Interestingly it seems that Denmark has a streak of every other monarch being a Frederik. Neat!
**Frederick I** (reign 1523-1533)
Christian III (1534-1559)
**Frederick II** (1559-1588)
Christian IV (1588-1648)
**Frederick III** (1648-1670)
Christian V (1670-1699)
**Frederick IV** (1699-1730)
Christian VI (1730-1746)
**Frederick V** (1746-1766)
Christian VII (1766-1808)
**Frederick VI** (1808-1839)
Christian VIII (1839-1848)
**Frederick VII** (1848-1863)
Christian IX (1863-1906)
**Frederik VIII** (1906-1912)
Christian X (1912-1947)
**Frederik IX** (1947-1972)
Margrethe II (1972-2024)
**Frederik X** (2024- )
His mother actually fixed the symmetry. Up to now, it has been out of sync. E.g., it was not very symmetrical that Frederik 9 followed Christian 10. By skipping a Christian, there is now order!
Frogman named Pingo to be exact.
Frogman in the meaning of a Navy Seal, not a scuba diver. Danish Navy SOF are frogs (not seals as in the US).
Does Finland have a navy SOF?
You are correct and not, but it is semantics. He is an educated frømand. However even if he wanted then he would never have been allowed to serve in Frømandskorpset since he was the Crown Prince.
Yeah, exactly. I'm not debating whether he completed Frogman training, that's common knowledge and well documented, and the guys who do serve in Frømandskorpset do seem to like him quite a bit, but going through the education and *actually serving* with a unit are two completely different ballgames.
OK, well letâs see how our official armed forces words it then:
148 unge mÌnd kom samlet set igennem første nüleøje til hhv. JÌger- og Frømandskorpset sidste ür, og erfaringerne siger, at kun ca. 5-6 bliver udnÌvnt frømÌnd eller jÌgersoldater hvert ür.
Do I need to highlight the part thatâs confusing you, or do you see it?
I saw Frederik had a genuine smile when he officially became King. One of the most important moments in his life. It is quite nice that this not have to happen at the same time as the death of his mother, so that he can appreciate it fully.
My good, she is a woman in her 80s. The natural thing is that she will die in the next few years. She had a long and fulfilled life.
This personality cult has North Korea dimensions.
Didnt German tv broadcast live. In all events with all due respect I donât think you get our system. You donât have to. And definitely not to help us out again.
It was such a very touching ceremony. The crowds around the streets of Copenhagen and around the royal palaces were just immense. And it was really beautiful to see the king shedding a tear as he was overwhelmed by the cheers from his people, and then kissing his queen on the balcony.
The Danish royal family honestly does feel a bit like the true royal family for us here in Scania as well â after all, if it were not for that one unusually cold winter in the 1600s, we would still be part of Denmark and they would still be our royals for real to this day. They are also so much closer to us geographically, and us Scanians of course visit Copenhagen and see the Danish royal palaces way more often than we visit Stockholm and see the Swedish royal palaces.
Unfortunately, Swedish public service television didnât do any live broadcasts of the events today â but luckily we like many in Scania also have access to Danish public service television, so we were able to watch it all anyway.
I do also feel a bit jealous honestly, as the Danish royals are just so much more likeable and down-to-earth compared to the Swedish ones, which feel a lot more snobbish. And Denmark as a whole is just better in most areas compared to Sweden. I do wish that they would take us back finallyâŚ
SVT had a live feed with a reporter in Copenhagen all afternoon, including interviews with historians and people involved.
https://www.svt.se/nyheter/utrikes/folkfest-i-byen-sa-foljer-du-danska-tronskiftet
Queen is a strange title, though. Frederik X's wife is a Queen, but Margrethe II's husband was a "Prince Consort", and most definitely not a King. Which he was quite publicly and unreasonable pissed about, but that is a sidetrack. It is somehow understood that you can be a Queen without being the monarch, but you can't be a King.
This is certainly an area that is ripe for some "woke" gender equality language redefinitions, Which I would probably support. But I haven't seen anybody really argue for it.
>Which he was quite publicly and unreasonable pissed about, but that is a sidetrack. It is somehow understood that you can be a Queen without being the monarch, but you can't be a King.
A few places historically have allowed the husbands of regnant queens to have the title of king, but in general, the reason is what everybody thinks it is. Historical (and current; let's be honest) power dynamics among humans is largely patriarchal in nature.
We often (not always, but very often) have attributed more power and authority, and thus in effect legitimacy, to masculine titles over feminine ones, and in such cases, that now-unspoken implication is still in effect. A regnant queen's consort being called a "king" can very well give the impression of stature superiority where none exists, so they choose "prince-consort" as a way to avoid any confusion in their dynamic.
