Talk:Frederik X/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Untitled

Looks like we've had a bit of a collision... sorry. I just converted and uploaded Fredrik.jpg Motor 20:27, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Tip: The heir to the Danish throne has been born. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.238.3.24 (talk) 08:50, 15 October 2005

I don't think that the Crown Prince is preceded by anybody in the Line of Succession to the Danish Crown. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.210.206.100 (talk) 21:16, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Naming controversy

According to Charles, Frederik will become King Frederick (when his mother dies). Does anyone know a source that confirms a name change associated with a Danish crown prince's accession to the throne? Sakkura 11:24, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

It is not a change of name. Danish kings have alternated between Frederick and Christian for a number of centuries. Charles 11:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Frederik and Christian in Danish; since he is apparently known in the English-speaking countries as Frederik, I don't understand why they would all of a sudden start calling him King Frederick. Also, Frederik is actually a deviation from the traditional Frederik-Christian alternation of the Oldenburg/Glücksburg kings. Sakkura 11:55, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

All Kings Frederick of Denmark so far have been "Frederick" in English... That is what is known. Also, Frederick is not a deviation... Every second sovereign is a Frederick. Margrethe is the deviation. And Frederick isn't an Oldenburg as it is... Charles 12:03, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Well I don't see why people would all of a sudden go from using the Danish spelling (Crown Prince Frederik) to the traditional English spelling (King Frederick). It makes no sense. I suppose you could say Margrethe II is the deviation rather than her son. The alternation has been in use in the line of both Oldenburg and Glücksburg kings which is why I used both of those names. Sakkura 12:21, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

It is mentioned that "all king F... have been Frederick". What is that based on? The article names on Wikipedia? For those could definitely be wrong. In fact, I would contend that a person christened Frederik in Denmark will be Frederik (not Frederick) in ALL countries of the world, though media etc. in those countries might spell it differently - though it would be a misspelling. Indeed, the royal house's official website itself states that Margrethe was born to King Frederik, without the C in the name: [1] - I would recommend using Frederik in this article, and probably renaming all King Frederick articles to King Frederik. It's certainly more correct. Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 14:44, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not more correct, it's just your preference. Of course a Danish website will use the Danish spelling which is similar to the English. Charles 15:06, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Lilac Soul has literally spammed the talk pages of every single Frederick of Denmark with links here to change the name. Charles 15:09, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Note to anyone following Lilac Soul's links to here. This discussion is not about changing the names of all of the Kings Frederick of Denmark to "Frederick" on Wikipedia. This is an English language encyclopedia and the English form of the names of these kings are used. Charles 15:11, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

No, the form generally recognized by English speakers is the one that should be used. As far as I can tell, Crown Prince Frederik is referred to by his native name quite commonly in the English-speaking nations, so this form should be used. They will likely still refer to him by his native name after he becomes King, so I intend to change "King Frederick X" to the native spelling unless anyone objects. Sakkura 16:51, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

The Crown Prince's native name is "Frederik" and the names of his successors are / were spelled the same way. During the 18th century, a few monarchs preferred to refer to themselves as Friedrich (German spelling) but this practice was due to the massive German influence on the administration of the old union and irrelevant for the current topic. Provided that his mother lives on for another 20 years (very likely) who knows how English will spell his name as a monarch at that juncture? We don't normally translate the names of people that are not reigning monarchs, so neither should we in this case. The official websites of the monarchy [2] [3] and the Danish Foreign Ministry [4] both use the native spelling of his name and I haven't seen any proof that English media predominantly spells his name any differently. Oppose move. Should English media prefer a non-Danish spelling at the time when he actually takes over the shop, then let's deal with that situation at such a time. I did a google search for "Danish crown prince" and took a peek at some of the royalty-related forums that popped up there. They seem to use the "Frederik" spelling as well. Valentinian ^{T / C} 15:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Let's stay with Frederik untill they move Juan Carlos I to John Charles I.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 15:55, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

For those following Lilac Soul's links in other articles here

I did not intend to spam other talk pages, as I am apparently being accused of by Charles. I just see very little reason why naming conventions should differ between articles, and if this article is Frederik, Crown Prince... I see no logical reason why the other articles should be Frederick, King of... I did not mean to promote my own viewpoint (that Frederik should be used), but simply to search a consensus one way or the other. If the consensus is Frederick, fine. If the consensus is Frederick for kings, Frederik for princes, then that is fine as well. Since the Danish royal house, on their official English website, refers to even the kings as Frederik, then that is what I'd consider correct. But I do recognize that WP:NCNT states that we should use the most common form of the name used in English. This may well be Frederick for the kings, and Frederik for the crown prince. ...So please note that I started those talkpage links here in absolutely good faith, in an attempt to improve the accuracy and consistency of Wikipedia. Is Frederick really the most common way to spell these kings' names in English? And do people really believe that there should be a difference between the articles on the kings and on the prince? Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 16:47, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Each article should be treated separately. It looks like the English media have started to prefer native names in the course of the last several decades, which would explain why people in the English-speaking nations speak of King Frederick IX but Crown Prince Frederik. I highly doubt the English-language media or people would suddenly change the spelling when a crown prince became king. Sakkura 16:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with that completely. After all the name of the current queen is usually spelled Margrethe II even though the queen of Denmark from 1375 to 1412 is called Margaret I in English. And while I suppose it is possible that the English-language media and people may change their preferred spelling after Frederik's coronation, whether they will actually do so is surely speculation. Hemmingsen 19:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Denmark hasn't used coronations since 1848 ;) Leaving that aside, I agree. Valentinian ^{T / C} 23:12, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

You got me there. 2 bonus points ;) Hemmingsen 05:19, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

The naming conventions are for the title of the article. As Frederi(c)k isn't king yet, the point is irrelevant. Charles 23:54, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

But why should the spelling of his name as used that one place in the article be different from the spelling used in the title? I don't see how the common English names of the previous King Frederi(c)ks relate to this case. Hemmingsen 05:19, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia's policies aren't law which is fortunate as several of them conflict with one another. AFAIK, English media predominantly spell his name the Danish way, so that must also apply here. I don't see a reason for using a different spelling than the one used by both the official websites and the local tabloids. The Queen is normally referred to as Margrethe rather than Margaret, and I would be much surprised if Princess Elisabet of Rosenborg was better known somewhere as Princess Elizabeth. The similar Swedish material uses titles like Carl XVI Gustav of Sweden, and Prince Carl Philip, Duke of Värmland. I don't feel any urge to rename them to "Charles XVI Gustavus" or "Charles Philip" either. I don't see such a convention used on the Dutch material either (cf. e.g. Prince Maurits of Orange-Nassau, van Vollenhoven and Prince Constantijn of the Netherlands) Valentinian ^{T / C} 06:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, as I see it, this page is correct in spelling it Fredrik. The name should only be changed when he ascends to the crown. Valentinian, do you know of someone on the Danish Wikipedia who could explain it best? Laleena 12:14, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

The Danish wikipedia can't really be used other than to confirm what the native name is - namely Frederik (see da:Kronprins Frederik). This article should use whatever form is most recognized among people whose native language is English. Sakkura 16:25, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

An assumption on my part: when/if he accends the throne, he'll be know as Frederick X. One wonders though, as the King of Spain isn't called John-Charles I. GoodDay (talk) 17:53, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Frederik is his legal spelling

Nowadays people have legal names and ID's and the legal spelling of their names is no longer subject to translation or other variance (ref. as noted above: Carl XVI Gustaf of Sweden). It is a good idea to have the year 1900 as a cut-off on this. In any language, we must use the legal spelling of anybody's name who lived beyond 1900 or we will look like we are living in the past to rather a ridiculous degree. Thus it will not be appropriate for anyone anywhere to change the spelling of Frederik's name if and when he becomes King of Denmark and Greenland. Before 1900 the very opposite is true (see my user page for my opinions!) and English name versions (with some modern exceptions to tradition) should always be used, for phonetic viability if for nothing else. In other words we should only have to learn to pronounce or phonetically interpret (in English) the foreign names of 20th and 21st century people as long as English name versions are available for people before then. Note that Danish Crown Princes were spelled Frederick then, too, and quite correctly so in English! SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:46, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

