Talk:Denmark–Norway

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

Wends and Goths[edit]

I venture to reintroduce the term "Goths" in the title of the kings of Denmark-Norway, instead of "Geats". It seems to me that the formula "de Venders og Goters Konge", as used in the official title of the Danish kings until 1972, is more precisely rendered in English as "Wends and Goths". The commonly used Latin translation was "Vandalorum et Gothorum". Most likely, the term "Goters" refers not to the inhabitants of Götaland in Sweden, but to the Goths, the East Germanic tribe that may originally have migrated from Sweden, but during the first centuries inhabited parts of present day Poland and Russia, later to split into the Visigoths and Ostrogoths who established successor states to the Roman Empire. While Denmark-Norway existed, both titles were of course recognised as empty titles of pretension, and the peoples referred to were more or less mythical.

The Swedish kings, by the way, claimed dominion over the same peoples, usually in the opposite order: "Götes och Vendes Konung". When Norway entered into a personal union with Sweden in 1814, the king's Norwegian title was "Konge til Norge og Sverige de Goters og Venders". Roede 18:34, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was added after Denmark conquered Gotland Fornadan (t) 20:23, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The title refers to Gotland, not Götaland, despite of the historical connections between Denmark and Västergötland. Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 02:07, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

King to Denmark and Norway[edit]

I have found a royal ordinance from 1792 where Christian VII has the title "konge til Danmark og Norge" ("king to Denmark and Norway") [1] and though some of the contributors here would like to see it. Nidator 20:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You linking to a norwegian homepage. BTW can you see the ship behind, and can you see it has a Danish flag. No union flag. --Arigato1 22:36, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course not since such a flag didn't exist, as you no doubt already know. This is getting completely and utterly ridiculous (the preceding part of this thread is on Talk:Greenland). The Dannebrog was the symbol of the KING and consequently used by his army / navy in both Denmark, Norway, Schleswig, Holstein etc etc. Use of this flag was restricted to the army / navy / king's presence until c. 1850, during the First Schleswig War, when common people were allowed to use it as well. You still haven't provided any sources to back up your claim that Norway was annexed, except a crappy article written by a BBC journalist. You'll need much better sources than this, and for starters, you still haven't addressed the fact that Professor Knud J.V. Jespersen (Dansk Udenrigspolitiks Historie) and Store Danske Encyklopædi disagree with you or why Frederick III talked about TWO countries in his "Kongelov" rather than one. After all, he ran the place and his word was law. There is a reason why Kongeloven speaks of two nations, why Christian V didn't give the same laws to both Denmark and Norway, and why the Union coat of arms is used almost exclusively on Danish coins but not on Norwegian coins. The list of proof is a lot longer than this. Valentinian T / C 23:25, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see the old debate has reopened so I'll quote a bit from Nordens historia by Harald Gustafsson (a Swedish basic university level textbook)

I en omdiskuterad paragraf i Christian III:s handfästing heter det att Norge "hädenefter inte ska vara ellet heta ett eget kungarike, utan vara en del av Danmarks rike". Trots denne är det emellertid klart att de danska kungarna också i fortsättningen betraktade Norge som ett eget kungarike, med egna lagar, egen förvaltning och egna ständermöten.

Fornadan (t) 16:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Before 1537, the union was a personal union where Denmark and Norway had the same king but were seperate countries. Leading up to the reformation in 1537 the archbishop in Trondheim tried to rally resistance to the reformation by attempting to get suficiant support for an independant katholic kingdom of norway. After this the king of denmark declared norway to be not a seperate kingdom, put a province in denmark. Though as it says above in the swedish quote, norway continued to function as a seperate kingdom in most regards. 80.202.50.6 23:48, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Norwegian Royal line died out it says.[edit]

So Norway could not be a kingdom.

I have fixed the introducing now. --Arigato1 21:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't fix it, you messed it up. In medieval and renaissance law, the same person could easily hold several titles. E.g. the house of Habsburg were both Dukes of Austria, Kings of Bohemnia and Kings of Hungary = The same person holding and using several titles. If you had actually read Kongeloven, or books on medieval and renaissance state systems, you would also be aware of this. E.g. Frederick III of Denmark and Norway stressed very strongly that he had TWO titles. So did Christian IV. Stop beating a dead horse. Valentinian T / C 22:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a Union between two kingdoms[edit]

Then you need two monarchs. Right?

