Talk:Prince Henrik of Denmark

Untitled

Renamed page per Wiki stylebook re form for royal consorts, male or female. Mowens35 13:15, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This just sounds very weird now! Prince Consort Henrik… huh? His name in Denmark is “Henrik, Hans Kongelige Højhed Prinsen”, which translates “Henrik, His Royal highness The Prince”. He might be a consort, but nobody calls him a consort. This is just plain weird now I think. Prince Henrik of Denmark is much more correct, as he actually goes in the public as “Prince Henrik”

At Her Majesty's birthday on April 16 2005, The Queen gave to Prince Henrik the title of His Royal Highness The Prince Consort of Denmark, which in Danish translates to Hans Kongelige Højhed Prinsgemalen. So there is nothing wrong with the article.

Fluent Chinese

The article (as well as Henrik's official biography at kongehuset.dk) claims that Henrik speaks fluent "Chinese". Though Chinese has a unified written language, its various spoken forms/variants/dialects/sublanguages are said to mutually incomprehensible. Does it makes sense to say that somebody speaks Chinese in general, then? –Henning Makholm 04:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly not. I presume it is Mandarin Chinese. --Thathánka Íyotake (talk) 01:38, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Count de Laborde de Monpezat

Is he still "Count de Laborde de Monpezat" too? Demophon (talk) 14:31, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot see any reason for him to lose any French titles upon gaining Danish ones. Of course, this is assuming that he was Count de Laborde de Monpezat to begin with (see footnote 1). -- Jao (talk) 15:46, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ghehe, you are right, I didn't see the footnote ;-) By-the-way, his children did get the Danish noble title "Count of Monpezat", as I can see on their Wikipedia websites. Is the title also given to Prince Henrik? I can not read Danish. Demophon (talk) 15:55, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are more up to date than me, I had no idea about the "Count of Monpezat" thing. According to the press release (which was released today) this new title is bestowed upon Frederik and Joachim and their spouses and descendants, in the common Danish variants (greve for male descendants, grevinde for their spouses, and komtesse for female descendants). Henrik's titles are not changed by this. -- Jao (talk) 16:07, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps this is a sign of a to-be-reigning House of Monpezat rather than a sham House of Glücksburg after Margrethe II. Charles 16:09, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Henrik's French titles are 'personal titles', I assume (since France, is a Republic). GoodDay (talk) 22:04, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The name of the house can't be changed every time there happens to be a queen rather than a king. I find the male-line "Count of Monpezat" nonsense amusing because if Christian has an eldest daughter she'll be queen and her descendants won't be counts of Monpezat. Henrik's self-centeredness can be washed out of the Danish royal family that easily.67.100.203.179 (talk) 17:52, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The reigning house of Denmark is the House of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg. The House of Laborde de Monpezat does not exist in Denmark. The Princes, their wives and their children have recently been given the Danish additional titles of Count/Countess of Montpezat in honour of Prince Henrik, but the name of the reigning House is not affected.In an era of gender equality it is normal that the House name should not change. The Royal web-site makes the position clear: http://kongehuset.dk/publish.php?dogtag=k_dk_familien Harlay (talk) 19:12, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That may be how you translate the Danish version of the website, but the English version says nothing about the future name of the dynasty beyond Queen Margrethe II: all it does is confirm that the present Royal Family "descends" from the House of Glucksborg (just as the House of Glucksborg "descends" from the House of Oldenburg). Following Margrethe II a new situation occurrs: the male-line of Oldenburg will no longer reign in Denmark. Nothing has been stated officially about the name of the dynasty that will accede when Margrethe ceases to reign. The fact that she is considered a "Glucksborg" is simply traditional: in Europe, an heiress to a throne has always been considered to reign as a member of her father's dynasty. But when her child or descendant succeeds to the throne, sometimes the dynasty becomes known by the father's surname (e.g. Vasa {Poland}), Bourbon (Navarre), Tudor, Stuart, Hanover and Saxe-Coburg {Britain}, Bourbon {Spain}); sometimes the dynasty keeps the name of the maternal line (Romanov (Russia), Nassau (Netherlands), Grimaldi (Monaco); sometimes a combination is used (Habsburg-Lorraine (Austria); Austria-Este (Modena). Until an official declaration is issued, we don't know to what dynasty Denmark's next monarch will belong. Horledi (talk) 18:35, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Validity of the "Count de Laborde de Monpezat" title

