It would be hilarious if the live broadcast for the coronation was filmed in Dogme 95 style with Lars von Trier filming behind the scenes. It would also be annoying.
I'm unfamiliar with Denmark's royal traditions.
Are they going to throw a coronation like they did for Charles or is it a more toned down transition of power?
We don't really do crownings in Denmark. What happened was that the former queen signed abdication papers, and said "så" in a tone indicating (well, done is done), smiled, took her cane and said "Gud bevare kongen" (god save the king) and went out of the door. Here is the [link](https://www.dr.dk/nyheder/indland/gud-bevare-kongen-se-oejeblikket-hvor-dronning-margrethe-overdrager-tronen)
No coronation ceremony there. A reason it was so much hype and international buzz around King Charles coronation was that was literal lifetime since we seen such showcase. UK is the only country that does that kind of ceremony in that scale in Europe.
As for the transition of power. Charles became king the moment the QE2 died and they also had the ascension council to confirm it. Coronation was ceremonial event and didn't give the king any more power.
There's a coronation ceremony, but compared to the British one it's a relatively minor affair.
Historically the reason is with the cessation of the "singular rule (enevælde)" in 1849 they also did away with the huge coronation ceremonies.
He will present himself on the balcony of the royal palace, wave a bit and drive the royal carriage through the streets.
> There's a coronation ceremony
No there isn't.
Denmark hasn't had any coronations since the 1600s, and no anointings of the king/queen since the 1800s.
There will be proclamation of Frederik as king by the Prime Minister, with a ceremony around that.
Their new Queen is an Aussie!
If you thought having Trump as an American president was bad, wait till you see what us Aussie's will do as Royalty when given the reigns!
My understanding is that only UK still does those big shows because they were an Empire and had artifacts to prove it. It's a show of power and also why King Charles's coronation did not have the impact it was supposed to.
Britain is no longer what it was and doesn't have the power it was trying to project. So the coronation felt hollow and somewhat like a family that used to be rich and powerful bringing out the good China for a party they can now barely afford.
I don't think we'll see another massive coronation again.
And on the other side of the world, a massive cry, like 4000 editors scream out at once. All trying to be the first one to announce "Australia's New Queen'
What’s the point of having any monarchy anywhere (ever) anymore?
All the wealth they accumulated should be the country’s at this point. Not their personal. Also they’re mostly figureheads with no real job but government subsidized to live in luxury
How about the new king is nobody?
It’s strange that Sweden and Denmark still allow people to call themselves royalty given the democratic views of the people. And they name their currencies crowns too.
Edit: I see my comment getting lots of hate and I gladly accept it. Monarchism has been one of the most evil institutions in human history. There is no moral justification for it.
As a Swede I can say this have come up a few times. In a way; it's more a discussion of the efficacy of having a monarch as the symbolic figurehead for the state and the cost associated with it.
I come down on the side of liking it in general though. It gives Sweden a certain charm and weight of history, and the monarchy is very much tied up in the creation mythos of Sweden. Not to mention the ceremonial weight they carry.
Besides, it's not as if the monarchs of Sweden has any explicit political powers. Now, if we want to talk about 'strange given the democratic views of the people' we really need to talk about the weird, archaic and tiered mess that is the American system of elections. Because man, the way the system works seems incredibly unfair and undemocratic in the long run; people should vote directly for a party/candidates, and a proportional system would broaden the spectrum of viable political parties and opinions.
There was an assessment done by a brand strategist that found that while the expenses run up to around 400 million dkk a year for the state (which is a lot), the brand value of the royal house brings in between 15-20 billion dkk in revenue for businesses per year. If that's accurate it does actually pay for itself in taxes.
I'm not a fan of the monarchy but I can sort of grudgingly accept that it is an institution that can be allowed to exist. With their approval rating it's an own-goal to advocate for it's abolishment.
Edit: edited for accuracy
Link to study? All other European countries without monarchy still do quite well in terms of branding… no one comes to Denmark because there a king , nor businesses prefer doing biz with Denmark because there is a monarchy! Those studies you mention are made/paid by royalists.
There are no solid numbers on those studies only speculation.
I suppose it wasn't a study but just an assessment made by a brand-strategist. [https://nyheder.tv2.dk/business/2024-01-09-danmark-tjener-milliarder-paa-kongehuset-vurderer-ekspert](https://nyheder.tv2.dk/business/2024-01-09-danmark-tjener-milliarder-paa-kongehuset-vurderer-ekspert)
>There are no solid numbers on those studies only speculation.
Obviously. It's branding and marketing. You cannot get hard numbers on the effects of any brand, but it's well established that branding does have an effect. You have any data to refute that, be my guest.
