Talk:Count Ingolf of Rosenborg
| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Count Ingolf of Rosenborg vs. Ingolf, Count of Rosenborg edit
Is there specific reason this page has been renamed? "Ingolf, Count of Rosenborg" is standard practice for Wikipedia. WP:NCROY says (1) "Treat other European nobility like British nobility above," (2) "Life peers (ie, people who have peerages awarded exclusively for their lifetime but who neither inherit it nor pass it on to anyone else) use the same standard as for hereditary peers," and (3) for hereditary, "Rule here is, 'So-and-so, ordinal (if appropriate) title (of) place'." — the Man in Question (in question) 06:09, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, there is. Ingolf is not the Count of Rosenborg. He is a Count of Rosenberg. His title is not a substantive title. Therefore, he is Count Ingolf of Rosenborg for the same reason The Prince of Wales's son is Prince William of Wales and not William, Prince of Wales, for the same reason Countess Luana of Orange-Nassau is not Luana, Countess of Orange-Nassau, etc. Surtsicna (talk) 18:25, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Courtesy titles edit
You reverted my edit on Count Ingolf of Rosenborg where I had removed the reference to courtesy titles. I am curious why? I believe the notion of a "courtesy title" as referenced is completely irrelevant and different from the examples cited: Compte Henri was born a compte/count (by French/Continental practise, since his father was a count) and passes this title on to his sons (A courtesy title cannot be passed on); Princess Anne had a title by marriage, not courtesy: if she had remained married to Viscount Anson when he succeeded, she would have become The Countess Lichfield, which is not a courtesy title but a substantive title of the(wife of a member of the) British peerage. Also, the article cites Dr as an example of a courtesy title, which presumably would not have been relevant for an approved Royal Danish marriage?
I suggest we at least remove the hyperlink (since it is misleading) and better still, remove the phrase courtesy title. In the context, the point is that approved marriages were only to people who held aristocratic titles (without being specific about how or why those titles come about).
Hfossa (talk) 11:33, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
- Neither Henri de Laborde de Monpezat nor Anne Bowes-Lyon held "real" titles when they married (into the Danish royal family, yet both used and were widely addressed by noble titles. Henri's title was self-assumed by an ancestor, the family's elevation to France's nobility having been twice blocked by the Estates where his family owned land in the 18th century. Anne had belonged, both by birth and marriage, to noble families but was never herself noble. She shared her previous husband's title, but that was a "courtesy title" even by British standards, and it is irrelevant what lawful peerage her husband was due to inherit since a. he did not do so during Anne's marriage to him, and b. at the time of her marriage into the Danish royal family she was never going to become a peeress-by-marriage because she was divorced. So both of these commoners (who looked as if they were noble because of the titles they bore by courtesy) were accepted as marital partners into the Danish royal family at a time when the dynasty still did not authorize marriages to untitled persons (or the marriages of Ingolf and his brother would have been dynastic). It would be misleading for the article to suggest that their noble titles were valid under current or historical law, so I thought it more accurate to describe their situation as "known by the kind of courtesy titles typical of Europe's hereditary nobility." I do, however, agree with you that Wiki's Courtesy title article does not reflect the circumstances well because it focuses on British courtesy titles (French tradition allows for use of titres de courtoisie as much as does British, but only for members of genuinely noble families, which the Laborde de Monpezats were not). The problem, IMO, is that the "Courtesy title" article needs to be expanded and corrected ("Dr." is a professional prefix, not a courtesy title). Until it is, however, I agree with you that the link should be deleted. Thanks for bringing the matter to my attention. FactStraight (talk) 17:37, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
- Incidentally, while I thank you for linking to this discussion in your edit summary, this conversation should be copied to Talk:Count Ingolf of Rosenborg (and should probably have taken place there in the first place) so that other interested editors might participate. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 12:40, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks, FactStraight, but I am not sure I agree: many titles are given or assumed by people who are not "noble" before the title is used, e.g. any first elevation to the peerage, or the questionable status of people who bought titles (cf most early baronets in the UK). This does not make the title a courtesy title. (Also, you use words like "real titles" and "noble families" without clear definition - who is arbiter of whether a family is "genuinely noble"?) For example, whatever the origins of the title used by Compte Henri, by the time is is widely accepted as hereditary and used by, say, the Danish Sovereign, I think it is a far cry from the British notion of a courtesy title, which is not hereditary. Also, the point of Lady Anne is that if she is born in a noble family, and later acquires a title by marriage (and not by courtesy, as evidenced by her keeping the style after her divorce), then putting these in the same category as younger aristrocrats in Britain, or other honorifics is misleading. As a further example, the Duke of Wellington holds the title Prins van Waterloo as a Dutch hereditary victory title; this is not a courtesy title, even if it is not a particularly meaningful title, mostly offered as an honorific. Hfossa (talk) 11:33, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- I don't think that courtesy titles should be mentioned here. Prince Henrik's comital title was generally accepted as genuine and substantive at the time of his marriage, not a courtesy title, though it has more recently been questioned. As for Princess Anne, it is not clear to me whether she was viewed as acceptable because she had acquired a courtesy title by marriage or because she was the granddaughter of a duke and niece of the then-Queen of England. Unless someone has a reference distinguishing between the two, I don't think the article should speculate.
- Regarding FactStraight's argument, I wonder if removing the word "courtesy" might resolve the problem. It is certainly true that both Anne and Henrik were "known by the kind of titles typical of Europe's hereditary nobility", and maybe we don't need to get into the details. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 15:54, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- Too many generalities in the two comments above. I think this discussion needs some clarifying specifics: English baronies by writ still exist in a few cases, but ceased being a mechanism for creation of lawful new titles half a millenium ago. Baronetcies may have been granted in return for money hundreds of years ago, but their current legality is not at issue since, regardless of the motives for creation, they were conferred by a lawful hons fonorum, i.e. an internationally recognized sovereign. So neither is relevant to the noble-sounding titles borne in modern times by Henri de Laborde de Monpezat and Anne Bowes-Lyon. "Real nobility" and "noble families" are those officially created or recognized as such by a fons honorum. The title Prince of Waterloo is in no way a "courtesy title", having been conferred by a reigning fons honorum and continuing to descend according to the patent which created it in the Kingdom of the The Netherlands. In Britain, nobility is synonymous with peerage, and only the Crown has had the lawful authority to create or recognize peerages in the British Isles. So-called lords of the manor, while historically lawful entities, are neither nobles nor bearers of noble titles, however much that may confuse some. In France, likewise the Crown alone could lawfully create or recognize nobility and hereditary titles (the latter, contrary to popular opinion, remain lawful and legally protected in republican France), although most nobles were un-titled and few, even of those who were titleholders, held peerages. The British and French sovereigns, however, also had the right to authorize the use of "courtesy titles" (i.e. titles which resemble or derive from those borne lawfully, but which are not part of the bearer's legal name or status). Both realms had persons who used such titles, but they were and are borne in accordance with known customs decreed or adhered to by the British and French sovereigns, respectively. When those titles are borne contrary to those customs, not only are the titles not lawful, but they are fraudulent: those using them are misrepreseting their status. Anne Bowes-Lyons' title was borne in accordance with British usage, but it was a courtesy title because 1. it derived from her husband, whose right to it was by courtesy as the eldest son of a lawful peer, and 2. she was divorced from that courtesy peer. Henri's comital title was fraudulently assumed by his grandfather or great-grandfather. The fraud was not because it was self-assumed -- courtesy titles in France were predominantly self-assumed -- but because the ancestor who assumed it was not of historically noble status and Henri does not descend in the legitimate male-line from someone who lawfully bore a French hereditary title. The fact that the title was not "substantive" (i.e. borne lawfully or consistent with French custom) was known to Henri and to the Danish court at the time of his engagement. How do we know? Because 1. Henril was born before his parents' marriage, and just as in England, French titles were not heritable or bearable by persons who were not born in wedlock, subsequent legitimation notwithstanding. His l.p.s.m. status was mentioned in the media when the engagement was announced. 