Talk:Frederik X

The recent removal of both houses has been in reference to Talk:Frederik_X/Archive_1#Why_change_"House_of_Monpezat"? which took place well over ten years ago. Given recent developments, I think it is relevant to rediscuss. While I can find no direct notice on which house he belongs to. The royal family website refers to both him and Queen Margerethe belonging to the same house[1], the 'danish royal house'.[2] But also makes no move to distinguish him from the Glucksburg house.[3] EmilySarah99 (talk) 09:45, 18 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

• I wonder if an official statement will be made soon, but until, then, I see no reason to remove any mention of the house. Thus, I think we should include both, indicating which is agnatic and cognatic, but label neither as official. EmilySarah99 (talk) 09:51, 18 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
• I would agree with the choice to include both per the information above, but if someone finds other information, then maybe not. For me, it is better to have both houses included, rather than none. To me, that makes no sense. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 10:04, 18 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
• Use Glucksburg only, as we've yet to see where the royal house name was changed to 'Monpezat' upon King Frederick X's accession. PS - Just a theory, but I suspect many European monarchies have chosen to keep their House name the same, now that they've adopted the 'eldest child' rule in their succession. This would prevent more frequent name changes, as there'll be more situations of kings in the future succeeding queen regnants & queen regnants succeeding queen regnants. I don't think (for example) the Netherlands' royal house name changed, when William-Alexander succeeded Beatrix. GoodDay (talk) 14:39, 18 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Comment: does other monarchies were this has taken place reference their ruling house in these contexts? 2A02:1406:17:6159:C28:E5B5:1829:E243 (talk) 17:46, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

• Exclude both until explicit reliable sources are provided for one, other or both. The links in the opening statement appear to only support "Danish royal house" or "House of Denmark". DrKay (talk) 17:29, 18 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
• Include only Glücksburg. We do have this page from their official website which celebrates 150 years of Glücksburg monarchs occupying the Danish throne. Unless an official announcement is made that says the ruling house is the House of Monpezat, I think it is safe to assume that there has been no change in the name of the ruling royal house (similar to House of Windsor). Keivan.f^Talk 19:58, 18 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Frederick is not mentioned on that webpage. It is unnecessary for us to make assumptions. We can simply wait for explicit sources. DrKay (talk) 20:34, 18 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

  True, but they have not really made an announcement saying the name of the royal house has changed, right? I'm not against leaving that parameter empty if that's what the consensus turns out to be, but I'm definitely against including House of Monpezat at the moment. Keivan.f^Talk 22:13, 18 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

  That page currently implies Frederick X isn't apart of the Glücksburg house. I'm not sure what we should use it for. 2A02:1406:17:6159:ECF9:62A7:41E9:DC61 (talk) 23:34, 18 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Keep both, not too different from what's used for Dutch monarchs. See this, this and this. I find the present exclusion preposterous. Killuminator (talk) 22:25, 18 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

I honestly don't think we need to be this soon to add and edit anything. We should wait for sources. Even the website of the danish house have this disclaimer:

In connection with the sucession of the throne, factual information will be updated continuously on kongehuset.dk.

Primary yes, and thus we wait. Hardly controversial we will deal with this for years and not a week. 2A02:1406:17:6159:ECF9:62A7:41E9:DC61 (talk) 23:39, 18 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

• Exclude both until RSs report on it. Seltaeb Eht (talk) 06:28, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

  The Danish royal court is not a reliable source? Cotillards (talk) 14:00, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

  I did see you post that earlier, and considered it. Personally, to me, the age of the website reference (it doesn't appear that it's in any archived versions of the website after the capture you provided) gives pause. And the sentence itself "he will be the sixth monarch in the line of Glücksborg" isn't definitive. To me "in the line of Glücksborg" doesn't necessarily equate to "of the House of Glücksborg". FWIW, I think Glücksburg is probably the right answer, but we don't need to be in a rush to include it before it's better supported and verifiable. A good source will come along clearly stating the status of the king in 2024, not (to me) vaguely gesturing at what the Crown Prince may do in the future from 2011. And when it does, we can add it. Seltaeb Eht (talk) 23:21, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Thank you for elaborating your grounds for dismissing the article. It goes without saying I disagree:

  – The source is as reliable as it gets.