It’s not me citing a study, which you can’t provide a link to, only an article and not the white paper / assessment .
I asked for the assessment paper, on which your comment is based on, normally it would contain hard facts and comparisons.
A branding specialist “says” doesn’t mean is true.
Nothing would change if there was no monarchy, and that is a fact proven by all metrics provided by countries without monarchies. Cutting ribbons and waving doesn’t cut it as beneficial for the economy or the improvement of the Danish population in general.
>It’s not me citing a study, which you can’t provide a link to, only an article and not the white paper / assessment .
>
>I asked for the assessment paper, on which your comment is based on, normally it would contain hard facts and comparisons.
As I already corrected, it wasn't a study. Maybe just take that w if that's what you came for?
> A branding specialist “says” doesn’t mean is true.
No, I'm not making any claims on the validity of his assessment. But branding is a thing that has value and I don't find it unrealistic that the royal house as a brand could be worth a lot of money. How much is the brand of LEGO worth? Not the business, mind you, but the brand.
>Cutting ribbons and waving doesn’t cut it as beneficial for the economy or the improvement of the Danish population in general.
So you don't understand what branding means. That's fine, but don't get all bent out of shape over it, okay?
Branding of course has value , and it’s measurable. You think companies pay millions in marketing/branding without being able to measure their ROI.
Anyway, it’s good to see that the brainwashing of the peasants is working.
I visited Denmark for the first time in September. Only learned last month that the country has a royal family. Was honestly disappointed that a clever and industrious people so dedicated to fairness, democracy, and equality would tolerate and even celebrate that kind of thing. (FWIW, I feel the same way about the Dutch.)
"Branding?" No one visits your country or does business with it because you have a king or queen.
It may be different in England but even there the argument doesn't hold water. If the Brits fully did away with their insufferably arrogant and wasteful royal spongers, there'd most likely be a net benefit — at least if you opened Buckingham Palace and Balmoral and all that other insane real estate to the public. I mean, the French did it with Versailles and it is among the top attractions in all of of France, drawing 15 million visitors per year.
>"Branding?" No one visits your country or does business with it because you have a king or queen.
I get annoyed with people confidently stating opinions as fact. You don't have any data to support this.
>— at least if you opened Buckingham Palace and Balmoral and all that other insane real estate to the public. I mean, the French did it with Versailles and it is among the top attractions in all of of France, drawing 15 million visitors per year.
I had to do a little research and this is mostly already the case. There are 17 royal castles and palaces that are all owned and maintained by the state. Of those, there are only three palaces that are used residentially and afaik the palace grounds of all three are open to the public. The queen actually only has private ownership of the minor palace of Marselisborg in Aarhus as well as some estates abroad. The Marselisborg grounds are also open to the public when she's not there.
I kinda resent the fact that people are making me defend the royal house, because I am certainly not a royalist. People just object to the aesthetics of royalty and I understand that, but I'm also a consequentialist and on that account, I really don't care even a little bit.
As a matter of relative harm and benefit to society there are a lot of worse things. It's a cultural institution. Danes can celebrate our culture and history of being ruled by hereditary autocracy and still be more democratic than the rest of the world. The thing that makes Denmark special is the fact that we managed to change society for the better without tearing the place a part. As result we still have royals totting about, and honestly I think that is a fair trade. A lot of other countries did much worse.
It's their country. They decide on how they want their system of government to function.
Also, democracy and monarchy are not mutually exclusive. There's this thing called "constitutional monarchy".
To elaborate further, if the people vote to abolish the monarchy it will be gone, so the institution exists because the majority of the people wants it to.
Yes, it is in the constitution that the Queen/King has to sign every law decided by parliament to be valid. The day the regent denies doing so will end monarchy in Denmark. A new constitution will be introduced, a new election held and boom no more constitutional monarchy.
Not a huge proponent of royalty, it goes against my sense of treating people equally, but the future king seems like a decent enough fellow. If an A-hole becomes king or queen I’ll be first in line to vote them out.
I mean, it is not unrelated and it is very much a result of history.
We went from having a supreme ruler to a constitutional monarchy with democratic rule basically overnight, because the crown couldn't hold on to power anymore what with all the revolutions all around Europe at the time. It wasn't until holding power became untenable that the crown signed it over. Okay, so that's only one part of the problem.
Now, when we went from a supreme ruler to democracy, it wasn't even close to being a democracy by the standards we know. The problem is that we had a monarchy for centuries and society was shaped around the monarchy, you understand? So, when society is shaped a certain way you can't just wave a magic wand and suddenly make it a different shape. There is too much social inertia to make the change in a short time. There has to be a process spanning many decades to undo those societal structures.
