text:
Millicent Fawcett

Dame Millicent Garrett Fawcett (Garrett; 11 June 1847 – 5 August 1929) was an English political activist and writer. She campaigned for women's suffrage by legal change and in 1897–1919 led Britain's largest women's rights association, the National Union of Women's Suffrage Societies (NUWSS), explaining, "I cannot say I became a suffragist. I always was one, from the time I was old enough to think at all about the principles of Representative Government." She tried to broaden women's chances of higher education, as a governor of Bedford College, London (now Royal Holloway) and co-founding Newnham College, Cambridge in 1875. In 2018, a century after the Representation of the People Act, she was the first woman honoured by a statue in Parliament Square.

Early life
Fawcett was born on 11 June 1847 in Aldeburgh, to Newson Garrett (1812–1893), a businessman from nearby Leiston, and his London wife Louisa (née Dunnell, 1813–1903). She was the eighth of their ten children.

According to the Stracheys, "The Garretts were a close and happy family in which children were encouraged to be physically active, read widely, speak their minds, and share in the political interests of their father, a convert from Conservatism to Gladstonian Liberalism, a combative man, and a keen patriot."

As a child, Fawcett's elder sister Elizabeth Garrett Anderson, who became Britain's first female doctor, introduced her to Emily Davies, an English suffragist. In her mother's biography, Louisa Garrett Anderson quotes Davies as saying to her mother, to Elizabeth and to Fawcett, "It is quite clear what has to be done. I must devote myself to securing higher education, while you open the medical profession to women. After these things are done, we must see about getting the vote." She then turned to Millicent: "You are younger than we are, Millie, so you must attend to that."

Aged twelve in 1858, Millicent Fawcett was sent to London with her sister Elizabeth to attend a private boarding school in Blackheath. Millicent found Louisa Browning who led the school to be a "born teacher" whereas her sister remembered the "stupidity" of the teachers. Her sister Louise took her to the sermons of Frederick Denison Maurice, a socially aware and less traditional Anglican priest, whose opinions influenced her view of religion. In 1865, she attended a lecture by John Stuart Mill. The following year, she and a friend, Emily Davies, supported the Kensington Society by collecting signatures for a petition asking Parliament to enfranchise women householders.

Marriage and family
John Stuart Mill introduced Millicent Fawcett to many other women's rights activists, including Henry Fawcett, a Liberal Member of Parliament who had intended to marry her sister Elizabeth before she decided to focus on her medical career. Millicent and Henry married on 23 April 1867. Henry had been blinded in a shooting accident in 1858 and Millicent acted as his secretary. Their marriage was said to be based on "perfect intellectual sympathy"; Millicent pursued a writing career while caring for Henry, and ran two households, one in Cambridge, one in London. The family had some radical beliefs in support of proportional representation, individualistic and free trade principles, and opportunities for women. Their only child was Philippa Fawcett, born in 1868, who was much encouraged by her mother in her studies. In 1890 Philippa became the first woman to obtain top score in the Cambridge Mathematical Tripos exams.

In 1868 Millicent joined the London Suffrage Committee, and in 1869 spoke at the first public pro-suffrage meeting held in London. In March 1870 she spoke in Brighton, her husband's constituency. As a speaker she was said to have a clear voice. In 1870 she published her short Political Economy for Beginners, which was "wildly successful", running through 10 editions in 41 years. In 1872 she and her husband published Essays and Lectures on Social and Political Subjects, containing eight essays by Millicent. In 1875 she co-founded Newnham Hall and served on its council.

Despite many interests and duties, Millicent, with Agnes Garrett, raised four of their cousins, who had been orphaned early in life: Amy Garrett Badley, Fydell Edmund Garrett, Elsie Garrett (later a prominent botanical artist in South Africa), and Elsie's twin, John.

After Fawcett's husband died on 6 November 1884, she temporarily withdrew from public life, sold both family homes and moved with Philippa to the house of her sister, Agnes Garrett. When she resumed work in 1885, she began to concentrate on politics and was a key member of what became the Women's Local Government Society. Originally a Liberal, she joined the Liberal Unionist Party in 1886 to oppose Irish Home Rule. She, like many English Protestants, felt that allowing home rule for Catholic Ireland would hurt England's prosperity and be disastrous for the Irish. In 1885, she had also voiced her support for W. T. Stead over his term of imprisonment.

In 1891 Fawcett wrote the introduction to a new edition of Mary Wollstonecraft's book A Vindication of the Rights of Woman. Lyndall Gordon calls this an "influential essay"; Fawcett reasserted the reputation of the early feminist philosopher and claimed her as an early figure in the struggle for the vote.

Fawcett was granted an honorary doctorate of law by the University of St Andrews in 1899.

Political activities
Fawcett began her political career at the age of 22, at the first women's suffrage meeting. After the death of Lydia Becker, Fawcett became leader of the National Union of Women's Suffrage Societies (NUWSS), Britain's main suffragist organisation. Politically she took a moderate position, distancing herself from the militancy and direct actions of the Women's Social and Political Union (WSPU), which she believed would harm women's chances of winning the vote by souring public opinion and alienating members of Parliament. Despite the publicity for the WSPU, the NUWSS with its slogan "Law-Abiding suffragists" retained more support. By 1905, Fawcett's NUWSS had 305 constituent societies and almost 50,000 members, compared with the WSPU's 2,000 members in 1913. Fawcett mainly fought for women's suffrage, and found home rule "a blow to the greatness and prosperity of England as well as disaster and... misery and pain and shame".

She explains her disaffiliation from the more militant movement in her book What I Remember: "I could not support a revolutionary movement, especially as it was ruled autocratically, at first, by a small group of four persons, and latterly by one person only.... In 1908, this despotism decreed that the policy of suffering violence, but using none, was to be abandoned. After that, I had no doubt whatever that what was right for me and the NUWSS was to keep strictly to our principle of supporting our movement only by argument, based on common sense and experience and not by personal violence or lawbreaking of any kind."

The South African War gave a chance to Fawcett to share female responsibilities in British culture. She was nominated to lead a commission of women sent to South Africa, sailing there in July 1901 with other women "to investigate Emily Hobhouse's indictment of atrocious conditions in concentration camps where the families of the Boer soldiers were interned." No British women had been entrusted before with such a task in wartime. Millicent fought for the civil rights of the Uitlanders "as the cause of revival of interest in women's suffrage".

Fawcett had backed countless campaigns over many years, for instance to curb child abuse by raising the age of consent, criminalise incest and cruelty to children within the family, end the practice of excluding women from courtrooms when sexual offences were considered, stamp out the "white slave trade", and prevent child marriage and the introduction of regulated prostitution in India. Fawcett campaigned to repeal the Contagious Diseases Acts, as reflecting sexual double standards. They required prostitutes to be examined for sexually transmitted diseases and if found to have passed disease to their clients, to be imprisoned. Women could be arrested on suspicion of being a prostitute and imprisoned for refusing consent to examinations that were invasive and painful. The men who infected the women were not subject to the Acts, which were repealed through campaigning by Fawcett and others. She believed such double standards would never be erased until women were represented in the public sphere.

Fawcett wrote three books, one co-authored with her husband, and many articles, some published posthumously. Her Political Economy for Beginners went into ten editions, sparked two novels, and appeared in many languages. One of her first articles on women's education appeared in Macmillan's Magazine in 1875, the year when her interest in women's education led her to become a founder of Newnham College for Women in Cambridge. There she served on the college council and backed a controversial bid for all women to receive Cambridge degrees. Millicent regularly spoke at girls' schools, women's colleges and adult education centres. In 1904, she resigned from the Unionists over free trade, when Joseph Chamberlain gained control in his campaign for tariff reform.