  – I don't see how else one can interpret "the sixth monarch in the line of Glücksburg" if not as Frederik being the sixth monarch from the House of Glücksburg. After pondering for a while, I think perhaps the confusion stems from the fact that in Denmark, we don't use the "House of Glücksburg" but "the lineage of Glücksburg [da]". So the Court's description on Frederik's former website is just a Danglish way of wording it. As is apparent from the Danish article, the terms have the same meaning: Frederik is a Glücksburg monarch – not a Monpezat monarch.

  – And as for the age, I suspect lots of articles would need to be modified if we suddenly begin dismissing RS on the grounds that they haven't reiterated information they consider given. Combined with the above, I think people will be sorely mistaken if they genuinely believe the DRF intends to issue some type of announcement that explicitly references Frederik's "house" as being Glücksburg.

  But I appreciate that you, unlike others, took the time to actually provide some thought behind your decision! Have a nice day! Cotillards (talk) 10:29, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Hi Cotillards, at the risk of this getting threaded deeper, I want to give a little more clarification as I'm not sure I put it perfectly well in my first reply. The age of the source on its own isn't the problem. Of course sources, even ephemeral web sources in some cases, are perfectly valid even when they're not current. 2011 is not that old by any means. But I don't believe that a source in 2011 can make a reliable claim about a future state in 2024. Especially when the page in question apparently seems to have been depreciated by the time of the next capture in 2012 - though I could just be navigating the archive wrong. I know it seems you disagree with this,so I don't want to continue to argue about this point - just wanted to be clear on my point. If you could show it was on say the 2023 version of the website (English or Danish), I would give it more weight though I'm not positive it would put me over the top.

  Thanks for the clarification on the "line" translation - it sheds some light on the word choice there and clears up some of the ambiguity that seems to be present in English by itself. I wonder if you could help with the differentiation between Glücksburgske slægt and Huset Glücksborg, which is present on de:Frederik 10.? Are slægt and huset synonyms, or is there a distinction? And which if either were present on the Danish version of the webpage you shared, if you know?

  To your final comment, I do think others are raising similar (though perhaps not identical) objections to the link as a source, though I can't speak to them. I will say that I didn't think to respond (you posted the link after my initial comment) because I saw Celia Homeford down below making what I saw as essentially my arguments. Some folks are happy just to let the RFC play out and wait for the closer once they've left their initial comments. But since you replied to me I'm of course happy to clarify my position. Best, Seltaeb Eht (talk) 16:50, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Sorry for the delayed reply!

  When said source from 2011 specifically refers to what will happen in the future, I disagree that it's reliability is questionable. "(...) he will be the sixth monarch in the line of Glücksborg". And as mentioned by @Favonian in a comment below, the DRF's current site has been updated to include Frederik under the paragraph "The line of Glücksborg" (Den glücksborgske linje) in line with what the 2011 source.

  I assume you refer to the "Hus: Huset Glücksborg" on Frederik's Danish Wikipedia page? If you click the link to "Huset Glücksborg", it takes you to a site titled "Glücksburgske slægt" which more correctly reflects the term we would use in Danish. I suspect the use of "Huset Glücksborg" is an anglicisation. Slægt (= dynasty) and huset (= house) are not synonyms in the literal sense but can be used interchangeably. Instead of "Hus: Huset Glücksborg", it could just as easily have said "Slægt: Glücksburg". The meaning would be the same. Cotillards (talk) 17:19, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Like what Seltaeb Eht said, the tense is important. It uses the term will, in other words speculating. The absence of the page on the current website could be intentional. If the Danish royal court posts something similar, that would be reliable. EmilySarah99 (talk) 08:40, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

  The use of will as an auxiliary verb does not express speculation but futurity. Considering how nothing contradictory to the fact has been announced since, I think it's reasonable to believe that the Crown Prince who "would" become "the sixth monarch in the line of Glücksburg" has now become the sixth monarch in the line of Glücksburg. Cotillards (talk) 10:37, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Yes it expresses futurity, but you can't say anything definite about the future, the article was speculating about what might happen when he becomes king, now that he is, he may choose to call himself what ever he wants. While you are correct, nothing contradictory has been announced since, nothing supporting this has been announced either.EmilySarah99 (talk) 10:47, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

  There is nothing speculative about "the day Crown Prince Frederik ascends the throne of Denmark he will be the sixth monarch in the line of Glücksborg". That is a definite statement. He will be, not he might be. A speculative statement would have read "the day Crown Prince Frederik ascends the throne of Denmark he is expected to become the sixth monarch in the line of Glücksborg".