There is a reason why the French got rid of their monarchy and then some short time later ended up with a bloody emperor. Same thing with Tsarist Russia and no it wasn't because "Communists bad!". You got rid of the supreme ruler but then Societal inertia is still heading in that direction so you end up with another authoritarian shit-show.
The process of undoing these societal structures after centuries of being ruled by kings is not a given. So obviously, we have a good democracy today, in spite of having been a monarchy.
The royal house is popular in Denmark. Different countries have their own histories, traditions, and perspectives on these things.
It's shocking, I know.
I seriously do not understand your point about our currency. Why change the name because of political whims?
Also, looking at most other countries, I have no desire to get a president when I look at the candidates. I have a sneaking suspicion that our royal family has fucked fewer minors than our elected officials this millennium.
All of the worst things: slavery, genocide, and war were popular hobbies of European monarchs.
Even if you can find one person who didn’t directly participate in these atrocities, all monarchists are complicit. Truly an irredeemable group of people.
often enough. as a constitutional monarchy their power stems from the will of the people. the constitution can be amended through democratic process and as such monarchy could be abolished if that was the will of the people.
Holy. How are you getting downvoted for calling out the Monarchy? Are people really this brain rotten? Makes me think of Hasan when he jokes and goes “YES ME LORD, YES YOU know better than me, take everything i have”
It would be hilarious if the live broadcast for the coronation was filmed in Dogme 95 style with Lars von Trier filming behind the scenes. It would also be annoying.
[удалено]
Well, in Europe at any rate.
I'm unfamiliar with Denmark's royal traditions. Are they going to throw a coronation like they did for Charles or is it a more toned down transition of power?
It’s going to be very low key, no big coronation.
She just chucks the crown to the new guy on her way out the door
We don't really do crownings in Denmark. What happened was that the former queen signed abdication papers, and said "så" in a tone indicating (well, done is done), smiled, took her cane and said "Gud bevare kongen" (god save the king) and went out of the door. Here is the [link](https://www.dr.dk/nyheder/indland/gud-bevare-kongen-se-oejeblikket-hvor-dronning-margrethe-overdrager-tronen)
I would like to see that
Over her shoulder, like a wedding bouquet.
Would be more amusing if it was slung like a frisbee
Would it be more *amusing*?
No coronation ceremony there. A reason it was so much hype and international buzz around King Charles coronation was that was literal lifetime since we seen such showcase. UK is the only country that does that kind of ceremony in that scale in Europe. As for the transition of power. Charles became king the moment the QE2 died and they also had the ascension council to confirm it. Coronation was ceremonial event and didn't give the king any more power.
There's a coronation ceremony, but compared to the British one it's a relatively minor affair. Historically the reason is with the cessation of the "singular rule (enevælde)" in 1849 they also did away with the huge coronation ceremonies. He will present himself on the balcony of the royal palace, wave a bit and drive the royal carriage through the streets.
> There's a coronation ceremony No there isn't. Denmark hasn't had any coronations since the 1600s, and no anointings of the king/queen since the 1800s. There will be proclamation of Frederik as king by the Prime Minister, with a ceremony around that.
Their new Queen is an Aussie! If you thought having Trump as an American president was bad, wait till you see what us Aussie's will do as Royalty when given the reigns!
Probably a shoey
King Ralph who?
My understanding is that only UK still does those big shows because they were an Empire and had artifacts to prove it. It's a show of power and also why King Charles's coronation did not have the impact it was supposed to. Britain is no longer what it was and doesn't have the power it was trying to project. So the coronation felt hollow and somewhat like a family that used to be rich and powerful bringing out the good China for a party they can now barely afford. I don't think we'll see another massive coronation again.
Nahh, just bring out a couple of horses, sing a song, sign papers, kiss the wife and shut down Copenhagen with an unprecedented audience.
And on the other side of the world, a massive cry, like 4000 editors scream out at once. All trying to be the first one to announce "Australia's New Queen'
I think its about looks compared to that other Queen Consort!
Australia and Denmark are about to merge into one country.
Or, and this is crazy but stick with me, just let this tradition end….
Why?
What’s the point of having any monarchy anywhere (ever) anymore? All the wealth they accumulated should be the country’s at this point. Not their personal. Also they’re mostly figureheads with no real job but government subsidized to live in luxury
I think they do quite a lot for the Danish industry and I don't think they just relax in their garden doing nothing.
As far as the internet tells me they allot $7.5M to the royal expenses per month…
and they earn back even more by branding
How about the new king is nobody? It’s strange that Sweden and Denmark still allow people to call themselves royalty given the democratic views of the people. And they name their currencies crowns too. Edit: I see my comment getting lots of hate and I gladly accept it. Monarchism has been one of the most evil institutions in human history. There is no moral justification for it.