Sure, and Idi Amin is the King of Scotland. Fornadan (t) 01:36, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Royal part" and map[edit]

The text says that Denmark-Norway included only the "royal part" of the Oldenburgs' lands, excluding the "ducal part", Schleswig and Holstein. But the map of Denmark-Norway in 1780 highlights Schleswig and Holstein along with the rest of the area. john k (talk) 01:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The map is correct and the date seems to have been chosen deliberately. Since 1676, the Danish monarch ruled the counties of Oldenburg and Delmenhorst while Schleswig and Holstein were divided into the Royal portion, the Ducal (Holstein-Gottorp) portion and the jointly-administered areas. Those were the main divisions. Two Several minor duchies also existed in Schleswig; notably the Duchy of Glücksburg and the Duchy of Nordborg. After the Great Northern War with Sweden (1700-1721), king Frederick IV annexed both the Gottorpers' territories in Schleswig and the jointly administered regions of Schleswig. His pretext was that the Danish army had captured documents in the ducal fortress of Tönning documenting that the duke had collaborated with the Swedish army and hence devolted against his vassal lord [the Danish king]. Since Schleswig was a fief of the Danish crown, the king declared it forfit and merged it to his own duchy of Schleswig. But in Holstein both the Danish monarch and the Gottorp duke were vassals of the Holy Roman Emperor which is why the Danish monarch couldn't simply annex these territories as well. So Holstein remained a patchwork of territories with different allegiances. This was ultimately changed by Mageskiftet of 1773. The Gottorp territories in Holstein had at this time passed to Grand Duke Paul of Russia, and Denmark struck a deal with Catharine the Great where the Russians agreed to transfer the terrtories in Holstein to the Danish monarch and renounce all claims to Schleswig. In return, Denmark surrendered Oldenburg and Gottorp Delmenhorst to Grand Duke Paul who in turn surrendered them to Fürst-Bishop Frederick August of Lübeck-Eutin. Denmark also accepted closer links with Russia as part of the deal, which is one of the reasons why Denmark entered the disasterous League of Armed Neutrality during the Napoleonic Wars. The 1773 events were illustrated in a contemporary painting: an allegory of Gottorpish Holstein swears allegiance to the Danish monarch whilst an allegory of the royal part of Holstein watches by and a [Russian] eagle flies away with a shield showing the arms of Oldenburg and Delmenhorst. (Source: Dansk Udenrigspolitiks Historie, vol. III, pp. 345-346.) Valentinian T / C 01:03, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PS: The city of Lübeck owned a few exclaves within Holstein (around Oldenburg in Holstein) but the map is too small to allow a proper depiction of those. They remained under Lübeck's control at the time Denmark lost control of Holstein. Valentinian T / C 01:03, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And here is a map of the pre-1721 situation. Salmon: territories ruled as part of the Kingdom of Denmark (note that the Kingdom had a few exclaves in Western Schleswig), pink: the Danish monarch's territories in Schleswig and Holstein, yellow: territories of the Duke of Holstein-Gottorp, pale green: jointly administered areas (for very long periods of time, effectively under the control of the Danish monarch), darker red: smaller duchies; Nordborg, Sønderborg, Ærø, Glücksburg and Plön, all ruled by cadet branches of the Oldenburg dynasty, blue: territories belonging to Pinneberg, brown: territories belonging to the City of Lübeck. In broad terms: the main difference between the various territories ruled by the Danish monarch were as follows: territories counted as part of the Kingdom of Denmark were ruled by Danish law and administered by administered by the Danish Chancellery, Danish language was used in schools, courts of law and churches, and official positions were filled with graduates of the University of Copenhagen. The arrangement for Norway was similar, except that it was governed by Norwegian law. In contrast, the royal portion of the duchies was administered by the German Chancellary [in Copenhagen], was ruled by respectively German law (Holstein) and the medieval Danish Code of Jutland (Schleswig), the German language was used in courts, schools and churches and official posts were staffed with graduates of the University of Kiel or other German universities. Valentinian T / C 15:28, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so what you're saying is that by "ducal part" the text means not that the whole of Schleswig-Holstein was the "ducal part" of the Oldenburg lands, but specifically the "ducal part" of Schleswig-Holstein - i.e. those belonging to the Dukes of Holstein-Gottorp. That makes sense, I guess. But Schleswig and Holstein were always administratively separate from the other parts of Denmark-Norway, no? Particularly Holstein, which was part of the Holy Roman Empire. john k (talk) 15:31, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
1) Indeed. The "ducal part" refers exclusively to those regions of Schleswig and Holstein that were ruled solely by the dukes of Holstein-Gottorp as fiefs of the crowns of respetively Denmark (for Schleswig) and the HRE (for Holstein). The "royal part" is the similar territories ruled by the Danish monarch in the same two provinces (fiefs of respectively himself [Schl.] and the HRE [Holst.]) Both rulers used the same titles in these regions which makes the situation extra complicated. The counties of Oldenburg and Delmenhorst are never counted as belonging to either "part" since they were ruled exclusively by the Danish monarch 1676-1773.
2) Yes, the Danish monarch's share of Schl. and Holst. was administered quite differently from the rest of Denmark-Norway. The administrative language of Denmark and Norway was Danish, administered from the Danish Chancellary and the legal code was Christian V's "Danish Law" and "Norwegian Law". In contrast, Schl. and Holst. were governed from the German Chancellary [same building as the Danish Chancellary], the administrative language on all levels was exclusively German and Christian V's "Danish Law" was never introduced. During the absolutist era, Schleswig and Holstein were effectively administered identically to each other, which is why many Danes until the early 19th century incorrectly would refer to both as "the King's German countries". The entire Helstat construction was cumbersome and remained fundamentally unchanged until Christian VIII's Sprogreskript (Language decree) of 18 May 1840 that changed the administrative language of Danish-speaking Northern Schleswig from German to Danish following a series of petitions from Danish farmers in Northern Schleswig. German nationalists saw this event as a giant provocation, no doubt because it effectively reserved government jobs in Northern Schleswig to Danish-speakers educated at the University of Copenhagen rather than the traditional German-speaking graduates of the University of Kiel. The introduction of Denmark's democratic constitution in 1848 complicated matters further as Danes began demanding the extension of the new constitution to Schleswig to benefit the Danes living there. The German nationalist reply was the rebellion of 1848 that resulted in the 1848-51 war. Valentinian T / C 18:27, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So, I guess the question is, should Schleswig, Holstein, Oldenburg, and Delmenhorst be considered part of "Denmark-Norway" or not? They were obviously lands of the Danish king, but is that sufficient? john k (talk) 01:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My take on that would be a yes. In Denmark we normally use the phrase Helstaten (literally: the entire state) but the other term would be considered synonymous. In addition, it makes sense from the administrative point of view. The union's administration was centred around the Danish and German Chancellaries, and the Danish Chancellary (Danske Kancelli) was responsible not only for the internal affairs of Denmark and Norway but it also operated Rentekammeret which served as a finance department for the entire union. The German Chancellary (Tyske Kancelli) was responsible for the domestic affairs within the [royal share of] the duchies, but until 1770 also for the foreign policy of the entire union.[2] after which these tasks were assumed by a new foreign office (Departement for de udenlandske anliggender) also operating for the entire union. The two chancellaries were abolished in 1848-1849. Valentinian T / C 07:52, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neo-Norwegian name[edit]