it may be useful to indicate in this article that the Laborde family has never belonged to French nobility under any governements, and, as such, cannot claim any title from this country (with no offense to the Danish royal family) : Henri's father was no count, neither was the Prince Consort before his marriage. if such title exists today, it is a Danish one as it was conferred by the Queen to both of her sons. CMP —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.168.9.147 (talk) 12:04, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read the Count controversy section? -- Jao (talk) 13:20, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
ok so maybe the title should not be mentionned before his father's name, as well as in the "titles" section of Prince Henrik ? I understand that he used to be known under the count title for a while (1934-1967) but that's no justification of his rights. French translation of this article has the same problem. CMP —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.168.9.147 (talk) 13:16, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious

Why is the source for the Vatican's agreement to his conversion marked as dubious? It looks OK to me. Nutiketaiel (talk) 17:34, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The claim that Vatican agreed to his conversion was marked as dubious by another user. I inserted the source and I too can't understand how Vatican allowed someone to cease practicing Roman Catholicism? Surtsicna (talk) 20:19, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I find it odd as well, but stranger things have happened, and we have a suitable source for it now. Shouldn't the dubious tag be removed? Nutiketaiel (talk) 16:43, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you think that it should be removed, go ahead. If I remove it, one could say that I did it because I inserted the source :) Surtsicna (talk) 17:04, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed it. The source you added seems to be perfectly adequate. Nutiketaiel (talk) 17:22, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. First, Wikipedia's Verifiability rule requires "exceptional" not merely "adequate" substantiation for in-credible or virtually unprecedented assertions: the Pope's consent that a Roman Catholic should abandon his faith in order to take up another is an extraordinary -- perhaps (except under duress) altogether unheard of -- event (whereas marriages between Catholics and non-Catholic royalty have been well-documented, and in none has permission ever been granted to the Catholic to abandon the faith -- indeed, in some cases (Princess Anne of Bourbon-Parma, Princess Giovanna of Savoy) the Pope refused permission for any of the future children to be raised as non-Catholic -- including the heir to Orthodox thrones -- let alone conversion to Orthodoxy of the already-Catholic fiancée. Multiple reliable sources would be needed to justify inclusion of this claim, especially in a WP:BLP article. Secondly, the source does not say that the Pope approved Henri's conversion to Protestantism, rather it says that the Vatican "gave its consent for him to settle his personal religious situation". That could mean no more than that he managed to obtain a letter from a Vatican prelate recognising that, as a free citizen of a European nation, he had the right to take up membership in any church of his choice. The wording is insufficient to justify an allegation of Catholic authorization for his conversion from Catholicism. Therefore, I am restoring the dubious tag. Horledi (talk) 16:35, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. Well, that seems reasonable. OK then. Nutiketaiel (talk) 19:57, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's clear that he converted from Catholicism to Lutheranism[1]. Henrik writes in his autobiography Skæbne forpligter that his father was sceptical to his conversion.[2] Garn Svend (talk) 14:09, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the tag since the specific statement present in the article (as of today) does not appear in doubt. What the pope, the Vatican or the catholic church think of it all is perhaps more dubious but the text does not mention it one way or the other. GL (talk) 10:19, 11 January 2013 (UTC) [reply]