You must tell Spain this then. Royalty have most often been the exception. 142.68.80.29 (talk) 13:22, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Spain is not alone in that. See the articles about Elizabeth II in other languages: Elizabeta II in Bosnian, Isabel II in Portuguese, Elisabeth II in German, Élisabeth II in French, Elisabetta II in Italian, Erzsébet II in Hungarian, etc. The point is: if the most common name is the Anglicized version of the person's name, then it should be used regardless of century. I believe he is called Frederik by most reliable sources in English, so the most common name rule is in favour of the current title. In cases where it isn't clear which name is more common, I would agree with SergeWoodzing's suggestion. Surtsicna (talk) 15:59, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I was not aware enough of these problems noted by IP & Surtsicna. Thank you! A horrendous practice in my opinion in our time. SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:04, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's a problem at all. Where royal families have multi-national ancestry crossing many languages and borders, it makes sense. Prince Philip ought to be Prince Philippe, duc d'Édimbourg in French, Prince Charles ought to be Prinz Karl, Fürst von Wales in German... 142.68.80.29 (talk) 21:12, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Pardon me, but what an awwwwwwful idea (I feel)! How respectless! How ignorant of legal matters! How backward! (Sorry!) Let's not put en.WP above the law, any country's law, regarding legal names! Royalty are human beings. The law pertains to them too in these matters in 2009. Let's not try to encroach upon them with terrible ideas like this! Or control a part of their lives out of our own orneriness. Let's accept that we are just WP users, not big bad powerful people who can change history! Please! SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:22, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

PS - when Diana crashed, we should spend minutes trying to find out what to call her or should she already be known by the legal name in her passport? One example of many of real life (and death). SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:25, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Those comments were utterly unnecessary, SergeWoodzing, as there hasn't been any need to put en.WP above the law. However, I would disagree with your view that it's an awwwwwwful idea made-up by backward people who are ignorant of legal matters. It usually goes like this: every Spanish person refers to Elizabeth II as Isabel II (perhaps because her well-known namesakes is known as Isabel I) and because of that, no Spanish person knows who Elizabeth II is, which makes it impossible to have the article titled Elizabeth II (the title should never cause a reader to think that he/she got to a wrong page). I never refer to Elizabeth II as Elizabeth II, unless I'm talking in English, because I don't want my conversationists to have question-marks above their heads. That being said, I hope you don't consider me a backward person who is ignorant of legal matters :) You'll be glad to hear that this practice is dying out. Today, Juan Carlos of Spain is almost always called Juan Carlos - he is Juan Carlos in English and in my language as well; in fact, only the names of Elizabeth II and Margrethe II are translated in my language today (possibly because their native names are very similar to their translated forms). Surtsicna (talk) 21:39, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry again, but could the fact that both are female rulers have anything to do with it? Please note: I did not criticize or attack "people" who "made up" anything - as you just about accused me of now. I made constructive suggestions as to how I feel - very strongly - we should behave in every country. Legally-ethically, in short. In my attack, I was only referring to these awwwwwwful ideas not people, and I stand by every word. Sorry, sincerely, if anyone took it personally! You and I don't know the same kind of Spaniards or other Spanish-speaking people. An uncle of mine in Madrid would never have called today's British queen Isabel in Spanish or Isabella even, unless perhaps we was talking to some extreme nationalists. And not many of my hundreds of Latin American acquaintances and friends either. I hope you don't know too many Spanish-speakers and speak too much Spanish with them, to outnumber me on this one. Eso es una pregunta muy interesante. Would Diana have died even faster in your country because nobody knew her legal name? Wrong name in the passport, sorry lady! Oh, she's royal, that explains it! She isn't even a real person - oops wasn't. Queen Louise of Sweden carried a note in her purse stating who she was. Wouldn't have done her much good, I guess. You have a way of always bringing something pleasant into your remarks anyway. Hoorayyyyy for the "dying out" bit! And for 21st century tough-guys like Juan Carlos and Carl Gustaf and Harald and Albert that nobody dares screw around with, name-wise. Can I please be called Serge Woodzing in your language? SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:50, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Dynasty

(Now tagged "dubious" in article as of October 2009)

Can anyone confirm that he should be listed as part of the 'House of Laborde de Monpezat' rather then the House of Glücksburg? ♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 12:40, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure either. Although I would be pleased to see the Danish Royal Family follow the centuries old tradition and rename the house upon Frederik's accession. However, if much more conservative British Royal Family considers children of Queen Elizabeth II to be members of the House of Windsor and not of their father's House of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg, I imagine that Danish Royal Family considers children of Queen Margaret II to be members of the House of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg. Surtsicna (talk) 13:20, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Could it not easily be House of Laborde de Monpezat-Glücksburg, uniting both houses? Isnt that how 'Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg' was created as well?♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 06:03, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

We are not in position to invent new royal houses. There is no original research on Wikipedia. He is either member of the House Laborde de Monpezat or member of the House of Glücksburg. Surtsicna (talk) 09:34, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, dont misunderstand me. I ment that as a purely intellectual question. I have no intention at all of advocating anything origional research. But, why could he not be a member of both houses, if he so wished? The uniting of houses was done in such ways, were they not?♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 03:05, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

He is a member of the House of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg. I have corrected the entries for the relevant members of our Royal House. The House of Laborde de Monpezat does not exist in Denmark. The Princes, their wives and their children have recently been given the Danish additional titles of Count/Countess of Montpezat in honour of Prince Henrik, but the name of the reigning House is not affected.Harlay (talk) 18:21, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Frederick is not a member of the House of Oldenburg or any of its cadet branches. Since those houses are still extant in the male line, they exclude the issue of female members (like Margrethe) who are not themselves married to members of the House. The Royal Family's website only speaks of the kings and queens, for the last several hundred years, as being Oldenburgers and Glücksburgers. This does not implicitly make the non-kings and non-queens of the family (including Frederick) the same. He is not a member of the House of Glücksburg or of the larger House of Oldenburg. 142.68.80.29 (talk) 16:24, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

You're absolutely right. However, I'm afraid that the monarchy is becoming less and less traditional. I doubt they'll replace the House of Oldenburg with a French noble house. They won't care about using the technically correct name for their royal house, especially now when they adopted the so-called equal primogeniture (which is not equal at all). Surtsicna (talk) 19:36, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

True, Surtsicna. However, even if they continue to call themselves "Glücksburg" after Margrethe, they are simply then a branched called Glücksburg of the Laborde/Monpezat family. Such is true with the Windsors, who are a family of two paternal lines, cadet branches of Wettin and Oldenburg. It is strange that Law Lord sought protection on a listing of members of the House of Schleswig-Holstein that erroneously includes the Queen of Denmark's issue and rightly includes the Duke of Edinburgh's issue, although they do not call themselves that. 142.68.80.29 (talk) 22:01, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

You are 100% wrong. Frederik is a member of the House of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg as the rest of the Danish royal family. The house is on the Danish throne and so offspring from the sovereign is a member of the house. This is further confirmed by act 170 (27 March 1953) which decrees that the Danish throne goes to the offspring of Christian X, even a female line. --Law Lord (talk) 20:28, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I do not understand your arguments. The house is currently on the Danish throne, but it won't be once the Crown Prince ascends. Historically and traditionally, one belongs to the house to which his or her patrilineal ancestors belonged. When Queen Victoria of the United Kingdom, a member of the House of Hanover, died, she was succeeded by her son who was a member of the House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha. When Queen Joanna of Castile, a member of the House of Trastamara, died, she was succeeded by her son who was a member of the House of Habsburg. Navarre changed royal house after the deaths of Joan I, Joan II and Joan III. The crown passes through a female line, but that doesn't mean that the royal house remains. Crowns have passed to females and through females before and successors of those females always belonged to their father's royal house. Unfortunatly, tradition and history is becoming less relevant and the concept of equality (so alien to the whole concept of monarchy) is becoming more revered. Surtsicna (talk) 21:24, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