When the First World War broke out in 1914, the WSPU ceased all activities to focus on the war effort. Fawcett's NUWSS replaced her political activity with support for hospital services in training camps, Scotland, Russia and Serbia, largely because the organisation was markedly less militant than the WSPU: it contained many more pacifists and support for the war within it was weaker. The WSPU was called jingoistic for its leaders' strong support for the war. While Fawcett was no pacifist, she risked dividing the organisation if she ordered a halt to the campaign and diverted NUWSS funds to the government as the WSPU had. The NUWSS continued to campaign for the vote during the war and used the situation to its advantage by pointing out the contribution women had made to the war effort. She held her post until 1919, a year after the first women had received the vote under the Representation of the People Act 1918. After that, she left the suffrage campaign and devoted time to writing books, including a biography of Josephine Butler.

Later years
In 1919 Fawcett was awarded an honorary doctorate from the University of Birmingham. In the 1925 New Year Honours she was appointed Dame Grand Cross of the Order of the British Empire (GBE).

Millicent Fawcett died in 1929 at her London home in Gower Street, Bloomsbury. She was cremated at the Golders Green Crematorium although the final resting place of her ashes is unknown.

In 1932, a memorial to Fawcett, alongside that of her husband, was unveiled in Westminster Abbey with an inscription: "A wise constant and courageous Englishwoman. She won citizenship for women."

Legacy
Millicent Fawcett Hall was constructed in 1929 in Westminster as a place for women's debates and discussions; presently owned by Westminster School, the hall is used by the drama department as a 150-seat studio theatre. Saint Felix School, near Fawcett's birthplace of Aldeburgh, has named one of its boarding houses after her. A blue plaque for Fawcett was erected in 1954 by London County Council at her home of 45 years in Bloomsbury. The archives of Millicent Fawcett are held at The Women's Library, London School of Economics, which in 2018 renamed one of its campus buildings Fawcett House in honor of her role in the British suffrage movement and her connections to the area.

In February 2018, Fawcett won a BBC Radio 4 poll asking Britons to name the most influential woman of the past 100 years.

The Millicent Fawcett Mile is an annual one-mile running race for women, inaugurated in 2018 at the Müller Anniversary Games in London.

On 11 June 2018, Google celebrated Millicent Fawcett's 171st birthday with a doodle.

Commemoration
In 2018, 100 years after the passing of the Representation of the People Act, for which Fawcett had successfully campaigned and which granted limited franchise, she became the first woman commemorated with a statue in Parliament Square, by the sculptor Gillian Wearing. This followed a campaign led by Caroline Criado Perez, in which over 84,000 online signatures were gathered.

Fawcett's statue holds a banner quoting from a speech she gave in 1920, after Emily Davison's death during the 1913 Epsom Derby: "Courage calls to courage everywhere". At its unveiling Theresa May said, "I would not be standing here today as Prime Minister, no female MPs would have taken their seats in Parliament, none of us would have the rights we now enjoy, were it not for one truly great woman: Dame Millicent Garrett Fawcett."

Notable works

 * 1870: Political Economy for Beginners Full text online
 * 1872: Essays and Lectures on Social and Political Subjects (with Henry Fawcett) Full text online.
 * 1872: ''Electoral Disabilities of Women: a lecture
 * 1874: Tales in Political Economy Full text online
 * 1875: Janet Doncaster, a novel, set in her birthplace of Aldeburgh, Suffolk Full text online
 * 1889: Some Eminent Women of our Times: short biographical sketches Full text online
 * 1895: Life of Her Majesty, Queen Victoria Full text online
 * 1901: Life of the Right Hon. Sir William Molesworth Full text online
 * 1905: Five Famous French Women Full text online
 * 1912: Women's Suffrage : a Short History of a Great Movement ISBN 0-9542632-4-3 Full text online
 * 1920: The Women's Victory and After: Personal reminiscences, 1911–1918 Full text online
 * 1924: What I Remember (Pioneers of the Woman's Movement) ISBN 0-88355-261-2 Full text online
 * 1926: Easter in Palestine, 1921-1922 Text online
 * 1927: Josephine Butler: her work and principles and their meaning for the twentieth century (written with Ethel M. Turner)
 * A selection of her speeches, pamphlets, and newspaper columns is published in "Millicent Garrett Fawcett: Selected Writings". Terras, M. and Crawford, E. (Eds). (2022). UCL Press.

People

 * Mary Wollstonecraft, author of A Vindication of the Rights of Woman in 1792
 * Josephine Butler, early feminist and subject of Millicent Fawcett's biography
 * Lydia Becker, founder of the Women's Suffrage Journal
 * Emmeline Pankhurst, founder of the Women's Social and Political Union
 * Charlotte Despard, co-founder of the Women's Freedom League
 * List of suffragists and suffragettes
 * List of women's rights activists

History

 * Women's suffrage in the United Kingdom
 * History of feminism
 * Timeline of women's suffrage

title: Millicent Fawcett


text:
Talk:Ideal (ring theory)

Untitled
I took this out for now:
 * Alternatively, all of the requirements may be replaced by the following: any finite R -linear combination of elements of I belongs to I

I don't particularly like this, because it hides too many things. For instance, we would have to have the understanding that linear combinations are two-sided linear combinations, whereas in the typical vector space and module setting they are only left-sided combinations (and two-sided linear combinations don't make sense). Furthermore, we would have to spend a paragraph explaining that finite combinations include combinations of zero elements which are defined to be the zero element of the ring that the zero elements were chosen from. In summary, I think this alternative definition looks cuter than it is. AxelBoldt, Sunday, June 9, 2002

It's not meant to be cute; it's meant to show that there is a single broad class of operations — the linear combinations — that ideals are closed under. I know that thinking in these terms makes ideals (and, more generally, modules) clearer to me, but I agree that it's a less elementary point of view. I would be happy to move the comment to the paragraph that mentions the relationship between ideals and submodules. Since linear combinations are inherently central to module theory (that is, linear algebra), this is an appropriate place; additionally, this comes after we've discussed the various flavours of ideals, so that a quick parenthetical "(where the linear combinations are on the left, on the right, or two-sided, accordingly as the ideal)" will take care of that. In any case, I think that it's worth mentioning somewhere, even if way at the bottom; the same thing on the pages Submodule and Vector_subspace (or Module (mathematics) and Linear_algebra/Subspace, which is where those topics are hiding out now). As for the zero linear combination, that can be mentioned on the page Linear_combination (once it exists — I was shocked to see a red link in my !). After all, if anybody is confused about how closure under linear combinations could yield the zero element, then that's what they'd look up, right? — Toby Bartels, Tuesday, June 11, 2002

PS: Hey, no more red link! Needs work, however. — Toby

I'm happy now if you are. The next step is to work on Linear_combination ^_^. — Toby Bartels, Tuesday, June 11, 2002

I think this page should be moved to ideal (algebra). I can't help but suspect it was written back in the days when "mathematical group" rather than "group (mathematics)" was considered an acceptable title. A lot of links will have to be fixed, but not as many as in the case of the group theory article. Michael Hardy 02:56, 28 Aug 2003 (UTC)

It would be better at Ideal (ring theory), since there are other types of ideals in other sorts of algebras, which don't share most of the properties of ring ideals (except a few basic ones!). To be sure, these are more obscure, so Ideal (algebra) can redirect to the ring theory article until some more general article is written. But we should avoid linking to the more general title, even if it seems safe so far. -- Toby Bartels 15:17, 28 Sep 2003 (UTC)

 * I'll gladly move this to Ideal (ring theory), if no one objects. Waltpohl 23:26, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Is the trivial ideal proper?
From the article:
 * We call I a proper ideal if it is a proper subset of R.