Ancestry

I am not sure how having an ancestry chart will help readers understand that the Prince's family was not titled. Mere names would not do it, because anyone can, at any time, add the word "Count" to their names or remove it. Besides, the text of the article refers to his father as count. The chart, therefore, doesn't help solve the case. There must be more efficient ways to prove that his family wasn't noble - such as a simple sentence with a reference. The chart is utterly useless, as nobody would be interested in the name of his maternal grandfather's paternal grandmother. Wikipedia is not a directory of genealogical entries. Surtsicna (talk) 23:24, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree. While it's true that anyone can vandalize anything in Wikipedia, the chart correctly shows that Henrik's ancestors aren't identified as counts, and it's up to Wikipedians to keep it accurate -- I'll help. No one's arguing that the family tree proves the Labordes were untitled, merely that it helps illustrate that fact. Precisely because other aspects of the article remain ambiguous (since Henrik used the title of comte with his name prior to marriage, Wiki rules don't permit us to retroactively deprive him of it merely because we now know the usage was both legally & socially unjustified), it's important to keep in information which adds context. Since the article acknowledges that the family nearly became noble, and that they repeatedly changed their surname to appear noble, I consider that the family tree helps illustrate that those efforts weren't altogether effective (of course, they were effective with respect to the Danish court since, as the article notes, Margrethe's cousin lost his succession rights for marrying a commoner after Margrethe married comte Henrik. All the more reason for this encyclopedia to shine light on the truth). As for excess genealogy, there's an argument that any at all is too much, so it's a judgment call. Some will, I think, be interested in seeing a few generations of the paternity of future King Frederik X, although that's not the primary reason for inclusion. FactStraight (talk) 01:41, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Henrik, Prince Consort of Denmark. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

  • Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120425130022/http://1.t.cdn.belga.be/picture:954544:preview:watermark to http://1.t.cdn.belga.be/picture:954544:preview:watermark
  • Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150417174053/http://www.gettyimages.ca/detail/news-photo/50th-anniversary-of-king-carl-gustav-of-sweden-in-stockholm-news-photo/115116372 to http://www.gettyimages.ca/detail/news-photo/50th-anniversary-of-king-carl-gustav-of-sweden-in-stockholm-news-photo/115116372

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:39, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Henrik, Prince Consort of Denmark. 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:

  • Corrected formatting/usage for http://1.t.cdn.belga.be/picture%3A954544%3Apreview%3Awatermark
  • Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140419000000/http://www.lrp.lt/lt/prezidento_veikla/apdovanojimai/apdovanojimai_256/p40.html to http://www.lrp.lt/lt/prezidento_veikla/apdovanojimai/apdovanojimai_256/p40.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:47, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Henrik, Prince Consort of Denmark. 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/20150417155855/http://falkadb.forseti.is/orduskra/fal03.php?term=Ingrid&sub=Leita to http://falkadb.forseti.is/orduskra/fal03.php?term=Ingrid&sub=Leita
  • Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140604092110/http://kongehuset.dk/materialemappe/gallerier/2012/oktober-december/statsbesog-fra-slovakiet/statsbesog-fra-slovakiet-16.img to http://kongehuset.dk/materialemappe/gallerier/2012/oktober-december/statsbesog-fra-slovakiet/statsbesog-fra-slovakiet-16.img

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) 16:53, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Henrik, Prince Consort of Denmark. 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/20160303220031/http://www.anp-archief.nl/attachment/87416 to http://www.anp-archief.nl/attachment/87416

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, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of in-line citations

This needs to be rectified, possibly on the basis of the many obits published today.--Ipigott (talk) 09:52, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One obituary is in the New York Times dated 14 February. EdJohnston (talk) 16:15, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Succeeding consort