It is completely misleading to claim that Denmark–Norway was called Danmark-Norge in Danish and "Danmark-Norge or Danmark-Noreg" in Norwegian. The Union only had one name in Norwegian, as in Danish, and that name was the same in both kingdoms. "Danmark-Noreg" was never the name of the Union, as the name Noreg is a 20th century invention, introduced only in 1938. As such it has no place in this article, not being a native name of the Union, nor being an English name. Of the names that were mentioned, the only name that was actually used was Danmark-Norge, and it is included as the native name of the Union. Bergljot Bil (talk) 11:01, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The "union" was called Denmark in Denmark. The term "Denmark-Norway" is a modern invention, and not applicable at the time. The only evidence that the realm was seen as two was in the kings title, and you could use the same argument to argue that Vendsyssel (the home of the Wends) was an independent kingdom. Carewolf (talk) 22:25, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, it was called Denmark and Norway, at least by the King. It was two separate kingdoms. You obviously know little of Danish-Norwegian history, there was one legal code for Denmark and one legal code for Norway, there were separate institutions, separate currencies and so on. The Vendsyssel did not have a legal code, currency or its own institutions. All parts of Denmark and Norway except the German duchies were under the jurisdiction of either the Danish Law or the Norwegian Law, there was no Law of the Wends. The Norwegian Crown had a territory, it had colonies, a legal code, a currency of the crown, separate institutions, an economy at least as large as the Danish etc. The comparison with the paper title of Vendsyssel which was only used for historical reasons predating the Kalmar Union is hilarious. Bergljot Bil (talk) 21:29, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the Danish and Norwegian King did not style himself King of Vendsyssel, but as King of the Wends and the Goths. The style referred to a people, the Wends, rather than a geographic area. The Wends were a Slavic people from what is now Northern Germany around thousand years ago, that intermarried with members of the Danish royalty. They had nothing to do with Vendsyssel, the name of which has a different origin (most likely the Vandals). The style "King of the Wends" was an ackowledgement of the historic ties with the Wends (which at the time of the Danish/Swedish/Norwegian union had assimilated into the Germanic peoples in the area) as well as the eventual defeat of the people by the Christian armies, and had nothing to do with a particular territory. It was solely a paper style. Bergljot Bil (talk) 21:49, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For more on the relationship between Denmark and Norway, see http://da.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danmark-Norge#Norges_stilling_i_rigsf.C3.A6llesskabet Bergljot Bil (talk) 22:07, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The idea that it was called "Denmark-Norway" at the time seems dubious. In diplomacy, the whole thing would have just been called Denmark. In internal administration you would presumably talk about Denmark and Norway. The question of whether the union was a merely personal union, or an actual union of territories, seems like a difficult one to answer, because it really depends on your definition and your frame of reference. From what I can tell, the union was considerably closer than the Union of Crowns between England and Scotland prior to 1707, or than the union of the various lands of the King of Spain before 1713; it was certainly closer than the union between Norway and Sweden after 1814. It was considerably less close than the union between England and Scotland after 1707. But note that even the latter involved there still being a separate Scottish legal system and a completely different established Scottish church, among other things. john k (talk) 23:16, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Views on the union[edit]