When I took algebra, a proper ideal also had to be different from {0}. --Trovatore 04:36, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 'Godhaber and Ehrlich, Algebra (1970) and Clark, Elements of Abstract Algebra (1971), both define proper ideal as an ideal different from {0} and the whole ring. Herstein, Topics in Algebra (1964) and McCoy, Rings and Ideals (1948) don't use the term. (I should point out, for other readers, that Trav is concerned for his joke: Why are fields immoral? Because they have no proper ideals ;-) Paul August ☎ 05:29, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Ideal Operations
The operations of Ideals are briefly mentioned at the buttom of the article. However, for beginners like me, it is not really clear what does sum and product of ideals mean. I feel it will be good to give the exact definition of them. Here is what I think they mean:

Let I and J be ideals of R

$$I+J:=\{a+b | a \in I \mbox{ and } b \in J\}$$

$$IJ:=\{ab | a \in I \mbox{ and } b \in J\}$$

Please verify this definition.

Also, if this def'n is right, is there any relationship between sum and union? The union of 2 ideals is a subset of the sum of those 2 ideals?

Thanks!-67.43.133.24 03:02, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

 * You are right about the sum. For the product, you do all those products, but then have to add them up in all possible combinations, as otherwise you don't get an ideal. That's what the phrase "generated by the products" means. So:

$$IJ:=\{a_1b_1+ \dots + a_nb_n | a_i \in I \mbox{ and } b_i \in J, i=1, 2, \dots, n, n=1, 2, \dots\}$$

 * And you are right that the union is contained in the sum. This because an element a in I can be written as a+0, and an element b in J can be written as 0+b, so they are both in the sum.

 * Feel free to add this to the article. Oleg Alexandrov 03:20, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Thanks for the answer! I already add it to the article.  I love wikipedia! -67.43.133.24 04:43, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Recent reversion
I undid an edit of Zdenes for the following several reasons:

I guess some of that may find its way back in the article, but I would like to ask Zdenes why he/she made these changes to start with. Comments? Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 22:57, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) An edit summary was missing (one should explain why one changes something)
 * 2) One switched from denoting rings from R to M in the middle of article.
 * 3) One introduced the notation o' which was not explained. Using plain 0 was fine enough I think.
 * 4) I did not see the need for using \forall x,y etc, using plain English "for all" was more acceptable.

 * I intended to make that part a bit more accurate. And I thought that denoting the ring R might be too confusing, especially considering the elements 0 and 1 in R. Perhaps it should be emphasized at the beginning that R can be an arbitrary set and is not to be mistaken with the set of real numbers and its elements 0 and 1? Also I think the notation f(1) = 1 and f(a) = 0 is rather problematic. Perhaps it should be emphasized that 0 is the zero element in S and the ones are the identity elements in R, S? and not necessarily the same? But now, having browsed through other wiki articles on similar topic, I can see that using 1 and 0 is the convention here and so my edit was superfluous. Zdenes 11:23, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Ideals as a Generalisation
The article says that ideals are a generalisation of multiples and divisibility. I know it's kind of related but I think it would be useful to also describe them as a generalisation of the concept of zero. That is the idea of multiplicative absorption in a ring has 0 as it's canonical case and it's generalising it to a set of values - which leads then to a factor ring. --PhiTower 18:02, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Minimal ideal?
I'm here trying to get a grasp of the notion of a minimal left ideal, but it seems there is only a definition of maximal ideal and left ideal. I'll definitely ask my advisor again for clarification on why he uses this term, but I can't guarantee that I will understand the answer well enough to update this article to include it. --Qrystal (talk) 01:29, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Definition
Shouldn't the first condition be "for a, b in A, a-b is also in A" rather than "for a, b in A, a+b is also in A"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.180.23.65 (talk) 23:57, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

 * So rings in wikipedia are assumed to be unital, so the second condition implies that −b is in A for all b in A, hence a−b will be in A. To be clearer, I've made the adjustment though and left this as a footnote. Thanks. RobHar (talk) 03:23, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

The first definition talks of an element x in I, but then proceeds to use 'a' for said element. I've never edited a wiki before, so I'm not sure quite how I'm supposed to sign off. Hopefully someone better versed can enact this change. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.215.5.254 (talk) 11:05, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Ideal generated by a set
The interruptions explaining the equivalence between left, right, and two sided ideals make the second paragraph very unpleasant to read. Is there no way to summarise this equivalence at the end of the paragraph, rather than introducing these ungainly parentheses? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.215.5.254 (talk) 11:24, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Notation
 * The notation (S) for the ideal generated by S is not explained, although used. Madyno (talk) 19:20, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

"However, in other rings, the ideals may be distinct from the ring elements"
If ideals are subsets of a ring, how can an ideal be distinct from ring elements since an ideal is by definition always a set of ring elements? Acorrector (talk) 10:08, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

 * The wording was not great. I have reworded it to make more sense.  —Quondum 16:45, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

rng/ring confusion
WP seems to be very (unital-)ring centric, and this article is perhaps a good illustration. As far as I can tell, rng theory was developed before rings received as much attention as they receive today, and the concept of an ideal dates to this time and applied usefully in this concept. I imagine that "ring theory" really means "the theory of rngs", but the terminology has drifted. Yet, the article Ring theory uses the term "ring" (which in WP specifically refers to unital rings) and links to Ring (mathematics) with no mention of rngs.

Ideals specifically apply in the broader rng context and were, it seems, largely developed in that context – for example, Emmy Noether gave axioms for defining an ideal in the context of rngs. They are also more "at home" in that context, since they are subrngs but not necessarily subrings. Should we not do one of:
 * (a) make a clear note that in this article that "ring" refers to "rng" (as no doubt many references intended it), or
 * (b) change the wording so that each use of "ring" is adjusted to "ring" or "rng", according to its meaning in each reference?

—Quondum 17:10, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

 * I'm in agreement that many ring-theory articles have tendency to be "(unital-)ring centric". I myself am guilty of imposing that tendency :) In my view, this tendency is a correct one to have since *nowadays" many textbooks on abstract algebra more or less ignore rngs. (Old texts e.g., Jacobson, "structure of rings", on the other hand, have a more complete discussion of rngs theory). It seems that the consensus today is that you need unity to develop a good-behaving "ring theory". You can say this is unfortunate since there are certainly many good examples of rngs. Since Wikipedia articles need to be reflections of a predominant theory (regardless of that theory is good one or not), I think it is correct to focus on ideals in (unital) rings here. -- Taku (talk) 07:16, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

 * Are you sure? I will not argue that most focus is on unital rings, and that is not a problem.  Rewriting history in WP, on the other hand, is a problem.  Pose the question: Which subdiscipline of mathematics does the study of rngs (irrespective of whether it is neglected) belong to?  I suspect the answer is unambiguously to ring theory.  Ring theory has a history that started with the study of what WP now calls rngs, and this should be reflected in our account of ring theory, but I see no hint of it in the article on the subject.  Given that Noether's axioms for a (German) "Ring" are what we here call rngs (not rings), what were the objects that were termed "Noetherian rings"?  The answer to this in not obvious, and the unwary will assume that they include a 1 by definition (maybe they do by definition, by theorem, by historical redefinition of the term, or maybe they do not necessarily at all), but my point is that I cannot figure out by reading WP what the case is.  Ring theorists use rngs all the time as an essential tool (ideals are an example).  Anyhow, just because most modern authors might focus on unital rings does not give us, as WP editors, carte blanch to re-interpret the history as though they were always proving theorems only for unital rings because they used that name for what we call rngs now.  We need to take care to check their axioms when we relate what they worked on.  —Quondum 14:31, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

 * So everyone here is agreed on the status of identities, we're just asking what's the best way to alert the reader to remain flexible while interpreting this article in the context of all the other articles, right?
 * I'm in favor of a solid note establishing (a) above, with additional inline notes when identity is required. There's no doubt in my mind the status of identities should be neutral in this article, but I don't think wholesale switchover in (b) is worth it. Rschwieb (talk) 15:39, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

 * It's worth a try. I expect we'll have links like ring and ring homomorphism.  —Quondum 20:16, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

 * I think that Wikipedia should reflect the actual usage in mathematical books and journals outside Wikipedia. Outside Wikipedia that there are some that deal with (unital) rings and some with rngs, but to act as if they are occurring with equal frequency is not a neutral point of view at all, because the reality is that most of current ring theory (outside of some American undergraduate textbooks) is concerned with the unital case.  Of course we don't want to rewrite history; I don't think anyone is advocating that.