The navigational box at the end of the article with the headline Danish royalty shows vacant for Henrik's succeeding consort. Correct me if I am mistaken, but there is nothing vacant about the succession, or is this a matter of WP:CRYSTALBALL? At the moment, there is no successor, as in none, and perhaps some day there will be a successor, in case Denmark is not turned into a republic, the crown prince does not abdicate or other unforeseen events take place. Any comments? Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\Work 00:31, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Vacant" does not mean that there will not be a successor. It means that the position is without an incumbent. Surtsicna (talk) 09:32, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yes, that is what the word vacant means. What I am trying to say is, that the position does not exist, so it can't be vacant. The navigational box tries to describe a situation that has not materialised in real life. If it is possible to verify that there will be a successor, then of course the position is vacant (as in "we are waiting for the successor, which we know will come"), but royal successors are not elected or hired, so we can't know for sure what the future brings. Any inputs? Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\Work 11:29, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Margrethe II has an heir apparent, Frederik. He has a wife, Mary. Mary is the likely successor. Surtsicna (talk) 11:32, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, if likely works, then fine with me. Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\Work 11:37, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It could say None. There's no 100% certainty, that Henrik will be followed by his daughter-in-law as Danish consort. GoodDay (talk) 00:18, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There's no 100% certainty that humans will exist in 2019. Surtsicna (talk) 07:39, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You are not wrong, but your answer does not refute the argument given. Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\Work 10:17, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is no argument there. The succession box does not say that Henrik will be followed by Mary. It simply says that the position is now vacant. The position still exists, as the monarchy has not been abolished, but it is vacant. What are we even arguing here? (And for what it's worth, Mary's title basically means she is meant to fill that position one day.) Surtsicna (talk) 11:15, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The position only exists when there is someone to occupy it. Some events has to occure before the person likely to occupy the position is going to occupy it. It is not possible, according to Wikipedia standards, to verify that there will be a person to actually occupy the position. Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\Work 14:10, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Does the Danish Constitution mention a position of "consort"? If so, we would use 'Vacant'. Otherwise, we should use 'None' in the navbox's after space. GoodDay (talk) 11:18, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not related to improving the article.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Danish royalty ranks above the law. They can pretty much do what they want, but have to behave and keep on terms with the Danish people to avoid being abolished. It's a walk on the edge of a knife so to speak. There are fractions within the Danish parliament that wants to abolish the monarchy, but the royal family has been very popular for quite some time now. Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\Work 14:03, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Danish royalty are not above the law. Denmark's is a constitutional monarchy. GoodDay (talk) 14:57, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Danish Constitution, Chapter III, §13: "Kongen er ansvarsfri; hans person er fredhellig" - "The King is without liability; his person is sacrosanct". (fredhellig). It means the Danish king/queen (and their blood) can't be taken to court, hence the Danish king/queen is above the law. Danish constitutional monarchy means the king/queen does not have any political power. Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\Work 15:30, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds like the usual sovereign immunity given to heads of state. It doesn't mean his entire family can run around lawless. Celia Homeford (talk) 15:47, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
They can within the Kingdom of Denmark. Sovereign immunity is international law and given to heads of state when abroad. Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\Work 15:57, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Found an article on this: What if (Crown Prince) Frederik committed murder? (in Danish) (Google Translate). The king/queen judges and punishes the royal family for anything that otherwise could have ended up in court. Until now it has not been necessary. Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\Work 16:08, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
By that logic, we should not have the consort succession boxes at all. Surtsicna (talk) 11:29, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Why is that? None is an option according to the template syntax. Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\Work 14:03, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Where do you get the idea that the succession box only makes sense when there are actual positions, as you define them?[3] I have yet to find Wikipedia policies on this. Perhaps you can show me where to look? Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\Work 11:54, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, that was much better. [4] Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\Work 15:11, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why does your post say 15:11, 17 February 2018 (UTC)? It's not even 15:00 hours UTC, yet. GoodDay (talk) 14:56, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, that is because I typed it in according to local time. There might be a template somewhere to fix a missing signature, but I have no clue where to look. You may fix it if you know how to. Cheers, Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\Work 15:04, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Consort

Prince Consort in Denmark is a title given by the monarch to the spouse. Margrethe II of Denmark and Henrik were married 1967, Henrik was awarded the title Prince Consort (Danish: Prinsgemal) in 2005, a title Henrik did not use. The title was changed in 2016 to Prince. I am trying to find some reliable sources on this. Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\Work 13:05, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In this article (first video) Henrik explains (in English) his frustrations concerning the missing "position" of a Prince Consort (or a King Consort as he calls it). Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\Work 13:23, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As I understood it, Henrik wanted the title King-consort & sulked when he didn't get it. GoodDay (talk) 15:00, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. I stroke through my initial text, since the video is from 2016, hence after he renounced the Prince Consort title. Henrik was increasingly frustrated about his title since 2002, when the Crown Prince was stand-in (in lack of a better word) for the queen when see was ill. It was then he began openly commenting on the unequality of his position and demanded a corresponding title. He was then awarded Prince Consort in 2005, which did not catch his fancy, and he never used the title. Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\Work 15:12, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 17 February 2018