There really should be a section dealing with the views on the union as a whole. Nastykermit (talk)

Category:History of Norway vs. Category:History of Denmark vs. Category:Denmark-Norway[edit]

Category:Denmark-Norway is itself a category within Category:History of Denmark and Category:History of Norway. — Robert Greer (talk) 14:23, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnic perceptions[edit]

Id like to see something in the article about the ethnic perceptions of the various people in the Kingdom at the time? I mean did Norwegians think of themselves as Norwegian or Danish or what? 92.235.178.44 (talk) 10:55, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Norwegians have never seen themselves as Danish in any way. There was always a clear definition that Norway was Norway and not Denmark, and that people living in Norway were Norwegians, not Danes. Denmark were more like a colonial power, having Norway and its population of Norwegians clearly separated like a colony. -GabaG (talk) 15:24, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is not true. Of course Norway was seen as a separate country, but in a united kingdom, with strong loyalty towards the monarchy. Denmark was not generally seen as an oppressing power until the last decades when the national movements in all parts of the kingdom was on the rise (and then only part of Norwegians supported a secession). And neither was the Norwegians "seperated like a colony". Norwegians was prevalent in all parts of the administration, especially after 1660, and participated as much in the common Dano-Norwegian culture (as writers, artists etc) as the Danes, as well as being a majority in the common navy and was also a strong force in the army (the border army on the Norwegian-Swedish border consisted mainly of conscripted Norwegians). --Saddhiyama (talk) 17:05, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
People in Norway were always considered as Norwegians by themselves and by other people in Denmark–Norway (eg. by the Danes), although most people in former times primarily identified with their local area and not so much with more abstract concepts like "Danes" or "Norwegians" (and Norway is a large country with considerable differences between eg Østfold and Nordland). Norway, a kingdom with its own institutions in most areas, was governed/administered mostly by Norwegians who considered themselves as such and who were usually born in Norway, and who usually had a great deal of affection for Denmark and loyalty to the common Dano-Norwegian state, and Denmark was not at all considered an oppressive power, on the contrary. Most of the Norwegian upper class, although clearly identifying as Norwegian, bitterly resented the dissolution of the Dano-Norwegian union. Nationalism was a phenomenon that only emerged in the last years of the Dano-Norwegian union, and even then usually only by small upper class segments. The farmers, i.e. the vast majority, were more conserned with whether they were treated fairly at the local level in those times. In general the Norwegian farmer class was better off (both economically and in terms of freedom) than the Danish majority population (there was no stavnsbånd in Norway, among other things, and the ownership structure of the land was different, with fewer large estates and a higher proportion of the land owned by the state (which leased it to farmers on reasonable and relaxed terms) and smaller farmers). Petersua (talk) 21:27, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Generally most people in those days did of course not have any choice but to accept their ruling king/duke/emperor or whatever. So the regular Norwegian peasants and such was mostly somewhat passive. However, there was, also in the earliest days, certain Norwegians of the nobility and other more influential/powerful people who were against the ruling power from Denmark. That said, since it was not really what the discussion was about, Norwegians have never regarded themselves as Danes in any way. -GabaG (talk) 12:04, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that no Norwegian regarded themselves as Danes as little as any Dane regarded themselves as Norwegian. Most Norwegians would have regarded themselves as Norwegians as well as subjects in the Twin Kingdoms. Your answer however does suggest a general dissent and bad will against Denmark throughout the period of Denmark-Norway history when that is not the case. Despite incidents of peasant rebellion and cases of nobility or wealthy Norwegian families agitating for either self government or an independent Norway, that still remained a minority opinion until the last decades of the 18th century. --Saddhiyama (talk) 12:29, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, of course since no really major uprisings (that I can think of right now at least) were made against Denmark, in Norwegian favor, the dissent can't have been very strong. But regardless of that I don't think that anyone are happy with the fact that their land is ruled by a foreign power. Would you be happy if let's say today it was decided that Denmark were to be ruled by Norway, and that you had to pay your taxes to the Norwegian king? That said, I do think that Denmark were rather peaceful and nice overlords over Norway just so you know. I have not in anyway tried to portray Denmark as the big bad wolf. Just that Norwegians didn't love them so much as to actually view themselves as Danes. -GabaG (talk) 20:01, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It