The Future of the Danish Monarchy

[Muhler]

Well, they certainly had an interest in being seen as direct descendants of the gods. Or at the very least being okayed by the gods.
Whether it would have been seen as blasphemy to claim descendency of the gods back then is anyone's guess.

But what is certain is that the Danish monarchy is several hundred years older than what is official today. I.e. starting with Gorm the Old.
There are several historical examples of constructions and organization on such a large scale that it would have been supported by most of what was then Denmark.
Most likely DK was a collection of minor kingdoms and chiefdoms, that intermarried and fought for power, sometimes cooperating, sometimes splitting up. Charlemange and his descendants were certainly instrumental in Denmark being unified under one king, Harald Bluetooth. Although it can be questioned how big his political power really was. But certainly by the time of Knud den Store, who in Britain is known as Canute Denmark was an established kingdom. (*)
Anyway, Gorm the Old was hardly just a random chieftain. It is more than likely that he belonged to extended family of powerful lords, who each controlled parts of Denmark. Sometimes under an overlord - a king.

What is also interesting is that by the time Denmark began to become a nation Thor, Freja, Odin and all the other Nordic gods, were proto-gods.
That is the Nordic/Viking religious universe was only being developed.
While Odin (really a Germanic god, covering a large part of north and central Europe) was no doubt the top-god. Thor and Freja, Tyr, Loke, Balder, Heimdal and so on were probably more local and likely started out as a kind of spirits, evolving into local gods and then into Nordic gods.

But back to Gorm the Old and the DRF. About 20-25 years ago they found his grave and by permission of QMII examined the remains and did DNA testing as well. - He turned out to be around 45 years old IIRC.
But if you one day compared the DNA of QMII and Gorm the Old, there would hardly be any match.
Too long time has passed. And Danish kings certainly from around 1200 onward married foreigners and the crown at times changed between various branches of the extended DRF family. - Not to mention Struensee in the 1700's...
So while QMII can track her family linage through the many winding twigs of a large tree back to Gorm the Old, her DNA is another matter.

(*) The story about him ordering the sea to retreat is in Britain seen as an example of arrogance. In Denmark that is seen as an example of modesty and being pious. Here Knud ordered the sea to retreat to show that God was above him and that he, a mere man, did not have godly powers.

[Muhler]

Originally Posted by Mbruno

I agree that probably would not happen in Denmark, but royals in several European countries (Portugal, Spain, Italy, Greece) were literally kicked out on the street to fend for themselves and were not only expropriated, but also literally banned sometimes from even re-entering their countries of origin.


I know that the circumstances were different in the aforementioned cases and, again, I am not saying that is likely to happen in Denmark. I am just saying that, historically, it is not as far-fetched or inconceivable as you might have suggested in your post and it doesn't necessarily take a violent revolution or civil war as in France or Russia.

I meant after a vote, it would be unlikely any royals in modern day Europe would just be kicked out on the streets.
Abolishing the monarchy in Europe today would likely only take place after a democratic vote.

I must confess ignorance in regards to why Portugal abolished the monarchy.
Spain. A vicious and bitter civil war.
Italy. War, at places even a civil war. With the old, fascist, regime being kicked out. Basically a political revolution.
Greece interfering in political affairs, combined with a considerable socialist sentiment in the general population, as well as the monarchy there not being that old.
The Balkan monarchies: Outed by a political revolution, backed by foreign military, political and economic power - the Soviet Union. Who wanted to replace all national symbols with the Communist Party.
- And religion: Lenin = god. Stalin = pope. The Polit Bureau = cardinals/bishops. Marx and Engells = prophets. Commissars = jesuits. NKVD/KGB = the inquisition. Party members = the faithfuls.

[Duc_et_Pair]

Originally Posted by victor1319

What I will write now, makes perhaps no sense, since it is built on no real knowledge...

But I was under the impression, that when Harold Bluetooth, Sven Fork-Beard and Magnus the Great founded the Danish Monarchy a thousand years ago, this family was that old and for so long the leading family of the lands, that it was said: They are direct descendents of Odin, the God, himself!

And the cultivated Queen, Denmark has now, is a descendant of these guys!!!

No way, this country will abolish monarchy! Monarchy is a very old and very deep thing there!

But your very own German lands (plus the immense Austria and Hungary territory) was equally studded with monarchies, giant size, medium size and operetta size. It was the brood machine of all European monarchies. As if "monarchy" was the DNA of German staaterei. And in 1918 it was all over. From Bayern to Württemberg, from Preussen to Sachsen, all of them, one by one.