The Danish throne is inherited in accordance with act 170 (27 March 1953) and it is the rules in this act that decrees that the house continues in the female line, if the sovereign has no male children. In other words, history and tradition has been changed by an act of Parliament and of the people (the act is part of the 1953 constitution). One should not presume to understand matters about Denmark, when all one know is general tradition. We have no use for that. You seem to have a personal bias against the laws of Denmark, because they do follow your wishes. --Law Lord (talk) 21:49, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Your claim that I have a personal bias against the laws of Denmark (I can hardly believe you wrote this silly sentence) and your unfounded assumption that your knowledge of Denmark is superior to my knowledge of Denmark renders it pointless to continue this discussion. Commenting on editors rather than commenting on their arguments (as you have done) only proves the superiority of the other person's arguments. Surtsicna (talk) 21:58, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Law Lord, the Royal House of Denmark will continue so long as there is a hereditary monarchy in Denmark. However, it won't be composed of members of the House of Glücksburg. Compare Michael I of Romania. If one, in error, believes that he can change the succession to the defunct throne (Royal House of Romania) one couldn't take it further and say that his female-line issue are members of the House of Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen. Treaties, etc, in history refer to Houses of Austria, of Spain, of Tuscany, etc. It is not uncommon to refer to a House of "place". That doesn't mean, however, that it will always be one agnatic line. 142.68.80.29 (talk) 22:01, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Surtsicna: I merely pointed out that you seemed to be biased. If you are biased, then you should remember Wikipedia:NPOV. 142.68.80.29: The Royal House of Denmark disagrees with you. In this case, the house is a source whereas your claim is original research. Wikipedia does not allow original research. Thanks. --Law Lord (talk) 22:20, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

The word seemed does not make your claim any less ridiculous. I find it hard to believe that someone can sincerely believe (based on one argument) that another person has a personal bias against the laws of a country. The sentence is simply silly. The official website does not say that the descendants of Her Present Majesty are members of the House of Glücksburg. Anyway, the official website merely says that the present Royal Family are the direct descendants of the House of Glücksborg. Is there something else written on the website? 142.68.80.29 has explained it so nicely; she or he obviously knows and understands these things. Surtsicna (talk) 22:30, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I do not think somebody "knows and understands these things", if somebody claims something completely contrary to statements made by the Royal House of Denmark. It says clearly on the website: Danish: "Den oldenborgske slægt afløstes i 1863 af den glücksborgske, der udgør kongefamilien i dag." This settles the matter, and all your arguing really cannot change that. --Law Lord (talk) 22:50, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

The website says otherwise in English. This being Wikipedia in English, the English version (the present Royal Family are the direct descendants of the House of Glücksborg) is more reliable than the Danish version (Den oldenborgske slægt afløstes i 1863 af den glücksborgske, der udgør kongefamilien i dag). Besides, the Danish version is not even incorrect; as long as Her Present Majesty reigns, the House of Glücksburg is the Royal House of Denmark. The matter isn't settled, as no reliable source claims that descendants of the Queen are members of the House of Glücksburg. Surtsicna (talk) 16:13, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Law Lord is using another link as "evidence" that, in his opinion, the issue of Margrethe are members of the House of Glücksburg. The link does not explicitly state that her issue are members of the house, it merely shows a family tree. Therefore, as a responsible editor, one should remove the erroneous "reference". Note that other genealogies[5] do not include female line issue. 142.68.80.29 (talk) 22:25, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

On the homepage of Frederik, Crown Prince of Denmark is says, "Den dag kronprins Frederik bliver konge af Danmark, vil han være den sjette regent af den glücksborgske linje, som overtog tronen da Christian 9. blev konge efter den barnløse Frederik 7. i 1863." (English: On the day Crown Prince Frederik becomes King of Denmark, he will be the 6th regent of the line of Glücksburg, which took over the throne when Christian IX became king after the childless Frederik VII in 1863.) In other words, it is officially written on the homepage of his royal highness that he belongs to the house of Glücksburg and will also do so when ascending the throne. --Law Lord (talk) 22:33, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Variously, the Danish Royal Family have sloppily claimed that the House of Oldenburg is extinct, etc. There is no surprise with the lack of clarity and that Glücksburg is mentioned to give a sense of continuity although it isn't stated definitively that he belongs to the House of Glücksburg. Being of a line and of a House are very different things. Never is it explicitly stated that Frederick or his brother or any of their issue belong to the House of Oldenburg. 142.68.80.29 (talk) 23:15, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

It is stated that he will be the " ... 6th regent of the line of Glücksburg." So it is stated beyond any doubt whatsoever that he is a member of the house Glücksburg. There is nothing more to discuss. --Law Lord (talk) 23:22, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Nice try but no dice. The use of the word "regent" in English alone in reference to Frederick is evidence enough of a faulty translation. 142.68.80.29 (talk) 23:26, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Is Frederick entitled to the historic titles of the House of Schleswig-Holstein such as Heir of Norway, Duke of Schleswig, of Holstein, of Stormarn and of Dithmarschen, Count of Oldenburg and Delmenhorst, which are common to every single member of the House? 142.68.80.29 (talk) 23:26, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Please refrain from personal attacks. There is no evidence of any problem with the translation. If you are not satisfied with the numerous sources, then you must provide convincing evidence to the contrary. Until then, there is no point in entertaining this discussion further. --Law Lord (talk) 23:33, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Instead of making unfounded accusations of personal attacks, etc, please participate in the discussion. You make no comments regarding the concern with the sources other than saying we are "not satisfied". Of course we aren't and we've told you why. Until consensus is made, you must participate in the discussion or concede if you choose not to help solve the problem. I do not see where a single personal attack has been made. There are unanswered questions and it would be helpful if you tried to answer them. Thank you. 142.68.80.29 (talk) 23:36, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Unless you can provide sources to the contrary, there is no problem. Please provide evidence of your claim, otherwise it remains original research. --Law Lord (talk) 23:50, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Crown Prince Frederik and his brother are not listed in L' Allemagne dynastique (Volume 7, Oldenburg) which lists the members of the House of Oldenburg (Denmark, UK, Schleswig-Holstein, Greece etc). - dwc lr (talk) 00:02, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Which makes sense since he is not a member of the House of Oldeburg but rather the House of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg. The House of Oldenburg has not been on the throne of Denmark for quite a while. --Law Lord (talk) 00:09, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg is a branch of Oldenburg, all branches of entire House of Oldenburg are included Russia, Denmark, Norway, Greece, Grand Ducal Oldenburg, UK etc. His mother, aunts, cousins, (Ingolf, Christian of Rosenborg etc) are listed. - dwc lr (talk) 00:16, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Exactly! 142.68.80.29 (talk) 00:34, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Can we continue at the bottom so we don't all get lost? SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:30, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

Uninvolved admin chiming in here: I don't think that passes WP:SELFPUB. It smells of WP:OR to me. I'd really want to see that statement in a reliable third-party source per Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary.2C_secondary_and_tertiary_sources, especially since it is contentious. Toddst1 (talk) 22:44, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

This is referencing the Danish Crown Prince's website. 142.68.80.29 (talk) 23:53, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Oldenburg ./. Wettin

Of course, Queen Margrethe II of Denmark is a member of the ancient Oldenburg Dynasty (ref: Burke's Peerage) which is far from extinct. Whether or not she is a member of what has been called the House of Oldenburg is a matter of semantics (Burke's said she is in 1977) and depends on whether or not House is meant as a only branch of the dynasty (the main one in this case) or as her whole all-paternal lineage. Now what her sons belong to is something else. In the United Kingdom, the Queen has decided what her family/dynasty/royal house is to be called beginning with her children (who also are Oldenburgs, by the way). Dynastically, the ancient Wettin Dynasty (renamed Windsor in Britain) will no longer be on all those thrones of hers when she goes (so sorry Your Majesty!). That is a mathematically precise matter of genealogy that can hardly be disputed. If the Queen of Denmark has done the same as Elizabeth II and announced the family name of her heirs, then that's the family or House that Crown Prince Frederik belongs to. If she has not, he belongs to his father's dynasty, not his mother's Oldenburgs or Glücksburgs or whatever we are calling them here. Sorry I cannot read all of the above now, and I may have missed something I should have read before commenting, but I hope my good intentions are clear anyway in this brief entry. Cordially, SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:13, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