 * As for the Wikipedia article Ring theory, almost all the specific topics and theorems listed there are about unital rings - you can see for yourself. So I don't think it makes sense to say at the top of that page that "ring" means "rng" (anyway, that would go against the Manual of Style).  I think it is best to simply to say that "Ring theory" sometimes includes the study of rngs, which I think accurately describes how the term is used in the outside literature; I added a note on the Ring theory article saying this.  With this point of view, it is correct to say that Noether developed "ring theory".  One could say instead that Noether developed "rng theory", but I don't think people write this way outside of Wikipedia, so I don't think we should start doing so. Ebony Jackson (talk) 21:52, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

 * You seem to think I'm advocating for something stronger than I am. For example, on the Ring theory page, I would consider it inappropriate, as you do, to change the terminology (or the adopted meaning of the term).  No-one has suggested doing so other than on this page (Ideal (ring theory)).  I might suggest that the word "sometimes" in your note is overdone, though.
 * I chose this page as a moderately clear example of where there is no loss of clarity of any statement to frame the statements in terms of rngs because every ring is a rng, but where real encyclopaedic knowledge is being unnecessarily omitted if stated only in terms of rings, and relevant history of the concept includes rngs, whatever we choose to call them. —Quondum 22:46, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Quondum, you are right; I had misunderstood which page(s) you were talking about. Anyway, I think that even in this article Ideal (ring theory) it is tricky to figure out how best to handle things.  For example, the definition of principal ideal might at first seem to work in a rng, but is the principal ideal (r) the smallest ideal containing r, or is it rR?  These can be different in a rng.  Maybe principal ideals are not seriously used in rngs that are not rings?  Because of things like this, I would worry about your option (a).  On the other hand, option (b) would probably be too unwieldy.  Probably figuring out how to handle things will require some research involving reading some advanced books that use "ring" to mean "rng", to see what they do. Ebony Jackson (talk) 23:50, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

 * The relevant fact here is that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. If we are writing a textbook, then we get to choose a convention and we might (or might not) like the unity convention for various reasons. But the point Quondum is trying to make is (I think): shouldn't the encyclopedia cover both what is studied and what was studied in the fashion that is today and was in the past? Correct? If so, no, I don't think that's how the encyclopedia articles should be written. Calculus today is the same calculus Newton (and Lebniz) have developed but certainly differs from theirs in the form (e.g., they didn't have the good notion of functions). Wikipedia articles need to be written in the form that many of our target readers expect. The readers educated today would likely expect a ring to have the unity and that's the convention that is needed adopted. We can write the article to cover the rng case simultaneously but that would simply be confusing to readers who are not interested in the rng case. -- Taku (talk) 01:04, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

 * Ebony brings up a serious obstacle to my suggestion: any generalization from the existing statement would have to be researched, which applies to both (a) and (b). It seems clear that this is a far greater undertaking than I had anticipated, and that my assumption of the generality of the concept may not have survived the modern developments, even in principle.
 * Taku, close, but not exactly. It would be fine to limit the article to ideals of unital rings.  This could be as "an ideal of a ring is ..." instead of "an ideal is ...", for example.  I contend that "ring theory" itself does not adequately clarify this.  I guess I was reacting to the statement that Emmy Noether contributed significantly the idea (as defined in the article), yet her original definition of an ideal was evidently in the context of rngs (but not stated so here).  This gives the impression that the history section might have been written without an understanding that "ring" might have meant "nonunital ring" at the time.  If the history section gave a sense of the transition, the reader would not be left wondering about this.  —Quondum 01:54, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Undo the 28 May 2022 Redo of the Introduction/Lead Section
I am reverting to the previous version because: Obtuse Wombat (talk) 16:39, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) The new version implies the properties of an Ideal under addition are the same as the properties under multiplication, stating that an Ideal is "stable" under both.  This implication is wrong.  Although both addition and multiplication have the closure property when both operands are elements of the Ideal, only multiplication absorbs an operand from outside the Ideal when the other operand is from the Ideal.
 * 2) The term "stable", used in the redo, is vague.  What does it actually mean?  The Stability article does not seem to have any meaning that applies here.
 * 3) The last sentence of the first paragraph appears to contradict the first sentence of the next paragraph.  In the first paragraph it is the multiples of a given integer (presumably even negative integers) that form an ideal, while in the second paragraph it is the non-negative integers.
 * 4) For someone just starting to learn about Ideals, the previous version is much better than the redo.  The previous versions gives the reader a very good idea of what an Ideal is (even if the reader knows nothing of abstract algebra).  The redo version only gives them an example (i.e. all the multiples of a given integer), but doesn't tell them what the essential characteristics are.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:Ideal (ring theory)


text:
Talk:List of Danish monarchs

English names of monarchs missing
I'm still missing some of the english names for the danish monarchs.

I hope someone can help out.

Christian, Sunday, June 9, 2002

I added entry for Frederick II - because he is the father of Anne of Denmark and father in law of James I of England

Richhill, Saturday, June 15, 2002

Your page are do not like my page http://da.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagnkonger

Adam of Bremen was a serious chronicler. I wonder whether the dubiousness of the kings preceeding Gorm the Old has anything to do with their being Swedes.--Wiglaf 08:20, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There was no ethnic or linguistically between danes and swedes at the time. The line is started at Gorm the Old because it from there is complete and all kings decendents Answer: Harald Blue tooth is the first danish king, Gorm the Old is likely only to be king of Jutland. The division of Denmark (Rule olso apply to Sweden and Norway) into smaller kingdoms, is a repaeting event in danish history

The coat of arms is wrong!

Harthacanute/Canute the Hardy/Hardeknud
Harthacanute is the name usually used in English for King Canute's son, the name Canute the Hardy being less well-known; but that refers to his reign in England, not in Denmark; the article Harthacanute says: He succeeded his father as King of Denmark in 1035, reigning as Canute III. The use of both Canute and Cnut on this list is inconsistent (since the spelling Knud is consistent in Danish, why do we have the first king called Harthacnut, with the spelling cnut, and the next two called Canute? I suggest the father of Gorm be called Harthacanute (despite the use of Harthacnut for his Wikipedia article title) to match the spelling of the later kings in English, and that Canute the Hardy be called Canute III on the list, since there's no logic in translating him as the Hardy when the previous king of the same name was not so translated (we need here an English translation of what the Danes call him as a Danish king rather than a copy of what the English call him as an English king). This would leave everything consistent, the only remaining anomaly being the article titled Harthacnut, a change to which might be addressed as a separate matter. qp10qp 18:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

 * A bit late perhaps: There is a general and spesific debate on how to name monarchs here. I believe the monarch articles should in the overwhelming majority of cases follow the common convention. As to the spesific problem I suggest making your changes and see what happens. They seem logical and if it makes the list more consistant it's probably good :) Inge 18:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Names used in the Great Danish Encyclopedia
These names are used by the Great Danish Encyclopedia (Store Danske Encyklopædi):
 * Knud 1. Hardegon, Hardeknud Svendsen (d. 934.) In the text, he is referred to as "Hardegon".
 * Knud 2. den Store (ca. 995-1035) (=Canute the Great)
 * Knud 3. Hardeknud (1020-42). In the text, he is referred to as "Hardeknud".
 * Knud 4. den Hellige (d. 10 July 1086) (literally: Canute the Holy)
 * Knud 5. Magnussen (d. 1157). In the text, he is referred to as "Knud"
 * Knud 6. Valdemarsen (1163-1202). In the text; referred to as "Knud".