Morale of the story: no any monarchy is immune. But I admit -for so far- the Danish monarchy looks relatively stable. But imagine that in the Netherlands or in Sweden there is a referendum about the monarchy, often this will cause a domino-effect and suddenly, as long as there are enough signatures (easy in this internet era) any Democratic Government will find it hard "to deny" a plebiscite.

[Blog Real]

Originally Posted by Muhler

I must confess ignorance in regards to why Portugal abolished the monarchy.
Spain. A vicious and bitter civil war.

The monarchy in Portugal was abolished by a group of republican people and organized by the Portuguese Republican Party.
The Portuguese people were never consulted to decide what type of regime they want (monarchy or republic).

This was in 1910. In 1908 the Republicans killed King Carlos I and his son, Prince Luís Filipe. These are very sad episodes in the history of Portugal.

You can find out more here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5_October_1910_revolution

[Mbruno]

Originally Posted by Muhler

I meant after a vote, it would be unlikely any royals in modern day Europe would just be kicked out on the streets.
Abolishing the monarchy in Europe today would likely only take place after a democratic vote.

I must confess ignorance in regards to why Portugal abolished the monarchy.
Spain. A vicious and bitter civil war.
Italy. War, at places even a civil war. With the old, fascist, regime being kicked out. Basically a political revolution.
Greece interfering in political affairs, combined with a considerable socialist sentiment in the general population, as well as the monarchy there not being that old.
The Balkan monarchies: Outed by a political revolution, backed by foreign military, political and economic power - the Soviet Union. Who wanted to replace all national symbols with the Communist Party.
- And religion: Lenin = god. Stalin = pope. The Polit Bureau = cardinals/bishops. Marx and Engells = prophets. Commissars = jesuits. NKVD/KGB = the inquisition. Party members = the faithfuls.

The monarchy in Italy was abolished after a vote, i.e. by a means of a referendum, and, following that vote, the Savoys were literally kicked out, expropriated and banned from coming back to the country. In Spain on the other hand, the civil war happened after the Royal Family left the country following relatively unimportant muncipal elections won by the republican parties, not before it.


I read once that, a few years ago, lawyers representing Prince Vittorio Emanuele and his son Emanuele Filiberto wrote to the president of the Italian republic seeking damages from their years in exile. Also, Emanuele Filiberto publicly demanded that the Quirinale Palace and Villa Ada be "returned to his family". Apparently, the Italian government issued a statement saying that the Savoys are not owned any damages and suggesting, on the contrary, that Italy should demand compensation from the Savoys for their "collusion with Mussolini".

[Duc_et_Pair]

Originally Posted by Mbruno

The monarchy in Italy was abolished after a vote, i.e. by a means of a referendum, and, following that vote, the Savoys were literally kicked out, expropriated and banned from coming back to Italy. In Spain on the other hand, the civil war happened after the Royal Family was kicked out in a bloodless coup, not before it.


I read once that, a few years ago, lawyers representing Prince Vittorio Emanuele and his son Emanuele Filiberto wrote to the president of the Italian republic seeking damages from their years in exile. Also, Emanuele Filiberto publicly demanded that the Quirinale Palace and Villa Ada be "returned to his family". Apparently, the Italian government issued a statement saying that the Savoys are not owned any damages and suggesting, on the contrary, that Italy should demand compensation from the Savoys for their "collusion with Mussolini".

That last one is remarkable as the current Italian state itself is the legal successor of the previous state in which Mussolini -as early as 1924- won a landslide qualified majority via democratic (!) elections. The snipe towards the Savoys sounds very much the blind leading the blind.

[Iain]

Originally Posted by Mbruno

The monarchy in Italy was abolished after a vote, i.e. by a means of a referendum, and, following that vote, the Savoys were literally kicked out, expropriated and banned from coming back to the country. .

A few years ago I read that evidence had been uncovered that at the referendum the vote was actually in favour of the monarchy and that republicans had rigged the outcome.

[JR76]

Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair

That last one is remarkable as the current Italian state itself is the legal successor of the previous state in which Mussolini -as early as 1924- won a landslide qualified majority via democratic (!) elections. The snipe towards the Savoys sounds very much the blind leading the blind.

It's always easier to point the finger at the actions of others than assume some of the responsibility yourself. Italy, France, Germany, Sweden, Austria, Denmark, The Soviet Union etc... all over Europe after the war a selected few were made to bear the blame for the faults committed by the many as a way to wipe the name of respective nation clean.