The Queen has not explicitly announced that her children are of the House of Glücksburg. At any rate, she cannot, as she is not the head of that house. Furthermore, the only thing the Queen has done with regard to her issue's name is to give them the title Count(ess) of Monpezat. This is different than members of her agnatic line who, when given titles, have been given Rosenborg. It marks two different groups of agnates. 142.68.80.29 (talk) 00:18, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! You are right, of course. I thus rephrase my statement: If the neither head of that house nor the Danish government have made any decision and announcement as to the family name of Frederik and Joachim, then they and their children belong to Henrik's family. SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:25, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

The Queen has explicitly announced that her children are of the House of Glücksburg. That information is also available at the website of the crown prince:

A Crown Prince of his own time

The day Crown Prince Frederik ascends the throne of Denmark he will be the sixth monarch in the line of Glücksborg, a family which took the Danish throne when Christian IX was crowned after Frederik VII died without an heir in 1863.

--Law Lord (talk) 00:31, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

That does not back up your erroneous claim whatsoever, I'm afraid. Repeating one's self doesn't make it the truth. 142.68.80.29 (talk) 00:33, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

You seem to be the one repeating yourself. I have asked for proof of your claims and you have provided none. --Law Lord (talk) 00:41, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I have given numerous examples in English where it is never explicitly stated that Frederick is a member of the house. Also refer to DWC LR's note of a publication of the House of Oldenburg and reply if proof concerns you so. 142.68.80.29 (talk) 00:43, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

The Queen has explicitly announced that her children are of the House of Glücksburg. This is false. Things which are stated to be true when they are not are lies. Please show were the Queen has explicitly announced that her children are members of the House of Glücksburg (of which, I should add, she is not the head). 142.68.80.29 (talk) 00:46, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

It seems you people should be able to source such a claim rather easily?

• If Queen Margrethe (the last Oldenburg on that throne) has announced that her sons are Glücksburgs, which we can assume was a governmental announcement, and that announcement of hers (specifically) can be sourced reliably - then that is what gives here.
• If neither the head of that house nor the Danish government have made any decision and announcement as to the family name of Frederik and Joachim, then they and their children belong to Henrik's family, which as a matter of standard genealogy and indisputable fact (like 1+1=2) would not need to be sourced.

SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:57, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• A third alternative is not to mention dynasty or royal house at all in these articles - the official site of the Danish Royal Court does not have any info on Frederik's or his brother's dynasty membership, though it seems they would if it was clear even to them (yet). Perhaps it isn't and is being left for the next monarch and his government to decide?

SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:30, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Nobody has opposed the IP, DWC LR or SergeWoodzing for three days. User:Law Lord was active and able to respond. If nobody is willing to oppose them, I will make the changes supported by four out of five involved users. Surtsicna (talk) 21:28, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

This is not a vote. Consensus cannot be reached with 4 references all saying the direct opposite of your opinion. I have not posted any more on this but neither has anybody else. My case is solid and the opposition is not. However, I have also contacted the royal court of Denmark to get a straight answer, and before I hear back from them, there can be no consensus. --Law Lord (talk) 21:34, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Your "references" do not support your erroneous claims. I have also contacted the Royal Court, however, any answer cannot be submitted as original research nor would I trust it without seeing an original copy of the complete correspondence and I doubt you want to scan your mail or give us your email password. 142.68.80.29 (talk) 22:22, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Previously I have asked you to moderate your tone. Now, I am telling you to moderate your tone! I can also call your claims "erroneous" but since consensus is not reached by telling everybody how stupid the other side's position is, that would be folly. Furthermore, it's rude! Claiming that other people are liars (per "nor would I trust it without seeing an original copy") is a personal attack. Obviously, I am waiting for the court to provide some references that can be used here. --Law Lord (talk) 22:35, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not run on hearsay or what individual editors are privately told. For instance, I can name probably a dozen or so people on Wikipedia who are the subjects of articles and I know things I have been told which aren't secret and would be beneficial to an article but which I cannot add as original research. 142.68.80.29 (talk) 22:41, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

What I think Law Lord is trying to say is that he hopes the Danish Royal Court will provide him with a reliable reference to post, other than original research. Until he does, why don't we remove the dynasty info from this article, since it does not seem to be supported yet by any reliable source? SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:15, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. I wrote, "I am waiting for the court to provide some references that can be used here." When Frederik, Crown Prince of Denmark writes on his own home page that he is going to be the 6th regent of the House of Glücksburg, I have a problem removing that house from the article. At the very least, it should be mentioned that – by his own account – he is in the House of Glücksburg. --Law Lord (talk) 23:44, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Where exactly is that text on his website? Could you please link us directly to it here? I found no such thing and I thought I went through the whole palace site carefully. Does he have another one, one of his own? By "regent" (which has another meaning in English than in Danish or Swedish) I assume you meant "monarch" or "sovereign"? (A regent in English rules temporarily in someone else's place.) Cordially, SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:57, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

It is what I posted here. It is on the English version of his homepage and reads, "The day Crown Prince Frederik ascends the throne of Denmark he will be the sixth monarch in the line of Glücksborg, a family which took the Danish throne when Christian IX was crowned after Frederik VII died without an heir in 1863."[6] You are right about my wrongful use of the word regent; it has a different meaning in Denmark. --Law Lord (talk) 00:11, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! I read that before but it isn't clear enough and would give any serious genealogist an ambivalent feeling. It's in the choice of words they are using. When the Danish version has "den glücksborgske linje", without capital letters, sort of intentionally unofficial, that impression is amplified. I am starting to believe more firmly that the matter is being deferred for the princes to decide after their mother's reign. What you need, in any case, is something published, in a good source like that, which specifically states that Frederik and his brother belong to that dynasty or royal house, something that cannot be (mis-)interpreted. In the meantime, I think we should remove the dynastic mention. SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:13, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

You wrote, "When the Danish version has "den glücksborgske linje", without capital letters, sort of intentionally unofficial, that impression is amplified." I do not see how anybody can reasonably have that feeling amplified. If they do not master the Danish language, they are not qualified to have an opinion one way or the other. If they do master the Danish language, they will know that writing "den glücksborgske linje" with capitals would be incorrect Danish. In other words, the only thing this tells the reader is that – whoever wrote this – writes Danish correctly. I am fine with removing the dynastic information since at least it is less worse than writing something, which has no source at all. --Law Lord (talk) 00:34, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you again! What I meant was that if it were specified clearly that he belonged to the dynasty - formally - I would have expected to see Huset Glücksburg or Glücksburgske slægt or such, not that informal version. Glad you agree about the good idea, at least for now. SergeWoodzing (talk) 04:50, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Good. FYI writing Glücksburgske slægt is actually also incorrect Danish, and the only explanation is the fact that article names always begin with a capital. Were I on daWiki I would change the article to Lyksborgslægten. --Law Lord (talk) 11:26, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Coming in late to this facinating conversation! I can respect both sides of the issue here, and wish there were more clear documentation about who belongs to what. Speaking for myself, I don't see why the Crown Prince and his brother could not belong to both houses and families! But anyway. To me, the statement "The day Crown Prince Frederik ascends the throne of Denmark he will be the sixth monarch in the line of Glücksborg, a family which took the Danish throne when Christian IX was crowned after Frederik VII died without an heir in 1863", appearing as it does on the Danish Royal Family website, clearly and strongly implies that Frederick is a member of the line of Glucksburg. Because the statement is on the page biography of Federick, and because that page and the whole site itself is subject to government inspection (for accuracy), then that is solid enough evidence for me in this regard. Because it is on this Danish government website and in absence of any other official documentation from the Danish royal family or government, I believe the statement trumps any other third party work on who is or isn't a member of a family or House. Afterall, if anyone should know what family or house one belongs to, it would be the members themselves. As there is nothing directly contradicting the statement on the official government website, then - from my point of view- Federick is as what that statement implies, "he [...is...] in the line of Glücksborg, a family [...]"♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 05:00, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