I don't think the "full names" are used normally. Canute the Great and Canute the Saint are referred to by these names. Not sure about Canute III but I guess "Hardeknud" would be the name normally used for him. He died very young and never left any lasting impact. I don't know much about the disputed origins of Canute I, but I noticed that the Great Danish Encyclopedia refers to him as "Hardegon". Regards. Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 10:57, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

 * Someone has moved the page Harthacnut of Denmark to Hardecnudth of Denmark, on the grounds that that is his oldest name. I think this is getting silly now. It's not so much a question of what these kings' earliest names were as about how they are best spelled in English (or else we would have to call William I Guillaume I. And there has to be consistency between kings' article pages and the list here, surely — not to mention consistency between spellings of different kings with the same names. The convention on Wikipedia is that names should be the ones most commonly used in English; the trouble with this early Hardecanute/Hardecnut/Hardecnudth/Hardeknud/Harthacnut/Harthacanute/Hardegon chap is that he isn't much known in England and so hasn't achieved a regular name. But I think his name should somewhere include the spelling "canute", as that is the most comment English way to spell that name, the second most common being "cnut". As for Hardecnudth. I note that this list gives knud as the spelling of the last part as the Danish version; the extra th, for me as an Englishman, adds nothing but consonant pile up.qp10qp 18:01, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

"Houses"
We have had patri- and matrilineality in the Danish royal house since the Viking Age, so it is one big family or "house" from Hardeknud/Gorm onwards till the present day. Danish historians will sometimes use the terms "House of Oldenburg" and "House of Glücksburg", but never start a new house with Svend Estridsen. --dllu 14:05, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * True. I've been puzzled by that as well. It seems this page is mainly edited by non-danes, and apparently with some kind of swedish bias. Carewolf 11:08, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed. The same goes for the article on "legendary" kings, where the author seems to insist that Denmark was ruled by a "Swedish dynasty" in the early 10th century, when in fact we know next to nothing about these people. Most likely, they only held power in a small part of the country. And as a Danish historian I can say that most historians do not start with Gorm; the general consensus today is that several of the kings in the 9th century were just as historical as Gorm - maybe even more.
 * And just to clarify my comment above: women couldn't officially become Queen (Regnant) before 1953. Margrethe I only managed to do so via a series of fortunate events and some skillful political manuevering. However, the throne could be inherited through a female line, which is exactly what Svend did. He inherited the throne from his grandfather through his mother. Heck, he even took her name as a matronym to acknowledge it!
 * This is also the reason why all the monarchs since Hardeknud/Gorm really belong to one big dynasty, although the Oldenburg and Glücksburg houses have been established in tradition (and the "break" was much bigger at those occations), so they should stay. The "House of Svend" shouldn't. Instead, some of the pre-Gorm kings should be added to this page, which I might do soon unless someone has a valid objection. --dllu 11:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't like the first "houses" either but Oldenburg and Glücksburg are ok due to convention and because the royals use these terms themselves. Does anybody know if the other "houses" is due to an English tradition? I guess the average Dane would normally consider the Queen to be a Glücksburger - if anything at all - but it looks like English practice is to group the Glücksburgers under the Oldenburg heading. My knowledge about the medieval situation is too sketchy to tell if the English tradition also differs in this respect. Valentinian T / C 12:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Glücksburg is usually grouped as a "cadet branch" (so I learned I new English term today :oP) of Oldenburg in the Danish tradition too - because it is one, plain and simple. Chr. IX was a descendant of John the Younger, Duke of SH-Sonderburg, who in turn was the second son of Chr. III.
 * Similarly, Oldenburg is a cadet branch of the "House of Gorm" or whatever you want to call it (A term often used in Danish is the "Jelling Dynasty", but I'm not particularly fond of that). Chr. I was a great x4-grandson of Erik Klipping.
 * See the official site kongehuset.dk for the visual presentation. --dllu 15:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * What I meant is simply that I found it a bit odd that Wikipedia refers to Prince Philip as an Oldenburger rather than a Glücksburger, that is all. You are quite right that the Glücksburgers are a cadet branch of the House of Oldenburg. Back to the original mess, I agree that "House of Gorm" and "Jelling Dynasty" are both inadequate. Another option would be cheating; simply using the terms "Viking Age monarchs" and "Medieval monarchs". Valentinian T / C 15:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * House of Harald Blåtand? Anyway the politics of wikipedia is not to do independent research so we should use whatever is most common among experts. If that is "Jelling Dynasty" we should use it, and then include criticism if necessary. Carewolf 10:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It seems the user Wiglaf that was adding all the swedish nonsense to the monarch list has quit the wikipedia project, so it should be safe to revert it without edit wars Carewolf 10:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Please, no Danish nonsense provided by Carewolf and Haabet. Carewolf's support of the OR provided Haabet (who is banned from Danish WP) is a disgrace.--Holger the Dane 11:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * In fact, the Royal House has three sections on their own web site: "Gorm den Gamle", "Oldenborg", and "Glücksborg", so maybe "House of Gorm" would be the most "correct" name? I still think it sounds a bit funny, though.
 * As for the Viking Age/Medieval idea, it is debatable when the VA ended. You could say Svend was both the last Viking an first Medieval king. I still vote for one long list from Gorm to Christopher III. (But the years for the first Hardeknud are pure conjecture, and the reference was deleted, so we don't even know where the author got 917). Also, I think the kings before Hardeknud/Gorm should be listed here too. They are no less "legendary" than Gorm or any other Viking king, just because they are only mentioned in foreign sources - in fact, that probably just makes them more "real".
 * I'll wait a bit, but if there are no objections, from Swedes or anybody else ;o), I will close the gap before Svend E., correct the years, and add the 9th century kings that are considered historical by any serious historian. --dllu 11:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I have no objections to one long list covering everyone before Christian I. "Early Danish monarchs"? "Viking Age / early Medieval period"? Sounds great if you could add more information about those monarchs that are backed up by something else than Saxo. Valentinian T / C 11:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Holger, what are you talking about? I reinstated one correction from Haabet, where half of it turned out to be wrong. Sorry Carewolf 12:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You appear to be critical of foreign editors whereas you uncritically have accepted a crazy addition by Haabet. Please, be mature enough to look beyond nationality in the future, if you want to be taken seriously by other editors. Among the Scandinavian countries only Denmark appears to provide editors such as user:Haabet, user:Comanche cph and user:Arigato1, which is highly disturbing.--Holger the Dane 13:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Timeout! Stick to commenting on the subject at hand not the contributors. Regarding the material, stick to well-sourced material, e.g. the Great Danish Encyclopedia / recent scholarship by well-respected historians etc. Valentinian T / C 13:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I have merged the houses and added some of the earlier kings. A couple of them don't have individual entries yet, but I will do that soon, if nobody beats me to it. :o)

I wont lower myself to the level of namecalling, but there sure is a lot of cleaning up to do in this subject, especially in the separate articles on various Viking kings... --dllu 17:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that looks really good. However, we really need some references or explainations to the pre-Gorm entries. Where did you get them? Carewolf 09:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

After have looked at Holger the Dane contributions, it seems like his only reason to be here is to accuse editors for vandalism and removing context describing Danes or legendary Danish kings. I have reverted some of his edits. Huskarl 09:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

 * As early as his 7th and 8th edits ever, Huskarl not only reinserts original reseach by the blocked user:Arigato1 (aka user:Comanche cph), he also makes the same language error ("removing of" instead of "removal of").--Holger the Dane 15:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

 * PS, since I don't want to accuse anyone unfairly of being Comanche cph/Arigato1's sockpuppet, I have added a checkuser request on Requests for checkuser/Case/Arigato1.--Holger the Dane 15:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Language error? Mate i think you should relax a little before acusing others for sockpuppet, as you do here. That is not a nice way to act. Just keep to the subject as user:Valentinian have pointed out for you. I simple reinserted what you have removed about the relationship with widukind and sigurd ring, witch in german texts is known as "Siegfred". And your >removal< of Harald Wartooth is Sigurd Rings oncle, -witch really shows that you just remove what you feel like without knowing anything about it. All sites i have read about, says the same.

