Talk:Denmark-Norway/Archive 06-1010

message: Please inform me what was the act or like in 1536, as the article says that Denmark and Norway were at that date amalgamated. ????
In my knowledge, they continued until 1660 as officially separate states, Norway was hereditary and Denmark elective, officially only in personal union. Only in 1660, a formal amalgamation took place. ??? 62.78.105.242 07:46, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

message: Comanche, this post is a complete waste of time, but to answer the same question *again*: The same person could be the ruler of more than one country, so the kings of Denmark were *also* kings of Norway. That DOES NOT mean that the two countries were completely united. They were closely linked, yes. Completely united, no. This is exactly the same situation as the lands ruled by the Habsburgers. Charles V was not only King of  Aragon, Castile and Sicily but also Holy Roman Emperor and Duke of Austria all at the same time - just to name a famous example - but Germany was not part of Spain, and Spain was not part of Germany. A similar situation existed in Poland-Lithuania for more than 200 years following 1386 and it was the same between England and Scotland 1603-1707. The rulers of Wallachia and Moldavia were also often the same person, but these two countries were not united before 1860 or so. So the Danish and Norwegian example is not unique, it is the way Europe worked back then. This is called a "dynastic state". You also continue to ignore the text of Kongeloven (Lex Regia) which talks of two nations. If you wish the page to look the way you prefer, you have to find sources better than the ones the rest of us have located. You have not done so. Valentinian (talk) 22:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You asked for souces: they have been provided. See the posts above (7 August) You write "look it up in a dictionary". A dictionary (=ordbog) teaches spelling, I presume you meant an Encyclopedia (=leksikon)? I DID. See my post above (with the timestamp 23:13, 7 August 2006): (quote) The Great Danish Encyclopedia describes the situation after 1536 thus: "Den fælles statsadministration regnede fortsat med to riger, men Norges position blev lydrigets." (The joint governmental administration continued to count two realms, but Norway's position became subordinate to Denmark) (see the article "Norge"). (unquote) Look at Kongeloven which expressly speaks in a plural about the King's "TERRITORIES AND COUNTRIES" (article XX, article XXIV., article XXX and the postscript), "Norske Lov" (Code of Norway), art. 1 and 5 (for starters) , "Danske Lov" (Code of Denmark) , art. 1-1-1, and 2-1-1 (for starters). See also: da:Danmark-Norge (Danmark-Norge var betegnelsen for tvillingeriget efter Kalmarunionens endelige sammenbrud i 1523, da Sverige erklærede sig uafhængig), da:Diskussion:Danmark-Norge (Begrebet Danmark-Norge er en politisk betegnelse, men landene blev set som to lande, men med en fælles konge), de:Dänisch-norwegische Personalunion (Die Dänisch-Norwegische Personalunion war ein Staatenbund zwischen Dänemark und Norwegen von 1380 bis 1814, de facto unter dänischer Vorherrschaft.), nn:Danmark-Norge (Danmark-Norge er ei nemning på kongeriket Danmark og kongeriket Noreg, irekna Island, Grønland og Færøyane. I tida frå 1387 til 1814 var desse kongerika styrd av ein sams konge, i ein personalunion.), no:Danmark-Norge (Danmark-Norge brukes ofte for å referere til kongerikene Danmark og Norge, inkludert de norske koloniene Island, Grønland og Færøyene, som var forent i en personalunion fra 1387 til 1536 (traktatfestet siden 1450), og deretter i en realunion (helstaten) fra 1660 til 1814.), sv:Danmark-Norge (Danmark-Norge är en ofta brukad benämning för de förenade kungarikerna Danmark och Norge. Det inkluderade de norska skattländerna Island, Grönland och Färöarna. De bägge länderna var i personalunion mellan 1387 och 1814.). This articles describe the construction as a union of two components. Valentinian (talk) 09:13, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

text: They are all listed here Fornadan (t) 10:22, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I would like to point out that the "coronation charter of 1536" (aka Håndfesting) which Knud J.V. Jespersen is referring to in the link provided by Comanche cph was never implemented by the King. The Håndfesting was a practice in which the nobility of Denmark (Riksråd) stipulated what they wanted the king to do in order for them to elect him King of Denmark. The fact that Norway was a hereditary monarchy was a constant thorn in the eye of the nobility as it lowered their control over the king. If they chose not to elect the crown prince the union of Denmark and Norway would be dissolved. This made it equally important for the king to maintain Norway as a separate monarchy. In 1536 the nobility had an advantageous position towards the king, as he needed their military and financial support to control Norway, so they demanded he make Norway a province of Denmark or they would not elect him. This was never implemented as Christian III and all subsequent kings continued to use the title King of Norway. There were also separate hailings of the King of Norway in Norway in 1548, 1591 and 1610. It is also important to note the way Jespersen has chosen his words. He states the personal union of Denmark and Norway as a fact, but only states that the coronation charter emphasises "that Norway was as much part of Denmark as Jutland." In addition I point out that the coronation charter did not say that Norway was a part of Denmark, but that it should be made a "ledemod", a subordinate of Denmark. I have slim hopes of Comanche being persuaded by this information, but maybe other readers will find it interesting. Inge 14:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Salomonsens Konversationsleksikon also concludes that this provision in the coronation charter was never implemented: (p. 839-40,  and  ). Christian's coronation proclamation primarily makes sense in the context that Denmark had just experienced a civil war. When Christian made this proclamation, he'd hardly ruled Copenhagen for two months, so his position as monarch was still not secure. Both in regards to Norway, and because he would have no incentive to appear weak at the same time as he was about to crush the power of the Catholic Church in Denmark. But it was still little more than an election manifesto. And it was neither the first nor the last time that the Kings of Denmark failed to honour their own promises. Valentinian (talk) 15:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stop edit warring. The questions you ask have been answered many times before. 

