Talk:Christian X of Denmark

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Rewrite project.[edit]

There are apparently some mistakes in my summary of the Easter Crisis of 1920, particularly relating to the disposition of Zahle's government at the end of the crisis. I'm trying to find a source that clearly explains the process at this time. User:Tomlillis 14th October

If you read Danish, the best book is probably Tage Kaarsted's "Påskekrisen 1920". --Valentinian 16:49, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sources[edit]

Is there a source for the assertion that the star of David story is apocryphal? Durova 18:06, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For one thing, that the Star of David was never introduced in Denmark. Two, no Danish history books takes this story serious. The Danish Jews were arrested by the Nazis following the collapse of the coorporation between the German and Danish governments. Danish governments had - until then - succesfully avoided the introduction of the Yellow Star. When the government resigned and the Germans reigned supreme, they simply went straight to the arrestment phase. Regards. --Valentinian 00:32, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This page contains more information: http://www.snopes.com/history/govern/denmark.htm Valentinian (talk) 09:56, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I found nothing on that page now. But I too am curious on this note- the way I've heard the story is the star of David wasn't used in Denmark because of the King's actions in insisting on wearing the star, followed by copycats in the populace. This would not disagree with the main article, which states that the star was not used in Denmark, but then uses it as a justification for the story being apocryphal.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Abdul Muhib (talk • contribs)

If I am allowed to quote snopes.com, from the link above, here is probably the origin for the myth:

"A Swedish newspaper cartoon (possibly the origin of this legend) depicted the monarch talking with the former Danish prime minster, who asks him, "What are we going to do, Your Majesty, if Scavenius makes all the Jews wear yellow stars?" (Erik Scavenius was the Danish foreign minister who became prime minister at the insistence of the Germans after the Danish government resigned in 1943.) The king responds by asserting, "We'll all have to wear yellow stars.""

If I'm not allowed to quote snopes.com, I guess I'm in trouble!FlaviaR 20:20, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(resetting indent). Drat, somebody must have shut it down. You might be interested in the article about the German Occupation of Denmark. The reason the Danish Jews were never forced to wear the Yellow Star was that the Danish government was officially allowed to stay in office by the Germans and that the introduction of the star was one of several issues the Danish cabinet refused seing them as a "red line". The most prominent other red lines were rejecting the introduction of the death penalty and refusing German military courts to sentence Danes, which the Germans demanded in case of saboteurs. The first source I can think of is Lidegaard, Bo (2003), Dansk Udenrigspolitiks Historie, IV, Copenhagen: Gyldendal, pp. 540-549 and 614-615. To quote a few passages: "The question about the status of the Danish Jews was raised by the Germans on numerous occations during the first years of the Occupation. The [Danish] government, however, categorically rejected any discussion citing that no "Jewish question" existed in Denmark. It was apparent for Berlin, that restraint on this issue was part of the price for a peaceful occupation [of Denmark] and the policy of cooperation. No Danish will to compromise existed here and the question was put aside as long as the Danish government carried out its obligations regarding the policy of cooperation." (p. 540, loose translation). "

and

"The casualty rates of the Danish Jews of no more than 100 out of 7,000 seems almost miraculous compared to the countries around us. Around 40 % Norway's 1,800 Jews perished, 75 % of Holland's, half of Hungary's. The rescue of the Danish Jews from the Holocaust has since then been seen as the Danes' finest hour (author's italics). It has been presented as the miraculous exception which seems so needed, in order to endure the thought about the Holocaust. The rescue has been seen as the result of a spontaneous humanitarian action from a population, which in disgust turned against the meaningless persecution of helpless fellow citizens, and whom - with heroic contempt for personal consequences - helped where it was most needed. (...) With time, this story has assumed mythical proportions including elements without any connection to the historical reality. One such is the well known story about King Christian X wearing his star of David on his morning rides in Copenhagen.[since the king didn't own such a star, the word "his" is inaccurate, but original in the text, V.]