  And as nothing contradictory has been announced since, I don't see how you can argue that it is a stretch to use this RS explicitly stating that Frederik will be the 6th Glücksburg monarch as ground for listing Frederik X as a monarch from the House of Glücksburg until proven otherwise? Cotillards (talk) 10:55, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

• Exclude both per DrKay and Seltaeb Eht. Happy to change my declaration when citations are provided. I don't see how we can say anything else given Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research. Nor do I see this RfC having any other outcome in the absence of citations. Project-wide policies override local consensus. Celia Homeford (talk) 11:46, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

  The now-defunct former website of Frederik and Mary clearly stated that "the day Crown Prince Frederik ascends the throne of Denmark he will be the sixth monarch in the line of Glücksborg". What makes the DRF an unverifiable source? Cotillards (talk) 08:27, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

  "now-defunct" isn't exactly persuasive. Besides, I'm asking for a citation for the new house name not the line of descent. Celia Homeford (talk) 08:41, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

  "Now-defunct" because they merged their website with the rest of the family. It was run by the Danish royal court, so I repeat my question: What makes the Danish royal family an unverifiable source on an issue concerning its own house?

  That you ask for a citation for "the new house name" tells me you're not looking at the issue objectively but rather with a predetermined belief a house can't pass through a woman. There is no "new" house nor will there be an announcement of such unless they change it. In allowing women to succeed the throne in 1953, they allowed women to pass on the house name. The lack of announcement in combination with the citation I posted that clearly places Frederik in the House of Glücksborg just confirms this. Why would they announce something that doesn't change?

  Dismissing the citation as concerning his line of descent rather than his house is just pedantic and adds to my suspicion that you aren't being objective. The citation I posted clearly states that he will be the 6th Glücksborg monarch. The 6th Danish monarch from the House of Glücksburg. I don't see how that can be disputed? Cotillards (talk) 09:03, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

  I will change my declaration when there are explicit up-to-date citations. Celia Homeford (talk) 09:10, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

  A very redundant stance as, per the citation I posted, the Danish royal family clearly considers him part of the House of Glücksburg and as such, wouldn't feel the need to suddenly address something that doesn't change in regards to the ascension.

  And why must a citation be up-to-date? If anything, when an official citation explicitly refers to him a Glücksborg, this should be the benchmark and new citations should only be needed if he's anything but a member of the House of Glücksborg. Cotillards (talk) 09:56, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

  As I said elsewhere, All you have to do to add the material is provide suitable sources. That means explicit, up-to-date citations. Otherwise, the content doesn't belong here. Anything in the article should be easy to substantiate. If it's not easily cited, it doesn't belong. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources and undue weight. Celia Homeford (talk) 10:05, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Per WP:RSUW, "should no newer sources be available it is reasonable to caveat use of sources with an indication of the age and the resulting reduction in reliability". Additionally, I don't understand how a citation that explicitly addresses his attachment to the House of Glücksburg once he has ascended the throne would constitute "a subject that has evolved". Cotillards (talk) 11:37, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

  The 2011 citation is at best implicit. Citations should be explicit. The situation has obviously evolved since 2011. I wouldn't accept citations from 2011 to be used as a source for Donald Trump's presidency any more than citations from 2011 can be used as a source for the name of Denmark's head of state in 2024. Extensive searches by multiple people in this discussion have failed to produce even one explicit up-to-date citation for the proposed content. This inability to provide even one such citation is entrenching my view. It demonstrates that the proposed content is, as yet, unsubstantiated. I will wait until citations are forthcoming. Celia Homeford (talk) 12:04, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Can you try to explain what exactly is implicit about an official source explicitly saying that once Frederik has ascended the throne (which he now has), he will be the sixth Glücksburg monarch in Denmark? And WP:RSUW, the article you yourself use as grounds for not accepting a 2011 article, clearly states that "it is reasonable to caveat use of sources with an indication of the age and the resulting reduction in reliability" when no newer sources exist. Your arguments simply do not hold against your reasoning.