message: I think a good example of a personal union is given in the United Kingdom article:
The United Kingdom is a political union made up of four constituent countries: England, Scotland, and Wales on the island of Great Britain, and Northern Ireland.  The United Kingdom also has several overseas territories, including Gibraltar and the Falkland Islands. The Crown has a relationship with the dependencies of the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands; they are part of the British Islands but not part of the United Kingdom and are a possession of the Crown. A constitutional monarchy, the United Kingdom has close relationships with fifteen other Commonwealth Realms that share the same monarch — Queen Elizabeth II — as head of state.
and
The present United Kingdom is the latest of several unions formed over the last 840 years. Scotland and England have existed as separate political entities since the 9th century. Wales, under the control of English monarchs from the Statute of Rhuddlan in 1284, became part of the Kingdom of England by the Laws in Wales Act 1535.  "The Act of Union with Wales", SchoolsHistory.org.uk, 7 November 2004. Retrieved 15 May 2006. With the Act of Union 1707, the independent states of England and Scotland, having been in personal union since 1603, agreed to a political union as the Kingdom of Great Britain.  "The Treaty (or Act) of Union, 1707". Retrieved 15 May 2006.
The Act of Union 1800 united the Kingdom of Great Britain with the Kingdom of Ireland, which had been gradually brought under English control between 1541 and 1691, to form the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. "The Act of Union", Act of Union Virtual Library. Retrieved 15 May 2006. Independence for the now Republic of Ireland in 1922 followed the partition of the island of Ireland two years previously, with six of the nine counties of the province of Ulster remaining within the UK, which then changed to the current name in 1927.  "The Anglo-Irish Treaty, 6 December 1921", CAIN. Retrieved 15 May 2006.
From 1603 to 1707, England and Scotland had the same monarch (personal union), but were not the same realm - even today Scotland has a different legal system to England. The Scots get quite upset if you refer to them as English. The Channel Islands are the personal posession of the monarch in her role as the Duke of Normandy (the situation is slightly more complicated thatn that, but the simplification will do).  The current monarch of the U.K. is also head of state of 15 commonwealth countries - and you definitely would not say that Australia was part of England! WLD 14:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, Britain was in personal union with Hannover from 1714 to 1837.  (Curiously the Hanover dynasty since 1837 have continued to use the same combined coat of arms that William IV bore as king of Britain, rather than the arms of Hanover alone.)  —Tamfang 04:35, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Example of Personal Union 

message: --Comanche cph 09:05, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks :). But what is this! It says the monarchs was monarcs of Denmark! That mean there only was one kingdom. --Comanche cph 09:57, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No - if two realms have the same person as monarch, it does not make them into a single realm.  Think of two companies - one that makes furniture and one that makes sandwiches.  One person can be the managing director of tha furniture company, and also the managing director of the sandwich company - this does not make them the same company.  Only if the two companies agree legally to merge and become a single legal entity would it become a single company.  They do not become a single company just by having the same person as managing director.  It is the same for realms/kingdoms.  Two kingdoms can have the same person as monarch.  That does not make them into the same kingdom.  The current Queen of England is also queen of many other countries, for example, Australia and Canada.  This does not make Australia, Canada and England all one single kingdom/realm. WLD 10:12, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I feel this issue has been resolved now, but I would like to add some interesting information: Already in 1537 the year after the Håndfesting Chritian III issued coins where he used the title King of Norway. It seems the king wasn't even planning to honour his promise to the Danish nobles.Inge 12:00, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I hoped so too, but then I saw today's edit on da:Danmark-Norge. I'm getting tired of this. Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 12:18, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

text:  So we will not only have to repeat ourselves on different articles, but also on different wikis. I see the Rollo thing is happening there too. Comanche: the information you couldn't get in here isn't any more true on Danish wiki. Inge 13:11, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As it seems you are trying to use the term 400 years night to somehow prove that Norway was a part of Denmark I would just like to point out that if that is the case you have misunderstood the meaning behind that expression. Inge 13:36, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