For me it seems like you only are here for destroy all the text that decripe them as Danes, witch those persons clearly were. I was wondering why you on your user page have two big photos of the Danish flag and the legendary Danish hero "Holger the Dane" witch also is your name user name..... Do you try to camuflage something? --Huskarl 18:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Let's stick to the subject. You claim that a Danish king named Sigfried was identical to Sigurd Ring which sounds highly speculative and that Sigurd Ring was buried in Lejre and not in for instance Skiringssal in modern Norway, where he died. The addition of such assertions needs to be backed up with references. It is as simple as that.--Holger the Dane 19:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

 * I have removed the Lejre part. But you have still not answered why you have removed part that he was nephew of Harald Wartooth (Harald Hildetand) and that he was Danish. --Huskarl 21:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The lead should only contain information that is not contradicted by the article itself. I hope you agree on that. Some sources say that Sigurd Ring's father was born in Russia, while the Danish Gesta Danorum says that his father was the king of Sweden. This makes it peculiar to call him a "Danish king of Denmark" in the intro. Moreover it is equally unreasonable to call him the "paternal nephew" of Harald Hildetand (which he was in some sources) when Gesta Danorum says that Sigurd was Harald's maternal nephew.--Holger the Dane 12:22, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Exactly what does danish mean at that timeperiod? Also claiming nationality of kings makes little sense, since they intermarry more with foreigners than locals. A king of Denmark is a Danish king, even if most of them came from Germany. A king of Sweden is a Swedish king even if he came from Denmark. Carewolf 06:04, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree.--Holger the Dane 12:22, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

@Carewolf: The names and years in the list of the pre-Gorm kings are off the top of my head. However, I have worked quite a bit with this specific period, and I assure you they are valid. I'm not at home and don't have access to all my own books at the moment, but as soon as I do, I will of course add references and articles on the red-links. --dllu 16:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Haabet and Huskarl's recent edits
I wonder if anyone would like to have a look at user:Haabet's recent edits of Guthfrith.--Holger the Dane 12:36, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

 * It looks like a very incomplete disambiguation page which we should have; there are lots of Viking Age Guthfriths/Gofraids to disambiguate if nothing else. I'm more concerned by the edits to the last part of Kings of the East Angles. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:49, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

 * I am more concerned by this information:
 * Guthfrithus was the name of the father of Siegfried in the German Nibelungenlied, and Guthfrithus correspond to Gudroed (father of Sigurd Fafnersbane) in the corresponding Nordic legend.
 * Is this correct? As far as I know, Sigfried's father was called Siegemund in the Nibelungenlied, and Sigmund was Sigurd's father in the corresponding Nordic legends.--Holger the Dane 13:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

 * You're right. There's no Guthfrith in the Völsunga saga or the N. Lied. --dllu 17:01, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

 * Apparently, User:Huskarl has reverted back to Haabet's version and is accusing me of being a Swedish nationalist movement in another edit.--Holger the Dane 11:26, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Danish contributor indefinitely blocked
Danish User:Arigato1, aka User:Huskarl, aka Comanche cph, etc., has been indefinitely blocked together with a slew of his sockpuppets (see Requests for checkuser/Case/Arigato1). If you find another unreceptive and stubborn user sprinkling "Danish" all over articles on Scandinavian kings, it may be another incarnation of this Danish editor. If you suspect that he has returned, please report him to an admin.--Holger the Dane 21:38, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

We need a new dummy image
If anybody has an idea for a new dummy image for the missing portraits it would be very welcome. The problem is that the coat of arms of Denmark can only be traced to the reign of Canute VI. Weak indicators point towards his father Valdemar I, but the use of this symbol before these two kings is a complete anachronism. Valentinian T / C 21:54, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Kings/Queens
I would like to suggest that the queens be added to the list besides their kings, or that they at least should have their own list. I would be more than happy to do so! Niels H.L.N.

 * Sounds like a good idea, but I think a distinct list might be the best option. Have you seen List of Norwegian queens? And btw, such a list might better be named "List of Danish royal consorts" (or something along those lines) in order to include Prince Henrik. Valentinian T / C 00:01, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Danish king frederik 9 and kjartan mohr, faroe islands.jpg
Thank you for uploading Image:Danish king frederik 9 and kjartan mohr, faroe islands.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Kife 14:41, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:CanuteGreat.JPG
The image Image:CanuteGreat.JPG is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

 * File:CanuteGreat.JPG

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --04:50, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Duke of Holstein
From 1815 to 1864 the Kings of Denmark were also Duke of Holstein, as member of the German Confederation. I totally miss that in the article about the Kings of Denmark. Why is this fact neglected? Demophon (talk) 18:25, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * This is complicated Gnupa/Knud pay tribute to the German emperor 934 and was a part of the empire. And Frederick IX (d. January 14, 1972) was duchies of Schleswig and Holstein despite as all titles was repealed in German.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Haabet (talk • contribs)
 * Ah, no. These data were missing, because the article was only half-written. No Danish monarch held a distinct Holsteinish title before the election of Christian I of Denmark as count of Holstein in 1460. Several earlier monarchs physically ruled Holstein, but they didn't use a separate title for the area. The Holsteinish title was used from 1460 and henceforth by all future monarchs until the death of Frederick IX in 1972. Since the German titles has lost all practical content following the German-Danish war in 1864, Queen Margrethe II decided to abolish them completely when she ascended the throne in 1972. This decision also solved the legal intricacies about whether these titles were inherited according to Danish law (i.e. that females can inherit them) or by the German Salic practice. Before the 1851 Treaty of London, the titles to Holstein, Stormarn, Ditmarschen, Lauenburg and the title in pretence to Oldenburg were considered to be inherited under Salic law, and that of course also applied to the previously abolished title to Delmenhorst. Frederick IV specified in 1721 that the ducal title to Schleswig should be inherited under Danish law, but this status was rejected by Schleswig-Holsteinish nationalists during the 1848-51 war. Since the Duchy of Lauenburg only entered the orbit of the Danish monarch by 1815, the 1846 "Open Letter" of King Christian VIII specified that Lauenburg and Schleswig both followed the same line of succession as Denmark proper. In the same proclamation King Christian VIII admitted that the succession law of Holstein was a matter of dispute but he ruled that Danish succession practice should apply there as well. It should be noted that of the king's many titles, only the titles relating to Denmark, Schleswig, Holstein and Lauenburg held actual content. Following the 1848-1851 Dano-German war, the 1851 treaty of London tried to sort things out by expressly specifying that henceforth, all lands under the Danish monarch should be inherited under the same law as the one applying for the royal title to Denmark, but again, the entire issue was permanently settled in 1972 when the minor titles were simply abolished. Queen Margrethe's decision was also reflected in the 1972 change to the royal coat of arms, which removed the symbols for the Wends, Goths, Holstein, Stormarn, Dithmarschen, Lauenburg and Delmenhorst. The symbols for Oldenburg and Schleswig were maintained though, but without the titles traditionally accompanying them. The Oldenburg symbol is today interpreted as the family's original coat of arms, and hence retained for sentimental reasons. The Schleswig arms is retained "because of special concerns for this region whose history differs in great respects from the history of the rest of the country" which is a more diplomatic way of saying "because the people of this region still has traumatic recollections of the 1864-1920 Prussian rule and because Germany refused to recognize the 1920 border until after Germany's defeat in World War II." 83.89.16.138 (talk) 22:50, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Marriages at Copenhagen

 * 1) Can anybody find where most of earlier kings and queens of Denmark were married before the construction Christiansborg Palace?
 * 2) Were they married at Copenhagen Castle or Copenhagen Cathedral?
 * 3) Where in Copenhagen was Margaret I of Denmark married?
 * I got Church of Our Lady (Copenhagen) from Danish Wikipdeida, but again I'm not too sure.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 07:09, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Where in Copenhagen was Anne Sophie Reventlow married the second time?