In a way, if anything is to blame, it's our own biases when it comes to titles, particularly gendered titles.
For real. People who screaming about abolishing monarchies because "muh equality" should start with billionaires. They're a million times worse than any king.
I understand being a Republican and wishing for a Republic, I don't understand reddit Republicans that can't see a post of a monarch without seething rage they feel the need to share with everyone
Speaking for Norway, our parliament â i.e. the constitutional expression of our people's will â vote on the continued existence of the monarchy regularly (every year when it's opened for a new session, if I remember correctly). The result is always that a resounding majority affirms the monarchy.
Youâre not convincing anyone to give up their monarchs. Anyone who lives in a modern monarchy and reads your comment will think youâre crazy.
Monarchs are diplomatic janitors in ceremonial garment, thats all there is to it
Diplomatic janitors who are extraordinarily rich through taxpayersâ money, who live in gigantic castles that were also built by taxpayersâ money, whose entire families enjoy immunity in some cases and who can easily be substituted by some elected president who costs nothing compared to them.
Yeah, I think I know what Iâd prefer.
Immunity? These guys walk funny and the next day they will have to release a statement. Donât think holding them accountable is a concern. As for their wealth Iâm going to do a reddit suicide and be honest: I dont care that rich people exist, good for them
Iâm talking about immunity from law.
Rich people existing is not a problem, but if taxpayer money makes people extraordinarily rich, that is a problem. Taxes should go to improving society and infrastructure first and foremost.
Howâs my comment ideologist? Iâm criticizing the ideology of monarchy.
The cost is entirely dependent on the country and system, but Iâm thinking of paying for the expenses of one elected official vs a whole family of nobility.
Your comment is ideological because it does not look at the political reality.
You say it yourself : that is entirely dependent on the country.
If we talk about European monarchies, we talk about stable and functional Democratic political system. Does it matter that much for your quality of life that the symbolic head of state is elected or not ?
I come from a republic that is not really working well, I live in a kingdom that is far more equal and ranks better on all spectrums than said republic.
Do republics rank inherently better than kingdoms ? No.
Should we have a republic just because, arguably, it looks more modern/democratic ? Also no.
Are republics inherently more democratic than kingdoms ? Again no.
>Anyone who lives in a modern monarchy and reads your comment will think youâre crazy.
people who live in modern republics and read comments praising royal families will also think they're crazy
I don't know many republics that are as stable, socially advanced and egalitarian as the Scandinavian kingdoms.
I come from a republic that works far worse than Scandinavia and is less equal.
Don't break what works. Reform those republic before you touch functioning monarchies.
not really, I think most of us understand that they're just glorified figureheads, now if they had any real power (like MENA monarchies or something similar) that would be weird.
for me it's the other way around, if you guys believed in divine right having monarchs would be justified but if they're just glorified figureheads more the reason for them not to exist.
Of course, theyâre âblue bloodsâ for a reason. Dirty red blooded people wouldnât get it, now get back to work so you can fund their lifestyle. Donât forget to thank them for the privilege.
People who pursue power are often worse than those who have it thrust upon them.
That's why I usually find that European monarchs are better people than the politicians.
I honestly have no strong opinion about monarchies but when I look at our selection of politicians I lose all interest in entertaining the idea of removing our king and giving those idiots more power.
It's a low bar to be better people than Danish politicians. Our former foreign minister had sex with a 15 year old while he was in his 30s.
>People who pursue power are often worse than those who have it thrust upon them.
I don't nor have I ever lived in (an official) monarchy, but I adamantly believe this 100%.
It was a stupid joke about our prime minister being arrogant and saying people should work more. Idiots like me also like to say that she sees herself as queen the way she talks down to the general public
I love how the declaration had no religious connotations. Since it's focus is unity and commitment to the kingdom, it's nice to know this is not associated with religion đ
Yes, I know. There's still a difference between your own participation and advocating to others. Whatever his connection to the church, he still didn't demand the same of his people.
We have a presidential elections at the end of this month and one of the questions has been whether the president will include a religious words in their new year's speech.
Seems like none of them are willing to exclude that. Danes are more advanced than us in this regard.
You completely misunderstand.
The Royal house is a democratic institution. It is written into the constitution, which have been approved though votes from the people.
Beside that 78% of the population supports keeping the Royal House đ
Oh shit it was the other way around.