2. Henri was not the eldest son of his parents, and lawful French noble titles descend according to male primogeniture, whereas courtesy titles are commonly assumed by younger sons of titled noblemen. So the title could never have been perceived as anything but a titre de courtoisie -- by Henri or anyone else, and was so understood at the time of his marriage to Denmark's crown princess. But the fact that the Laborde de Monpezats were never legally noble meant that Henri's courtesy title was as wrongly assumed as if Englishman "John Doe", not being the son or male-line grandson of a peer, nor the recipient of a royal grant to assume such style, assumed the prefix "Lord". While I consider plausible the claim that Henri did not yet know of his ancestor's fraudulent assumption of a hereditary title while he was wooing Princess Margrethe, that does not make the assumption valid, proper or hereditary -- and it renders Henri's use of that courtesy title improper, a fact he has admitted in his autobiography. Nonetheless, the articles on Viscountess Anson and "Count" Henri de Laborde de Monpezat do not "speculate" that their titles, alone, procured them dynastic entree into the Danish Royal Family. Count Ingolf's article does point out that the Danish king refused to allow him to marry a commoner dynastically, despite the fact that Prince Georg and Crown Princess Margrethe had already recently been allowed to marry commoners who differed from Ingolf's intended spouse in that they were publicly known by noble titles -- despite the fact that neither was, under British or French, historical or current law, validly noble. Proper context requires that this article be unambiguous about the fact that Ingolf's spouse shared commoner status with the spouses of Georg and Margrethe, yet his marriage was denied dynasticity while theirs were not. That fact is obscured unless it is also made clear that Anne and Henri's "titles" were only borne "by courtesy". FactStraight (talk) 09:55, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- This article is not "required" to say anything that is not clearly stated in reliable sources, so let's keep in mind that (unless you want to cite one) we do not know what Frederick IX's reasoning was in granting some dynastic marriages and not others, and without such verifiable knowledge this article should not speculate. I am moving towards the position that Anne's and Henrik's titles should not be mentioned at all, which would sidestep this whole controversy. It may well be (I see no evidence to the contrary) that Anne and Henrik were viewed as acceptable because they were of noble blood, regardless of what titles they may or may not have held. Anne was the granddaughter of a duke, and Henrik was (at least at the time thought to be) also of a noble family. I believe this is not true of Ingolf's and Christian's spouses. Unless this theory can be disproven, this article should not contradict it. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 20:34, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- I've added a revised explanation to the article. Perhaps it will resolve the conflict, but let me know what you think. It seems to me that the best course is to explain as much as possible. I've restored the link to courtesy titles, because it does seem that both Anne and Henrik's pre-marriage titles are thus described. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 11:23, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
- I also just made an effort to improve the article on courtesy titles. Perhaps this also will alleviate some of the problems that were perceived. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 13:42, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
- Too many generalities in the two comments above. I think this discussion needs some clarifying specifics: English baronies by writ still exist in a few cases, but ceased being a mechanism for creation of lawful new titles half a millenium ago. Baronetcies may have been granted in return for money hundreds of years ago, but their current legality is not at issue since, regardless of the motives for creation, they were conferred by a lawful hons fonorum, i.e. an internationally recognized sovereign. So neither is relevant to the noble-sounding titles borne in modern times by Henri de Laborde de Monpezat and Anne Bowes-Lyon. "Real nobility" and "noble families" are those officially created or recognized as such by a fons honorum. The title Prince of Waterloo is in no way a "courtesy title", having been conferred by a reigning fons honorum and continuing to descend according to the patent which created it in the Kingdom of the The Netherlands. In Britain, nobility is synonymous with peerage, and only the Crown has had the lawful authority to create or recognize peerages in the British Isles. So-called lords of the manor, while historically lawful entities, are neither nobles nor bearers of noble titles, however much that may confuse some. In France, likewise the Crown alone could lawfully create or recognize nobility and hereditary titles (the latter, contrary to popular opinion, remain lawful and legally protected in republican France), although most nobles were un-titled and few, even of those who were titleholders, held peerages. The British and French sovereigns, however, also had the right to authorize the use of "courtesy titles" (i.e. titles which resemble or derive from those borne lawfully, but which are not part of the bearer's legal name or status). Both realms had persons who used such titles, but they were and are borne in accordance with known customs decreed