Talk:Frederik X

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

I don't think that the Crown Prince is preceded by anybody in the Line of Succession to the Danish Crown.

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)

Dynasty

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)

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 Frederick 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)