|WikiProject Denmark||(Rated B-class, Low-importance)|
|WikiProject Islands||(Rated B-class)|
|This article contains a translation of Anholt from da.wikipedia.|
|This article contains a translation of Anholt (Insel) from de.wikipedia.|
|This article contains a translation of Anholt (Danemark) from fr.wikipedia.|
Is there really any evidence for the information that Anholt was "forgotten" in the Treaty of Roskilde in 1658? Sources, please!
I mean the distance to Denmark is a little bit shorter than to Sweden, and perhaps Anholt was not important for the Swedes.
And there must be some more relevant information about the Island. About 1/3 of the entire article is about this alleged "mistake" back in 1658.
- Well, Mr Adamsky. What do you mean by reverting som "unhelpful contribution". It is really better English to write "It part of..." instead of "It is part of...". And what has Bornholm to do in an article about Anholt? --Andhanq 18:40, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Optimist: I have taken the liberty to interchange eastern and western and to add a little, not intending to make the article comprehensive. I do not think that the Roskilde 1658 story is verifiable, but it is very popular. A variation of the legend claims that the island was hidden by a glass of beer during inspection of the map.
- This text from the Anholt tourist information: I kirkelig henseende hørte Anholt antagelig indtil midten af 1500-tallet til Morup sogn i Halland. says that Anholt until the middle of the 16th century (about 100 years before the Treaty of Roskilde) probably belonged to Morup in Halland. --Vedum 22:06, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
- Store Danske Encyklopædi: ... Indtil midten af 1500-t. tilhørte øen i kirkelig henseende Morup sogn i Halland. Anholt var i ældre tid underlagt kronen, men blev i 1668 solgt og overgik i 1674 til Hans Rostgaard,... (entry: Anholt). Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 22:16, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
- But the fact that a new parish was created on the island does not explain why the island was not ceded in 1658. It was part of Morup till the 16th century. Unless there is proof to the contrary, the island would administratively have remained part of Halland after the new church was built. Danish provinces didn't change much back in those days. Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 22:20, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
- Well, I think that Sweden was not so very keen to get this island. Most important for Sweden was of course to get access to the west coast of the Scandinavian mainland. So, Denmark could keep Anholt. And the island is situated slightly closer to Jutland, so today it is just natural that it is still Danish. I think the text is rather good at present. Perhaps some more history could be included in the article, so not this question (or alleged legends) allows to dominate the history section. --Vedum 00:13, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
- Of course, Corfitz Ulfelt and the rest of the Swedish delegation had bigger fish to fry. But from what I've heard, they had a strong interest in Hven / Ven which I've always found somewhat odd given the small size of this island. I can only agree that a more comprehensive history section would be wonderful, as would a bigger article in general. Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 00:22, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
- Ven may be a small island. But it is closer to Scania than to Zealand. Danish fortificationes there could have been dangerous for Sweden at the time. And a Danish Saltholm and a Swedish Ven make up a straight border line. Anholt is just a little bit closer to Jutland, but perhaps it was for the Swedes not worth fighting for. I read somewhere that Anholt belonged earlier to "Kalø len". Kalø is in Djursland (which today is the name of the municipality to which Anholt belongs). So, I don´t think it odd at all, that Anholt remained Danish, beer glasses or not. --Vedum 23:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- I am sorry, the name of the municipality ist Norddjur, but Djursland is the peninsula where Kalø is. Anholt belonged early to an administrative subdivison in Jutland. Perhaps it was only ecclesiatically it belonged to Morup? --Vedum 21:11, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
- The parish was normally the most important unit in old Danish administration, and I just noticed this image which doesn't assign it under Jutland. A local website has a bit more information.  It looks to me like the island originally did belong to the eastern lands, but the situation might have become blurred later. To be frank, the only thing that comes to mind when I think about Kalø is that it was a notorious pirate lair. Perhaps the island might have changed hands a few times. Samsø has belonged both Jutland and Zealand. Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 21:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Concerning the ship Grinder
Disambiguation: Another ship named “Grinder” was captured in 1810, but by the French not the Danes. This other “Grinder” was then recaptured by HMS Favorite, sloop, on 3 October 1810 [London Gazette issue 16464 page 513 dated 16 march 1811] and is probably the merchant vessel referred to in the press in Jan 1811 arriving at Whitehaven - "The Grinder, Turner, loaded with a cargo of wool from Lisbon; taken by a French privateer but retaken by an English sloop of war and carried into Plymouth..." [The Lancaster Gazette on 19 January 1811 and The Caledonian Mercury (Edinburgh) on 24 January 1811.]
The article on Anholt (Denmark) claims nothing more is known of the Grinder captured by the Danes. This is not strictly true.
"A Gottenburg mail has brought letters and papers to the 3rd inst. An article, under the date April 21, gives a long account of the capture of an English gun brig in the Baltic. This vessel had wintered at the Island of Anholt. Her loss was two men killed and two wounded. She proved to be the Grinder, Lieutenant Esher." [The Times of May 14th, 1810] [The Morning Chronicle (London) 14 May 1810]
A Danish website records that the four Danish gunboats were commanded by First Lieutenant Skibsted and captured "Grinder" somewhere near Samsø "13 APR 1810 : 4 kanonbåde under premierløjtnant Skibsted erobrer ud for Samsø den engelske kanonbåd GRINDER."