would be anachronistic to look at it the way a post-nationalism person (like us) would look at it. It is difficult for the layman to understand the world-view of the pre-nationalism conglomerate state. For example the average Norwegian would not view the Dano-Norwegian royal house as a foreign power, as they were of the same bloodline as the Norwegian royalty. The futile attempts of Gustav III of Sweden to ferment unrest in Norway in the 1770s and 1780s clearly showed a stronger loyalty to the Dano-Norwegian royal house. That did not mean that Norwegians did view themselves as Danes, because obviously they did not, but it did not mean that they regarded Denmark as an oppressive power either (I am speaking in general terms). There was of course some dissatisfaction with the way that the centralised administration, especially after the institution of absolutism, did not allow much room for local Norwegian institutions (the campaign for a Norwegian university in the 1780s and onwards being one of the first that really managed to gain general popular support in Norway). But in that regard it was not that much different from the dissatisfaction experienced in the Danish provincial towns when Copenhagen was favored as the main trading port by taxes, tariffs and privileges early in the 1700s and onward. The dissatisfaction, even though sometimes presented as a question of nationality by contemporaries, did far from always originate from patriotism, but often enough from discontent with administrational decisions. I hope the IP-user can see that this is a complicated matter, and perhaps something that should be dealt more closely with in the article. It is a difficult task though, as exactly this question is one that has been covered by a lot of Norwegian and Danish historians within these last couple of decades, so there is actually a huge source material to go through. This particular topic is not one I have specialised in (though the time period and area is), so I this is only a gist of the complexity of the subject. --Saddhiyama (talk) 20:47, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you, and it is hard for both a 21th century Norwegian, and Dane to be completely neutral and not biased in their treatment of something like this. Norwegians for instance may try to find and strengthen the Norwegian nationalistic elements of the period in their favor, and Danes may try to tone down what might be against their interest. This can be both intended, or more unintened. Compiling factual sources is thus as most times the best solution for achieving a neutral view. -GabaG (talk) 22:56, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Norwegians, and especially its traditional educated elite, maintained a strong emotional bond to Denmark for a long time after the dissolution of the Dano-Norwegian union. There is no, and has never been any, widespread anti-Danish sentiment in Norway. Norwegians have always been fond of Denmark and the union with Denmark was a golden age for both countries. The fact that there was only one university in the twin kingdoms and that Norway didn't have one wasn't any different from the fact that there was no university in Aalborg back then either, i.e. the moderate dissatisfaction with centralisation felt by anyone who didn't live in the capital (Christiania was only a small city then, and for people of northern Norway, it wouldn't make much difference whether they had to travel to Christiania or Copenhagen to attend university). Petersua (talk) 21:55, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unindenting - wouldn't a good comparison be with England and Scotland in the eighteenth century? Scotland has never been considered part of England, but England was always politically dominant. Lowland Scots, at least, generally did not view England as a colonial power in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, in the way that the Irish did, but there was still often misunderstanding and resentment, and Scottish nationalism was a real thing. The language of lowland Scotland was similar, but not identical, to that of England. Scots typically were heavily involved in the administration and in the military, and the Scottish Enlightenment in many ways made Edinburgh as important a center of culture as London, at least for a while. The parallels seem reasonably strong. john k (talk) 23:09, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the comparisons to Scotland and England is good. In that case the country also changed name from England to Great Brittain when they annexed Scotland, and United Kingdoms when they annexed Ireland. In a sense Scotland became part of the the English kingdom but it was never part of England. This comparison has changed my mind on Denmark-Norway. So now I am quite happy with the current text. Carewolf (talk) 12:28, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In reply to Petersua: Since you appear to be new to Wikipedia, I thought you ought to know that the purpose of a talk page is to discuss only changes to the article. These editors appeared to get a little off-topic with their discussion of Dano-Norwegian history (which doesn't strictly involve improvements to the article). You may not have noticed that the discussion ended six years ago, and that's where it should remain! You seem to be knowledgeable of the subject, perhaps you might consider editing the article (citing reliable sources)?-- HazhkTalk 02:29, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Map[edit]