or adhered to by the British and French sovereigns, respectively. When those titles are borne contrary to those customs, not only are the titles not lawful, but they are fraudulent: those using them are misrepreseting their status. Anne Bowes-Lyons' title was borne in accordance with British usage, but it was a courtesy title because 1. it derived from her husband, whose right to it was by courtesy as the eldest son of a lawful peer, and 2. she was divorced from that courtesy peer. Henri's comital title was fraudulently assumed by his grandfather or great-grandfather. The fraud was not because it was self-assumed -- courtesy titles in France were predominantly self-assumed -- but because the ancestor who assumed it was not of historically noble status and Henri does not descend in the legitimate male-line from someone who lawfully bore a French hereditary title. The fact that the title was not "substantive" (i.e. borne lawfully or consistent with French custom) was known to Henri and to the Danish court at the time of his engagement. How do we know? Because 1. Henril was born before his parents' marriage, and just as in England, French titles were not heritable or bearable by persons who were not born in wedlock, subsequent legitimation notwithstanding. His l.p.s.m. status was mentioned in the media when the engagement was announced. 2. Henri was not the eldest son of his parents, and lawful French noble titles descend according to male primogeniture, whereas courtesy titles are commonly assumed by younger sons of titled noblemen. So the title could never have been perceived as anything but a titre de courtoisie -- by Henri or anyone else, and was so understood at the time of his marriage to Denmark's crown princess. But the fact that the Laborde de Monpezats were never legally noble meant that Henri's courtesy title was as wrongly assumed as if Englishman "John Doe", not being the son or male-line grandson of a peer, nor the recipient of a royal grant to assume such style, assumed the prefix "Lord". While I consider plausible the claim that Henri did not yet know of his ancestor's fraudulent assumption of a hereditary title while he was wooing Princess Margrethe, that does not make the assumption valid, proper or hereditary -- and it renders Henri's use of that courtesy title improper, a fact he has admitted in his autobiography. Nonetheless, the articles on Viscountess Anson and "Count" Henri de Laborde de Monpezat do not "speculate" that their titles, alone, procured them dynastic entree into the Danish Royal Family. Count Ingolf's article does point out that the Danish king refused to allow him to marry a commoner dynastically, despite the fact that Prince Georg and Crown Princess Margrethe had already recently been allowed to marry commoners who differed from Ingolf's intended spouse in that they were publicly known by noble titles -- despite the fact that neither was, under British or French, historical or current law, validly noble. Proper context requires that this article be unambiguous about the fact that Ingolf's spouse shared commoner status with the spouses of Georg and Margrethe, yet his marriage was denied dynasticity while theirs were not. That fact is obscured unless it is also made clear that Anne and Henri's "titles" were only borne "by courtesy". FactStraight (talk) 09:55, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks, FactStraight, but I am not sure I agree: many titles are given or assumed by people who are not "noble" before the title is used, e.g. any first elevation to the peerage, or the questionable status of people who bought titles (cf most early baronets in the UK). This does not make the title a courtesy title. (Also, you use words like "real titles" and "noble families" without clear definition - who is arbiter of whether a family is "genuinely noble"?) For example, whatever the origins of the title used by Compte Henri, by the time is is widely accepted as hereditary and used by, say, the Danish Sovereign, I think it is a far cry from the British notion of a courtesy title, which is not hereditary. Also, the point of Lady Anne is that if she is born in a noble family, and later acquires a title by marriage (and not by courtesy, as evidenced by her keeping the style after her divorce), then putting these in the same category as younger aristrocrats in Britain, or other honorifics is misleading. As a further example, the Duke of Wellington holds the title Prins van Waterloo as a Dutch hereditary victory title; this is not a courtesy title, even if it is not a particularly meaningful title, mostly offered as an honorific. Hfossa (talk) 11:33, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- Incidentally, while I thank you for linking to this discussion in your edit summary, this conversation should be copied to Talk:Count Ingolf of Rosenborg (and should probably have taken place there in the first place) so that other interested editors might participate. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 12:40, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Succession edit
Is he the king of Denmark now if succession rules were not altered? Did his father liked to those change? Chamika1990 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:12, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
- I think the article text already sufficiently communicates that he was in line to become king. Yes, if the succession hadn't been altered and if Ingolf had not subsequently given up his rights to succession, he would be king today. However, that kind of alternate history does not belong in a Wikipedia article. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 16:22, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
His father thought that it was okay to discuss the line of succession, but he found that the discussion in the media was cruel and he said it was hurtful, Chamika1990. It was said he was stupid, but he was not. Danmark2011 (talk) 22:08, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Mistake edit
It is not right that he is not a member of the royal family . In Denmark he counts as a member, but he is not part of the royal house any more. That is an important difference. Danmark2011 (talk) 18:24, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
- Hi. Thank you for your helpful comment. It would be even better if you could help us find a reliable source that supports what you are saying. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 18:47, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for your answer. Here is a guest list of the 2012 regent jubilee of Margrethe II. The list shows all members of the Rosenborg-family under "Den kongelige familie" what means "the royal family". It's an official list from the official website of the royal house of Denmark. (Excuse me for my English, I am German/Danish-speaking :-) http://kongehuset.dk/Menu/nyheder/gasteliste-ved-festforestilling-i-drs-koncerthus And I think this article could have a weblink to a beautiful gallery of Ingolfs life in the Danish magazine BT, don't you think? http://www.bt.dk/kendte/grev-ingolf-saadan-kender-vi-ham#slide-4 Danmark2011 —Preceding undated comment added 10:25, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
- Great. I agree that that page from Royal Family website is a sufficient basis to call Ingolf a member of the Royal Family, and I've made an appropriate edit to the article. If you have any other concerns about this article, you are welcome to bring them up on this talk page; alternatively, don't be afraid to be bold and edit the article yourself!
- But the current official Danish royal site, while including Count Ingolf's sister, Princess Elisabeth on the page titled "Danish Royal Family", does not include Ingolf. A distinction between "Royal House" and "Royal Family" is explicitly defined and official in, e.g., The Netherlands, but not in Denmark, so any such distinction we make would be unsourced. While Count Ingolf, his late brother, their wives and children may have been listed with the "Royal Family" as guests on special occasions, they are either no longer or never were included in the kingdom's official list of its royalty, not being Danish dynasts -- which is the prevalent treatment in modern European monarchies. Either way, I can't agree that we should ignore the definition given on the official website page, which declares who the standard members of the Royal Family are and includes a page on the royal role of each, in favor of a one-time list which only includes an ex-prince who lacks any recognized royal title, dynastic rights and website page, and appears to be listed among Danish royalty only "on occasion". FactStraight (talk) 04:19, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
- You make a good point, FactStraight. Since any statement as to whether Ingolf is considered a member of the Royal Family would be making an inference based on sources (and, indeed, the question may be nebulous in the minds of the officials), I have changed the wording to avoid the issue entirely. I hope both Danmark2011 and FactStraight will find this acceptable, and would be glad to hear your comments in any case. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 16:05, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
- But the current official Danish royal site, while including Count Ingolf's sister, Princess Elisabeth on the page titled "Danish Royal Family", does not include Ingolf. A distinction between "Royal House" and "Royal Family" is explicitly defined and official in, e.g., The Netherlands, but not in Denmark, so any such distinction we make would be unsourced. While Count Ingolf, his late brother, their wives and children may have been listed with the "Royal Family" as guests on special occasions, they are either no longer or never were included in the kingdom's official list of its royalty, not being Danish dynasts -- which is the prevalent treatment in modern European monarchies. Either way, I can't agree that we should ignore the definition given on the official website page, which declares who the standard members of the Royal Family are and includes a page on the royal role of each, in favor of a one-time list which only includes an ex-prince who lacks any recognized royal title, dynastic rights and website page, and appears to be listed among Danish royalty only "on occasion". FactStraight (talk) 04:19, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
- The part of the official website, you mention, shows the line of succession only. And the guest list we are talking about is from the official website as well.
- As a first cousin of Queen Margrethe II. he maybe is a "natural" part of the royal family.
- The list of the Danish royal family in the English Wikipedia contains in any case all the Rosenborg-lines. I don't know what this I based on, but this information should have a source too.
- For me it sounds a little bit strange that the sons of the "would-be-king" Prince Knud should NOT be mentioned as a part of the royal family. Even Ingolfs niece Camilla (described in the German Wikipedia, married untitled) counts as a part of the royal family. Nevertheless: I can comprehend your argumentation, FactStraight, and your decision, BlueMoonlet. But I would have made another decision. And I even have one ore doubt: in the media, Ingolf and Camilla count as a part of the royal family, everyone looks on them as members of the royal family, so we have the public dialogue, the discourse as another source of knowledge. (Talk shows, documentations, here: Camilla: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c6DKwN6RzFo). Greetings from Hamburg. Danmark2011 (talk) 21:04, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
- Danmark2011, if you and FactStraight want to continue to discuss what is implied by the royal website, that is up to you. My suggested solution is simply to sidestep the issue. Everyone agrees that he is a "former prince," so that is what the article currently says. Why even mention other aspects that are unclear in the sources? Of course, I am open to further discussion and rewording. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 21:34, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
- I'm comfortable with referring to him as a "former prince". I can't support saying more than that because it seems to me that the entire point of "The Royal Family" page (which begins, "The Royal Family is the Danish Royal House...") on Denmark's "Royal House" website is to tell the public who that includes. In answer to the specific questions raised above: 1. Yes, the page anchors Royal Family members by use of their place in the line of succession, but does not include successors "only": each of them has his/her own place in that line linked to his/her own webpage, and that webpage includes his/her spouse. Nowhere is Ingolf or Christian included on that page or linked to anyone on it, not even his own sister. 2. A "guest list", which varies by occasion, is superceded by the official, standardized "Royal Family" page, and I don't see justification for placing the content of that main page on the same level of authority as a link to a 2012 guest list which also included directly under "Royal Family": Carina Axelsson, girlfriend of Margrethe II's nephew, Prince Gustav of Berleburg. Listed, however, lower down on that same list under "Other Guests" was "H.E. Grevinde Alexandra af Rosenborg". So why should we discriminate and not list "Ms. Carina Axelsson" in Wikipedia under Danish Royal Family? Or why include "Ms. Camilla af Rosenborg" but exclude "Her Excellency Countess Alexandra af Rosenborg"? 3. The "Danish Royal Family Page" is clear and stable -- what, however, seems ambiguous is this guest list. Except, not really: at the Danish royal court (just as at the Court of St. James's), it is always the Sovereign's prerogative to choose her guests and vary their precedence as she wishes. Official membership in the Royal Family is, however, a more significant matter, and the Danish royal website reflects the difference between the two exactly as we would expect. 4. As a 1st cousin of Queen Margrethe II, Ingolf is not a "natural" member of the Danish Royal Family, any more than Michael, Lord Strathmore was a "natural" member of the British Royal Family. Rather, he is a kinsman of the Sovereign who is no longer officially recognized as a "royal kinsman". 5. Using Discourse analysis to establish Ingolf as a current royal might be a compelling concept, one I believe deserves serious consideration by Wikipedia's policymakers. But as yet, Wikipedia does not do so, rather treating it as synthesis, a form of forbidden original research. 6. Believing that Counts Ingolf and Christian af Rosenborg deserve higher profiles is understandable (the sacrifice their parents were compelled to make, the arm's-length-distance at which King Frederick IX kept their their father, and what I consider to be the unfair distinction made dynastically between their spouses and Queen Margrethe's, all evoke my strong sympathy for the hand they have been dealt), but it is not necessary to try to re-insert them in the Danish Royal Family in order to enhance their coverage in Wikipedia. FactStraight (talk) 05:51, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Do you know more about "the arm's-length-distance at which King Frederick IX kept" Knud, FactStraight? I think, most of things you write are absolutely right. And I can live with "a former Danish prince" - that's good - in every case this is better then "a former member of the royal family" :-) But for me (and the Danish public), he is a family member. (And he is more known as all the German family lines, also in the media.) ;-) Thank you for your patience, BlueMoonlet. Apropos, the sacrifice Knud and Caroline-Mathilde were compelled to make had something to do with Queen Ingrid an with feminism. This is interesting. It's not clear if Knuds and Ingolfs personality had something to do with the decision, probably not. I will research the constitutional amendment and its reasons for the German Wikipedia first an then try to translate something for the English Wiki. Danmark2011 (talk) 11:27, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, Wikipedia cannot use images that are under copyright, per our image use policy, and I expect that all images of Ingolf in the article you linked are copyrighted by BT magazine. If you have any public domain images that you would like to help us incorporate into the encyclopedia, then by all means that would be helpful also. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 20:52, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Great, now the article reflects his role as a member of the royal family. What I wanted to propose was an external link to the beautiful gallery in the magazine BT. I added this kind of link for the German article about count Ingolf. There is a picture of count Ingolf in Wikimedia as well, but maybe it's not good enough to be used in an encyclopedia. I did not use it for the German or the Danish article as well. Maybe I could add something about Ingolf, but me English is not as good as that. And I could especially write something more about his brother count Christian and his wife. And I would like to add an article about countess Camilla of Rosenborg, she is very known in Denmark because she is in TV and in the rainbow press all the time. I could translate my german article about her, and something about count Christian, but I would need help to make it look like an English article. So if someone dares ... :-) Danmark2011 (talk) 21:55, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
- Okay, I have added an external link to the photoessay.
- I'd be glad to see the other additions you suggest that you might do. I'd encourage you to go ahead. And don't worry about your English. As long as you can make it clear what you're trying to say, others of us can edit for style etc. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 01:53, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Okay, thank you very much, I will think about some more information. I am a little bit sad because someone changed the article and now Ingolf is not a member of the royal family any longer in the English Wikipedia. Why? Danmark2011 (talk) 17:54, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
- Please see the discussion about halfway up this section (note that the section is organized by thread rather than chronologically). FactStraight mentioned some relevant sources that cast doubt on our previous conclusions, so I altered the text to be less specific on the point. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 18:39, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Line of succession edit
He is in the line of succession to the british throne. His brother Christians children and grandchildren are as well, Camilla of Rosenborg for example. Danmark2011 (talk) 22:04, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
- This is already mentioned in a box at the bottom of the article. His chances of succeeding are so remote that the point is not worth mentioning in the body text, I think. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 01:56, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Okay, I understand, that's right. (And who is NOT in the line?) ;-) Danmark2011 (talk) 17:56, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
External links modified edit
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on Count Ingolf of Rosenborg. 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:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070618005451/http://kongehuset.dk/publish.php?id=3197 to http://kongehuset.dk/publish.php?id=3197
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070618004841/http://kongehuset.dk/publish.php?id=3203 to http://kongehuset.dk/publish.php?id=3203
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070618001416/http://kongehuset.dk/publish.php?id=4183 to http://kongehuset.dk/publish.php?id=4183
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101125014623/http://kongehuset.dk/publish.php?id=17229 to http://kongehuset.dk/publish.php?id=17229
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090616195921/http://kongehuset.dk/publish.php?id=21596 to http://kongehuset.dk/publish.php?id=21596
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100527184633/http://kongehuset.dk/publish.php?id=24453 to http://kongehuset.dk/publish.php?id=24453
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070617232717/http://kongehuset.dk/publish.php?dogtag=k_dk_org_okonomi to http://kongehuset.dk/publish.php?dogtag=k_dk_org_okonomi
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) 17:21, 13 August 2017 (UTC)