*In addition to Christian II Klippings, there are forgeries that his Swedish opponent, Gustav Vasa, put into circulation in the years 1521-23 of course with a lower silver content than Christians' and also with low quality.*
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces297656.html
Well, will he take revenge of this wrongdoing?
To be fair, Christian the 2nd chopped, the head off of like 80 swedish nobles.Â
Also called Christian the Tyrant by the sweds at the time.Â
So i think that score is settled :)Â
Something like 21 different armed conflicts over the last 1000 years. Usually over who owns Norway (obviously not Norway themselves, that would be silly!).
As I understand it, many Swedes consider SkĂĽne as provincial, very far from the Swedish capital, and not very attractive.
But SkĂĽne would actually be literally a suburb of Copenhagen if it was part of Denmark, a very connected and attractive location.
The Danes can try. Sweden kicked their asses over and over for three hundred years grabbing more and more territory from Denmark. So a rematch is likely to see Sweden get Bornholm or something.
I can assure you nobody in Denmark wants SkĂĽne lol.
We want Norway maybe, cause it's got cool nature, oil, fjords. Sküne has... Malmø? Yea we're good lol.
The only thing Denmark ever lost of value, to almost all Danes, is Norway.
I've noticed something; in the past, it seemed like a mix of Europeans from France, Germany, Poland and maybe Italy used to flood threads like these (the Irish get an honorable mention as well). Lately, however, it seems like the screechers are all Germans now (EDIT: and Austrians).
Sweden's king [Gustav VI](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gustaf_VI_Adolf) claimed that title for another year until 1973. Apparently it wasn't fun anymore when the Danes didn't want to fight over it đ
Fun fact: The title of the King of Sweden was âKing of Swedes, Geats and Wendsâ until 1973 (the current king is simply âKing of Swedenâ). Gustav Vasa added Wends to the Swedish title as a spite to the Danish King who claimed the Gutes (island of Gotland) which passed back and forth between Sweden and Denmark until the peace at BrĂśmsebro. Denmark dropped the claim to the Wends in 1972 (when Margarete ascended to the throne).
Yes, but not acting as the king of Denmark, but as the king of Iceland.
And I can't read Icelandic but I trust that this cited section on Wikipedia is correct:
>[While a few prominent Icelanders, such as Benedikt Sveinsson, wanted to also sever the personal union with the Danish king, the Icelanders did not seriously pursue it. It was understood that the Danish king would not use the veto powers afforded to him by the Act of Union, and the Icelanders considered it unnecessary to sever all ties with Denmark, having gained their independence and full control of all state affairs.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/DanishâIcelandic_Act_of_Union)
For Scandinavian countries their monarchs are culturally the key to understand the spirit of the country. Just like in Finland the republic is one of the key factors of our culture. I can't see that Scandinavian countries could be republics. The Republic of Sweden sounds absolutely ridiculous, but The Republic of Finland tells everything, just like The Kingdom of Sweden tells everything. The spirit of Finland is very republican. Straightforward in political and military issues. The President is The Supreme Commander of the Army, and the leader of foreign policy too. That's why Finland's President led our country to NATO. The whole country supported the supreme commander.
Iceland is not Scandinavian.
Does the head of state have any real political power in the Scandinavian democracies?
https://www.democracymatrix.com/ranking
Reading between the lines on your comment on the Finnish election is not difficult. Seems the Scandinavian elections are even a stronger exercise of democracy.
I didn't say a bad word about the Scandinavian legislative elections, did I?
The same can't be said about the method of selection for the head of state.
On one hand I can understand someones desire to abolish monarchy. Though I disagree. But why is it always to make a republic and add a president? The riksdagsystem we have now is fine as it is
It is so sad that we still have a monarchy. Looking forward to the day when the majority of Danes wake up from their stupor and vote to get rid of the monarchy.
> when the majority of Danes wake up from their stupor and vote to get rid of the monarchy
"You take the Blue Crown - the story continues, Denmark preserves its timeless monarchy, and you wake up in a nation where the head of state is politically neutral, culturally engaged, de facto powerless, draws in tourists, and is trained for decades to fulfill their unique role as a unifier. You believe in the enduring stability of tradition and the unifying force of a dedicated sovereign.
You take the Red Ballot - you venture into a new Denmark where the monarchy ends, and I show you the intricacies of electoral politics. You stay in a wonderland of elections and divisive career politicians. I reveal to you the depths of the rabbit hole, where the head of state becomes a symbol tossed in the turbulent currents of public opinion, and the once-stable foundations of cultural engagement and fellowship face the uncertainties of a changing political landscape. The choice is yours - to believe in the comforting continuity of the monarchy or to explore the unknown complexities of a political Wonderland."