The quoted sentence is unclear. As I think I wrote somewhere in all of what is above here, it looks to me like the royal site intentionally has chosen not to be more clear about this. I have a gut feeling that the question of official dynasty is being left for Frederik to decide once he is king. If so, in the meantime he unavoidably belongs to his fathers house, genealogically speaking. There is no clear source yet that gives us anything else to go by. So let's leave it alone for now! SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:26, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

SergeWoodzing is right. Besides, I do not believe that any "official" source can trump every other third party work. If that were true, then Wikipedia wouldn't be able to include any criticism. If that were true, a royal family could claim to be descendants of William Shakespeare and we would have to agree with that even though it is known that William Shakespeare has no descendants today. Furthermore, the Queen of Denmark is hardly in a position to say who belongs to the House of Oldenburg as she is not the head of the House of Oldenburg. Even if they do eventually decide to call Frederick's house House of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg, that royal house and the House of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg (about which we have an article) would not be the same. Surtsicna (talk) 19:30, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, Margeret is the head of the Danish royal family if not the head of the House of Oldenburg, so if she said she was decendent of Shakespeare- or an official royal site (administered by the government on her behalf) says that or hints at the fact that she is a decendent of Shakespeare then that would need to be reported, and I would suggest trump any other source... given preceisly because it is from an offical government source. At the very least, enough ambiguity exists that there should be a notice or note that Federiks "legal dynastic membership" is disputed (by us wikipedians at least). Regarding your comment about criticisim, I think there is room for that even if the "dynasty name" were left as is. Prehaps in place of the dynasty name, it could simply state "ambigious" with a note as to the ambiguity of the statement and also to potential use of his father's sirname.♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 15:31, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with your reply to my Shakespeare argument. If all scholars (all people who research Shakespeare and whose works are universally considered very reliable sources about his life) say that Shakespeare has no descendants, we can't say that he has descendants no matter what some government (or some monarch) said. We could say: X claims to be a descendant of Shakespeare, but that is contested by scholars. We could not say: X is a descendant of Shakespeare. An official government source does not trump any other source and it certainly doesn't trump a scholarly work. Anyway, we are going off topic and I agree with the second half of your comment. Surtsicna (talk) 21:47, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I find myself agreeing with your statement too, with the example you give: "We could say: X claims to be a descendant of Shakespeare, but that is contested by scholars. We could not say: X is a descendant of Shakespeare." However I do believe it should be given substantive weight. You are agreeing that some kind of notice could be present, like a "note" or "dispute" next to which ever dynasty name appears there? Or to maybe simply listing abiguity? Or maybe simply listing "Danish Royal Family" in that location.12.235.214.66 (talk) 03:48, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Just to begin with, I didn't really read this entire thing due to the length and repitition, but I got most of it. Is this arguement resolved yet? People seem to have lost interest in it. It might be a little late, but I would rather like to see the controversy about their houses mention in this article, his brother's article, and his mother's article (maybe), instead of just only at his father's article. The infobox and succession box seems just make it a uncontested fact that he belong to the House of Monpezat.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 06:31, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

On the comment about 1+1=2 and son belongs to father's house. I don't really think you can used common sense about this subject and call it fact and not using sources. Charles, Prince of Wales still belongs to the House of Windsor even though common sense would make him a member of the House of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg, right? --Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 06:31, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

This issue should indeed have been solved ages ago, and it is quite simple. For as long as the Palace refers to themselves as Glücksburgers, then that is what they are, everything else is second-guessing and Original Research. Danish commoners can choose their own names, and no law bars Danish royalty from doing the same. The website of the Palace states: "Det danske Kongehus har eksisteret i over 1000 år og hører til blandt de ældste i verden. De to store slægter i Det danske Kongehus er den oldenborgske og den glücksborgske. Den oldenborgske slægt afløstes i 1863 af den glücksborgske, der udgør kongefamilien i dag." (my translation: The Danish royal family has existed for more than 1,000 years and belongs among the oldest [of its kind] in the world. The two main dynasties in the Danish royal family are the Oldenburgers and the Glücksburgers. The Oldenburg dynasty was in 1863 replaced by the Glücksburg line *which forms the current royal family* [my emphasis]).[7] The Crown Prince's official website officially refers to him as a Glücksburger,[8] so that remains the official story, which is the only thing that has relevance for an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is supposed to contain verifiable information based on authoritative sources. Home-brew geneology is an entertaining exercise, but not authoritative. Likewise, the *native* version of the Palace's webpage is of course the authoritative one, as the French and English versions are merely courtesy versions, and merely express whatever some translator made out of an already-approved Danish text.

So long as the Queen remains alive, she is house head, and the dynasty will remain known as the Glücksburgers. When she dies, *then* King Frederick X of Denmark will have the choise of calling his family whichever name he may choose, but that is not an issue for as long as his mother remains on the throne. So far, the situation corresponds to the one of Prince Charles in the UK, the current monarch decides. The entire "assigning/inventing dynasty"-thing on the material about Danish royalty seems to originate from some misunderstanding that the Salic law should have any relevance in Denmark or Danish tradition. It never did (except in the Duchy of Holstein, as it was a German province and governed by German law, not Danish). Denmark's traditional law of succession as described in the Lex Regia was that sons were preferred before daughters, but the Lex Regia clearly stipulated that the throne could be inherited in both male and female lines, but that a male heir was preferred if at all possible ("man decended from man" is preferred over "woman decended from man" which again is preferred over "man or woman decended from woman"). (Lex Regia, §§ 30-40, notably §36)[9] In other words, the law explicitly states that the dynaty is considered to continue in both male and female lines, and the system was assigned to maximize the chance that the throne should always remain in the same family, cf. the expressions "Voris Kon­gelige Arffvehuus og Stamme" and "den aff Os needstigende Kongelige Arffve­Stamme", (Lex Regia §39 and §40). Likewise, Danish historiography does not consider King Oluf to have belonged to a different house than his mother, Queen Margrethe I, and assigns no importance to that fact that he inherited the throne through a female. Such a distinction is a German practice, not a Danish one. Valentinian ^{T / C} 22:49, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Christian IX would not have become king according to the Kongelov (Lex Regia), and Margrethe II is Queen regnant only as his heir. So the Lex Regia has not been the controlling principle of Danish succession for more than 150 years. Christian IX is called "the Protocol King" because his ascension to the throne broke with Danish tradition and was, rather, pursuant to the London Protocol of 1852. To legitimate his claim, all of the intervening Danish dynasts between the previous king and his wife, Louise of Hesse, voluntarily renounced their rights. But Louise didn't then become Queen regnant -- her husband did, which is how the Glucksburgs (a younger branch of the Oldenburgs) acquired the throne. And at that time Denmark's succession did indeed become Salic, contrary to the Kongelov. But even if the Kongelov had been operative, it established male-preference primogeniture, which was the system of inheritance under which England and Spain both functioned. Yet when queens reigned or the throne passed through females under that system, their sons (e.g., Carlos I of Spain, George I of Great Britain, Felipe V of Spain, Edward VII of Great Britain) all reigned under their fathers' names, introducing new dynasties to their kingdoms -- so it cannot be argued that female succession rights automatically mean that a son belongs to his mother's dynasty if his rights descend through her. Otherwise, the "House of Hesse" would now be the name of Denmark's dynasty. But Louise of Hesse's rights came through her Danish mother, so really she would have represented a genealogical continuation of the original House of Oldenburg on the throne! But the dynasty's name changed to that of Louise's husband because it was the norm in Europe for membership in a dynasty to descend patrilineally and for the dynasty to be named for a male ancestor. Denmark's Salic law only changed to allow Margrethe II to succeed to the Crown during her youth, and it still gave males preference over females until 2009 -- she inherited only because she had no brother. The real issue here is that royal traditions are (as always) evolving, and the circumstances which brought Margrethe II to the throne and will bring her son to the throne present a situation with no Danish precedent. So a decision will have to be made. In the UK and the Netherlands, that decision was made and announced formally. Denmark has no law declaring the name of its dynasty, and unfortunately the Sovereign has fallen out of the practice of promulgating royal decrees, which makes it difficult to know when a decision has been made or a change implemented, and what the precise details are. I concur, therefore, that the wording on the Danish Royal Website is suggestive, but not definitive, of Crown Prince Frederik's dynastic affiliation. Since most Danes (like most Europeans) still take and pass on to their descendants the surname of their fathers (and there is no law or decree that requires otherwise), we cannot assume that Frederik will not reign as the first Danish king of the House of Monpezat. Time will tell. FactStraight (talk) 12:56, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