Is the map accurate since the borders in the northern part of Norway were not drawn before 1852? I believe what is now Guovdageaidnu and Karasjohka were considered Swedish at that time. Labongo (talk) 08:50, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

History of Norway has a couple of contemporary Denmark-Norway maps (at the bottom of the article), but I can not really interpret if the areas you describe are included. Perhaps you could take a look? --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:30, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. But, the latest map in that article is from 1020. I also posted a comment on that articles talkpage about the missing description about when the borders where drawn. I still think the map is inaccurate since the borders in the north where not in place at the time union ended, and I was curios about which parts were considered Danish/Norwegian at that time. Labongo (talk) 03:59, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The maps I am referring you to are at the bottom of that article and are all from late 1500s to 1700s. --Saddhiyama (talk) 11:45, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again. This time I found the information I was looking for, but then started to doubt whether the borders in the 1761 map was added sometime after the map was made. Labongo (talk) 04:50, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The borders between northern Norway and Sweden was drawn in 1751 Fornadan (t) 14:17, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One country or two countries?[edit]

What I am getting at here is, was it "The Kingdom of Denmark" and "The Kingdom of Norway" both having the same king or "The Kingdom of Denmark" which included both present day countries and their accosiated colonies? This matter should be clearly outlined in the opening paragraph of the article because it is unclear at present which one is the truth. Please make this statement specific because the opening paragraph should state this clearly. (Include a source if possible). Vadac (talk) 23:41, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that de jure Denmark and Norway were separate kingdoms but that de facto they were ruled together as a unitary state. That may not be right, though. john k (talk) 01:26, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your interpretation is correct. Officially it was two countries with the same person being king in each country. Personal union explains it (a bit) more detailed. But of course it was mostly ruled as one country, especially after the introduction of absolute monarchy and the centralisations that resulted from this. This arrangement required separate codes of law for each country, something which was kept even after 1660, Danske Lov and Norske Lov, but they were almost completely similar. --Saddhiyama (talk) 08:35, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orkney[edit]

Why is Orkney listed in the info box under "Today part of"? I was under the impression that Orkney and Shetland had been ceded to Scotland when Christian I of Denmark couldn't pay the dowry for Margaret of Denmark as part of her marriage to James III of Scotland in 1469. Unless I am incorrect I think it should be removed as this happened before the stated start date of this union in the info box. Micropot (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:45, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kron zu Dennemarck[edit]