(teeniest of little nitpicks: since the article was discussing mythical stories, the part about the star being the King's was therefore being referred to as mythical as well, so it was correct in the context of the article. FlaviaR 20:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Another rumour claims that the king - questioned how he would reply should the hated star be introduced in Denmark - should have replied that in such case, he would have worn it as a badge of honour. (pages 545-546).

and

"The background for this sudden German interest in excluding the Danish Jews from the devellish ambitions of the Endlösung was consequently due to BOTH the fact, that Danish authorities and representatives at all levels [of government] from the very first hours of the Occupation consequently and without hesitation stated that the exclusion of the Jewish element of the population would make any further cooperation [with Germany] impossible AND the far-ranging Danish concessions given to the Germans on a number of other policy issues. In short, the entire system of the cooperation policy. The case of Denmark seems to suggest that, even within Nazi inner circles, and even in the last horrible year of both the war and genocide, an alternative political rationale could be established which also the Nazis took into some form of account." (p. 614) [The author alludes to the fact that the Danish Jews, when finally arrested, were generally not sent to the worst camps so many of those sent to camp also survived the war, V.] Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 09:35, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to mention it before; "Dansk Udenrigspolitiks Historie" means "The History of Danish Foreign Policy". It is a six volume work and the first attempt to write a complete chronological description of Danish foreign policy. It is commissioned by the publishers of the Great Danish Encyclopedia and it is considered to be a very solid piece of work. Regards. Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 09:38, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article about the Yellow badge listed a few additional sources; [1] and a book about the Queen where HM describes this story as pretty but untrue. Regards. Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 12:44, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Iceland[edit]

Would it be worthwhile to add "King of Iceland" to the succession box? --Lemmy Kilmister--

Done. Valentinian (talk) 20:40, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Was King Christian X called King Christian I as the King of Iceland? -- Nidator 16:31, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see that they call him Kristján X on the list of Icelandic rulers. I guess this means that the Danish numbering was used in Iceland too, but that the name was written in Icelandic. I'm asking because I think it would make sense to make an article on the Kingdom of Iceland. -- Nidator 16:45, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct, it is the Danish numbering with his name written in Icelandic. During his reign, Iceland got its own separate coinage minted at the Royal Mint in Copenhagen, and these coins use Christian's CX cypher, see e.g. http://www.gladsaxegymnasium.dk/2/artikler/isl60nna.htm, so I believe this notation must have been official. The Icelandic Wikipedia's article is also is:Kristján 10.. Valentinian T / C 17:52, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All the previous Christians had ruled Iceland, so that's why the numbering is the same. He was the 10th Christian to be king of Iceland, Iceland had just previously been considered a dependency of first Norway and then Denmark rather than a kingdom in its own right, but that doesn't change the fact that the previous Danish kings since 1380 were Iceland's monarch.--Batmacumba (talk) 14:53, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed from the succession box the statement that he was pretender to the Icelandic throne after 1944. If somebody can provide a published source which describes him in this fashion, then it should be re-instated. Noel S McFerran 12:18, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is safe to say that both myself and Valentinian agree with you on that. -- Nidator 15:14, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The republic was declared following the expiration of a 25 year period agreed on in the Danish-Icelandic union treaty of 1918, so it was done by a procedure accepted by the Danish government and as such the monarch had no basis for claiming Iceland.--Batmacumba (talk) 14:53, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

military history?[edit]

On what possible basis is Christian a figure in military history? This wikiproject has reached the level of complete insanity in articles included within its purview. john k 01:35, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MILHIST is currently going through an assessment drive of articles that were flagged by a bot as potentially being relevant to the project. This involves sorting through the results and marking those that aren't relevant, while assessing those that are if they haven't been already. Christian X of Denmark was one of the results that was flagged, which is why I took a look at it to see if it did fall within the scope of the project. I decided to add him to MILHIST on the basis of his role as a war leader during the German occupation. Although largely symbolic, in consideration of Denmark being a constitutional monarchy, it was significant. I should note that several other leaders of countries that were involved in World War II have been included within the scope of the project. However I'm open to removing him from the scope of the project if there's a consensus for non-inclusion. --BrokenSphereMsg me 17:00, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I responded on your talk page. I think I have at least three objections: 1) that Denmark's involvement in World War II was tangential at best, as there were no military campaigns involving the Danish army; 2) that Christian's status as an essentially powerless constitutional monarch makes his inclusion dubious - I note that a number of British monarchs, the earlier of which were actually reasonably involved in actual political control of wars, and are not in the project (Anne of Great Britain, George III of the United Kingdom, George IV of the United Kingdom, Victoria of the United Kingdom, George V of the United Kingdom, George VI of the United Kingdom) - the only exception in the last 300 years is George II, who actually led troops in battle at Dettingen (George I actually commanded troops in the War of the Grand Alliance and War of the Spanish Succession before inheriting Britain, and should probably be included, but is not at present).; and finally, and probably more controversially 3) that civilian political leaders who never actually commanded troops should not be included in the project. john k 17:40, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some of this response is what I posted on yours -