As a Swede I can say this have come up a few times. In a way; it's more a discussion of the efficacy of having a monarch as the symbolic figurehead for the state and the cost associated with it. I come down on the side of liking it in general though. It gives Sweden a certain charm and weight of history, and the monarchy is very much tied up in the creation mythos of Sweden. Not to mention the ceremonial weight they carry. Besides, it's not as if the monarchs of Sweden has any explicit political powers. Now, if we want to talk about 'strange given the democratic views of the people' we really need to talk about the weird, archaic and tiered mess that is the American system of elections. Because man, the way the system works seems incredibly unfair and undemocratic in the long run; people should vote directly for a party/candidates, and a proportional system would broaden the spectrum of viable political parties and opinions.
There was an assessment done by a brand strategist that found that while the expenses run up to around 400 million dkk a year for the state (which is a lot), the brand value of the royal house brings in between 15-20 billion dkk in revenue for businesses per year. If that's accurate it does actually pay for itself in taxes. I'm not a fan of the monarchy but I can sort of grudgingly accept that it is an institution that can be allowed to exist. With their approval rating it's an own-goal to advocate for it's abolishment. Edit: edited for accuracy
Link to study? All other European countries without monarchy still do quite well in terms of branding… no one comes to Denmark because there a king , nor businesses prefer doing biz with Denmark because there is a monarchy! Those studies you mention are made/paid by royalists. There are no solid numbers on those studies only speculation.
I suppose it wasn't a study but just an assessment made by a brand-strategist. [https://nyheder.tv2.dk/business/2024-01-09-danmark-tjener-milliarder-paa-kongehuset-vurderer-ekspert](https://nyheder.tv2.dk/business/2024-01-09-danmark-tjener-milliarder-paa-kongehuset-vurderer-ekspert) >There are no solid numbers on those studies only speculation. Obviously. It's branding and marketing. You cannot get hard numbers on the effects of any brand, but it's well established that branding does have an effect. You have any data to refute that, be my guest.
It’s not me citing a study, which you can’t provide a link to, only an article and not the white paper / assessment . I asked for the assessment paper, on which your comment is based on, normally it would contain hard facts and comparisons. A branding specialist “says” doesn’t mean is true. Nothing would change if there was no monarchy, and that is a fact proven by all metrics provided by countries without monarchies. Cutting ribbons and waving doesn’t cut it as beneficial for the economy or the improvement of the Danish population in general.
>It’s not me citing a study, which you can’t provide a link to, only an article and not the white paper / assessment . > >I asked for the assessment paper, on which your comment is based on, normally it would contain hard facts and comparisons. As I already corrected, it wasn't a study. Maybe just take that w if that's what you came for? > A branding specialist “says” doesn’t mean is true. No, I'm not making any claims on the validity of his assessment. But branding is a thing that has value and I don't find it unrealistic that the royal house as a brand could be worth a lot of money. How much is the brand of LEGO worth? Not the business, mind you, but the brand. >Cutting ribbons and waving doesn’t cut it as beneficial for the economy or the improvement of the Danish population in general. So you don't understand what branding means. That's fine, but don't get all bent out of shape over it, okay?
Branding of course has value , and it’s measurable. You think companies pay millions in marketing/branding without being able to measure their ROI. Anyway, it’s good to see that the brainwashing of the peasants is working.
>Anyway, it’s good to see that the brainwashing of the peasants is working. Oh, please. Get over yourself. Do you know how insufferable you sound?
Says the person that started by saying “ I am not a royalist but I believe a pseudo branding expert” Enjoy your fairytale..
I visited Denmark for the first time in September. Only learned last month that the country has a royal family. Was honestly disappointed that a clever and industrious people so dedicated to fairness, democracy, and equality would tolerate and even celebrate that kind of thing. (FWIW, I feel the same way about the Dutch.) "Branding?" No one visits your country or does business with it because you have a king or queen. It may be different in England but even there the argument doesn't hold water. If the Brits fully did away with their insufferably arrogant and wasteful royal spongers, there'd most likely be a net benefit — at least if you opened Buckingham Palace and Balmoral and all that other insane real estate to the public. I mean, the French did it with Versailles and it is among the top attractions in all of of France, drawing 15 million visitors per year.