  It's unfortunate that some users insist on derailing this discussion with their agenda-driven comments. Fortunately, Wikipedia has WP:DRN in place for that should these specific users end up tag teaming a consensus forward on the matter. Have a nice day! Cotillards (talk) 03:48, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

  I think my reasoning and responses have been adequate and clearly explained already. Celia Homeford (talk) 08:25, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

• Comment - I know it's too late. But honestly, an RFC should've been prepared & opened for all 'past/present' monarchs, concerning this general topic. GoodDay (talk) 23:07, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

For past and present Danish monarchs? European monarchs? Are any others ambiguous? This seems pretty specific to ambiguities in sourcing and situation. It's not applicable, for instance, to Charles III - who despite being in a similar succession position the sourcing and case are quite clear that he's a Windsor. Seltaeb Eht (talk) 01:15, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Windsor and Orange are different cases. The Dutch royal house didn't change to Mecklenburg in 1948 or Lippe in 1980 or Amsberg in 2013. This is known. Charles is a Windsor. This is also known. The issue is not whether or not royal houses are always agnatic. The issue is the name of Frederik's royal house. DrKay (talk) 09:11, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

• Exclude both until there is a clear announcement from the Danish royal court, which decides this issue. The 576 years of Oldenburgs did come to an end on January 14. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:20, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

• The second part of your paragraph is also WP:OR. Just as you said, we should wait for an announcement. Keivan.f^Talk 16:39, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

• Let's wait. What we do know is that Prince Henrik wanted the new dynastic name to be Oldenburg-Glücksburg-Monpezat. See: Prince_Henrik_of_Denmark#Difficulties_with_the_Danish_monarchy

That's what makes this issue so delicate. The father of the new king clearly had an opinion about the future dynastic name. What will King Frederik do? FrinkMan (talk) 22:42, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

The Danish court had already made a decision on the subject in 2005, when the following was published on Frederik and Mary's website: "the day Crown Prince Frederik ascends the throne of Denmark he will be the sixth monarch in the line of Glücksborg". There's no need for them to address an "issue" they clearly don't consider an issue themselves. On the other hand, the inclusion of or change to Monpezat would need announcement. Cotillards (talk) 08:32, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

• Include only Glücksburg. On the now-defunct former website of Frederik and Mary, it clearly stated that "the day Crown Prince Frederik ascends the throne of Denmark he will be the sixth monarch in the line of Glücksborg". That is the Danish royal family's last known stance on the matter – in contrast there has never been an official announcement of a change to or inclusion of Monpezat. Cotillards (talk) 08:25, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

• Exclude both per DrKay and Seltaeb Eht. — Sadko (words are wind) 22:08, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
• Include only Glücksburg per the last section of this article at kongehuset.dk – official and up-to-date, except it doesn't mention Margrethe's abdication. The Danish version does, however. Favonian (talk) 17:33, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Since neither English nor Danish versions mention Frederik's house, both are irrelevant to the discussion here. DrKay (talk) 08:15, 27 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

  True. The only source that does mention Frederik is the one provided by User:Cotillards. The other ones don't. Keivan.f^Talk 21:09, 27 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

  As explained above, in Danish we don't use the term "line" (linje) or "lineage" (slægt) rather than "house" (hus). The link provided by User:Favonian to the DRF's Danish site quite clearly mentions Frederik under the paragraph "The line of Glücksborg" (Den glücksborgske linje) rather than creating a new paragraph called "The line of Monpezat" or "The line of Glücksborg-Monpezat" – making the Danish version very relevant to this discussion. Cotillards (talk) 17:03, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Include only Glücksburg - per Cotillards and Favonian. estar8806 (talk) ★ 01:14, 27 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

• Comment: For what's it's worth, one of the arguments for not putting agnatic house for Charles III, when Dutch and Luxembourgish do, is that those royals have titles derived from their agnatic house, while Charles does not. In Frederik's case, he does hold the title Count of Monpezat, which muddies the issue a bit if we were to apply that standard.2601:249:9301:D570:C8F3:FCDB:9310:2406 (talk) 01:34, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

  I would like to point that the only reason that is the case is because the late Duke of Edinburgh personally renounced his Greek and Danish titles prior to his marriage, while spouses of Dutch monarchs and Prince Felix of Bourbon-Parma were never compelled to do so. That does not change the fact that Charles is agnatically part of his father’s dynasty, the House of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg. CanadianPrince (talk) 18:06, 21 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

•  
  Option 1: Frederik (as Crown Prince) in 2021
•  
  Option 2: Frederik (as Crown Prince) in 2018
•  
  Option 3: Frederik (as Crown Prince) in 2013

There has been an unapparent edit war going on within this page that has been continuing for the past few weeks, possibly even months. For a while now, the image of Frederik X in the infobox has been changing frequently, switching between the first two photos above. I am establishing this RFC to build a consensus as to which photo should be used in the article's infobox.

There are no current free and good quality photos of Frederik as the King of Denmark, only as the Crown Prince. The three options displayed have been chosen as a result of this discussion, where a few options were floated around. However, only the 2013, 2018 and 2021 photos are below as they are the images that have been used in the article, are the two photos (Option 1 and Option 2) that have been used during this "edit war" and have been discussed in previous talks. It can very easily be argued that there are pros and cons of all these images (and this should determine your vote), however they seem to be the best candidates.