  1. Danish involvement was hardly tangential - it was profoundly affected by being one of the countries invaded and occupied by Germany in 1940 and later was used as a base for the invasion of Norway. We also have articles of reasonable length based on Denmark's situation like Occupation of Denmark and Danish resistance movement as well as more specific ones such as Deportation of the Danish police. Lack of effective Danish resistance at the start nor the speed at which the country was conquered do not relegate it to having a peripheral role during the war, albeit not an active one as some of the other occupied countries like say France or Poland.
  2. Christina's role as head of state and what he did during the war was important to the Danes, even if largely symbolic. As for similar monarchs who aren't yet in the project - they can always be added.
  3. I checked on other wartime leaders who are included within the project, e.g. FDR, Churchill, Mussolini, Vidkun Quisling, and Hirohito. Not one of these people actually commanded a force in the field during the war, yet are included within the project based on the roles they played. --BrokenSphereMsg me 18:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. After some discussion with other folks involved with the project and consideration, I'm removing the MILHIST banner (point #2). However my stance re. points #1 and 3 remains, but that is another subject. BrokenSphereMsg me 21:04, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps our view of the purview of the project is somewhat different. My general feeling is that having to do with a war should not be sufficient to get someone in a "military history" project. One should have to have something to do with the military aspects of the war. In terms of FDR, Churchill, Mussolini, Quisling, etc., I'd say that Churchill perhaps merits inclusion for his war reporting and service in WWI. Besides that, though, my general feeling is that while all these people (including Christian) ought to go in a "Wikiproject World War II", they do not belong in a "Wikiproject Military History". But to have this category include "everyone who's ever been a leader of a country which was at war" expands it to the point of meaninglessness. This isn't apparent yet because it's only been done for World War II, or for major countries. In terms of point 1, this probably doesn't matter at this point, but of course Denmark was deeply affected by its experience during the Second World War. On the flip side, though, Denmark did not seriously affect the course of World War II. At the formal level of international law, Denmark was arguably not even a belligerent. Which isn't to deny that there was a Danish resistance (I know little about it, but I would assume there was one), just that the Kingdom of Denmark, as a state, did not participate in the Second World War. This gets again to the issue of "military history". My general opinion is that "military history" doesn't mean "anything having to do with a war, no matter how distantly," but rather "history of military affairs". Abraham Lincoln and Edwin Stanton, though civilians, were arguably part of the military history of the American Civil War, because they were directing the Union's military efforts. I would suggest that Charles Francis Adams and Thaddeus Stevens, although important to an understanding of the Civil War, are not figures in military history, and so shouldn't be included. john k 22:27, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Saving Jews[edit]

The Terezin article mentions that he secured the release of inmates from Terezin concentration camp, yet this article makes no reference to it. Surely it should, that's a very notable thing? LouiseCooke —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.195.71.44 (talk) 13:58, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The yellow star of Christian 10.... and many, many other propaganda stories ... are a very widespread web of lies and good intentions. I have today shortened down the relation of one of the versions. But I think, that it could be relevant to make an article called something like: Propagandestories about king Christian 10. --82.125.185.219 (talk) 19:04, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propaganda and urban legends are two different things.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:05, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The stories about Christian should be called propaganda, because they were invented deliberately. Later they were backed up by Leon Uris in Exodus, which were also written deliberately with a political point of view. I believe, however, that some secondary stories were urban legends, but the main story, about the riding with a yellow star, can be traced down to a man with public-relation training in the association of danish-american citizens. I think the link is in the article. Recent research has settled that completely. But the propagandastories had no support from the king or the royal house. Poor Christian was only a pawn in the game. --82.125.185.219 (talk) 09:44, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See note nr. 2 to the article. --82.125.185.219 (talk) 13:41, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I added a link to this Pdf. "The King and the Star: Myths created during the Occupation of Denmark" by Vilhjálmur Örn Vilhjálmsson. It doesn't say however that the King did not know about the story. When it was circulated by the Danish ambassador to the US in 1943 it seems to me that the King must have known about it, and actively participated in the public relations strategy. I still don't think propaganda is the correct word for this. Very interesting though.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:44, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That the king could be unaware of the proceedings of Denmarks ambassador in USA is absolutely possible, but, you are right, its not proven. The ambassador, Kauffmann, had defected from the official danish politic and rallied Germanys ennemis. So all ties were cut. In the US there were danish citizens organising the participation of danish merchant ships in the allied warfare. During the war Kauffmann was condemned by the danish government, after he became the man who saved the country's reputation. But the article of Vilhjalmsson indicates that the it was a group of New York danish-americans who put the yellow star stories in circulation. Again: There is no proof, but strong evidence. --82.125.62.87 (talk) 08:11, 4 December 2012 (UTC) Cordialement Mio Nielsen, France.[reply]

