Talk:Anholt (Denmark)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Flag
Portal
 Anholt (Denmark) falls within the scope of WikiProject Denmark, a project to create and improve Denmark-related Wikipedia articles. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, all interested editors are welcome!

Satellite Image of Denmark
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. (FAQ).
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Low This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.

Is there really any evidence for the information that Anholt was "forgotten" in the Treaty of Roskilde in 1658? Sources, please!

I mean the distance to Denmark is a little bit shorter than to Sweden, and perhaps Anholt was not important for the Swedes.

And there must be some more relevant information about the Island. About 1/3 of the entire article is about this alleged "mistake" back in 1658.

Well, Mr Adamsky. What do you mean by reverting som "unhelpful contribution". It is really better English to write "It part of..." instead of "It is part of...". And what has Bornholm to do in an article about Anholt? --Andhanq 18:40, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Hello and welcome. Please help by adding to the stub articles, don't delete the contributions of others. Thanks. //Big Adamsky 19:44, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Andhang, the main removal of 213.113.218.98 was " The only other part of the Scanian lands that remains Danish is the island of Bornholm, which was formerly a part of the province of Scania." [1] . /Fred-Chess 00:46, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Optimist: I have taken the liberty to interchange eastern and western and to add a little, not intending to make the article comprehensive. I do not think that the Roskilde 1658 story is verifiable, but it is very popular. A variation of the legend claims that the island was hidden by a glass of beer during inspection of the map.

This text from the Anholt tourist information: I kirkelig henseende hørte Anholt antagelig indtil midten af 1500-tallet til Morup sogn i Halland. says that Anholt until the middle of the 16th century (about 100 years before the Treaty of Roskilde) probably belonged to Morup in Halland. --Vedum 22:06, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Store Danske Encyklopædi: ... Indtil midten af 1500-t. tilhørte øen i kirkelig henseende Morup sogn i Halland. Anholt var i ældre tid underlagt kronen, men blev i 1668 solgt og overgik i 1674 til Hans Rostgaard,... (entry: Anholt). Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 22:16, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
But the fact that a new parish was created on the island does not explain why the island was not ceded in 1658. It was part of Morup till the 16th century. Unless there is proof to the contrary, the island would administratively have remained part of Halland after the new church was built. Danish provinces didn't change much back in those days. Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 22:20, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, I think that Sweden was not so very keen to get this island. Most important for Sweden was of course to get access to the west coast of the Scandinavian mainland. So, Denmark could keep Anholt. And the island is situated slightly closer to Jutland, so today it is just natural that it is still Danish. I think the text is rather good at present. Perhaps some more history could be included in the article, so not this question (or alleged legends) allows to dominate the history section. --Vedum 00:13, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Of course, Corfitz Ulfelt and the rest of the Swedish delegation had bigger fish to fry. But from what I've heard, they had a strong interest in Hven / Ven which I've always found somewhat odd given the small size of this island. I can only agree that a more comprehensive history section would be wonderful, as would a bigger article in general. Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 00:22, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Ven may be a small island. But it is closer to Scania than to Zealand. Danish fortificationes there could have been dangerous for Sweden at the time. And a Danish Saltholm and a Swedish Ven make up a straight border line. Anholt is just a little bit closer to Jutland, but perhaps it was for the Swedes not worth fighting for. I read somewhere that Anholt belonged earlier to "Kalø len". Kalø is in Djursland (which today is the name of the municipality to which Anholt belongs). So, I don´t think it odd at all, that Anholt remained Danish, beer glasses or not. --Vedum 23:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
I am sorry, the name of the municipality ist Norddjur, but Djursland is the peninsula where Kalø is. Anholt belonged early to an administrative subdivison in Jutland. Perhaps it was only ecclesiatically it belonged to Morup? --Vedum 21:11, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
The parish was normally the most important unit in old Danish administration, and I just noticed this image which doesn't assign it under Jutland. A local website has a bit more information. [2] It looks to me like the island originally did belong to the eastern lands, but the situation might have become blurred later. To be frank, the only thing that comes to mind when I think about Kalø is that it was a notorious pirate lair. Perhaps the island might have changed hands a few times. Samsø has belonged both Jutland and Zealand. Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 21:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC)