway. I consider this a more precise way of putting it, but am of course ready to bow to consensus opinion if people disagree. --Barend 17:15, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

So please tell me Barend. Who was the king of Norway that time?

At what time? In 1536 the King of Denmark was Christian III. In 1814 it was Frederick VI. And such like in between. john k 19:02, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

There was ONE kingdom. Norway was as much part of Denmark as Jutland. --Comanche cph 17:27, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Norway was certainly not as much part of Denmark as Jutland. It was arguably no more a part of Denmark than Schleswig and Holstein. It was in a personal union with the Danish king, and to some extent an administrative union, but it's incorrect to say that Norway was simply part of Denmark. A comparison might be made with Wales before the 1960s. I do think that in most contexts, "Denmark" is the appropriate term to refer to the whole entity. As in, one would say "in 1626, Denmark intervened in the Thirty Years' War," not "in 1626, Denmark-Norway intervened in the Thirty-Years' War." Similarly, the king should be referred to generally as the "King of Denmark," and not as the "King of Denmark and Norway." Use of the term "Denmark-Norway" should be restricted to discussions of internal administration. john k 19:02, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

John. what source do you use?

• Please tell me then. Witch king did Norway had that time?
• And are these artickles wrong then,-Christian III of Denmark, Frederick II of Denmark, Christian IV of Denmark
• Are "The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Denmark" website wrong? --Comanche cph 20:23, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

On wiki, the convention is to use only the most important title (James I of England, Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor and so on).

No one here denies that Denmark was the dominating country or that "Denmark" is an acceptable shorthand on most occasions. However that is not the same as deliberatly introducing imprecison and inaccuracies into the articles.

That the King of Norway is the same person as the King of Denmark proves nothing. Sweden was not a part of Denmark during the reign of Eric of Pomerania.

If you look at "Kongeloven" anno 1665 [14], you'll see a consistant use of Kongeriger, Danmarckes og Norges Konge, never just "King of Denmark" or "Denmark". Fornadan (t) 21:41, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Stop edit warring. The questions you ask have been answered many times before.

Comanche, this post is a complete waste of time, but to answer the same question *again*: The same person could be the ruler of more than one country, so the kings of Denmark were *also* kings of Norway. That DOES NOT mean that the two countries were completely united. They were closely linked, yes. Completely united, no. This is exactly the same situation as the lands ruled by the Habsburgers. Charles V was not only King of Aragon, Castile and Sicily but also Holy Roman Emperor and Duke of Austria all at the same time - just to name a famous example - but Germany was not part of Spain, and Spain was not part of Germany. A similar situation existed in Poland-Lithuania for more than 200 years following 1386 and it was the same between England and Scotland 1603-1707. The rulers of Wallachia and Moldavia were also often the same person, but these two countries were not united before 1860 or so. So the Danish and Norwegian example is not unique, it is the way Europe worked back then. This is called a "dynastic state". You also continue to ignore the text of Kongeloven (Lex Regia) which talks of two nations. If you wish the page to look the way you prefer, you have to find sources better than the ones the rest of us have located. You have not done so. Valentinian ^(talk) 22:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

IT WAS NOT TWO KINGDOMS. Norway was ruled by the kingdom of Denmark. That's why Danish became standard written language in Norway. That's Norway used Danish flag. That's why there is not official sources to your statement.

Denmark-Norway has never been a name of any kingdoms. Denmark's official name has always been Denmark.

Denmark-Norway is a term used by some historians. So the reader no getting confused in when Norway is independent and when it not was. --Comanche cph 23:25, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

You asked for souces: they have been provided. See the posts above (7 August) You write "look it up in a dictionary". A dictionary (=ordbog) teaches spelling, I presume you meant an Encyclopedia (=leksikon)? I DID. See my post above (with the timestamp 23:13, 7 August 2006): (quote) The Great Danish Encyclopedia describes the situation after 1536 thus: "Den fælles statsadministration regnede fortsat med to riger, men Norges position blev lydrigets." (The joint governmental administration continued to count two realms, but Norway's position became subordinate to Denmark) (see the article "Norge"). (unquote) Look at Kongeloven which expressly speaks in a plural about the King's "TERRITORIES AND COUNTRIES" (article XX, article XXIV., article XXX and the postscript), "Norske Lov" (Code of Norway), art. 1 and 5 (for starters) [15], "Danske Lov" (Code of Denmark) [16], art. 1-1-1, and 2-1-1 (for starters). See also: da:Danmark-Norge (Danmark-Norge var betegnelsen for tvillingeriget efter Kalmarunionens endelige sammenbrud i 1523, da Sverige erklærede sig uafhængig), da:Diskussion:Danmark-Norge (Begrebet Danmark-Norge er en politisk betegnelse, men landene blev set som to lande, men med en fælles konge), de:Dänisch-norwegische Personalunion (Die Dänisch-Norwegische Personalunion war ein Staatenbund zwischen Dänemark und Norwegen von 1380 bis 1814, de facto unter dänischer Vorherrschaft.), nn:Danmark-Norge (Danmark-Norge er ei nemning på kongeriket Danmark og kongeriket Noreg, irekna Island, Grønland og Færøyane. I tida frå 1387 til 1814 var desse kongerika styrd av ein sams konge, i ein personalunion.), no:Danmark-Norge (Danmark-Norge brukes ofte for å referere til kongerikene Danmark og Norge, inkludert de norske koloniene Island, Grønland og Færøyene, som var forent i en personalunion fra 1387 til 1536 (traktatfestet siden 1450), og deretter i en realunion (helstaten) fra 1660 til 1814.), sv:Danmark-Norge (Danmark-Norge är en ofta brukad benämning för de förenade kungarikerna Danmark och Norge. Det inkluderade de norska skattländerna Island, Grönland och Färöarna. De bägge länderna var i personalunion mellan 1387 och 1814.). This articles describe the construction as a union of two components. Valentinian ^(talk) 09:13, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Omg you linking to other wikipedia articles witch just are mirrors to this. Look at "Ministry of foreign affairs of Denmark" - http://www.um.dk/publikationer/um/english/denmark/kap6/6-4.asp Are they wrong???

And why can't you just tell me who the king of Norway was??? --Comanche cph 10:00, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

They are all listed here Fornadan (t) 10:22, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

No they are NOT. Just answer the questions!!! Is it to hard for you, because you know i'm right. Look what i just found on Iceland "From 1387 on, Iceland was in practice ruled by Denmark," -Not Norway. --Comanche cph 10:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I would like to point out that the "coronation charter of 1536" (aka Håndfesting) which Knud J.V. Jespersen is referring to in the link provided by Comanche cph was never implemented by the King. The Håndfesting was a practice in which the nobility of Denmark (Riksråd) stipulated what they wanted the king to do in order for them to elect him King of Denmark. The fact that Norway was a hereditary monarchy was a constant thorn in the eye of the nobility as it lowered their control over the king. If they chose not to elect the crown prince the union of Denmark and Norway would be dissolved. This made it equally important for the king to maintain Norway as a separate monarchy. In 1536 the nobility had an advantageous position towards the king, as he needed their military and financial support to control Norway, so they demanded he make Norway a province of Denmark or they would not elect him. This was never implemented as Christian III and all subsequent kings continued to use the title King of Norway. There were also separate hailings of the King of Norway in Norway in 1548, 1591 and 1610. It is also important to note the way Jespersen has chosen his words. He states the personal union of Denmark and Norway as a fact, but only states that the coronation charter emphasises "that Norway was as much part of Denmark as Jutland." In addition I point out that the coronation charter did not say that Norway was a part of Denmark, but that it should be made a "ledemod", a subordinate of Denmark. I have slim hopes of Comanche being persuaded by this information, but maybe other readers will find it interesting. Inge 14:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Salomonsens Konversationsleksikon also concludes that this provision in the coronation charter was never implemented: (p. 839-40, [17] and [18] (in Danish)). Christian's coronation proclamation primarily makes sense in the context that Denmark had just experienced a civil war. When Christian made this proclamation, he'd hardly ruled Copenhagen for two months, so his position as monarch was still not secure. Both in regards to Norway, and because he would have no incentive to appear weak at the same time as he was about to crush the power of the Catholic Church in Denmark. But it was still little more than an election manifesto. And it was neither the first nor the last time that the Kings of Denmark failed to honour their own promises. Valentinian ^(talk) 15:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Example of Personal Union

I think a good example of a personal union is given in the United Kingdom article:

The United Kingdom is a political union made up of four constituent countries: England, Scotland, and Wales on the island of Great Britain, and Northern Ireland. The United Kingdom also has several overseas territories, including Gibraltar and the Falkland Islands. The Crown has a relationship with the dependencies of the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands; they are part of the British Islands but not part of the United Kingdom and are a possession of the Crown. A constitutional monarchy, the United Kingdom has close relationships with fifteen other Commonwealth Realms that share the same monarch — Queen Elizabeth II — as head of state.

and

The present United Kingdom is the latest of several unions formed over the last 840 years. Scotland and England have existed as separate political entities since the 9th century. Wales, under the control of English monarchs from the Statute of Rhuddlan in 1284, became part of the Kingdom of England by the Laws in Wales Act 1535. With the Act of Union 1707, the independent states of England and Scotland, having been in personal union since 1603, agreed to a political union as the Kingdom of Great Britain.

The Act of Union 1800 united the Kingdom of Great Britain with the Kingdom of Ireland, which had been gradually brought under English control between 1541 and 1691, to form the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. Independence for the now Republic of Ireland in 1922 followed the partition of the island of Ireland two years previously, with six of the nine counties of the province of Ulster remaining within the UK, which then changed to the current name in 1927.

From 1603 to 1707, England and Scotland had the same monarch (personal union), but were not the same realm - even today Scotland has a different legal system to England. The Scots get quite upset if you refer to them as English. The Channel Islands are the personal posession of the monarch in her role as the Duke of Normandy (the situation is slightly more complicated thatn that, but the simplification will do). The current monarch of the U.K. is also head of state of 15 commonwealth countries - and you definitely would not say that Australia was part of England! WLD 14:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, Britain was in personal union with Hannover from 1714 to 1837. (Curiously the Hanover dynasty since 1837 have continued to use the same combined coat of arms that William IV bore as king of Britain, rather than the arms of Hanover alone.) —Tamfang 04:35, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Who was the monarchs of Norway?

--Comanche cph 09:05, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

You'll find the answer in the List of Norwegian monarchs. WLD 09:48, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks :). But what is this! It says the monarchs was monarcs of Denmark! That mean there only was one kingdom. --Comanche cph 09:57, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

No - if two realms have the same person as monarch, it does not make them into a single realm. Think of two companies - one that makes furniture and one that makes sandwiches. One person can be the managing director of tha furniture company, and also the managing director of the sandwich company - this does not make them the same company. Only if the two companies agree legally to merge and become a single legal entity would it become a single company. They do not become a single company just by having the same person as managing director. It is the same for realms/kingdoms. Two kingdoms can have the same person as monarch. That does not make them into the same kingdom. The current Queen of England is also queen of many other countries, for example, Australia and Canada. This does not make Australia, Canada and England all one single kingdom/realm. WLD 10:12, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

You say it yourself. "united kingdom" not "united kingdoms".

Anorther thing is that this was not like "united kingdom". The Danish monarch was the one who ruled in Norway. And Danish the standard writed language. Norwegian bokmål (Norways oficial language's today, spoken by about 90%), is a Norwegianized form for Danish. Norway's kingdom of today, is from the Danish dynasty.

This text is copied from the "Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs" Like it or not, but this is the true.

Christian III took over in 1536 after victory in the civil war. At that time, Denmark included Scania, Halland, Blekinge, Gothland and Oesel. Furthermore, Norway and its extensive North Atlantic possessions (the Faeroe Islands, Iceland and Greenland) had formed a personal union with Denmark since the Kalmar Union was established in 1397. The section concerning Norway in Christian III's coronation charter of 1536 emphasised that Norway was as much part of Denmark as Jutland. Furthermore, the Oldenburg monarch was Duke of Holstein and also Duke of Schleswig, which was under an oath of fealty to the Danish Crown.

http://www.um.dk/publikationer/um/english/denmark/kap6/6-4.asp

--Comanche cph 01:06, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

The quote you give notes that Christian III claimed that Norway was as much part of Denmark as Jutland, but the text itself does not seem to buy into that. It notes Scania, Halland, etc. as explicitly part of Denmark, but does not say the same thing for Norway. The fact that Bokmål is similar to Danish, and that the Norwegian royal family is a cadet branch of the Danish, are completely irrelevant to the question. Most Irish people now speak English, rather than Irish. Does that mean that Ireland used to be part of England? Does the fact that the Greek royal family was also a cadet branch of the Danish royal family mean that Greece was once part of Denmark? Of course not, in both cases (well, especially in the latter case). Nobody is denying that Denmark ruled Norway for several hundred years, just that Norway was actually technically part of Denmark. Given that, in 1536, Norway actually had different laws of succession from Denmark, it seems hard to argue that Christian III was actually correct when he said that Norway was just as much part of Denmark as Jutland. A similar instance to this would be James VI and I's claim to be "King of Great Britain" when he inherited England in 1603. It is certainly a fact that he did this, but it's also a fact that England and Scotland are generally considered to have remained separate kingdoms until 1707. This proclamation seems arguably to be the same deal. john k 01:49, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I feel this issue has been resolved now, but I would like to add some interesting information: Already in 1537 the year after the Håndfesting Chritian III issued coins where he used the title King of Norway[19]. It seems the king wasn't even planning to honour his promise to the Danish nobles.Inge 12:00, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I hoped so too, but then I saw today's edit on da:Danmark-Norge. I'm getting tired of this. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 12:18, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

"Norge blev løsrevet fra Danmark i 1814 ved Freden i Kiel. I Norge blev perioden 1380-1814 særligt i 1800-tallet betegnet som "400-årsnatten."

From danish wikipedia. --Comanche cph 12:56, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

So we will not only have to repeat ourselves on different articles, but also on different wikis. I see the Rollo thing is happening there too. Comanche: the information you couldn't get in here isn't any more true on Danish wiki. Inge 13:11, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Inge, but i'm not the one who has writed it. The 400 years night is a term used by Norwegian historicans. --Comanche cph 13:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

As it seems you are trying to use the term 400 years night to somehow prove that Norway was a part of Denmark I would just like to point out that if that is the case you have misunderstood the meaning behind that expression. Inge 13:36, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Right. Norge blev løsrevet fra Danmark i 1814 --Comanche cph 13:41, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

What is your point? The union ended in 1814. Nobody is contesting that. Inge 13:53, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

You can call it what you want. But Norway did't have a own king that time. Therefor Norway was a part of Denmark, more than a union. --Comanche cph 14:12, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Look, you have been explaned to exhaustion that two countries can have the same king without being the same country. Please realise that this point is not up for discussion and move on. Inge 14:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Two countries but one kingdom. --Comanche cph 14:22, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Two kingdoms, one king. But at least you realise Norway was a different country and not a part of Denmark. Inge 14:25, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

A part of the kingdom of Denmark, as i had said from the beginning. --Comanche cph 14:27, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

And as the rest of us have said from the beginning, you still don't understand how dynastic states worked back then. Between 1380 and 1864, the "Danish monarchy" simply wasn't the same as the "Kingdom of Denmark". Labelling the "Unitary State" as simply "Denmark" is also incorrect on da:wiki as any Holsteiner could tell you. And btw, if you wish to make edits to da:wiki, try making them a little more constructive than just vandalising the article on Odense simply because I live there. Odense is not a "city for gays", but I suppose you could call "Lambda" if you want more information on these people. I'm afraid you leave me no other choice other than contacting a da:wiki administrator. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 23:19, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Personal unions, and such like

Comanche ought, perhaps, to read John Elliott's article on "A Europe of Composite Monarchies," describing the way Europe in the Early Modern Period was rarely composed of states in the way we think of them now, but rather various more or less distinct units, united in the person of a single ruler.

But it's worth noting that the degree of connection could be very different. On the one hand you have two states that are more or less completely distinct, but share a common ruler. The best example I can think of in this regard is Great Britain and Hanover. The two countries had completely different political systems, and because the dominant part (Great Britain) was a constitutional monarchy, while the smaller part (Hanover) was an absolute monarchy, there was basically never any integration between the two. Britain still felt compelled to protect Hanover from invasion, but otherwise the person of the king was the only unifying feature - he had separate Hanoverian ministers to advise him on Hanoverian affairs.

More closely connected would be, for instance, the Spanish possessions before 1700. In this case, the fact that the main possession, Castile, was an absolute monarchy, while only the lesser territories had constitutional government, meant that Castile tended to assert its dominance over the other constituent parts. It's also notable that the title of "King of Spain" was used, which in fact did not correspond to any official title held by the King.

One can actually see instances of different levels of personal union in a single example. The Austrian Habsburg territories show a large number of separate units, but some are more connected than others. The provinces of the Bohemian crown (Silesia, Moravia, Bohemia, before 1620 Lusatia) are separate provinces. Each has its own estate, and the ruler has a different title in each. Nevertheless, they are considered something of a unity, and generally shared a monarch for several hundred years. Separate from them, but still in personal union, are the Habsburg Hereditary Lands and the Kingdom of Hungary, which also each have their own separate units. Furthermore, laws of succession are different in each - The Bohemian and Hungarian Crowns are elective, the Hereditary Lands are hereditary. Another example of this could be found in the Spanish Netherlands. These are both in personal union with each other and, as a group, in personal union with the Spanish crown. They have some common institutions (The States-General, a Governor and Court), but each province is nevertheless considered its own unit, with its own rules.

Moving forward, you come to examples of personal unions where one unit is clearly subordinate to another. The clearest example of this is probably the Kingdom of Ireland before 1782. Although it was clearly considered a separate kingdom, and had its own parliament and a viceroy, it was also clearly subordinate to England. Decisions of the Irish parliament had to be approved by the English Privy Council. Furthermore, the Kingdom had no historical identity of its own - it was an English creation in toto, and the crown was permanently united with the English, with no possibility of separation.

Once one has some sense of the variety of things here, It's easier to figure out Norway's status. It seems to me that Norway is more or less like Ireland - it is always considered a separate Kingdom, but is also clearly subordinated to Denmark. Just as Ireland, in spite of its constitutional subordination, was never "part of" England, so Norway was never "part of" Denmark. Obviously, the existence of royal absolutism in Denmark from the mid 17th century onwards also makes things more complicated, but nobody has brought forward any evidence of an official union. As an example, France was not big on personal unions. The King of France before 1589 always held one title "King of France". Other territories taken in still had to be formally annexed, though. Brittany went into personal union as early as 1492, but was only formally annexed in 1532, 40 years later. Lower Navarre and Béarn were inherited in 1589, but were only formally incorporated in 1620. In that case, the King kept the title "King of France and Navarre," but tiny Lower Navarre had become part of France in the way Comanche wants to say Norway became part of Denmark. But it seems to me that what is needed here is some kind of formal document of incorporation, whereby Norway is explicitly made part of the Kingdom of Denmark. Failing that, it was merely a close personal union with a dominant partner. john k 11:36, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Royal titles

Thanks Fornadan, these are the correct links. As far as I remember, the most used version of the full title was "We .... by the Grace of God King of Denmark and Norway, the Wends and the Geats [, Duke of Schleswig, Holstein, Stormarn, and Ditmarsch, Count of Oldenburg and Delmenhorst]" [20] (in Danish something like: Vi ...... af Guds Naade Konge til Danmark og Norge, de Venders og Gothers [, Hertug til Slesvig, Holsten, Stormarn, og Ditmarsken, Greve udi Oldenborg og Delmenhorst]. I don't quite remember when Oldenburg was reclassified as a duchy, but the title of Frederick VI referred to Oldenburg as a duchy [21] Valentinian ^(talk) 12:04, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I believe Oldenburg became a Duchy when it was traded off to the Holstein-Gottorps in 1773, in exchange for their half of Holstein, or alternately when Paul granted it to his cousin the Prince-Bishop of Lübeck. john k 17:40, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

This page [22] have extensive coverage of the styles used by most European monarchs.

It states that Count of Oldenburg and Delmenhorst was replaced with Duke of Oldenburg in 1777 Fornadan (t) 07:00, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

So I was more or less right, then, I guess. john k 15:08, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

The royal line

That the Norwegian royal line died out on the male side 149 years before the personal union of Norway and Denmark is not the reason for the creation of the union. Inge 14:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC) It might have contributed to the weak position Norway had at that time though, but that does not belong in the first section of the article. Inge 14:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

The wording "Norway became a part of the new personal union in 1536" just doesn't make sense. Was Denmark already in a personal union with itself? I believe the old wording was much better both on the above subject and this one. Could someone please take a look at the last edits by Comanche cph to this article? I don't want to revert a third time myself if I don't have to. Inge 15:02, 22 August 2006 (UTC)