Thus we have both the British and the Danish commanders names. This may not add a lot to the story of Anholt, but it may be worth recording here [?] It still does not identify the Grinder as a British warship. Viking1808 (talk) 18:23, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
- Hi Viking1808, Great info. I have added it to the story. I have also found this, "Den dansk-norske Sömagts historie 1700-1814" By Hans Garde. On p.548 he too discusses the incident. However, I cannot read Norwegian or Danish so am not sure what he reports other than the over-wintering at Anholt, Skipsted's full name, and that he was escorting a convoy of eight vessels. The big issue remains that there is no record that I can find in any of the standard lists of British warships of the time of any Grinder. She does not seem to have been a Navy vessel, a hired vessel, or even a normal privateer. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 23:43, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Thank you, Acad Ronin for this extra reference
Thus translated from Den dansk-norske Sömagts historie 1700-1814 By Hans Garde page 548
"The gunboat Grinder, Lieutenant Esther, had been stationed over winter at Anholt, which the British had taken and occupied in May 1809, and it had already seized 12 Danish merchant ships. On 13 April  Grinder was again hunting two small ships when First Lieutenant Peter Nicoly Skibsted, who with 4 [Danish] gunboats was convoying 8 transport ships from Udbyhøj [at the mouth of the Randers Fjord, Jutland] to Samsø, spotted her. He at first shielded his gunboats behind the transports, thus tricking the enemy to draw closer. As soon as [the Grinder] noticed the stratagem, he tried to flee, but Skibsted was successful in rowing up to him, and after a few shots were exchanged, forcing him to surrender."
I note that the British Lieutenant's name is spelt Esther in this Danish account, not Esher. Is this significant?
The same book, a few pages later, gives graphic details of Lieutenant Skibsted's next command of three luggers, and their capture in a cutting out expedition by ten boats [200 men] from HMS Edgar and HMS Dictator briefly confirmed in London Gazette Date:25 February 1812 Issue number:16578 Page number:385 and in more detail here. Viking1808 (talk) 15:47, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
- Hi Viking1808, Thanks for the translation. What I have found frustrating is that I cannot find any trace, other than in these accounts in the British and German newspapers reprinting of the Danish accounts, of the Grinder or her commander. I think there is a small WP article in this incident, in part because the mystery itself is interesting, but it must necessarily be limited in scope. I don't have any access to the Navy List, where there might be some mention of Lieut. Esther, but as I said, I have found no mention of this officer in stories unrelated to this incident. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 21:04, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
The information above should justify the re-writing of a sentence on the Grinder approximately as follows "the Grinder, out of Anholt, was captured off the Djursland peninsula [or Grenaa ]by four danish gunboats" - my reasons are that the recorded course of the danish convoy was from Randers fjord [ Udbyhøj ] to Samsø which requires the passage along the whole of that peninsula's coast, and comprises 95% of their entire planned route. See a google map for "Djursland". Viking1808 (talk) 11:58, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
- I have today posted the question in Danish on Balsved's Danish Naval History website/forum, regarding GRINDER's identity, searching for more sources. Ever hopeful Viking1808 (talk) 13:10, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Two replies so far to the Danish website question, summarised as follows – Eric Nielsen suggests that any "English" officer who commanded the GRINDER may have been an officer of the marines, who may have been temporarily manning this vessel, rather than strictly a naval officer. [thus making identification more difficult] Rudi Hansen has introduced a small document from Orlogmuseet [Danish Royal Naval Museum] archives link: which implies that this ship was recaptured [!!] on 5 July 1811. Other details remain to be puzzled out. Both emphasise the difficulties in Ships’ names recording. See The Sail and Steam Navy List Viking1808 (talk) 18:04, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
- The small document above has been deciphered to give the names of four books in Danish which act as sources for future information
- Oplysninger vedrørende den danske flaades skibe i sidste aarhundrede, af etatsråd H. Degenkolv, København, 1906.(Information concerning The Danish fleet's ships in the last century]– page 216
- With, J.P. : Danske og norske søheltes Bedrifter fra Aar 1797 - 1813(The exploits of Danish and Norwegian sea-heroes in the years 1797 - 1813)page 119
- TOPSØE-JENSEN, T.A. OG EMIL MARQUARD - Officerer i Den dansk-norske søetat 1660-1814 og Den danske søetat 1814-1932. Andet bind Kloppenborg-Ørsted. H. Hagerup 1935 (Officers of the Danish-Norwegian Naval service) Vol 2. Page 519
- C.F. Wandel, Søkrigen i de dansk-norske Farvande 1807-14. (1915)(the history of the war at sea in Danish-Norwegian Waters 1807 - 1814)This book is not available to read on line, but a limited search for “GRINDER” indicates pages 260,264 and 268
From Page 216 of the book listed at number 1 above, transcribed and translated, is the following
"PRIZE No.5 Captured by First Lieutenant P N Skibsted near Anholt on 13 April 1810. One 24-pound cannon/ One 24-pound Carronade and one 4-pound Howitzer
1810 Brought into Samsø and repaired, left on 23 June to go to Fladstrand (near Frederikshavn) and thereafter to Skagen, (* both in Northern Jutland) where she was forced aground in a storm on the 4 and 5 August, was put to rights and left in December for Fladstrand where she was laid up.
1811 From March was based at Fladstrand, she was, on 5 July retaken by the English during an attack on a convoy which lay between the (islands of) Hjelmen and Sejerø" Viking1808 (talk) 14:49, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Anholt (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/20120203102359/http://www.anholt.dk/havmollepark.htm to http://www.anholt.dk/havmollepark.htm
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050206170219/http://anholt.dk:80/english.htm to http://www.anholt.dk/english.htm
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110527193306/http://www.anholt.dk/images/Engelsk/Blue-UK.pdf to http://www.anholt.dk/images/Engelsk/Blue-UK.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at
You may set the
|checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting
|needhelp= to your help request.
- 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.
If you are unable to use these tools, you may set
|needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.