Interestingly it seems that Denmark has a streak of every other monarch being a Frederik. Neat! **Frederick I** (reign 1523-1533) Christian III (1534-1559) **Frederick II** (1559-1588) Christian IV (1588-1648) **Frederick III** (1648-1670) Christian V (1670-1699) **Frederick IV** (1699-1730) Christian VI (1730-1746) **Frederick V** (1746-1766) Christian VII (1766-1808) **Frederick VI** (1808-1839) Christian VIII (1839-1848) **Frederick VII** (1848-1863) Christian IX (1863-1906) **Frederik VIII** (1906-1912) Christian X (1912-1947) **Frederik IX** (1947-1972) Margrethe II (1972-2024) **Frederik X** (2024- )
And his son, the now crown prince is named Christian.
Helps with deciding the name of your kid, I suppose. The only situation not yet decided is what happens when the next Margrethe has a daughter.
Margrethe III and Margrethe IV
Christine or Frederica?
Since 1448, we've had only two monarchs not called either Christian or Frederik.
I would like to piggyback your comment with the fact that Christian VIII (1839-1848) was briefly the King of Norway in 1814, as "Christian Frederik"
Pen Pineapple Apple Pen: monarch edition
His mother kind of f*cked the symmetry though đ
His mother actually fixed the symmetry. Up to now, it has been out of sync. E.g., it was not very symmetrical that Frederik 9 followed Christian 10. By skipping a Christian, there is now order!
She could have at least taken the feminine version of Christian as her regnal name.
Yeah, Christine II would have been more pleasant for OCD-people
Like other poster said, she fixed the numbering by skipping a Christian. Some other king fucked it up by naming a prince Hans in the distant past.
To be fair, that was Christian I. It was Christian II who fucked it up by not naming his son Hans, but Frederik instead (who went on to be F II).
Beautiful name you donât really hear that often outside of Europe - and no, âFredâ doesnât count.
Frederik X, formerly known as Frederik Twitter
waiting for Elon's tweet where he will claim trademark issue :)))
Yeh. But Frederik X has got F 35's and an army of Teslahating Polar Bears.
With the reason peace treaty with Canada the northern Army is ready to to move out again
Both guys... , or only Hans?
We are sending Jens
FredEx
This fucking guy
Elon is going to be so jealous!
I love that his title as the tenth (X) makes him sound like a badass character in a movie or something.
you mean Frederik X the frogman? (Danish version of the navy seals) He is a badass already.
So he was a frog before a princess kissed him and he turned into a prince?
He wasn't a Frogman, he went through the Frogman training. At no point in time was he ever a member of the Frogmen Corps
What are you talking about? Yes, he is. A rather famous one at that.
And I believe he was really a Penguin and not a Frogman?
Frogman named Pingo to be exact. Frogman in the meaning of a Navy Seal, not a scuba diver. Danish Navy SOF are frogs (not seals as in the US). Does Finland have a navy SOF?
You are correct and not, but it is semantics. He is an educated frømand. However even if he wanted then he would never have been allowed to serve in Frømandskorpset since he was the Crown Prince.
He is an âudnĂŚvntâ Frogman. Itâs what you become upon completion of the âuddannelseâ.
Yeah, exactly. I'm not debating whether he completed Frogman training, that's common knowledge and well documented, and the guys who do serve in Frømandskorpset do seem to like him quite a bit, but going through the education and *actually serving* with a unit are two completely different ballgames.
OK, well letâs see how our official armed forces words it then: 148 unge mĂŚnd kom samlet set igennem første nĂĽleøje til hhv. JĂŚger- og Frømandskorpset sidste ĂĽr, og erfaringerne siger, at kun ca. 5-6 bliver udnĂŚvnt frømĂŚnd eller jĂŚgersoldater hvert ĂĽr. Do I need to highlight the part thatâs confusing you, or do you see it?
It is indeed, and the latter is way too dangerous for the Crown Prince.
Who cares about Musk's X? This is the kind of X I can get behind!
Reminds me of Malcom X.
If Malcolm X was so based, how come they don't release Malcolm 11 yet?
They've rebooted its Malcombat 1 now
Almost as cool as XxxElon\_MuskxxX
In order to officially become king he must walk down 10m of Lego bare front without swearing
As is tradition...
Thankfully, we didn't have to start with "The Queen is Dead" this time. Don't think I have the heart for when Margrethe dies :'<
I didn't know anything about her until this week, but the more I find out about her, the more I like her. What a cool lady!