Note that this RFC is NOT requesting that either of these images is permanently used. When, and if, an official and free portrait of Frederik as the King of Denmark is released, that image should be used. This RFC is purely to determine which image should be used until an official and free kingly portrait is released. This RFC is to conclude an edit war.

- Therealscorp1an (talk) 09:41, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Option 1 as it is the most recent photo of Frederik and displays him in semi-official gear. This photo best represents his current appearance, and thus allows readers to view a better depiction of him. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 09:41, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Option 1 for the same reasons. Joining in a reply to simplify the overview of votes. Killuminator (talk) 09:26, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Option 2 - most clearly shows his face, option 1 is way too cluttered, has his face obscured, and option 3 is too old DarmaniLink (talk) 19:54, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Option 2 shows his face the clearest. EmilySarah99 (talk) 03:08, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Option 1 as per above. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:45, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Option 1 - bearded photo is more up to date and accurate to current look.Seltaeb Eht (talk) 21:07, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Option 1. Most up to date photo of the three choices. Kind regards, Robertus Pius (Talk • Contribs) 19:43, 30 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

• Option 1 per above. Most recent and closest image currently available to something that looks formal. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:48, 30 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
• Option 2 Ideal photos for infoboxes are the ones that show the subject's face clearly and have them facing the camera. Option 2 is the only one that meets this criteria. Keivan.f^Talk 04:00, 3 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
• Option 2 - Until a photo of him in military uniform (rank of admiral) as King, is available. Other two options, have other people fully or partly in the photo with him. GoodDay (talk) 16:33, 3 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
• Option 2 - The current infobox image is really inadequate considering how hidden the king's face is, even if you can see the uniform clearly. No competition for me. Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 07:13, 19 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
• Option 1 - The main image should be from his reign, or as near can be, in line with similar articles. Celia Homeford (talk) 08:25, 19 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Please discuss any reservations, concerns or inquiries within this section. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 09:41, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

You may get 'more' input, if you tag the RFC. GoodDay (talk) 16:31, 3 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Should we be having Count of Monpezat shown at the 'top' of the infobox? It makes it look like it's more important than Frederick X's being King of Denmark. GoodDay (talk) 05:16, 6 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

I agree that some may perceive it as being more superior to the title of King, but it is a fact that he is the King alongside being a Count of Monpezat and in the case of Wikipedia articles, when there are other titles, they are placed at the top of infoboxes. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 05:41, 6 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

For what it's worth Willem-Alexander of the Netherlands also holds the title "Prince of Orange-Nassau", but he doesn't have it in his infobox. 2601:249:9301:D570:283C:DC99:7F53:F12A (talk) 01:41, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

The 'title' parameter is only supposed to be used for substantive titles not titles shared among cadets. See Template:Infobox royalty/doc. Celia Homeford (talk) 10:11, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

"Frederick X" is his regnal name as King of Denmark and only as King of Denmark. To say Frederick X, Count of Monpezat, would be incorrect, which is what the infobox currently does and implies. Now if we changed the infobox to just "Frederick" (which we should not), then having "Count of Monpezat" after it would make sense, but only if we also included "King of Denmark" after that.

Additionally, custom on articles of monarchs is to only include titles held in a capacity other than automatically as monarch after their regnal name. Charles III's article only includes "Head of the Commonwealth" because that is a special title to which he did not have an automatic right, and notably that article doesn't include his other titles of "Defender of the Faith", "Duke of Lancaster", etc., because those are implied by the fact that he is king. Another example is that Felipe VI's article doesn't include any of his many subsidiary titles as King of Spain in the infobox. RexAntica (talk) 21:50, 23 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Count of Monpezat isn't a subsidiary title automatically held by the monarch of Denmark. It is a cadet title held by all male-line descendants of Henri de Laborde. Celia Homeford (talk) 09:25, 24 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Therealscorp1an, Who born first, vincent or josephine? 182.253.54.117 (talk) 03:44, 20 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

@GoodDay hello, can you answer this question? 182.253.54.117 (talk) 13:14, 20 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Vincent. GoodDay (talk) 19:07, 20 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

@GoodDay somehow, how did you find that answer? 182.253.54.117 (talk) 02:08, 21 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

You'll find out, when you look. GoodDay (talk) 02:11, 21 August 2024 (UTC)Reply