Jump to content

Talk:House of Glücksburg: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
No edit summary
changed assessment rating!
Line 1: Line 1:
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=
{{WikiProject Biography|living=yes|class=Stub|royalty-priority=High|royalty-work-group=yes|peerage-work-group=yes|peerage-priority=High|attention=yes|needs-infobox=yes|listas=Glucksburg, House Of}}
{{WikiProject Biography|living=yes|class=C|royalty-priority=High|royalty-work-group=yes|peerage-work-group=yes|peerage-priority=High|attention=yes|needs-infobox=yes|listas=Glucksburg, House Of}}
{{WikiProject Denmark|class=Stub|importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Denmark|class=Start|importance=High}}
{{WikiProject British Royalty|class=Stub|importance=Mid|attention=yes|needs-infobox=yes}}
{{WikiProject British Royalty|class=Stub|importance=Mid|attention=yes|needs-infobox=yes}}
|blp=yes}}
|blp=yes}}

Revision as of 02:44, 3 December 2013

German!?!

why does this article sounds like it is made by a writer from denmark? everything is related to something danish... it is stupid. if you are able to read a littlebit german and konw something about history you find out that this house is a german house and not a "branch of the House of Oldenburg that is descended from King Christian III of Denmark." also the house of oldenburg is a german house and not a danish, just because the house of oldenburg "rose to prominence when Count Christian I of Oldenburg was elected King of Denmark in 1448, and of Norway in 1450. The house has occupied the Danish throne ever since." if i had no clue what is going on I would think that this house is of danish descent... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.153.109.44 (talk) 23:17, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Should we set up a category called House of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg

Should we set up a category called House of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg, or perhaps just House of Glücksburg (which is how the Norwegian royal family describes it), so that we can assign the relevant family members to this house? Alternately, should they all be assigned to a House of Oldeburg category? --Leifern 16:41, 2005 Mar 25 (UTC)

Hmm...a House of Oldenburg category would be enormous. We could have a House of Oldenburg category, and then subcategorize with Glücksburg and Gottorp (and Augustenburg?) sub-categories. Members who are none of these (like the senior Danish line up to 1863) could go in the main category. john k 18:06, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
That sounds like a good idea to me. I'll get started with it one of these first few days. --Leifern 23:41, 2005 Mar 26 (UTC)

Winsor/Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg

When Charles becomes King of England... will this be the end of the House of Winsor? because he is the son of Prince Philip who belongs to the house of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg.

It will be the end of the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha. Supposedly Charles is also of the House of Windsor, in the same way that Beatrix is part of the House of Orange-Nassau, or Henri is part of the House of Nassau. john k 5 July 2005 04:26 (UTC)

John Kenney - You are completely wrong. Acording to UK and then Saxe-Coburg law, the Dukedom of Saxe-Coburg passed outside the UK Royal Family. The Prince of Wales is no more the last member of the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha than you or I. Again according to Dutch and Luxembourg law, House Law, and internationally recognised status, Queen Beatrix is part of the House of Orange-Nassau (do not please confuse with other parts of the house of Nassau). I get the impression that some people here have never heard of House Law (legitmate if issued by sovereign) or State Law, or indeed Public International Law. As regards Grand Duke Henri, according to Luxembiurg and House Law, he is of the House of Nassau. If this is meant to be an encyclocpedia, perhaps it would be better not to contribute unless one really knows what one is talking about! Nicht wahr!79.36.123.105 (talk) 00:08, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

how to present notability

The list of notable scions of this house contains people whose highest notability is earned through their marriages and positions achieved by marital alliance. That's reason why it's useful to mention already in the beginning of each person's listing, the thing that made (usually her) very notable. The ruke of using maiden name is intended for NAMING the articles, and not for how to mention the person in the article. Therefore I regard it over-eagerness to forcefully change everything to use maiden name, even in cases where another sort of description fits better the context. We do not hopefully say that in an article telling about interior design in baroque French place that "Anne of Austria decided to renovate the place" but we, I hope, are able to say "Queen Regent [[Anne of Austria|Anne]], during her son's minority, decided to renovate the place". It is altigether well to mention a historical person using descriptions that are most telling in the context where it s used, and only the wiki-link needs to be directed to the correctly-named article. Besides, it will be a repetitive (and frustrating) list if products of a certain house, who therefore usually share the same surname, must be listed using that same surname in each one's listing alreafdy at the beginning - lists are much better done if they highlight the difference between the persons, and not present them with only small thing differing, such as the first name (and sometimes even first names are shared between two or more persons of the same house). Henq 09:40, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We say Anne of Austria because that name is instantly recognizable while Queen Regent Anne leaves most readers scratching their heads. User:Dimadick

Arms

What on Earth is the sinister half of these arms? A bordure deeply indented? Anybody know how it is blazoned in German? --Orange Mike | Talk 15:12, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dynasty coat of arms