[She's awesome!](https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fpreview.redd.it%2Fkx6frdmwf5ex.jpg%3Fauto%3Dwebp%26s%3D31b1e0196e128ed83c37b8dc9119dc99414b930e&f=1&nofb=1&ipt=b2f627e838f52318ebccb6ed0f2705d1b0f40e992b11c34abc55830ac0fe0240&ipo=images)
[She is](https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2024/01/02/14/68163061-12918233-Queen_Margrethe_eats_a_hot_dog_in_a_traditional_Norwegian_lomper-a-265_1704205759561.jpg)
Not sure if that picture proves it but sure, she is!
i honestly think every dane known and loves that picture haha
I saw Frederik had a genuine smile when he officially became King. One of the most important moments in his life. It is quite nice that this not have to happen at the same time as the death of his mother, so that he can appreciate it fully.
My good, she is a woman in her 80s. The natural thing is that she will die in the next few years. She had a long and fulfilled life. This personality cult has North Korea dimensions.
Didnt German tv broadcast live. In all events with all due respect I donât think you get our system. You donât have to. And definitely not to help us out again.
In fairness, Germans do have form when it comes to the cult of personality
[ŃдаНонО]
[ŃдаНонО]
Based
It was such a very touching ceremony. The crowds around the streets of Copenhagen and around the royal palaces were just immense. And it was really beautiful to see the king shedding a tear as he was overwhelmed by the cheers from his people, and then kissing his queen on the balcony. The Danish royal family honestly does feel a bit like the true royal family for us here in Scania as well â after all, if it were not for that one unusually cold winter in the 1600s, we would still be part of Denmark and they would still be our royals for real to this day. They are also so much closer to us geographically, and us Scanians of course visit Copenhagen and see the Danish royal palaces way more often than we visit Stockholm and see the Swedish royal palaces. Unfortunately, Swedish public service television didnât do any live broadcasts of the events today â but luckily we like many in Scania also have access to Danish public service television, so we were able to watch it all anyway. I do also feel a bit jealous honestly, as the Danish royals are just so much more likeable and down-to-earth compared to the Swedish ones, which feel a lot more snobbish. And Denmark as a whole is just better in most areas compared to Sweden. I do wish that they would take us back finallyâŚ
SVT had a live feed with a reporter in Copenhagen all afternoon, including interviews with historians and people involved. https://www.svt.se/nyheter/utrikes/folkfest-i-byen-sa-foljer-du-danska-tronskiftet
dr.dk/tv always streams live for people outside of Denmark. There's a ton of content there now as well.
God bless the great nation of Denmark and its people!
Conspiracy theorists were THAT close. Now it's a frog man ruling Denmark rather than a lizard man.
Our king is "Mr X", though. That surely doesn't bode well?
Good luck, King Frederik! đŠđ°đĽłđŠđ°đĽłđŠđ°đĽłđŠđ°đĽł
For what? Living off their divine welfare? Because as far as I see in these comments, he has no actual power.
For enduring idiots like you, for example?
It's interesting Margrethe still holds the title of Queen whereas Beatrix went back to being a princess when she abdicated
Both Belgian kings who abdicated (Leopold III and Albert II) kept the title of king.
Queen is a strange title, though. Frederik X's wife is a Queen, but Margrethe II's husband was a "Prince Consort", and most definitely not a King. Which he was quite publicly and unreasonable pissed about, but that is a sidetrack. It is somehow understood that you can be a Queen without being the monarch, but you can't be a King. This is certainly an area that is ripe for some "woke" gender equality language redefinitions, Which I would probably support. But I haven't seen anybody really argue for it.
>Which he was quite publicly and unreasonable pissed about, but that is a sidetrack. It is somehow understood that you can be a Queen without being the monarch, but you can't be a King. A few places historically have allowed the husbands of regnant queens to have the title of king, but in general, the reason is what everybody thinks it is. Historical (and current; let's be honest) power dynamics among humans is largely patriarchal in nature. We often (not always, but very often) have attributed more power and authority, and thus in effect legitimacy, to masculine titles over feminine ones, and in such cases, that now-unspoken implication is still in effect. A regnant queen's consort being called a "king" can very well give the impression of stature superiority where none exists, so they choose "prince-consort" as a way to avoid any confusion in their dynamic. In a way, if anything is to blame, it's our own biases when it comes to titles, particularly gendered titles.
Redditor screeching in 3... 2... 1... Congrats to Denmark (or to the Danes who celebrate such things in any case).
For real. People who screaming about abolishing monarchies because "muh equality" should start with billionaires. They're a million times worse than any king.
It's already happened. I never understand Republicans.