If you're saying that all namings of the house in this article and those of his close relatives as House of Monpezat or otherwise must be removed per the no original research-rule, you won't hear me objecting. 87.61.168.144 (talk) 20:04, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

What I would object to is claiming that Margrethe's descendants are members of the same royal house that has reigned in Denmark since the 19th century. Two plus two does not equal five simply because a government says it does. Surtsicna (talk) 20:20, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

There are no rules that a person can't claim to be from the royal house of their mother. The Romanov, the Habsburg, the Windsor and Dutch Nassau royal houses all do so. It's all in the choice of these people to choose what they'll call themselves. We can't honestly invented house names for every which royal families because a queen marries a man with another name. If that is the case, Netherland would be ruled by what wikipedians call the House of Amsberg in a few years and Sweden will be rule by the House of Westling after Victoria's death. --Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 12:23, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

The House of Romanov, the House of Habsburg and the House of Orange-Nassau all went extinct; there were no surviving dynasts who could impose house rules preventing descendants of their female members to assume the name of their mother's house. There certainly are dynasts of the House of Glücksburg and there are house rules that are considered valid for everyone - as far as I can tell, no head of that house ever made any exception for the descendants of the Queen of Denmark. The Crown Prince of Denmark is a member of the House of Glücksburg as much as any descendant of a Glücksburg princess is. If he is a member of the house headed by the Prince of Schleswig-Holstein, so are George VI of the United Kingdom, Alexander, Crown Prince of Yugoslavia, Felipe, Prince of Asturias, Friederike von der Osten and so on until the entire concept of a royal house breaks down. He can call himself whatever he wants and nobody disputes that but Wikipedia cannot put him in the house headed by the Prince of Schleswig-Holstein. Surtsicna (talk) 14:40, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Why change "House of Monpezat"?

Linking to the last comments in the previous section, if "House" refers to the House inherited through the father (male line inheritance), then "House of Monpezat" should remain in the infoboxes for all the descendants of Margrethe and Henri. From my point of view, this is not WP:OR, because of centuries-old rules that govern the inheritance of titles. I understand that the Danish Royal House is currently the House of Glücksburg. Due to the fact that the titles of nobility are not inherited from the mother, the House of Glücksburg dynasty in Denmark would theoretically end with Margrethe. --Skol fir (talk) 02:53, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I should add that I am aware (from the article House of Monpezat) that the Prince Consort's title before his marriage to Margrethe would have been a titre de courtoisie—comte Henri de Laborde de Monpezat, instead of the more official Henri de Laborde, comte de Monpezat. The true noble status of this family is in doubt, which might actually discourage the use of the name Monpezat for any future dynasty in Denmark. --Skol fir (talk) 03:14, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

If it wasn't original research, then someone would have a presented a reliable and authorative source explicitly naming the house as the mention of it was introduced in the article. "Because of centuries-old rules" is an obviously invalid argument. Please read Wikipedia:No original research if you are unsure of what it refers to. 87.61.168.144 (talk) 07:25, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

If you want references to back up the concept of "male line inheritance" over the last centuries, I can get them for you. I am just not an expert in this field, and don't wish to waste my time getting the references. This issue does not matter that much to me. If you don't value my input into this discussion, and have to pick on my defense of this point, just because I did not cough up the references on the spot, then "go fly a kite." I have better fish to fry than to get a lecture on WP:OR, which I have used many times myself to defend against POV. You seem to enjoy nit-picking, when there is a larger issue at stake, the future of the Danish Royal House that currently exists only because of Margrethe's reign. --Skol fir (talk) 09:04, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Way too much time and effort has gone into this matter, in my opinion. There is no solution, since the Danish royal court itself does not give a clear answer and seems to prefer leaving it up to Frederick to decide what his house should be called once he becomes King. Margarethe his mother is an Oldenburg (genealogically the last on Danmark's throne) and belongs to a famous branch of that dynasty. It can be debated whether or not Frederick is and does, literally. Thus, I think there should be no house given. SergeWoodzing (talk) 09:54, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I am as tired of the argumentation as you, and agree to pull the House altogether, if others agree as well. I just felt that if any House should be there, it should be the one that belongs to Frederick by his father, not his mother. Is that not self-explanatory? --Skol fir (talk) 09:04, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

 Done as per WP:BOLD. SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:18, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Does this include all of the articles of his children, his wife, and his brother, his sister-in-laws, and his nephews? And should the House of Monpezat be removed from the succession boxes on the bottom and in the category or any other part of the article? I am gonna go ahead and do it. Revert if you wish.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 12:05, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely. Go for it! And thanx for helping! Sincerely, SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:09, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

House of Glucksburg

I readded the house of Glucksburg category. Saying he doesn't belong to the House of Glucksburg is controversial. We can't synthesize what Germanic house law and say and argue he doesn't belong to the House because he isn't a male line descendants. That is original research. We have no idea if this going to turn out like the UK or Netherlands where female line descendants keep the house name of their mothers; history also have shown countless times where this has occurred with the Habsburg and Romanov. That's why the articles have both houses listed until the Danish royal family gives an official answer.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 06:45, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

It's what they call themselves that counts. To me, what's unknown is better left unknown, i.e. omitted until known. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:38, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

We can say that he considers himself a member of the House of Glücksburg, or that the government does so, if that's the case; I am not aware of their position. We should not, however, just push him into the house as if it's a matter of fact when it's not. This is not really comparable to the British and Dutch situation, as Margrethe is not the head of the House of Glücksburg. Christoph is. Neither Margrethe nor the Danish government can proclaim that Frederik belongs to the same house as Christoph. That might even earn them a lawsuit. We do not need to engage in synthesizing what Germanic house laws say because it is clear what they say; if need be, one day, we can easily explain all of this in a neutral manner. It seems to me that it won't be necessary, as Margrethe curiously conferred upon her male-line descendants the title Count of Monpezat. Could that be a hint? Perhaps. For the time being, SergeWoodzing's suggestion makes most sense. Surtsicna (talk) 15:15, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Christoph is the senior male in the line. But we don't know if he has the say on who is in or not in the house? Does he even have such a power in the modern age? Does he even have a control of the Danish branch? It ultimately depends on what the source and what the official position of the royal family. We can only truly know the answers to these question in the event that the Queen descendants stick with Glücksburg name and we get sources about Christoph accepting or denying it. The Queen and the Danish goverment can do whatever they want and we should report it here when it is ever fully disclosed, and if Christoph counters such a declaration we can report it here. We shouldn't say since 1. We understand how German house laws work in other countries and in other period of history, then 2. Apply that knowledge to here without sources having a direct reference to this specific case. I support the wait. --The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 20:14, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

