Talk:House of Glücksburg

message: 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 little bit 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)
replies: text: The origin of a family is often less important than where it came to prominence (e.g. it's not really that intersting that the Hluse of Windsor is originally German whereas its ties to the UK are ofc what matters). The House of Glücksborhg is indeed a "branch of the House of Oldenburg that is descended from King Christian III of Denmark", that's a simple fact. The House of Oldenburg ruled Denmark and Norway for centuries and gradually became danicized (although there was a reversal to using German as the family language in the middle, so it went German, Danish, German, Danish). The House of Glücksburg is named after a castle in the Danish duchy of Schleswig (Slesvig) and while Low German was the Glücksburg family's native language it retained links to the Danish court. They Glücksburgs got on the Greek throne and intermarried with the ruling families of Russia and Britain after ascending to the Danish throne. Basically neither the Oldenburg or Glücksburg dynasties would be particularly interesting if it wasn't for their connection to Denmark(-Norway), and that is naturally reflected in the article.--Batmacumba (talk) 01:23, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: German!?!

message: 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, 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)
thread_title:  how to present notability 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Arms 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Dynasty coat of arms 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Empress of Germany 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Greenland and the Faroe Islands are technically both "regions" with extensive autonomy within a unitary state with devolved powers given by a common parliament ("constituent country" is a courtesy only). They both got increased autonomy in 2005 and 2009 respectively, replacing their former home rule arrangements (from 1948 and 1979 respectively). There is no difference in their status, just that the Faroe Islands have taken over a more functions as they have a stronger economic base. They can both declare independence if they choose to, but that doesn't affect their current status. In reality being outside of the EU means they are somewhat more detached from Denmark than the constitutional status indicates, but that's a practical matter, and not a legal one.--Batmacumba (talk) 23:28, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Greenland 

message: 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)
replies: text: Agreed. See also the next section and Talk:House of Windsor. Rubywine (talk) 14:37, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  The House of Windsor 

message: 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)
replies: text: That do you mean by "this ancient but fading royal house"? It's the reigning house of two monarchies (Denmark and Norway), it has ben dethroned in Greece, but that hardly makes it "fading".--Batmacumba (talk) 23:31, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a promotional tool 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  WeAreNotGermans 

message: Has anybody noticed Breadbasket's edits since July 22? Notably the additions of unnecessary tables with images and the inclusion of every non-sovereign British titles held by the children of Prince Philip (I mean even Baron Greenwich; they outnumber actual sovereign titles on the royal house box), despite the fact we've been trying to keep the descendants of the Duke of Edinburgh down to just a brief mention (see version before his edits). These edits and additions seems contrary to the consensus established above in the other comments. --The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 03:35, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed that undue weight have been given to the British. Perhaps only the table belonging to Philip (as a direct member of the House) and Charles (future Glücksburg King) remain. The rest should go. Sodacan (talk) 04:14, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agreed. As per discussion I have removed the Prince of Wales, the Dukes of York and Cambridge and the Earl of Wessex. These are simply noble titles, held by royalty, rather than sovereign/former sovereign/mediatised titles. All sons of other Glücksburg sovereigns have not been included. Sotakeit (talk) 14:08, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your edit, good work! Sodacan (talk) 03:52, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tables on article and including titles beyond Edinburgh 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:04, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: This House has ruled the duchy of Schleswig and the duchy of Holstein (and the duchy of Lauenburg), not the prussian province of Schleswig-Holstein, which is named and linked in the overview!! 2A02:8108:1680:138C:3DC6:F4D:C127:9ED3 (talk) 01:03, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Schleswig and Holstein 

message: Why is he excluded despite being officially promoted as a king of Danish House of Glücksburg? 142.93.188.221 (talk) 00:22, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Frederik X of Denmark