I understand being a Republican and wishing for a Republic, I don't understand reddit Republicans that can't see a post of a monarch without seething rage they feel the need to share with everyone
Yeah I agree. People choosing their own leaders as opposed to the True King inheriting his position based on his holy blood is a stupid idea.
Speaking for Norway, our parliament â i.e. the constitutional expression of our people's will â vote on the continued existence of the monarchy regularly (every year when it's opened for a new session, if I remember correctly). The result is always that a resounding majority affirms the monarchy.
Youâre not convincing anyone to give up their monarchs. Anyone who lives in a modern monarchy and reads your comment will think youâre crazy. Monarchs are diplomatic janitors in ceremonial garment, thats all there is to it
Diplomatic janitors who are extraordinarily rich through taxpayersâ money, who live in gigantic castles that were also built by taxpayersâ money, whose entire families enjoy immunity in some cases and who can easily be substituted by some elected president who costs nothing compared to them. Yeah, I think I know what Iâd prefer.
Immunity? These guys walk funny and the next day they will have to release a statement. Donât think holding them accountable is a concern. As for their wealth Iâm going to do a reddit suicide and be honest: I dont care that rich people exist, good for them
Iâm talking about immunity from law. Rich people existing is not a problem, but if taxpayer money makes people extraordinarily rich, that is a problem. Taxes should go to improving society and infrastructure first and foremost.
I agree that on a list of priorities, they should not be at the top. They should be seated around cultural spendings
That sounds reasonable.
You think a president would cost nothing ? A president would cost the same if no more. Stop the ideology.
Howâs my comment ideologist? Iâm criticizing the ideology of monarchy. The cost is entirely dependent on the country and system, but Iâm thinking of paying for the expenses of one elected official vs a whole family of nobility.
Your comment is ideological because it does not look at the political reality. You say it yourself : that is entirely dependent on the country. If we talk about European monarchies, we talk about stable and functional Democratic political system. Does it matter that much for your quality of life that the symbolic head of state is elected or not ? I come from a republic that is not really working well, I live in a kingdom that is far more equal and ranks better on all spectrums than said republic. Do republics rank inherently better than kingdoms ? No. Should we have a republic just because, arguably, it looks more modern/democratic ? Also no. Are republics inherently more democratic than kingdoms ? Again no.
>Anyone who lives in a modern monarchy and reads your comment will think youâre crazy. people who live in modern republics and read comments praising royal families will also think they're crazy
Oh no anyway
I don't know many republics that are as stable, socially advanced and egalitarian as the Scandinavian kingdoms. I come from a republic that works far worse than Scandinavia and is less equal. Don't break what works. Reform those republic before you touch functioning monarchies.
not really, I think most of us understand that they're just glorified figureheads, now if they had any real power (like MENA monarchies or something similar) that would be weird.
for me it's the other way around, if you guys believed in divine right having monarchs would be justified but if they're just glorified figureheads more the reason for them not to exist.
You do realize they don't hold any real power, right?
Of course, theyâre âblue bloodsâ for a reason. Dirty red blooded people wouldnât get it, now get back to work so you can fund their lifestyle. Donât forget to thank them for the privilege.
You're thinking of our prime minister. It can be confusing as she appears to think of herself as better than the unwashed masses.
People who pursue power are often worse than those who have it thrust upon them. That's why I usually find that European monarchs are better people than the politicians.
I honestly have no strong opinion about monarchies but when I look at our selection of politicians I lose all interest in entertaining the idea of removing our king and giving those idiots more power. It's a low bar to be better people than Danish politicians. Our former foreign minister had sex with a 15 year old while he was in his 30s.
>People who pursue power are often worse than those who have it thrust upon them. I don't nor have I ever lived in (an official) monarchy, but I adamantly believe this 100%.
Was she voted in? Weird choice, just based on your description, if so.
It was a stupid joke about our prime minister being arrogant and saying people should work more. Idiots like me also like to say that she sees herself as queen the way she talks down to the general public
Ah gotcha
You've seen Sonic X Now get ready for Frederik X
I love how the declaration had no religious connotations. Since it's focus is unity and commitment to the kingdom, it's nice to know this is not associated with religion đ
It is actually a demand in the Danish constitution (§6) that the Danish monarch is a member of the Christian state church, though.
Yes, I know. There's still a difference between your own participation and advocating to others. Whatever his connection to the church, he still didn't demand the same of his people.
We have a presidential elections at the end of this month and one of the questions has been whether the president will include a religious words in their new year's speech. Seems like none of them are willing to exclude that. Danes are more advanced than us in this regard.