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

The result of the move request was: consensus not to move the article to the proposed title at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 07:02, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Henrik, Prince Consort of Denmark → Prince Henrik of Denmark (born 1934) – Official name/title when he died and in line with his grandson Prince Henrik of Denmark (born 2009) Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\Work 17:55, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Change request to "Prince Henrik of Denmark (born 1934)" per WP:NCPDAB. I'm neutral on this move so far, but you'd probably want to change your request to fit with Wikipedia's Manual of Style and guidelines for article titles. If differentiating by birth or death date, the preferred method of parenthetical disambiguation is "born XXXX" instead of "XXXX–YYYY", even if the person's dead. Paintspot Infez (talk) 00:27, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Requested move changed to conform with Manuel of Style. Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\Work 10:57, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, as he is the only Henrik who was prince consort of Denmark. GoodDay (talk) 00:30, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I agree that Henrik was the only prince consort. Due to English grammar we end up with the royal title Prince Consort in the article's title, a title that was neither approved nor used by the prince himself. Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\Work 11:13, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's irrelevant. We know he wanted to be named King, but that never happened - and he did not have the power to make it happen. He may not have liked the title Prince Consort, but that was the title bestowed on him. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 19:04, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Or rather, Prince Consort was a title bestowed upon him from 2005 to 2016, then he retired with the title Prince of Denmark. His title was also Prince of Denmark from 1967 to 2005. Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\Work 19:19, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
His highest title was Prince consort, however. PS - Let's remember the main goal here, is to different this article's title from that of the topic's grandson's article title. GoodDay (talk) 23:35, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agree on main goal. On Prince Consort, I can only refer to the reliable source I have added to the article. Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\Work 15:39, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. It's correct that he renounced the title, but it is the one he held for decades and for which he is notable. In defiance of WP:OTHERCRAP, I remind you that we have an article named Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor even though that gentleman also abdicated a couple of years before his death. Favonian (talk) 19:57, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You most probably mean decade (2005-2016). Agreed that Henrik was most notable for having the title Prince Consort, even though he would have been notable without it as well. Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\Work 20:17, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Quod scripsi, scripsi. According to the article, he became Prince Consort when Margrethe became Queen, January 1972. Favonian (talk) 20:24, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Henrik was prince consort (lower case) from 1972–2018. Henrik had the royal title Prince Consort (upper case) from 2005–2016. I added a reliable source to the "Titles, styles and honours"-section. Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\Work 20:36, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on the ground that the present title does not require an ugly parenthetical disambiguation. Henri de Laborde de Monpezat is also unambiguous. Surtsicna (talk) 00:00, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I think we should follow WP:CONSORTS here: "Deceased consorts are referred to by a name by which they are commonly known or (if recently deceased) are expected to become known. This can often differ from the name and title they held as consort or at death." The question off course is by which name he was commonly known for. "Prince Consort of Denmark" (the title and name he held for only 11 years) gives some 130,000 hits on Google and "Prince Henrik of Denmark" (the title and name he held for more than 40 years) gives 140,000 google hits, but I don´t know whether or not this a good search and parameter. The option "Henri de Laborde de Monpezat" I would not consider, since this qualifies not according WP:CONSORTS. Mr. D. E. Mophon (talk) 01:39, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Could you give us a link to those Google hits? I get 307.000 on the first page for "prince henrik of denmark" -wikipedia and only 39.900 for "henrik prince consort of denmark" -wikipedia. Surtsicna (talk) 08:21, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Prince Consort of Denmark" gives "About 153.000 results" and "Prince Henrik of Denmark" gives "About 332.000 results". –Pinnerup (talk) 13:25, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • Those results include Wikipedia and Wikipedia mirrors. Mine do not. Surtsicna (talk) 14:47, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have just realized that my pointing out that the proposed title is a 10 times more common name does not really follow my "oppose" comment. Surtsicna (talk) 14:48, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          • I will just chip in to remind everyone that there is another Prince Henrik of Denmark, which is both why the proposed title requires disambiguation, and why in my opinion the google search numbers are basically useless. Prince of Thieves (talk) 15:20, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I think he was primarily known as a prince consort even if he had used that title only for a decade. There's no such rule that a person's final title has to be used as the main title of his/her article. A user mentioned Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor; another example would be Edward VIII. We know that he was the king for only 11 months and was known as the Duke of Windsor for the rest of his life, yet he is primarily remembered as a British king. Keivan.fTalk 19:41, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I would support 'Prince Henrik of Denmark' without a birthdate because disambiguating with a year is unnecessary when there are only two Prince Henriks and one of those is far more important than the other. Celia Homeford (talk) 12:24, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Best argument yet, in my humble opinion. Is it possible at this point to change the request in that direction? It has been a long time since I requested a move, and I can understand that a lot of things have changed on Wikipedia in the meantime. Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\Work 12:42, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think you could shut this request down as withdrawn and start a new one. Celia Homeford (talk) 12:44, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps someone else than I will support your argument and open a new request. I am not planning to do so. Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\Work 13:21, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. As he rejected himself to be called prince consort.Yger (talk) 20:22, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – he was the prince consort as husband to a regnant Queen. The current title is accurate. CookieMonster755✉ 22:16, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 24 January 2023