I've been guessing Copenhagen Castle for all the queens but I'm not too sure about this; it could have occurred at Copenhagen Cathedral.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 05:36, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Any is married at Copenhagen Castle. Margrethe II of Denmark is married at the Naval Church of Copenhagen. I think as Margaret I of Denmark was married in the Nidaros Cathedral.Haabet 21:13, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Style
style of the danish monarch redirects here, yet it isn't mentioned here. 98.206.155.53 (talk) 18:41, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Eric Christoffersen of Denmark
Should Eric Christoffersen of Denmark be considered a King of Denmark? This source said he was elected in 1321 and crowned king in 1324, so should we include him just like Valdemar the Young? --The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 01:23, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The text you refer to mentions him on a list of Danish princes, and mentions that he was "crowned as king ('crown prince')". In Denmark, the junior co-regents are not included in the standard lists of Danish monarchs. Such a co-regent might be crowned while his father still lived, to avoid inheritance disputes following the (senior) king's death. In other words: no need to crown the next king, since he had already been crowned; Denmark was an elective monarchy until the 1660s (Lex Regia), and during the early Middle Ages, it was not certain that a king would always be succeeded on the throne by his son, though this was normally the case. It seems a fair analogy to compare the junior king with a modern crown prince.
 * To examine them one at a time:
 * 1) Valdemar the Young is somewhat notable, but he never accomplished anything and power lay in the hands of his father, Valdemar the Victorious.
 * 2) Christoffer's son is completely insignificant; a junior "king" (crown prince) under a powerless puppet king; his father was stripped of his entire country, ended up "ruling" a single house in Sakskøbing, eventually being thrown in jail by his creditors who'd taken over the country.
 * 3) "Valdemar III" (1325-1329) was an underage boy installed as a puppet king by foreign creditors that ruled in his name. Not to put too fine a point on it, it is hard to decide whether Christoffer or "Valdemar III" was the most worthless and powerless "king" in Danish history, but my personal hunch would be to award this title to Christoffer while not considering "Valdemar III" a legitimate monarch at all. This line of reasoning might also explain the exclusion of "Valdemar III" (1325-1329) from the list of monarchs on the website of the Danish monarchy. While highly dubious, (he was underage, under the complete control of Denmark's main creditor, Gerhard III of Holstein), "Valdemar III" (1325-1329) is somewhat more likely to be included in the list of monarchs, since Valdemar Atterdag is also referred to Valdemar IV, so his inclusion makes the numbers fit. While Valdemar III himself is dubious and insignificant, he is somewhat notable due to the "Constitutio Valdemariana", which was issued in his name by Gerhard III of Holstein, who was also this "law's" main beneficary.
 * The most dubious of the three is Christoffer's son, Erik. For what it's worth, I'm not an expert on particular era, but I am a native Dane, hold a cand.mag. in history, and have read quite my fair share of books on Danish history during the last 30 years, but Christoffer's son doesn't ring a bell at all. He is even more obscure than the "Scanian Oluf" which is never included either.
 * While not standard practice, I seem to recall occationally having seen Valdemar the Young referred to as "Valdemar III", and he is referred to by that title on his tomb in Sorø Ringsted, but I don't recall whether this inscription is original. Numbering Valdemar the Young as "Valdemar III" might also explain why Valdemar Atterdag is referred to as Valdemar IV, again excluding the underage puppet "Valdemar III" (1325-1329) installed by the Holstein creditors.
 * The similar list on the Danish wikipedia seems rather traditional since it excludes both Valdemar the Young or Christoffer's son, but does include "Valdemar III" (1325-1329). The list on the website of the Danish monarchy excludes both Valdemar the Young, Christoffer's son, and "Valdemar III" while its text briefly mentions Valdemar the Young as Valdemar II's chosen successor and "Valdemar III" as a puppet installed by foreign powers. Christoffer's son isn't mentioned at all. In my opinion, both the exclusion and inclusion of "Valdemar III" (1325-1329) in the main list might work, but Christoffer's son and Valdemar the Young should be excluded from the main list, but can be referred to in accompanying text. Valentinian T / C 14:27, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of Danish monarchs. 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/20101125000024/http://kongehuset.dk/publish.php?dogtag=k_en_his_chrx to http://kongehuset.dk/publish.php?dogtag=k_en_his_chrx

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:08, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Gorm's reign
What is the historical basis for assigning a year to the beginning of Gorm's reign. I am unaware of any evidence that allows this to be determined. Agricolae (talk) 19:13, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * According to Adam of Bremen he reigned in 936, and his son Harald Bluetooth was alive and old/grown enough to have his own opinions on various matters. What we don't know is when Gorm began his reign. Before the dendrochronological dating of the burial chamber that many (but not all) scholars belive to be the chamber of Gorm the Old, his reign was often listed as c. 930 - c. 943 in Danish textbooks - but these years was no more than 'qualified' assumptions. Oleryhlolsson (talk) 09:09, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, according to the same Adam, Hardegon (usually interpreted as Harthacnut) succeeded Sigtrygg, son of Gnupa, during the tenure of Archbishop Hoger (909-915/7), and he then reigned for about 30 years. Were Gorm to succeed him, then a 936 date is reasonable. However, this conflicts with Widukind, who shows Gnupa leading the Danes in 934, and there just isn't time to fit in Sigtrygg and a long reign for Hardegon within two years.  Adam's chronology is thus problematic, particularly if we assume that Gorm was ruling 'Denmark', as opposed to 'in part of Denmark' at the time he rebuffed Archbishop Unni.  The alternative is to go with the version represented by Olaf Tryggvassons saga, and have Gorm defeating Gnupa, which one can then place in the 934-936 range, but one can't do this without impeaching Adam as a source for the whole Hardegon scenario, and one has to be careful in concluding he is entirely out to lunch for one part of his narrative, yet entirely accurate for the other. I can live with ca. 936, though I would prefer a stronger indication of the uncertainty (for example "ca. 936?" or something similar).Agricolae (talk) 21:15, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note that before Gorm, and probably also including most of the reign of Gorm, Denmark probably wasn't unified. There was likely multiple "king of the Danes". Besides, we can't really trust most of the sources from that time which is why kings predating the beginning of history in Denmark (the raising of the Jelling stones and what is documented on them) are considered pre-historic and legendary. Carewolf (talk) 09:31, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

 * I for one don't agree with the scholars that identifies/interpret Harthacnut as Hardegon so I think we should be carefull about this assumption. This line of thinking was more or less blown apart (deconstructed if I should use a 'finer' word) by Lis Jacobsen in 1929. I know, that some historians in the 1980s have tried to rehabiltate the notion, that Hardegon and Harthacnut is one and the same person, but I must admit, that to this day I haven't read a convincing disprove of Lis Jacobsen's line of arguments. I therefore tend to se Hardegon more like a commander or chief of the army than an actual king. About Gorms reign I would think it probably would best cover and easily explain the uncertanties about his reign if we wrote something like ? - 936 - c. 958 or ? - 936 [first mentioned] - c. 958 Oleryhlolsson (talk) 11:42, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

 * Of course, there is the other hypothesis - that Hardecnudth Vurm appearing in some editions of Adam without the 'filius' is the original, and means that Gorm and Harthacnut were the same person: . I don't think this is very common, but I have seen it before. Agricolae (talk) 17:47, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

 * Of course, I have read this interpretation too - it's hardly convincing, and Lis Jacobsen, for one, also renounced / rejected this posibility categorically. Oleryhlolsson (talk) 19:26, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on List of Danish monarchs. 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/20140903121824/http://timerime.com/en/event/1075827/Kong+Chochillaicus/ to http://timerime.com/en/event/1075827/Kong+Chochillaicus/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101125000138/http://kongehuset.dk/publish.php?dogtag=k_en_his_chrix to http://kongehuset.dk/publish.php?dogtag=k_en_his_chrix
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101124235849/http://kongehuset.dk/publish.php?dogtag=k_en_his_freviii to http://kongehuset.dk/publish.php?dogtag=k_en_his_freviii
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101124235834/http://kongehuset.dk/publish.php?dogtag=k_en_his_freix to http://kongehuset.dk/publish.php?dogtag=k_en_his_freix
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100625042848/http://kongehuset.dk/publish.php?dogtag=k_en_fam_oue to http://kongehuset.dk/publish.php?dogtag=k_en_fam_oue

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:08, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:07, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Frederik IX of Denmark painted 1953 (a study of the king for a larger group portrait).jpg
 * Painting of Harald II of Denmark (ca. 1880).jpg

Inconsistent date listing
I read "House of Pomerania (1396–1439)" and below it "1412 – 1439". I am well aware of who was wielding the power until 1412 (Margaret I) but, still, the dates should be consistent and use 1396.