What about Fictions about Christian X as title for a new article? Will I get some help, because my english is... rather foreign. --83.200.223.243 (talk) 15:35, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Today I inserted a new section about the king and the star and 15 minutes later half of it was deleted and a hagiographic sentence about the king added. Everybody must understand, that the danes were morally perfect under the war and the proof is... that they say it themselves. I would appreciate another opinion. --83.193.114.90 (talk) 16:11, 2 January 2013 (UTC)Mio Nielsen[reply]

I deleted the paragraph since it was poorly written, repeated material already included in the section above and used an editoriaklizing writing style not suitable for an encyclopedia. It also went straight from the myth of the Jewish star to Theresienstadt with no mention of the Rescue of the Danish Jews - it also made an unsupported statement that the King didn't speak out against the deportation. I am not on a mission to suggest that the Danes are or ever were morally perfect, but the balance between praise and blame needs to follow what is written in the literature. We are not here to rewrite the history of WW2 in Denmark, but to present what others have written.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:17, 2 January 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Are you aware, my earnest friend, that all the killer-dictators of history has praised peace in public and asserted that they wanted nothing else? Should we quote all that rubbish in their biography? No! For years people on wikipedia has demanded proofs that king Christian did not ride with a yellow armband. Things are getting better cause you are only asking for proofs that he did not speak out against the deportation. I believe the second half of my new section was necessary to understand the context. It needed corrections, certainly. The anecdote you have added is the kind of small-talk that the danes have used since the war to embellish their wartime behaviour. All the wikipediaarticles about Chr.X has been full of that kind of smalltalk: The danish, the swedish, the norvegian (less), the german (very much) and the french. Its a constant work to clean it away. What Chr. X said orally to a small audience has no more importance that if I say that we should give all we own to the poor. I am not going to revert your reverting. Keep some of your illusions and happy new year from--83.193.114.90 (talk) 20:17, 2 January 2013 (UTC) Mio Nielsen, France.[reply]

With the quotations from Hastings the article is far away from king Christian. Now the question is about the saving of the danish jews - an interesting subject having its own article on Wiki. My father too lived in Denmark during the war. Will he also get an article about how he saved the jews? Worse: Hastings notes the the english put their german refugees in camps. But the danes did worse: We gave them over to the Gestapo. It was only the jews who were danish citizens who should be saved. It is perfectly true, that most survived. A great thing certainly, but there is no historic evidence that the king played a role in that. However he has been appointed a hero and I am not correcting the article any longer. Its hopeless. --82.125.191.174 (talk) 09:26, 17 June 2013 (UTC) M. N.[reply]

Thank you Maunus, for deleting the quotations of Hastings. But the article is still not perfect in my eyes. The reader is still given the impression that Christian was important for the rescue of the danish jews. It is a fact that - like the majority of the danish population - Christian was not antisemitic. If you want to tell that in the article, it should be done without making the reader feel, that something is true in the stories about the star of David etc. We owe the millions of people who have believed in these stories to tell them clearly, that king Christian was not involved in saving the jews and that the stories were invented by other people and for another purpose. --83.200.157.166 (talk) 09:30, 22 June 2013 (UTC) M.N.[reply]

I will try to be even more clear. My contributions to the article were all based on the only serious historical work on the subject. It was in poor english certainly, but somebody could have corrected it. Instead of waiting for that to be done, half of it was deleted on the spot. The quotations from Hastings on the contrary were left until I protested. They were completely outside the subject, but they obviously intended to save some fragments of the mythical stories. And today there is still a remark like The myth has been read as a metaphor... ! And I am the contributor accused of editorialising ! As for the quotations from Munk by Møller, it should be said that Møller is a danish politician - not historian. Todays politicians are trying to justify danish wartime behaviour, they are not a neutral source. --83.200.157.166 (talk) 10:52, 23 June 2013 (UTC) M.N.[reply]