If the Danish branch does not recognize Christoph as head of their royal house, surely they then constitute another royal house, right? In that case, they do not belong to the house headed by Christoph. If they do recognize him as head of their house and themselves as Oldenburgs, then they likely respect his authority on dynastic matters and their house laws. Obviously, simply calling yourself a Glücksburg does not make you a member of the ancient House of Glücksburg; if that wouldn't work for me or for Christoph's sister's children, why should it work for Frederik? If he does decide to call himself a Glücksburg without Christoph's authorization, we should probably treat that as a house seperate from that headed by Christoph. But let's cross that bridge when we come to it. Surtsicna (talk) 20:56, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Frederik, Crown Prince of Denmark. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100427163350/http://www.au.dk:80/nyheder/presse/2010/020410/ to http://www.au.dk/nyheder/presse/2010/020410/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110715171512/http://www.regattanews.com/pressrelease.asp?pid=1713 to http://www.regattanews.com/pressrelease.asp?pid=1713
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070814011148/http://www.henne-pet-food.dk/engl/sirius.htm to http://www.henne-pet-food.dk/engl/sirius.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:29, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Frederik, Crown Prince of Denmark. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110827102241/http://slaederejsen.skolemedia.dk/materialer/2indsigt/sirius/s2i_forsiden_slaedepatruljen.htm to http://slaederejsen.skolemedia.dk/materialer/2indsigt/sirius/s2i_forsiden_slaedepatruljen.htm

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 06:02, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Frederik, Crown Prince of Denmark. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110603230905/http://kongehuset.dk/publish.php?id=16821 to http://kongehuset.dk/publish.php?id=16821
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150326021123/http://kongehuset.dk/english/the-royal-house/Crown-Prince-Couple/hrh-the-crown-prince to http://kongehuset.dk/english/the-royal-house/Crown-Prince-Couple/hrh-the-crown-prince

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 16:44, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Lessons in Danish pronunciation?

If someone can explain to me, better than by just calling my opinion "complete rubbish" (reverter), why an encyclopedia should attempt to teach readers of English how to pronounce the name Frederik in Danish or any other language than English, then I won't remove it again. Until then, bye-bye unnecessary Danish lesson! Again. This is not a language manual.

I hate anything that smacks of edit-warring, but just "complete rubbish" won't do. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:59, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

@SergeWoodzing: Because it is helpful. Because Danish orthography is unreliable as far as pronunciation is concerned. Because it can. Because we have unlimited space, unlike traditional encyclopedias. Because calling it a "Danish lesson" is a dishonest exaggeration that is a (Redacted) reason to delete the IPA. (Redacted)

We can turn the IPA transcription to a footnote, but completely removing it is a bad idea. Mr KEBAB (talk) 12:27, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

(Redacted) Mr KEBAB (talk) 12:34, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Personal attacks about dishonesty, slurs about rubbish and agenda accusations are not going to do you any good at all.

Footnote would be better, but I still see no reason for it. This is an encyclopedia. Encyclopedias do not teach foreign pronunciation, especially not of words that are easily pronounced in English. To whom would it be of any interest at all to learn how to pronounce Frederik in Danish, except to a student of that language? Our work here is supposed to be limited to what encyclopedias do, not to every- & anything else we wish to add. And no, we do not have "unlimited space", because we are supposed to stick to that basic concept, so as not to clutter upp our articles with all kinds of irrelevant stuff. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:42, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

"Because we have unlimited space" while that is true, the lead is to summarise the body of the text. The first sentence or two are returned by search engines so they need to contain the most relevant information, and a list of foreign alternatives and pronunciations are not usually top priority for biographies. This may not be true for place names as one may need to ask a local directions to that place. However (to give an example to exaggerate the point) in the past we have had articles like the Peninsula War that contain six foreign names for the thing. If they were all included in the lead it looks cluttered and is not much help when returned by a search engine. So I suggest that you turn the IPA transcription into a footnote. -- PBS (talk) 12:51, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for valuable neutral input!

I must assume that by conceding that we have "unlimted space" you didn't mean to encourage anyone to add whatever they please to Wikipedia articles, regardless of relevance, sourcing, encyclopedic style, etc? Took me years to learn to contribute well, and I'd hate to see all that value swept away by one little discussion about how to pronounce Frederik in Danish! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:16, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Of course not but for example:

• "Fred Smith (died 1901)" not "Fred Smith (d. 1901)"
• "12 October 2016" not "12 Oct. 2016"
• "1901–1907" not "1901–7"
• "pp. 111–112" not "pp. 111–2"
• Larger paragraphs covering multiple facts instead of breaking it down into smaller paragraphs one for each fact.

Which are all conventions adopted in paper based sources to save space that can save pages in large publications such as an encyclopaedia like EB1911 or the DNB. -- PBS (talk) 11:46, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm with you there, of course. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:18, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Seeing as it is common practice across the English Wikia to have IPA on foreign names in their biographies, I see no reason why it shouldn't be here as well.
Examples: His mother (AKA the Queen), current PM and Hans Christian Andersen. Skjoldbro (talk) 00:12, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Serge, sorry for the wording of my edit summaries (and my response above, it was also somewhat too strongly worded). The issue seems to be solved now, as far as I can see. Mr KEBAB (talk) 05:51, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:07, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 19 external links on Frederik, Crown Prince of Denmark. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110605171650/http://www.um.dk/publikationer/UM/English/FactsheetDenmark/CrownPrinceFrederik/html/chapter01.htm to http://www.um.dk/publikationer/um/english/factsheetdenmark/crownprincefrederik/html/chapter01.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091216213347/http://msndk.starlounge.com/index.cfm?objectid=70287 to http://msndk.starlounge.com/index.cfm?objectid=70287&imagenr=22&page=22
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120322095037/http://www.dbdh.dk/artikel.asp?id=2832&mid=9 to http://www.dbdh.dk/artikel.asp?id=2832&mid=9
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.au.dk/nyheder/presse/2010/020410/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110927182949/http://www.hkhkronprinsen.dk/1250029 to http://www.hkhkronprinsen.dk/1250029
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110719132822/http://virtuelgalathea3.dk/video/kronprinsen-p-galathea-3?pop=TRUE to http://virtuelgalathea3.dk/video/kronprinsen-p-galathea-3?pop=TRUE
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110718071924/http://vtu.dk/ministeren/taler/2008/stor-succes-for-galathea-3-forskere to http://vtu.dk/ministeren/taler/2008/stor-succes-for-galathea-3-forskere
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.dmu.dk/vand/galathea/dmudagbog/caribien
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100526031504/http://www.kronprinsparret.dk/3bc0029 to http://www.kronprinsparret.dk/3bc0029
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090831131831/http://www.kronprinsparret.dk/5560029 to http://www.kronprinsparret.dk/5560029
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100526023144/http://www.kronprinsparret.dk/43000c to http://www.kronprinsparret.dk/43000c
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110719134130/http://www.ambpretoria.um.dk/en/menu/DevelopmentAssistance/NewsArchiveDevelopmentSection/July2010 to http://www.ambpretoria.um.dk/en/menu/DevelopmentAssistance/NewsArchiveDevelopmentSection/July2010
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110928092619/http://www.kronprinsparret.dk/47000c to http://www.kronprinsparret.dk/47000c
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120319202739/http://www.sailing.org/7088.php to http://www.sailing.org/7088.php
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.rte.ie/sport/sailing/2003/0821/sailing.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110927015750/http://www.nettyroyal.nl/newsaug03.html to http://www.nettyroyal.nl/newsaug03.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110810162248/http://2008.farr40worlds.com/content/view/70/1/ to http://2008.farr40worlds.com/content/view/70/1/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120319202824/http://www.sailing.org/23083.php to http://www.sailing.org/23083.php
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.danishdragons2011.dk/Results/DRDAG_2_4.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110927183054/http://www.hkhkronprinsen.dk/1240029 to http://www.hkhkronprinsen.dk/1240029
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110927182949/http://www.hkhkronprinsen.dk/1250029 to http://www.hkhkronprinsen.dk/1250029
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110928092804/http://www.kronprinsparret.dk/28000c to http://www.kronprinsparret.dk/28000c

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 19:52, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Frederik, Crown Prince of Denmark. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091229131705/http://www.galathea3.dk/uk/Menu/The+expedition+2006-2007 to http://www.galathea3.dk/uk/Menu/The+expedition+2006-2007
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091108120753/http://www.galathea3.dk/uk/Menu/About+us/Royal+Patron/HRH+The+Crown+Prince to http://www.galathea3.dk/uk/Menu/About+us/Royal+Patron/HRH+The+Crown+Prince
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110718071822/http://vtu.dk/ministeren/artikler/2007/galathea-er-en-succes to http://vtu.dk/ministeren/artikler/2007/galathea-er-en-succes