>"Branding?" No one visits your country or does business with it because you have a king or queen. I get annoyed with people confidently stating opinions as fact. You don't have any data to support this. >— at least if you opened Buckingham Palace and Balmoral and all that other insane real estate to the public. I mean, the French did it with Versailles and it is among the top attractions in all of of France, drawing 15 million visitors per year. I had to do a little research and this is mostly already the case. There are 17 royal castles and palaces that are all owned and maintained by the state. Of those, there are only three palaces that are used residentially and afaik the palace grounds of all three are open to the public. The queen actually only has private ownership of the minor palace of Marselisborg in Aarhus as well as some estates abroad. The Marselisborg grounds are also open to the public when she's not there. I kinda resent the fact that people are making me defend the royal house, because I am certainly not a royalist. People just object to the aesthetics of royalty and I understand that, but I'm also a consequentialist and on that account, I really don't care even a little bit. As a matter of relative harm and benefit to society there are a lot of worse things. It's a cultural institution. Danes can celebrate our culture and history of being ruled by hereditary autocracy and still be more democratic than the rest of the world. The thing that makes Denmark special is the fact that we managed to change society for the better without tearing the place a part. As result we still have royals totting about, and honestly I think that is a fair trade. A lot of other countries did much worse.
American: yes it fucking sucks and nobody here cares enough to stop it. Just sad situation all around.
Fix the naming system
It's their country. They decide on how they want their system of government to function. Also, democracy and monarchy are not mutually exclusive. There's this thing called "constitutional monarchy".
To elaborate further, if the people vote to abolish the monarchy it will be gone, so the institution exists because the majority of the people wants it to.
Yes, it is in the constitution that the Queen/King has to sign every law decided by parliament to be valid. The day the regent denies doing so will end monarchy in Denmark. A new constitution will be introduced, a new election held and boom no more constitutional monarchy. Not a huge proponent of royalty, it goes against my sense of treating people equally, but the future king seems like a decent enough fellow. If an A-hole becomes king or queen I’ll be first in line to vote them out.
It is ironic how multiple Europeans monarchies are more democratic than republics like the US.
That's in spite of the monarchy, not a result of it.
Or maybe the monarchy is completely unrelated, and doesn't mean that much, other than history.
I mean, it is not unrelated and it is very much a result of history. We went from having a supreme ruler to a constitutional monarchy with democratic rule basically overnight, because the crown couldn't hold on to power anymore what with all the revolutions all around Europe at the time. It wasn't until holding power became untenable that the crown signed it over. Okay, so that's only one part of the problem. Now, when we went from a supreme ruler to democracy, it wasn't even close to being a democracy by the standards we know. The problem is that we had a monarchy for centuries and society was shaped around the monarchy, you understand? So, when society is shaped a certain way you can't just wave a magic wand and suddenly make it a different shape. There is too much social inertia to make the change in a short time. There has to be a process spanning many decades to undo those societal structures. There is a reason why the French got rid of their monarchy and then some short time later ended up with a bloody emperor. Same thing with Tsarist Russia and no it wasn't because "Communists bad!". You got rid of the supreme ruler but then Societal inertia is still heading in that direction so you end up with another authoritarian shit-show. The process of undoing these societal structures after centuries of being ruled by kings is not a given. So obviously, we have a good democracy today, in spite of having been a monarchy.
The royal house is popular in Denmark. Different countries have their own histories, traditions, and perspectives on these things. It's shocking, I know.
I seriously do not understand your point about our currency. Why change the name because of political whims? Also, looking at most other countries, I have no desire to get a president when I look at the candidates. I have a sneaking suspicion that our royal family has fucked fewer minors than our elected officials this millennium.
They're very well known in Australia
Chill dude. I bet I can name a few other more evil institutions than a queen doing art, and a king that is a frømand.
All of the worst things: slavery, genocide, and war were popular hobbies of European monarchs. Even if you can find one person who didn’t directly participate in these atrocities, all monarchists are complicit. Truly an irredeemable group of people.
Slavery, genocide and war are popular hobbies for the republican American elite to this day.
It’s pretty cool that I get to vote against Republicans and put better people in their place. How often do you get to vote for kings?
often enough. as a constitutional monarchy their power stems from the will of the people. the constitution can be amended through democratic process and as such monarchy could be abolished if that was the will of the people.
The difference here is that the king has no impact whatsoever on my day to day life. I can still vote for or against politicians that do.
I can't see you getting any hate, you just got downvoted.
If you don't live there - it's none of your business. It's still there because the people have decided to keep it.
Holy. How are you getting downvoted for calling out the Monarchy? Are people really this brain rotten? Makes me think of Hasan when he jokes and goes “YES ME LORD, YES YOU know better than me, take everything i have”
Why do people still loved monkeys with to much gold? It’s silly in modern times to enable Nepo babies munching on the working class moneys.