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

The result of the move request was: not moved (non-admin closure) ❯❯❯ Raydann(Talk) 14:16, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Henrik, Prince Consort of Denmark → Prince Henrik of Denmark – A lot of the opposition from the previous RM seemed to stem from his grandson being a Prince by the same name. Now that The Queen has stripped the Princely titles from Joachim's children, I do not see why it shouldn't be moved.

I also could understand an argument for a move elsewhere, most likely to "Henrik de Laborde de Monpezat" or some other form of his birth name, as most former consorts are known as under WP:CONSORTS. Estar8806 (talk) 23:32, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose - Even with the grandson losing his title, the fact remains we've had two people who were called Prince Henrik of Denmark at one point. Also, Prince Consort is the highest title he ever had and gives more context in the article name. Unnecessary proposal. --Killuminator (talk) 09:49, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Prince consort is a useful disambiguation, and highest title he held. -Shivertimbers433 (talk) 21:30, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 26 August 2023

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

The result of the move request was: moved to Prince Henrik of Denmark. (closed by non-admin page mover) – MaterialWorks 19:16, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Henrik, Prince Consort of Denmark → Henri de Laborde de Monpezat – Per WP:COMMONNAME, a successful requested move (RM) on Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, WP:CONSORTS, previous move discussions for Henri(k)’s article, and WP:CONSISTENT, I request that the article title for the late husband of Denmark’s beloved Queen Margrethe II be changed. (Coincidentally, Margrethe II is Albert’s great-great granddaughter!) A detailed explanation follows.

1. WP:COMMONNAME - When comparing Google search results, “Henri de Laborde de Monpezat” appears to be the most popular way to refer to the individual in question:

  • 1: “Henri de Laborde de Monpezat” yields approximately 24,000 hits,
  • 2: “Henrik Prince Consort of Denmark” yields approximately 13,700 hits (i.e. 43 percent fewer than “Henri de Laborde de Monpezat”), and
  • 3: “Henrik, Prince Consort of Denmark” yields approximately 13,600 hits (i.e. 43 percent fewer than “Henri de Laborde de Monpezat”)

Additionally, when using Google Ngram to gauge popularity of terms pre-2020, it should be noted that while “Henri de Laborde de Monpezat” does generate some results, there are no results whatsoever to be found for “Henrik Prince Consort of Denmark”, even disregarding case sensitivity.

2. Page move for Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha - I will concede that “Henrik Prince Consort” better aligns with WP:CONCISE and is a more popular term according to Google search results, as approximately 28,000 hits are yielded. However, this alternative title simultaneously fails WP:PRECISION. Namely, who was Henri(k) a prince consort to? Also, where was Henri(k) a prince consort of?

More pertinently to this bullet point, the cited RM illustrates that the Wikipedia community is willing to reject the format (name), Prince Consort for an article title if sufficient evidence is shown that an alternative title is more commonly used. And the accepted new title for Albert was in the spirit of...