It is not editorializing to mention that some authors have considered the myth a metaphor for the warm relation - this is a fact. Editorializing is to tell the reader how they are supposed to read and understand the text of the article. Per Stig Møller is in fact a historian, he has a Dr.phil degree in literary history (specializing in the WW2 period), as well as a politician. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:04, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore you seem not to be realizing that a wikipedia article is supposed to give a balanced view of the literature on a topic - not a selective one focusing for example on the latest revisionist scholarship. The article now very clearly states that it is generally agreed upon that the story is a myth and has no basis in reality, but that the king also was not an anti-semite. This seems to me a very fair and balanced summary of the literature. If you believe it is not correctly reflecting the literature then you need to bring more sources showing that. We do not rewrite the article based on one source that takes a negative view of the king and his relation to the jews while all the others do the opposite.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:09, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I should have looked more in detail at Møllers biography. But for the rest I do not understand your point of view. Obviously the people who read the myth as a metaphor ignored how it was created. They ignored reality. If some people read the holocaust as a metaphor - then they are wrong. And their opinion should only be quoted as an error. Its as simple as that. As for taking a negative view of the king - then I do not follow you. Who are taking a negative view ? Not me certainly. I am trying to underline that neither he nor the danish government had anything to do with the creation of the myth. I hope you do not have a negative opinion about me, because I did not save anybody during WW2 ! Also: Your expression: ...it is generally agreed upon... leaves an uncertainty. If it is only generally agreed, then it means that there must be some dissident voices. I would like to hear who. Have you found one single historian saying that the king had something to do with the saving of the danish jews? The icelandic historian who have treated the matter is not a revisionist - as you call him. There has never been another serious opinion about the matter - as far as I know. --83.200.157.166 (talk) 14:08, 23 June 2013 (UTC)M.N.[reply]

A mainstream history of Denmark as the one by Danstrup and Koch is treating the occupation in the last volume. There is not a word about the kings actions. Because he did nothing. Very probably because he could do nothing. An ordinary dane as me heard the mythical stories only when I came to live outside Denmark. In history lessons in school we had the opinion from the teacher that the king stayed in the country as an act of submission. The teacher mentioned that the norwegian king had acted bravely by fleeing. But it is my opinion that king Christian simply did not get the time to do that. The germans came so surprisingly and went to Amalienborg before anything else. I suppose all other danish history books have been silent about the myth. Nobody has bothered to mention it and nobody has done research into its birth and expansion. The work of the Icelandic author is the first and only one - to my knowledge. If I am wrong I would like to know your sources. --83.200.222.37 (talk) 10:21, 24 June 2013 (UTC)M. N.[reply]

I don't see how the article currently gives the idea that the king did anything to save the Jews. It doesn't say anything at all about him having a role in saving the Jews. I states that the myth is a myth and quotes another anecdote presented by Møller, which also clearly does not say he had any role in saving anyone at all, but only suggests that he was not anti-Semitic. I really dont see the problem you are seeing.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 11:05, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your prompt answer. And here is mine: My last contribution here was not aimed at the article but at your last remarks just above. I must admit that the article is currently nearer to the truth than what I perceive as your personal opinion. Feel free not to answer my questions, but remember that there is a problem ... if not in the article then in the population. Look at the weird questions above on this talk-page. When there are wrong ideas out in the real world then our article should be particularly clear. Also because myth-creating is a very interesting issue. My best regards --83.200.222.37 (talk) 14:51, 24 June 2013 (UTC) M. N.[reply]

I don't have a personal opinion about Danish royalty or Denmark during WWII. I was very intrigued by the Icelandic scholar's study and I learned some very interesting things from this exchange. If you don't have further suggestions for improvements I will call it a day.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:56, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was talking about your personal opinions concerning the literature on the topic. I don't have any further suggestions... but only and still the same. The article is not clear. Talking about the king being not antisemitic as you do, can only have the object of insinuating that the myths had something true in them, and that the king showed personal courage during the occupation. The example you give might be true. But it was ten years before the jews were arrested - and in a country where anti-semitic feelings were almost unknown.--83.200.222.37 (talk) 05:41, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Scouting?[edit]

Wilson[1] links him to Boy Scouting, was there a connection?--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 04:22, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ John S. Wilson (1959), Scouting Round the World. First edition, Blandford Press. p. 29 63 65

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Christian X 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 20:16, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Christian X 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:

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) 10:41, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RfC of interest[edit]

(non-automated message) Greetings! I have opened an RfC on WT:ROYALTY that may be of interest to users following this article talk page! You are encouraged to contribute to this discussion here! Hurricane Andrew (444) 19:31, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Christian I of Denmark which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 21:17, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Christian_X_of_Denmark&oldid=1194474929"