The common name in most of the periode of the union was Kron zu Dennemarck, which means the Danish Crown in low German. Denmark-Norway was to my knowledge first used by Norwegin historian Edward Holm in 1875, so it relatively recent. This should be mentioned in the opening. --Orakologen (talk) 19:42, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The word "zu" surely isn't Low German?--Barend (talk) 19:17, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the name is a modern construction, that doesn't make it wrong. Historically it was called the Danish kingdom, as opposed the nation of Denmark, but it is not a descriptive name and very ambigious over the long history of Denmark, so Denmark-Norway is a distinct name invented in modern times to describe the Danish kingdom in the period it dominantly consisted of the historic lands of Denmark and Norway. (not that unlike Austria-Hungary btw). Carewolf (talk) 00:05, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page not moved. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:36, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Denmark–Norway → Denmark-Norway – One day (see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=move&page=Denmark-Norway ) a dash (–) was injected into the title. The mistake may be excused because of initial rush with dashification of Wikipedia. But unfortunately, nobody looked to it critically for 6 years. Names of countries do not contain dashes: examples are Austria-Hungary and Bosnia-Hercegovina. These are titles which indicate some relation between distinct entities which contain dashes, such as Austria–Hungary relations or Denmark–Norway relations. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 19:19, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose – the article seems to be very clearly talking about a union between entities that retain their individual identity. I see no evidence in sources that there ever was a "country" named "Denmark-Norway"; the title seems to be more descriptive. Either way, there's no "dashification" going on, so the basis for this RM seems suspect. Dicklyon (talk) 03:31, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Did you open the Special:Log link? Clearly, in 2006 various pitfalls (such as WP:ANGLO) was not known and even a well-informed Wikipedian may make mistakes like that. BTW, I think that in modern Wikipedia any action with summary similar to STYLE MANUAL (plain text) should rise a distrust: if a user is not tidy enough to make a relevant link, then it is not meticulous enough to actually read a manual. Though, in 2006 in was not so grossly inappropriate as nowadays. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 06:45, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose a well-intended RM proposal. These can be tricky and even indeterminate; but Dicklyon is right. Two entities that retain their identity, unlike a "parent-teacher" who is one person, or Alsace-Lorraine which is really just one merged geographical entity. NoeticaTea? 04:22, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    So, why not Denmark–Norway union? Just dash between two words is rather ungrammatical. Could you actually find a second article with a title “word1–word2”? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 06:45, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    As a Norwegian I have never heard the term "Denmark–Norway union", it is always referred to as simply "Denmark–Norway". Arsenikk (talk) 14:57, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Dicklyon summarizes the issue well; the article is describing the issue of two separate entities. To quote the MOS "Wilkes-Barre, a single city named after two people, but Minneapolis–Saint Paul, a union of two cities", which is exactly what is the case here, a union between two entities. Arsenikk (talk) 14:57, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as this is a well known historical union with an established short form of the official name, Denmak-Norway. The two kingdoms may have been distinct entities formally, but in reality Norway was totally dependent and ruled by the Danes, as far as I know. 891 mm (talk) 11:14, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
While that may be partially true (it is however a lot more complicated than that), it still doesn't change the fact that it was formally two distinct countries in a personal union. --Saddhiyama (talk) 19:13, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Book of Kings III?[edit]

"The Scandinavians were Christianized in the 10th–13th centuries, resulting in three consolidated kingdoms". This could be expanded on or deleted. Surely, Christianity, in a religious sense, has little to do with mere kingdoms. So was a Christian political leader such as a pope or holy emperor, perhaps via his decree or executive fiat, responsible for all this consolidation/division? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.183.224.2 (talk) 19:56, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence may be a bit unfortunate, but the essence of it is correct in that Christianization and state formation happened at the same time and the kings at the time used the introduction of Christianity to consolidate their own power. Not that different from what Constantine the Great did in the Roman Empire, really. dllu (talk) 13:36, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Denmark–Norway. 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) 20:47, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Modernism/POV[edit]