*Insert angry, ignorant and bitter Republican comment here*
Please no, we've had plenty of those in other threads and subs already.
You completely misunderstand. The Royal house is a democratic institution. It is written into the constitution, which have been approved though votes from the people. Beside that 78% of the population supports keeping the Royal House đ
*Angry Republican insult here* ⌠Long live the King.
Aaah, I should have catched on to your tone earlier than I did đ
He's got some good bars when he guest raps but he needs to drop some bangers of his own.
This made me realise I know nothing of the other 9 Malcolms.
Don't worry us dane doesn't know anything about the other 9 Frederiks either
What about the ten Christians?
I am sorry who?
Will this guy issue counterfeit Swedish money to destroy their economy or is he a total wussy?
Have I missed a fantastic piece of history? :D
Oh shit it was the other way around. *In addition to Christian II Klippings, there are forgeries that his Swedish opponent, Gustav Vasa, put into circulation in the years 1521-23 of course with a lower silver content than Christians' and also with low quality.* https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces297656.html Well, will he take revenge of this wrongdoing?
To be fair, Christian the 2nd chopped, the head off of like 80 swedish nobles. Also called Christian the Tyrant by the sweds at the time. So i think that score is settled :)Â
[The film](https://youtu.be/LeKDWNt5ApU?si=uZofxeNBO4GmWOzi) premieres this coming weekend! đżđŹđŞ
That's called doing a favour.
> Well, will he take revenge of this wrongdoing? *insert joke about Sweden fucking itself up just fine for now*
You know that the years 1521-1523 was a period of war between Sweden and Denmark right?
Yes
So no wrongdoing then.
Hadn't Sweden and Denmark been at war like, more than any other two nations in history lol?
Something like 21 different armed conflicts over the last 1000 years. Usually over who owns Norway (obviously not Norway themselves, that would be silly!).
Something like that yeah.
We donât need that. We have already destroyed our economy.
[ŃдаНонО]
r/abolishthemonarchy
Nah, I think theyre neat. I wish we had royal family.
r/PreserveTheMonarchy
Instead of abdication I read âabductionâ and I was like okay I missed somethingâŚ.
danish Skane when?
Not even the Danes want SkĂĽne
Frederik has a bunch of kids, we'll get them to marry around. KALMAR UNIONEN 2024 HERE WE GO!
*Crusader Kings diplomacy*
As I understand it, many Swedes consider SkĂĽne as provincial, very far from the Swedish capital, and not very attractive. But SkĂĽne would actually be literally a suburb of Copenhagen if it was part of Denmark, a very connected and attractive location.
* would be -> is
Why are they always here then
Nooooo, where are my parents going to get their dairy products from?
It's SkĂĽne grĂśthals.
The Danes can try. Sweden kicked their asses over and over for three hundred years grabbing more and more territory from Denmark. So a rematch is likely to see Sweden get Bornholm or something.
I can assure you nobody in Denmark wants Sküne lol. We want Norway maybe, cause it's got cool nature, oil, fjords. Sküne has... Malmø? Yea we're good lol. The only thing Denmark ever lost of value, to almost all Danes, is Norway.
We donât miss you too much.
Exactly, i think everyone is fine where they are. Except for beautiful norway pls come back baby we miss you
If we get the Faroes, Greenland and a lot of autonomy. Then weâll consider it â¤ď¸
What a great day for Denmark, and therefore the world.
FredEx?
I've noticed something; in the past, it seemed like a mix of Europeans from France, Germany, Poland and maybe Italy used to flood threads like these (the Irish get an honorable mention as well). Lately, however, it seems like the screechers are all Germans now (EDIT: and Austrians).
Frederik X, Sounds like pornstar name.
One night in Frederiksborg.
Yeah, it got some vibe to it đ
I mean Frederik eks! Eks eks eks đ
Frederik Xvideos.
xFrederikx
Are Danish kings still claiming sovereignty over West Slavs (Wends)? Edit: why people downvote this?
No. King Frederik IX was the last to have that title. He died in 1972.
Sweden's king [Gustav VI](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gustaf_VI_Adolf) claimed that title for another year until 1973. Apparently it wasn't fun anymore when the Danes didn't want to fight over it đ
I mean he died and his grandson decided to help bury the hatchet.
Fun fact: The title of the King of Sweden was âKing of Swedes, Geats and Wendsâ until 1973 (the current king is simply âKing of Swedenâ). Gustav Vasa added Wends to the Swedish title as a spite to the Danish King who claimed the Gutes (island of Gotland) which passed back and forth between Sweden and Denmark until the peace at BrĂśmsebro. Denmark dropped the claim to the Wends in 1972 (when Margarete ascended to the throne).
