Talk:Kingdom of Iceland

STATUS OF DENMARK AT DECLARATION OF REPUBLIC?

The article states "Following a referendum on 24 May, Iceland formally became an independent republic on 17 June 1944. Since Denmark was still occupied by Nazi Germany, many Danes felt offended that the step should have been taken at this time." In early May all German forces surrendered to the armies opposing them, or if in occupied territory to the home authority. So the war was over and the German Forces confined to barracks under guard of the Danish government as PoWs by 24th May. The Danish government was always in authority during the occupation, it did not go into exile like in the other occupied countries. So in the period 24th May to 17th June the Danish government was free to do as it desired. To all intents and purposes the Icelandic Althing declared independence ' unilaterally ', without requesting the Danes to discuss the process, and the Danes simply accepted it. Tony S 79.75.77.111 (talk) 18:26, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Read the dates again. Denmark was freed from Nazi occupation on 5 May 1945 (the official announcement came on the BBC's Danish broadcast the day before). Iceland dissolved the Dano-Icelandic union in 1944, i.e. ca. one year before Denmark was freed from Hitler's rule. 83.89.16.138 (talk) 00:16, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Name

What's with the name of that Danish "king". Why is it Kristján X in the template when his name was Christain X? --Stefán Örvarr Sigmundsson 23:38, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I think that's sort of a nice touch :) That's what he was called in Iceland so that seems the appropriate name for him while discussing the Kingdom of Iceland. Haukur 11:55, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that is why I used it (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Iceland). They also use Kristján in the name of the relevant article on the Icelandic Wikipedia. -- Nidator 10:57, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

de facto

I don't believe Danish was never the offical language in Iceland nor in fact. I know that Danish was spoken as a second language by quite a few people but they never forced us so there for it wasn't spoken as a second native language. --Stefán Örvarr Sigmundsson 00:58, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

The language situation was one of the things I was unsure about (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Iceland), but Max Naylor posted it before I got any feedback. I certainly didn't include Danish, or the Danish long name for the country, to suggest that it was a widely spoken native language in Iceland. My reasoning was that since the king was Danish, and probably didn't understand Icelandic, and the foreign affairs were handled by Denmark (as I understand it), then Danish was used in an official capacity on behalf of and probably in Iceland (communication with the king, ministry of foreign affairs, etc) and as such was a de-facto official language of the Kingdom of Iceland. The de-facto status of Icelandic was taken from the main Iceland article as I found it unlikely that an official status had existed and then been repealed. -- Nidator 11:47, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I wonder whether that actually counts. Some government people would have had to speak Danish to communicate with the Danish since the Danish were of course not going to speak Icelandic. But, no matter what country the government of Iceland is communicating with, that country's native language or English is always used, so doesn't that somehow make them also official languages - you see where I'm taking this? Just because Danish happened to be the language used, doesn't it mean that it had an official status. I don't think Icelanders generally, nor government people, spoke Danish as a second native language in those times. I don't see how this is de facto and I feel uncomfortable with having it there since none of us seems to be really sure about this. --Stefán Örvarr Sigmundsson (talk) 00:22, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

If it had had official status the it would have been "de jure", and I think that having your foreign affairs handled by Denmark and a Danish monarch is more than merely "communication". -- Nidator ^{T / C} 15:59, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but what I'm saying is. Didn't the people of Iceland (the civilians) have had to speak the language (as a second native language or something) for this to be true. I'm not sure whether official communications with the Danes counts because we're talking about the official languages of the country itself. --Stefán Örvarr Sigmundsson (talk) 04:07, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

That is a good question. Have you checked if there is a guideline for it? -- Nidator ^{T / C} 16:56, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Christian X

Is the consensus that kings are referred to by their English name? Christian is his Danish name as well, so it really is his proper name. But in Iceland, as seen above, he was known as Kristján, and references can prove that, although that point is moot if royalty is referred to in English all the time. Should it instead be mentioned in the article on Christian that he was referred to as Kristján by Icelanders? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leifurf (talk • contribs) 12:15, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Kristján I or Kristján X

I haven't found any sources referring to the King as Kristján I - on the contrary, it seems he was normally referred to as Kristján X. Also, even though he was the first Kristján to be King of an independent Iceland, he was regning over Iceland as part of Denmark from 1912 to 1918. Iceland as a Norwegian possession entered the Dano-Norwegian realm in 1380. Christian I ascended on the throne in 1448 so all the intermediate Christians also governed Iceland. However, the decisive point is what he was called in actual Icelandic usage between 1918 and 1944, and today when referring to that period. As far as I can see he was and is called Kristján X. Examples: is:Kristján 10., memorial stone of his visit to Iceland in 1921, Kristján X restaurant, used as a canteen for his 1930 visit, "Kristján tíundi" (the tenth), Icelandic stamp. Also a peculiar article: Did independentist want to kill the King of Denmark during the Althing ceremony of 1930? (in Icelandic), with a link to a 1930 article. Frequently, before and after 1918, he seems to have been referred to as simply Danakonungur, King of the Danes, although he was actual King of the Kingdom of Iceland. I am not sure whether independentists used this term polemically, or it was a neutral term. The best source is timarit.is, a database of old magazines, and a search will show hundreds of examples with Kristján X or Kristján, while Kristján I or Kristján fyrsti always refers to the medieval king. Conclusion: Kristján I is probably a Wikipedia myth, maybe calqued over the dispute over Elizabeth I/II in Scotland. I would like Icelanders with historical knowledge to comment on this too, as I am a Dane, and my Icelandic is not fluent. --Sasper (talk) 02:07, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

A PhD in Icelandic and Danish literary history has answered me: 'Hann var ábyggilega alltaf kallaður Kristján tíundi (X eða 10.)' - He was certainly always called Kristján the tenth (X or 10.). --Sasper (talk) 14:35, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Technically, he was Christian I of Iceland. He could not be the tenth king of a recently established kingdom. In praxis and by contemporary Icelandics, however, he was called Christian X because people had been used to this regnal number when Iceland was still a part of Denmark. ('Hann var ábyggilega alltaf kallaður Kristján tíundi'.) This stamp, on which one sees an X within a C, shows that this regnal number was used even officially. I believe the reason is that monarchy was imposed on Icelandics in 1918 and that Icelandics had a distant relation to monarchial life and customs in Kongens by. (The list of the Kings of Norway illustrates well how Danish or Swedish kings had independent regnal numbers. King Charles XIV John of Sweden, for example, was Charles III John in Norway.)

It is impossible to avoid the fact that he was almost entirely called and that he is almost entirely known as Christian X of Iceland. However, I believe both regnal numbers should be mentioned, for example like this: Christian X (technically: Christian I) Du kan egentlig bare vælge. — Breadbasket 19:30, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

He was not "almost entirely" called Kristján X, but entirely. I have listed a number of sources. You should find some counterevidence if you mean he was sometimes called Kristján I. It's not a valid argument that he would 'technically' be another number. Actual tradition and usage, official or unofficial, defines his number. --Sasper (talk) 21:37, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

He was not 'technically' 'Kristjan I'-regnal numbers do not neccesarily have to follow a logical sequence-for example, the current Queen of Australia is Elizabeth II, but there's only ever been one Queen Elizabeth of Australia. Likewise, there have only been nine King Carls of Sweden, yet the current one is Carl the Sixteenth, and so on. The Icelandic usage of 'X' for both Kingdoms is similar to the way that Elizabeth II for example, whilst being separately Queen of the UK and Canada at the same time, has only ever been 'Elizabeth II' of Canada, just has her father was only ever 'George VI' of Canada. JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 22:30, 22 August 2013 (UTC)