3. WP:CONSORTS - When it comes to deceased spouses of monarchs, Wikipedia articles tend to follow this naming guidance from WP:NCROY: Many consorts are known in English as "{Name} of {Place}", like Margaret of Anjou, Isabeau of Bavaria and Mary of Teck, where {Place} is the country or House of origin. In Henri(k)’s case, he was a member of the House of (Laborde de) Monpezat, a French noble family, by birth. Consequently, Henri de Laborde de Monpezat (de instead of of is used because the French preposition is almost always utilized to describe Henri(k)’s birth name) is more consistent with the general naming guidance for a person like him. And finally,...

4. Previous move discussions for Henri(k)’s article and WP:CONSISTENT - On not one, but two occasions, unsuccessful attempts for this article title be renamed to a variant of Prince Henrik of Denmark happened. In both discussions, commenters noted that because one of Henri(k) and Margrethe’s grandsons was known as Prince Henrik of Denmark for most of his life, this proposed alternative was an insufficient disambiguator for the consort (and a failure to adhere to WP:PRECISION).

Furthermore, while a title like Prince Henrik of Denmark may seem superficially consistent with other English Wikipedia article titles, this is actually not the case. This becomes even more apparent when analyzing the titles of three male consorts in modern European history:

In all three cases, while the structure Prince (name) of (house) is present, all three of these men were princes by birth (albeit not of the realm their spouses reigned over). In contrast, not only was Henri(k) not Danish by birth, but he is not even a prince by blood. By moving this article to Prince Henrik of Denmark, readers, especially those who seek consistency, may consequently be misled into believing that Margrethe II’s husband was a royal for his entire life, which is not what Wikipedia should be striving to do in general.

Therefore, a move to Henri de Laborde de Monpezat should swiftly occur in the coming days. However, as always, the consensus that emerges from such a discussion will eventually win. Hurricane Andrew (444) 18:43, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. The most common name he is referred to is "Prince Henrik of Denmark". That should probably be the article title, but it has been rejected in the past. And by the nom's own numbers, “Henrik, Prince Consort of Denmark” and “Henrik Prince Consort of Denmark” when viewed together are more common than the proposed title. And I don't think the presence or absence of a single comma should differentiate enough to not view them as the same title. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:16, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support per nom, the policies cited by nom and my comments in the last RM. I strongly prefer the proposed title. The proposed title is more common as demonstrated by the nominator (yes, put together the two results inlcuding "Prince Consort" are more common than his birth name, but there's almost certainly overlap between the two"). Even if the article is not moved to the proposed title, it should almost certainly be moved to Prince Henrik of Denmark, as that was his title for far longer than "Prince Consort". The arguments for his birth name are far stronger than those for the latter, and as nom pointed out "Prince Henrik of Denmark" could be construed to imply he was a Danish prince from birth. Of course that title was rejected in January (in an RM I proposed, for full disclosure) estar8806 (talk) ★ 20:26, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - in the english language, he's best known as Henrik. GoodDay (talk) 22:34, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment NCROY lists him as an example for keeping the current name. Sometimes a person may remain best known by the title they held as consort, as in Henrik, Prince Consort of Denmark. I'd also like to note that unlike the three male consorts you listed as examples, Henrik wasn't born into royalty so he's more comparable to Prince Claus of the Netherlands rather than Prince Bernhard. Enough time has passed since his death for a common name to form but I'd like @Surtsicna input on this one. Also, I can't help but notice that male consorts usually keep the prestigious princely prefix in the titles while it's left out for women. Killuminator (talk) 23:16, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That explicit mention was only established after the move of Albert, Prince Consort (see this [5]). estar8806 (talk) ★ 22:46, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I would also support Prince Henrik of Denmark, but his common name is definitely Henrik rather than Henri. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:08, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Prince Henrik of Denmark. He was the husband of the Queen of Denmark for 46 years and he held the title of "Prince Consort" for only 11 years, and not even at the time of his death. That being said, his common name in English is Henrik and he is frequently referred to as Prince Henrik. In such cases we should go with the common name not the birth name (see Prince Claus of the Netherlands). Keivan.fTalk 13:42, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Prince_Henrik_of_Denmark&oldid=1207621849"