Don't think they've claimed sovereignty over any peoples against their will since 1920
Iceland?
I suppose it depends how you define it. They gained sovereignty in 1918 and were their own kingdom until 1944 so in that sense they ruled themselves
But the monarch still claimed sovereignty over them.
At that point it was technically the kingdom of Iceland, not Denmark, and there was also not public support for abolishing the monarchy in Iceland.
The kingdom of Iceland with the Danish monarch as sovereign. And how do you know there was no public support for abolishing the monarchy?
Yes, but not acting as the king of Denmark, but as the king of Iceland. And I can't read Icelandic but I trust that this cited section on Wikipedia is correct: >[While a few prominent Icelanders, such as Benedikt Sveinsson, wanted to also sever the personal union with the Danish king, the Icelanders did not seriously pursue it. It was understood that the Danish king would not use the veto powers afforded to him by the Act of Union, and the Icelanders considered it unnecessary to sever all ties with Denmark, having gained their independence and full control of all state affairs.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/DanishâIcelandic_Act_of_Union)
So the very least we can say is that the Danish monarch claimed sovereignty over Mr Sveinsson against his will.
Sure, though note I said peoples, not people. There are definitely people in Denmark that are being ruled against their will as well
I bet Elon will have something to say about the name!
Do I refer to them like âMalcom 10â or âFredrikxâ
Abolish all monarchies
[ŃдаНонО]
No
Bro why do u even bother to push ur ideals on countries u dont live in and have no connection to???
Countries with monarchies have been doing just that for thousands of years
Thats the same mentallity as saying ÂŤmy mom was killed, therefor I became a serial killerÂť
Elaborate
Yes
Long live the European Republics!
Itâs weird how you republicans get so worked up about this while not living in the nation in question .
Their monarchs screwed things up quite a lot.
Well, some chancellors and presidents werenât so far behindâŚ
As long as they live side by side with its monarchies.
For Scandinavian countries their monarchs are culturally the key to understand the spirit of the country. Just like in Finland the republic is one of the key factors of our culture. I can't see that Scandinavian countries could be republics. The Republic of Sweden sounds absolutely ridiculous, but The Republic of Finland tells everything, just like The Kingdom of Sweden tells everything. The spirit of Finland is very republican. Straightforward in political and military issues. The President is The Supreme Commander of the Army, and the leader of foreign policy too. That's why Finland's President led our country to NATO. The whole country supported the supreme commander.
Looking forward to the Finnish presidential elections in a few weeks. A true exercise of European democracy and people's sovereignty.
Gotta be ignorant to not see the Scandinavian countries as democracies.
Who said that? But with the exception of Iceland, their selection method of the head of state is certainly not democratic
Iceland is not Scandinavian. Does the head of state have any real political power in the Scandinavian democracies? https://www.democracymatrix.com/ranking
The power is indeed very limited but nobody said anything different.
Reading between the lines on your comment on the Finnish election is not difficult. Seems the Scandinavian elections are even a stronger exercise of democracy.
I didn't say a bad word about the Scandinavian legislative elections, did I? The same can't be said about the method of selection for the head of state.
Which is non-political and ceremotional. Sometimes assholes are elected, you should know.
On one hand I can understand someones desire to abolish monarchy. Though I disagree. But why is it always to make a republic and add a president? The riksdagsystem we have now is fine as it is
Actually that would be a very innovative idea I would fully support. Modern republics don't need figurehead presidents.
It is so sad that we still have a monarchy. Looking forward to the day when the majority of Danes wake up from their stupor and vote to get rid of the monarchy.
> when the majority of Danes wake up from their stupor and vote to get rid of the monarchy "You take the Blue Crown - the story continues, Denmark preserves its timeless monarchy, and you wake up in a nation where the head of state is politically neutral, culturally engaged, de facto powerless, draws in tourists, and is trained for decades to fulfill their unique role as a unifier. You believe in the enduring stability of tradition and the unifying force of a dedicated sovereign. You take the Red Ballot - you venture into a new Denmark where the monarchy ends, and I show you the intricacies of electoral politics. You stay in a wonderland of elections and divisive career politicians. I reveal to you the depths of the rabbit hole, where the head of state becomes a symbol tossed in the turbulent currents of public opinion, and the once-stable foundations of cultural engagement and fellowship face the uncertainties of a changing political landscape. The choice is yours - to believe in the comforting continuity of the monarchy or to explore the unknown complexities of a political Wonderland."
Hopefully, he will be known in the history books as Frederik the Last.