Locating the proper arms for this dynasty seems somewhat tricky. In the case that the intended "head" of this family is considered to be the line currently residing in Glücksburg Castle [as the list seems to suggest] then no free image is available. This family's arms can be seen at http://www.schloss-gluecksburg.de/ (top left). If only monarchs qualify, the relevant head must be the Danish monarch and the relevant insignia would be either the current arms of the Danish royals or the former Danish arms which has been used by both the Danish and Greek branches. This symbol was changed slightly in 1903 and prince Carl wasn't proclaimed king of Norway before 1905 otherwise it would fit nicely with him as well. A third option is the arms of the House of Oldenburg (Or two bars Gules) which is described as a dynastic symbol on the Danish monarchy's official webpage. I haven't been able to locate a copy of this arms either. In any case, the modern Landeswappen of Schleswig-Holstein is incorrect. Valentinian T / C 00:03, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A house transcends monarchy and the like. The arms that should be used are those of the "main" branch of the family, that is the one which is not differenced by any other territorial or royal arms. The Queen of Denmark is not and cannot be head of the house as she is a female and there are living males. Perhaps someone can contact the Ducal Family about permissions or a free version of the arms? Charles 00:40, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To put it shortly, the arms which all members of this house are entitled to bear should be the arms used. Similar to the escutcheon of Saxony common to all Wettins. Charles 00:43, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Empress of Germany

According to the entry for Emperor William II, his first wife was Princess Augusta Viktoria of Schleswig-Holstein. Is she part of this family? If so, should she be inlcuded?79.36.123.105 (talk) 23:56, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Greenland

On the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha page, it's countries are listed as the commonwealth realms, and one of them is the UK. However, England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland aren't listed as one of the countries, being caused by the fact that they're all constituent countries within the United Kingdom, just as Greenland is an autonomous constituent country within the Kingdom of Denmark, and not a sovereign state. Therefore I am removing Greenland from the countries section.. If I am wrong please correct moi. (/mwa/).. Also, if someone demands Greenland to be there, shouldn't the Faroes also be there? They have the same status within the Danish realm. --MrGulli (talk) 14:32, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Constitutionally speaking, Greenland is an autonomous province of the Kingdom of Denmark. The Faroe Islands is a province with extensive home rule (the status Greenland also held until it gained full autonomous status 1 or 2 years ago). Greenland has achieved a legal right from [the rest of] Denmark, that it *may* one day proclaim independence, but has not done so. Neither of those are "countries" in the diplomatic meaning of this term. 89.239.209.112 (talk) 16:51, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The House of Windsor

In two places it is claimed that the children of Elizabeth II will be of the House of Glucksburg. This is contradicted here House_of_Windsor#Descendants_of_Elizabeth_II and here http://www.heraldica.org/topics/britain/prince_highness_docs.htm#1960, which states all Elizabeth's descendants shall be Windsor or Mountbatten-Windsor.--Mongreilf (talk) 11:08, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. See also the next section and Talk:House of Windsor. Rubywine (talk) 14:37, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a promotional tool

Wikipedia is being used as a promotional platform for the House of Glücksburg. One or two editors are aggressively promoting the agenda that all patrilineal descendants of this ancient but fading royal house must be prominently linked to this article. This is unjustified, political/ideological traditionalism. There is no good reason why Wikipedia should observe "genealogical law" or Salic Law, neither of which are laws in 2011. There is no reason why Wikipedia should treat patrilineal ancestry (or any other ancestry) as inherently notable if there is no evidence that it is politically, socially or culturally significant. This article is almost totally lacking in reliable external sources; currently, it has precisely one(!) online reference, a Scotsman article which scarcely mentions Prince Philip's lineage, and one offline reference, which lacks any correct footnotes; therefore I oppose the campaign being undertaken to link numerous biographies of members of the House of Windsor to this article. Incidentally I think it's amusing that although assiduous efforts have been made to tag almost every last descendant of Philip as a member of the House of Glücksburg, Prince Harry has somehow been "forgotten", and although a vigorous argument has been launched to claim Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge, on the grounds that she has married into the family, they haven't quite mustered up the nerve to claim Elizabeth II. Rubywine (talk) 14:37, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

-er; that isn't what 'salic law' means, I hope you realise. More to the point, a Queen Regnant (like Elizabeth II) always retains their house designation even if married. Usually (but not always) her children, if and when they succeed to the throne take the house designation of their father. So; for example, Victoria was a member of the House of Hanover (or Guelph/Welf); and reigned as such, but her son, Edward VII, was of the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha. (or Wettin)92.3.143.240 (talk) 11:24, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And since then there have been pronoucements concerning the British Royal house, family name etc so all that is totally irrelevant ! PhilomenaO'M (talk) 20:35, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]



File:Greek 30 Drachma coin 1863.JPG Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Greek 30 Drachma coin 1863.JPG, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests March 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Greek 30 Drachma coin 1863.JPG)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 20:17, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WeAreNotGermans

Wikipedia is not a place for anyone's agenda. Please stop edit-warring and discuss if there is anything to discuss. The fact that these monarchs belong(ed) to this royal house is indisputable. Surtsicna (talk) 11:06, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]