[victor1319]

Originally Posted by Muhler

So while QMII can track her family linage through the many winding twigs of a large tree back to Gorm the Old, her DNA is another matter.

Thank you, Muhler, for enriching my "dangerous half-knowledge"!

And my point, as I see it, stands... Denmark abolishing Monarchy, that would be like destroying the roots of the very country.

BTW An interesting point in the Nordic History, yes, the Germanic history, is, that the chieftains used christianity to become Kings. Norway: For sure. And the Franks in Gemany, Harold Bluetooth and so, they used the new religion to found their kingdoms and to justify their rulership. Even the vikings in Russia: One Nation, One Realm, demands a common God for all...

Polytheism is probably to anarchic with everybody and every region having it's own God...

Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair

As if "monarchy" was the DNA of German staaterei. And in 1918 it was all over.

Well, the most lost Monarchies are a direct result of lost wars. France (1871), Germany, Austria-Hungary, the Romanov-Empire = Utter Losers!

[Duc_et_Pair]

[QUOTE=victor1319;2403888]

Well, the most lost Monarchies are a direct result of lost wars. France (1871), Germany, Austria-Hungary, the Romanov-Empire = Utter Losers!

You are charging here. As if there was no Charlemagne with his immense Holy Roman Empire, as if there was no Clovis cementing the French Kings, as if the progenitors of the Habsburgers are not at least as ancient as the Vikings or the Franks.

[CyrilVladisla]

The Portuguese Republican Party was first formed in 1876. Thus in 1906 it had existed for thirty years. Fortunately no Portuguese Royal was killed much earlier.

[valeas]

My post did not say the monarchy will be abolished soon, but we are still lucky in Danmark.

I was responding to some saying the court was not slimming down...

I think the DRF knows well that a huge court with many working royals has no future
and so they are preparing to adapt to changes in society to enable their son to reign one day or whatever is left to him.

[LibrarianDaisy]

Originally Posted by Muhler

(*) The story about him ordering the sea to retreat is in Britain seen as an example of arrogance. In Denmark that is seen as an example of modesty and being pious. Here Knud ordered the sea to retreat to show that God was above him and that he, a mere man, did not have godly powers.

Actually that's how I was taught to view Canute's actions as well - not as arrogance but to show his courtiers how stupid they were to think that as King he could hold back the waves (maybe I had a more enlightened education in the UK than I thought )

[Curryong]

Me too. I learned the story in Sunday School. I always took it as Canute showing his courtiers that Kings are not omnipotent. Several spots on the south coast claim to be The spot were the incident happened. I know there’s a sign in Southampton that states that Canute reproved his courtiers at a location nearby in 1028.

[Tatiana Maria]

One point with regard to which the Royal House has not caught up to most other European royal houses is that members of the Royal House are permitted to refer to their royal status and even use the name of their country ("of Denmark") to market themselves commercially. I think that this is likely to eventually become unpopular. With the possibility of as many as 15-20 royals being active in business in the next generation (the younger children of Frederik, the four children of Joachim, their spouses, and their ex-spouses) it is nearly inevitable that at least one of them will incite a controversy over their commercial activities.

I agree with Muhler's argument that it would be ideal for commercially active members of the family to leave the Royal House altogether, but if the family sees that as too extreme, they would be well advised to implement a policy to limit commercial use of royal titles and rank, following the examples of Norway, Sweden, the Netherlands, Belgium, and Spain.

[Muhler]

Originally Posted by victor1319

Thank you, Muhler, for enriching my "dangerous half-knowledge"!

And my point, as I see it, stands... Denmark abolishing Monarchy, that would be like destroying the roots of the very country.

BTW An interesting point in the Nordic History, yes, the Germanic history, is, that the chieftains used christianity to become Kings. Norway: For sure. And the Franks in Gemany, Harold Bluetooth and so, they used the new religion to found their kingdoms and to justify their rulership. Even the vikings in Russia: One Nation, One Realm, demands a common God for all...

Polytheism is probably to anarchic with everybody and every region having it's own God...




Well, the most lost Monarchies are a direct result of lost wars. France (1871), Germany, Austria-Hungary, the Romanov-Empire = Utter Losers!

You are no doubt right.
In Germanic tradition a chieftain who was out of luck, would simply be left by his followers.
It was very much a system of gifts. You were loyal to your chieftain, who in return presented you with gift - in public. The finer your gifts, the higher your status. - But you could still leave your chieftain anytime you wanted.
The concept of loyalty to an overlord, regardless of circumstances, is very much a Christian concept.
Before Christianity, if one god didn't help you, there was always another you could appeal to.

Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair

That last one is remarkable as the current Italian state itself is the legal successor of the previous state in which Mussolini -as early as 1924- won a landslide qualified majority via democratic (!) elections. The snipe towards the Savoys sounds very much the blind leading the blind.

A surprising number of dictators were - and are - voted into office in a democratic election.
Thought provoking... And scary.

Originally Posted by Mbruno

The monarchy in Italy was abolished after a vote, i.e. by a means of a referendum, and, following that vote, the Savoys were literally kicked out, expropriated and banned from coming back to the country. In Spain on the other hand, the civil war happened after the Royal Family left the country following relatively unimportant muncipal elections won by the republican parties, not before it.


I read once that, a few years ago, lawyers representing Prince Vittorio Emanuele and his son Emanuele Filiberto wrote to the president of the Italian republic seeking damages from their years in exile. Also, Emanuele Filiberto publicly demanded that the Quirinale Palace and Villa Ada be "returned to his family". Apparently, the Italian government issued a statement saying that the Savoys are not owned any damages and suggesting, on the contrary, that Italy should demand compensation from the Savoys for their "collusion with Mussolini".

It was no longer faschionable to be a fascist and those who still were kept a low profile. So hardly surprising that those most high profile who worked with the Fascists were booted out. Especially since the Communists had great elections in Italy after the war.

As for Spain. Well, there is always a period of increasing instability prior to a civil war. Including ousting the royal family.
I mean, it's not like everybody woke up one morning and agreed on suddenly starting to shoot each other.
And Franco who was busy consolidating his position, was unsurprisingly in no hurry in inviting the royal family back anytime soon. A dictator can't have a master - even in name.

It is indeed difficult to envision a Denmark without a royal family, because there has never been a period without a monarchy in Danish history. Periods of interregnum yes, but always a monarchy.
There are no political winds blowing in the direction of a republic. There is no public wish to speak of either.
M&F have a strong connection with the young and younger adults, so no immediate threat there either.
The biggest threat as I see it to the monarchy is DK is the DRF itself.
A situation like in Thailand would be a threat IMO.

Or QMII planting an axe in the head of her cook, because he ruined the sauce, with Frederik and Christian burying the corpse in the park at Fredensborg, while Mary and Benedikte were busy cleaning the scene of crime. - If that was found out, I think the public consensus would be that the DRF had committed a slight transgression.

[Duc_et_Pair]

It is not needed to have a murder. A royal "giving the impression to be open for favours" can already seriously damage the monarchy.

Or royals just leaving for their usual annual break in their own foreign villa, can see their alltime high approval crumbling under their eyes for too thoughtlessly continuing their agenda on automatic mode.

Or a royal whom seems to be the devil inside the court organization, causing mass resignations of staff, unauthorized use of power and finances, leading to an official investigation.

Or a royal caught in utmost compromitting situations, whether it about underaged folks or shooting endangered species in the presence of their maîtresse.

The traps in which a royal can fall him- or herself and damage the monarchy are countless.

[Muhler]

Yes, but in each of these cases there is a good chance of reforms or someone else taking over. As we have seen in a number of cases.
It will damage the institution, but not topple it.

But the monarch killing someone while speeding - or worse DUI. That could be so serious that it would be the end of the monarchy.
I have difficulty seeing a monarch who wasn't forced to abdicate after such an incident. - Which is why I believe monarchs should never drive.
QMII has admitted to be a terrible driver and so has opted not to drive.

But Queen Ingrid had a heavy foot and was sometimes speeding - in fact she caused an accident back in the 1950's that could have ended up killing the then princess Margrethe.
Yet, she kept driving and sometimes driving fast for decades after that accident.

So while an individual royal may fall, the whole house is another matter.

And perhaps it's healthy that they get whacked on the heads from time to time, when they make mistakes. Makes them more humble, I trust.

[Blog Real]

For the opening of the Folketing on Tuesday, several politicians at Christiansborg participated in anti-royal protest. Read here why Carl Valentin (SF) refused to stand up for the queen.

https://indblik.dk/sfer-naegtede-at-...fe-kongehuset/

[Muhler]

Well, I don't accept the argument that MP's refuse to stand up or be present when the DRF arrive.

It's IMO undemocratic and bad manners.

It's bad manners because the DRF are invited by the Parliament on this day. They are guests of honor and your treat guests, any guests you invite, with courtesy.

It's undemocratic because Denmark is a democracy, a majority prefer a monarchy.
And I will expect members of the Parliament to accept and respect a democratic majority - regardless of their personal opinion.