text: What is your point? The union ended in 1814. Nobody is contesting that. Inge 13:53, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Look, you have been explaned to exhaustion that two countries can have the same king without being the same country. Please realise that this point is not up for discussion and move on. Inge 14:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

text: And as the rest of us have said from the beginning, you still don't understand how dynastic states worked back then. Between 1380 and 1864, the "Danish monarchy" simply wasn't the same as the "Kingdom of Denmark". Labelling the "Unitary State" as simply "Denmark" is also incorrect on da:wiki as any Holsteiner could tell you. And btw, if you wish to make edits to da:wiki, try making them a little more constructive than just vandalising the article on Odense simply because I live there. Odense is not a "city for gays", but I suppose you could call "Lambda" if you want more information on these people. I'm afraid you leave me no other choice other than contacting a da:wiki administrator. Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 23:19, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who was the monarchs of Norway? 

message: Comanche ought, perhaps, to read John Elliott's article on "A Europe of Composite Monarchies," describing the way Europe in the Early Modern Period was rarely composed of states in the way we think of them now, but rather various more or less distinct units, united in the person of a single ruler.
But it's worth noting that the degree of connection could be very different.  On the one hand you have two states that are more or less completely distinct, but share a common ruler.  The best example I can think of in this regard is Great Britain and Hanover.  The two countries had completely different political systems, and because the dominant part (Great Britain) was a constitutional monarchy, while the smaller part (Hanover) was an absolute monarchy, there was basically never any integration between the two.  Britain still felt compelled to protect Hanover from invasion, but otherwise the person of the king was the only unifying feature - he had separate Hanoverian ministers to advise him on Hanoverian affairs.
More closely connected would be, for instance, the Spanish possessions before 1700.  In this case, the fact that the main possession, Castile, was an absolute monarchy, while only the lesser territories had constitutional government, meant that Castile tended to assert its dominance over the other constituent parts.  It's also notable that the title of "King of Spain" was used, which in fact did not correspond to any official title held by the King.
One can actually see instances of different levels of personal union in a single example.  The Austrian Habsburg territories show a large number of separate units, but some are more connected than others.  The provinces of the Bohemian crown (Silesia, Moravia, Bohemia, before 1620 Lusatia) are separate provinces.  Each has its own estate, and the ruler has a different title in each.  Nevertheless, they are considered something of a unity, and generally shared a monarch for several hundred years.  Separate from them, but still in personal union, are the Habsburg Hereditary Lands and the Kingdom of Hungary, which also each have their own separate units.  Furthermore, laws of succession are different in each - The Bohemian and Hungarian Crowns are elective, the Hereditary Lands are hereditary.  Another example of this could be found in the Spanish Netherlands.  These are both in personal union with each other and, as a group, in personal union with the Spanish crown.  They have some common institutions (The States-General, a Governor and Court), but each province is nevertheless considered its own unit, with its own rules.
Moving forward, you come to examples of personal unions where one unit is clearly subordinate to another.  The clearest example of this is probably the Kingdom of Ireland before 1782.  Although it was clearly considered a separate kingdom, and had its own parliament and a viceroy, it was also clearly subordinate to England.  Decisions of the Irish parliament had to be approved by the English Privy Council.  Furthermore, the Kingdom had no historical identity of its own - it was an English creation in toto, and the crown was permanently united with the English, with no possibility of separation.
Once one has some sense of the variety of things here, It's easier to figure out Norway's status.  It seems to me that Norway is more or less like Ireland - it is always considered a separate Kingdom, but is also clearly subordinated to Denmark.  Just as Ireland, in spite of its constitutional subordination, was never "part of" England, so Norway was never "part of" Denmark.  Obviously, the existence of royal absolutism in Denmark from the mid 17th century onwards also makes things more complicated, but nobody has brought forward any evidence of an official union.  As an example, France was not big on personal unions.  The King of France before 1589 always held one title "King of France".  Other territories taken in still had to be formally annexed, though.  Brittany went into personal union as early as 1492, but was only formally annexed in 1532, 40 years later.  Lower Navarre and Béarn were inherited in 1589, but were only formally incorporated in 1620.  In that case, the King kept the title "King of France and Navarre," but tiny Lower Navarre had become part of France in the way Comanche wants to say Norway became part of Denmark.  But it seems to me that what is needed here is some kind of formal document of incorporation, whereby Norway is explicitly made part of the Kingdom of Denmark.  Failing that, it was merely a close personal union with a dominant partner. john k 11:36, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Personal unions, and such like 

message: That the Norwegian royal line died out on the male side 149 years before the personal union of Norway and Denmark is not the reason for the creation of the union. Inge 14:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The wording "Norway became a part of the new personal union in 1536" just doesn't make sense. Was Denmark already in a personal union with itself? I believe the old wording was much better both on the above subject and this one. Could someone please take a look at the last edits by Comanche cph to this article? I don't want to revert a third time myself if I don't have to. Inge 15:02, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The royal line