ICE77 (talk) 22:43, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Length of Margrethe II & Frederik X's reigns
Why are Margrethe II & Frederik X's reigns marked as one day longer, then they actually are? GoodDay (talk) 16:59, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Frederik X: house?branch?
We know for a genealogical fact that Frederik X belongs to the House of Monpezat. What's to say he considers himself a member of the House of Oldenburg, Glücksburg branch? Is that a fact at all? Do we have any reliable source to substantiate such a thing? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:09, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * We do have this page from their official website which celebrates 150 years of Glücksburg monarchs occupying the Danish throne. Unless an official announcement is made that says the ruling house is the House of Monpezat, I think it is safe to assume that there has been no change in the name of the ruling royal house (similar to House of Windsor). Keivan.f  Talk 02:28, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * "In connection with the sucession of the throne, factual information will be updated continuously on kongehuset.dk."
 * I guess we are in for a ride with what this primary source(?) might update their page with. When that disclaimer disappears for example and Fredrick X isn't listed there will we take it as a non inclusion or if he is listed there what will we update House of Glücksburg with? This will be fun! 2A02:1406:1:23F7:39FA:4650:1DC0:291B (talk) 17:17, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, I assume we just have to wait for an announcement of some sort, which secondary sources will most likely report on. In the absence of such announcement, the "status quo" should be maintained. Keivan.f  Talk 20:01, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: Refer to Talk:Frederik X for further comments and debate on the issue. Keivan.f  Talk 20:04, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:List of Danish monarchs


text:
Spoils system

In politics and government, a spoils system (also known as a patronage system) is a practice in which a political party, after winning an election, gives government jobs to its supporters, friends (cronyism), and relatives (nepotism) as a reward for working toward victory, and as an incentive to keep working for the party—as opposed to a merit system, where offices are awarded or promoted on the basis of some measure of merit, independent of political activity.

The term was used particularly in politics of the United States, where the federal government operated on a spoils system until the Pendleton Act was passed in 1883 due to a civil service reform movement. Thereafter the spoils system was largely replaced by nonpartisan merit at the federal level of the United States.

The term was derived from the phrase "to the victor belong the spoils" by New York Senator William L. Marcy, referring to the victory of Andrew Jackson in the election of 1828, with the term spoils meaning goods or benefits taken from the loser in a competition, election or military victory.

Similar spoils systems are common in other nations that traditionally have been based on tribal organization or other kinship groups and localism in general.

Origins
Although it is commonly thought that the spoils system was introduced by President Andrew Jackson, historical evidence does not support this view. Patronage came to the United States during its Colonial history, whereas in its modern form, the spoils system got introduced into U.S. politics during the administration of George Washington, whose outlook generally favored members of the Federalist Party. Sometimes, Washington is accused of introducing the system himself. In addition, both John Adams and Thomas Jefferson have also been accused, to a degree, of introducing the spoils system to U.S. politics.

In 1828, moderation was expected to prevail in the transfer of political power from one U.S. president to another. This had less to do with the ethics of politicians than it did with the fact the presidency had not transferred from one party to another since the election of 1800—known historically for the extraordinary steps the outgoing Federalist Party took to try and maintain as much influence as possible by exploiting their control over federal appointments up until their final hours in office (see: Marbury v. Madison and Midnight Judges Act). By 1816, the Federalists were no longer nationally viable, and the U.S. became effectively a one-party polity under the Democratic-Republican Party. The Jacksonian split after the 1824 election restored the two-party system. Jackson's first inauguration, on March 4, 1829, marked the first time since 1801 where one party yielded the presidency to another. A group of office seekers attended the event, explaining it as democratic enthusiasm. Jackson supporters had been lavished with promises of positions in return for political support. These promises were honored by a large number of removals after Jackson assumed power. At the beginning of Jackson's administration, fully 919 officials were removed from government positions, amounting to nearly 10 percent of all government postings.

The Jackson administration aimed at creating a more efficient system where the chain of command of public employees all obeyed the higher entities of government. The most-changed organization within the federal government proved to be the Post Office. The Post Office was the largest department in the federal government, and had even more personnel than the War Department. In one year, 423 postmasters were deprived of their positions, most with extensive records of good service. Nevertheless, Jackson did not differ much from other Presidents in the number of officials he replaced by his own partisans.

Reform
By the late 1860s, citizens began demanding civil service reform, but it was only after the 1881 assassination of James A. Garfield by Charles J. Guiteau as revenge for the latter being denied a consulship that the calls for civil service reform intensified. Moderation of the spoils system at the federal level with the passage of the Pendleton Act in 1883, which created a bipartisan Civil Service Commission to evaluate job candidates on a nonpartisan merit basis. While few jobs were covered under the law initially, the law allowed the President to transfer jobs and their current holders into the system, thus giving the holder a permanent job. The Pendleton Act's reach was expanded as the two main political parties alternated control of the White House every election between 1884 and 1896. Following each election, the outgoing President applied the Pendleton Act to some of the positions for which he had appointed political supporters. By 1900, most federal jobs were handled through civil service, and the spoils system was limited to fewer and fewer positions.

Although state patronage systems and numerous federal positions were unaffected by the law, Karabell argues that the Pendleton Act was instrumental in the creation of a professional civil service and the rise of the modern bureaucratic state. The law also caused major changes in campaign finance, as the parties were forced to look for new sources of campaign funds, such as wealthy donors.

The separation between political activity and the civil service was made stronger with the Hatch Act of 1939 which prohibited federal employees from engaging in many political activities.

The spoils system survived much longer in many states, counties and municipalities, such as the Tammany Hall machine, which survived until the 1950s when New York City reformed its own civil service. Illinois modernized its bureaucracy in 1917 under Frank Lowden, but Chicago held on to patronage in city government until the city agreed to end the practice in the Shakman Decrees of 1972 and 1983.

General and cited references

 * Griffith, Ernest S. The Modern Development of the City in the United Kingdom and the United States (1927)
 * Hoogenboom, Ari Arthur. Outlawing the Spoils: A history of the civil service reform movement, 1865–1883 (1961)
 * Ostrogorski, M. Democracy and the Party System in the United States (1910)
 * Rubio, Philip F. (2001). A History of Affirmative Action, 1619–2000. University Press of Mississippi
 * Van Riper, Paul. History of the United States Civil Service Greenwood Press (1976; reprint of 1958 edition)
 * Ostrogorski, M. Democracy and the Party System in the United States (1910)
 * Rubio, Philip F. (2001). A History of Affirmative Action, 1619–2000. University Press of Mississippi
 * Van Riper, Paul. History of the United States Civil Service Greenwood Press (1976; reprint of 1958 edition)
 * Van Riper, Paul. History of the United States Civil Service Greenwood Press (1976; reprint of 1958 edition)
 * Van Riper, Paul. History of the United States Civil Service Greenwood Press (1976; reprint of 1958 edition)

title: Spoils system