Are there any sources at all from before 1814 that support that the name "Denmark-Norway" was ever used for the real union between the kingdom of Denmark and the former kingdom of Norway at that time? To me it seems like a modernism, as out of touch with reality as the modern day Finnish use of the name Sweden-Finland for Sweden before 1809. A name that is a modern invention intended to elevate the status of what was at that time only seen as provinces east of the Gulf of Bothnia. And no, the use of "King of Denmark and Norway" in the title of the Danish monarch does not support claims of Norway being seen as a country at that time, more or less equal to Denmark, and not just northern provinces, no more than the Swedish monarch's title of "King of Sweden and Geat(land)" ("Sveriges och Götes konung"; used until 1973) indicated that the land of the Geats was seen as a separate country (as it once had been). - Tom | Thomas.W talk 19:49, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The name Denmark-Norway is the only name that is widely used by today's historians, so any attempt to name it something else is a fringe view. Whether the exact phrase Denmark-Norway was used before 1814 is really beside the point. Denmark-Norway is in no way comparable to Finland, which was merely a part of Sweden with no statehood of any kind. Norway was always Norway, a country separate from Denmark, and was never considered part of Denmark by anyone in Denmark-Norway, and it was certainly not seen as any "northern province" of Denmark (the northern province of Denmark would be northern Jutland). Unlike Finland, Norway was a kingdom of its own and at least formally a sovereign state. The differences are tremendous, and as discussed by many others they included the fact that Norway had
  • its own legal code, the Norwegian Code, one of two legal codes of Denmark-Norway, the other being the Danish Code. The Norwegian Code was also the legal code of Iceland and the Faroe Islands since they were dependencies of the Norwegian Crown rather than the Danish Crown
  • its own army
  • its own legal system
  • its own currency
  • various other characteristics of statehood, e.g. its own stendermøter until the estates of the realm were practically abolished during the absolute monarchy.
  • the Kings succeeded to the Norwegian Crown separately until the introduction of absolute monarchy made the distinction irrelevant
Furthermore, the King always ruled as "King of Denmark and Norway". As we see, Norway had most characteristics of statehood. It was vastly different from any Danish province. Even the most important Danish province was not mentioned in the King's title (as one of two kingdoms), did not have its own legal code, did not have its own army, did not have its own currency and did not have other institutions of statehood, and did not have dependencies like Norway had.
When Denmark-Norway or its government was referred to in its entirety during the countries' union it was usually called simply "His Majesty" (especially in formal contexts) or "the Monarchy" (in more descriptive and less formal ones), but for obvious reasons that is not very suitable or self-explanatory in most contexts today. People today often confuse modern ideas about countries and states with the way things were in times past, when statehood had a more personal nature. The more descriptive term "The Twin Kingdoms" was also used sometimes, a term which is quite similar to Denmark-Norway and which illustrates that Denmark-Norway is an accurate (modern) expression of the relationship between the states as it was seen back then. It must be noted that the realm of the Dano-Norwegian king included a third and equally important part, Schleswig-Holstein or "the Duchies", which also had a special status as separate states within the realm rather than being part of the country called Denmark. So comparisons with Sweden are quite irrelevant. Denmark-Norway with the Duchies was a much more complex and sophisticated entity than Sweden ever was.
Denmark-Norway with the Duchies was sometimes referred to as just "Denmark" or "The Danish Crown" (mainly in German usage) in foreign countries for the sake of simplicity. Such usage primarily referred to the twin kingdoms in a political sense (i.e. the King as a player on the international chessboard), rather than to the countries in a geographic or detailed sense, and did not really imply that Norway was part of geographical Denmark. It is understandable that foreigners would perceive the countries as one in such international contexts, because the King of Denmark and Norway only had one foreign policy. This usage emphasizes international politics and mostly ignores the countries' characteristics on a domestic and detailed level. This usage would also be considered outdated and problematic today, also because the name "Denmark" didn't refer to Denmark in the geographical and modern sense but primarily to the King's authority in a more personal manner. In much the same way, the United Kingdom is not typically referred to as just "England" in scholarly or encyclopedic contexts in Denmark and Norway today, even though the UK was traditionally called just England in those countries. --Johannes Eriksen (talk) 15:42, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:36, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Where do these aka's come from?[edit]

What source supports the lead's asserting "also known as the Dano-Norwegian Realm, the Oldenburg Monarchy, or the Oldenburg realms"? I am rather versed in these histories and have never heard of them. I will remove them unless they are clearly sourced. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 09:39, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Norges Skaal[edit]

I do not agree with this acording to its own page it states the following:

banned by Danish-Norwegian officials in 1772 when it was first performed, and it gained popularity in the early 1800s when Norwegian nationalism was increasing. It quickly gained a reputation as being anti-Danish and revolutionary, and was referred to as "the Norwegian Marseillaise". It was first published in 1782, and was an unofficial national anthem of Norway from then on and beyond

Which if this is the case it should not be included on the Denmark-Norway infobox. Unless evidence of this song being an official anthem of the state is shown, i will soon remove it again. - Tinkaer1991 (talk) 19:28, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was clearly stated that it was unofficial, but still as you said it was used by Norwegian nationalists. I see no reason not to include it as its a part of the history as long as its clearly stated that it was never an offical anthem? GusGusBrus (talk) 10:54, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If it's unofficial, and quite literally written against the nation of the infobox. I do not see any valid reason for it to be included. Tinkaer1991 (talk) 15:12, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Its written for one of the two nations of the union and is an important fact that shouldnt be left out? GusGusBrus (talk) 10:54, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't negate its importance, yet it should not be Denmark-Norway should not be represented by this anthem, since it was quite literally against the national and union, and even banned by officials. Tinkaer1991 (talk) 10:49, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Denmark–Norway&oldid=1218203582"