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 05:37, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

IPA pronunciation in lead

I know this has been contentious in the past, but I would nonetheless propose moving the IPA pronunciation into the lead section as per MOS:LEADPRON. The pronunciation for Frederik is straightforward - it's fairly short, there's only one word, and only one pronunciation. Sakkura (talk) 04:49, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• 50thbirthdayportraitfrederik.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:46, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

House

To clarify the House issue. The latest change added: House of Glücksburg (official)
House of Monpezat (agnatic). The second is clear. Can anyone point to anything official for the former for him, not mother.--CSvBibra (talk) 16:57, 23 September 2021 (UTC) If no one can point to an official statement or pronouncement, I think we should drop "House of Glücksburg (official)"
.--CSvBibra (talk) 17:25, 29 September 2021 (UTC) I went ahead and changed it. --CSvBibra (talk) 18:12, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

• • He is a Glücksburg

References

House

Clarification of house issue. The crown Prince’s coat of arms only display the house of Glucksburg(his mothers house) while His fathers is emitted entirely, this is clearly intentional, if he belonged to the house of Monpezat officially it would be present on his coat of arms in some capacity. Monpezat is not even a royal house. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Famaja (talk • contribs) 15:36, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

• • He is a Glücksburg

References

"Crown Prince of Denmark" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Crown Prince of Denmark has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 April 1 § Crown Prince of Denmark until a consensus is reached. Estar8806 (talk) 21:00, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

"Frederik X of Denmark" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Frederik X of Denmark has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 April 23 § Frederik X of Denmark until a consensus is reached. Estar8806 (talk) 15:42, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Lieu

Hi, is the phrase "In 2016, in lieu of the Olympics in Rio ..." correct usage of 'in lieu of'? AFAIK the common meaning is "in stead of", but perhaps there are other uses, too, Idk. If it is "in stead of", the sentence seems a bit weird. T 84.208.65.62 (talk) 19:49, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

In this case, "in lieu of" suggests that instead of pursuing his dream to compete in the Olympics in Rio, Frederik chose not to do so after meeting his wife, implying that meeting his wife caused him to forgo chasing his Olympic aspirations. 90.167.254.235 (talk) 20:07, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi, thx. I guess most people get the meaning. I just thought the wording was a bit clumsy. No major point, though. T 84.208.65.62 (talk) 15:21, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Title of Crown Prince

Title of Crown Prince in Denmark is Crown Prince to Denmark, not of. Everyone, who has the right to directly become the monarch of Denmark is prince/princesse to Denmark, those who are only connected to the royal family by marriage and blood-relationship are prince/princesse of Denmark. There is a huge difference between Prins til Danmark and Prins af Danmark. Can it be given at Wikipedia as well? 2A02:AA7:4621:EB62:1:0:21E4:F4CB (talk) 08:54, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't really work in English. Preposition usage can vary from language to language and some subtleties may be lost or not translate well. The best English translation remains "of". Wellington Bay (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 02:17, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:34, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

For future

I know that this is a little early, but in regard to the recent announcement, will there be agreement that the Crown Prince’s article would be moved to Fredrick X and his wife as Queen Mary of Denmark? AKTC3 (talk) 18:57, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

I also have a proposal for the lede simply as follows:

Frederik X (Frederik André Henrik Christian; born 26 May 1968) is King of Denmark. He ascended the throne following the abdication of his mother, Queen Margrethe II, on 14 January 2024. AKTC3 (talk) 19:20, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

It should be Frederik, just like now. I'd favor just the regnal number but prepare for an avalanche of opinions as to why ''of Denmark'' should be in the title. Killuminator (talk) 19:32, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Let's not forget the next heir, Prince Christian of Denmark. Christian, Crown Prince of Denmark currently redirects to a long dead historical figure. Killuminator (talk) 19:35, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

I presume that to be an easy settlement. I imagine for that redirect to be moved to Prince Christian’s article, since he almost certainly would be the primary topic. AKTC3 (talk) 19:40, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

I propose the intro be;

"Frederik X, (Frederik André Henrik Christian; born 26 May 1968) is King of Denmark.

He is the elder son of Queen Margrethe II and Prince Henrik. He was born during the reign of his grandfather, King Frederik IX and became Crown Prince of Denmark following the accession of his mother as Queen of Denmark on 14 January 1972. He succeeded to the throne following the abdication of his mother on 14 January 2024." GandalfXLD (talk) 20:07, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

His grandfather should continue to be called "King Frederick IX", fwiw. GoodDay (talk) 06:43, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

When he ascends the Danish throne, the page should be re-named Frederick X of Denmark, in line with the nine previous monarchs named Frederick. PS - I know, that's not going to happen though. GoodDay (talk) 06:30, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

• NB. His name is spelled FREDERIK. There is no C in his name. Same for his grandfather Frederik IX. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 07:48, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

  Yes in Danish. In English it's Frederick. GandalfXLD (talk) 09:48, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

But we use the Danish version, Frederik. It just confuses things unnecessarily to introduce an irrelevant English spelling into this conversation, which is after all about the precise name the article will have from 14 January. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 09:53, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm just saying. I'm well aware the article will be renamed Frederik X of Denmark. GandalfXLD (talk) 13:16, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

FWIW, his grandfather's bio page is called Frederick IX of Denmark (with the 'c'), as are the other previous Danish monarchs named Frederick. PS - I know, historians at some point 'stopped' using english versions of names of monarchs & went with the monarch's country's own language version. Thus why we have Margrethe II (Danish) & Felipe VI (Spanish), rather then Margaret II & Philip VI, for example. GoodDay (talk) 15:53, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

I, personally, would prefer that the English names are used on English Wikipedia with there native names in the Infobox. But that's just me. GandalfXLD (talk) 18:09, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

For the sake of consistency should articles on previous Fredericks be changed to Frederik (and articles on Danish monarchs renamed to Danish names from English? Wellington Bay (talk) 00:44, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

When legal names began to be registered with governments, we stopped translating them and using English exonyms, because those spellings were then legally incorrect. That happened around the year 1900. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:25, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

When did they stop? Anyways, sooner or later somebody should open an RFC of some kind, at the proper place. If possible we need to settle which is the correct name concerning monarchs. Spain for example is quite confusing - They've got (english version) "Ferdinand VII", (spanish version) "Isabella II", (english version) "Amadeus", (spanish version) "Alfonso XII". GoodDay (talk) 02:24, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Why ask me something that I've already written? Just above your question: around the year 1900.

We do not need an RfC, especially not if we're going to discuss what is done in Spanish. As far as I'm concerned, it's been settled: royals who died before 1900: English exonyms; royals who lived after that: legal spelling in their own languages. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:43, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Afternoon everyone. I have an updated intro proposal from the one I suggested on 31 December 2023. I propose it be as follows;

"Frederik X, (Frederik André Henrik Christian; born 26 May 1968) is King of Denmark. He succeeded to the throne following the abdication of his mother on 14 January 2024.

He is the elder son of Queen Margrethe II and Prince Henrik. He was born during the reign of his grandfather, King Frederik IX and became Crown Prince following the accession of his mother as Queen of Denmark on 14 January 1972. He was educated privately at home and at Krebs School, École des Roches and Øregård Gymnasium. He earned a Master of Science degree in political science from Aarhus University. After university, he served in diplomatic posts at the United Nations and in Paris. He has trained in all three branches of the Danish Armed Forces.

In 2000, Frederik met Australian marketing consultant Mary Donaldson while attending the 2000 Summer Olympics in Sydney. They married on 14 May 2004 at Copenhagen Cathedral. They have four children: Christian, Isabella, Vincent and Josephine." GandalfXLD (talk) 13:09, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Notes

Frederick IX to Frederik IX

Any mention of his maternal grandfather, may as well be changed to "Frederik IX", as that's where his grandfather's RM is heading. GoodDay (talk) 04:11, 9 January 2024 (UTC)