Royal law
The King's Law ( Danish Kongeloven ) was passed in Denmark and Norway in 1665 after the loss of the Skåne provinces in the Second Northern War . The King's Law built on the Sovereignty Law of 1661, which made Denmark-Norway the only country in Europe with constitutional absolutism . Concrete measures of the Sovereignty Law and the later King's Law were the disempowerment of the estates , the return of the elective monarchy to the original hereditary monarchy and the introduction of female succession. The law was originally written in Latin by the Danish statesman Peder Schumacher Griffenfeld in 1661, but was not promulgated until 1665. The Kongelov remained in force until King Frederick VII promulgated the first Danish constitution in 1849.
History of ideas
In the 19th century it was suspected for a long time that Thomas Hobbes' political theory was the inspiration for the drafting of the law. But this was refuted by Knud Fabricius in 1920. Peder Schumacher Griffenfeld was with Zealand's Bishop Jesper Brochmand and was close friends with John Fell, who in 1674 stood out as a bitter opponent of Hobbes, during his time in Oxford. The religiously based theory of the state laid down in Kongeloven is clearly delimited, even opposed to that of Hobbes. It is not the fear of civil war that leads to autocracy, as Hobbes said, but gratitude for good government. In addition, Hobbes was not yet known in Denmark in 1661. In the extensive library of Griffenfeld there was an extensive inventory of constitutional literature, including third-class works, but no work by Hobbes. On the other hand, the possibility of inspecting such a work in the royal library, of which he was a librarian, is negligible.
While the monarchical principle remained unchallenged, the discussion came to a head as to whether the ruler was subject to the laws, which also raised the right to resist a tyrannical king. This was a particularly sensitive issue after the peasant revolts in the count feud . Christian IV pursued an unsuccessful policy in northern Germany after the Thirty Years' War and led the Torstensson War against Sweden , in which he lost large areas to Sweden. This led to a strengthening of the aristocratic power, which was not without consequences for the state theory taught in Sorø , which was represented there by Henrik Ernst. In his writing Catholica juris he also dealt with the question of the right of resistance. He answered the question in the affirmative, starting from an implied contract between people and king, which obliges the king to observe natural law ( leges naturales ) as well as leges fundamentales , while he is above civil law. Because the people did not give him the empire that would make them slaves. However, only the guardians of the people, i.e. the Reichsrat , could make use of the right of resistance . As an example, he cited the removal of Christian II by the Imperial Council. In Bishop Brochmann's coronation sermon for Friedrich III. explicit reference was made to Saul and his calling through Samuel , who was rejected by God because of his insubordination. It was emphasized that the king was subject to the law, which resulted in a strengthening of the aristocratic power. This coronation was the last victory of the nobility. After that, the royal power began to gain ground again.
The first sign can be seen in the fact that in a decree of 1624 studying at Catholic universities was forbidden, which was no longer mentioned in the great recess of 1643 in which Catholic services were banned. As early as 1640 Rasmus Vinding gave a lecture on hereditary monarchy and elective monarchy at the Jesuit college in La Flèche without anyone having upset about it. In his lecture Rasmus took the view that the hereditary monarchy was the right form of government, while he attributed all sorts of harmful consequences to the elective monarchy. For this he received a lot of applause. In the Academy of Sorø, too, the catchphrase “We should have one God, one faith, one ruler for ever” gained more and more followers. Everyone has the right to submit to whoever he likes and can do so without any conditions. Therefore it is a misunderstanding that the people have a right of resistance. The punishment of a ruler for his sins is incumbent only on the "king of kings". The fact that the young nobles in the Sorø Academy, headed by Gabiel Knudsen Akeleye , spoke out in favor of absolutism. In Sorø he wrote the dissertation 25 Øvelse over Tacitus 'Germania (25 exercises on Tacitus' Germania). In it, he discusses, among other things, the permissibility of a preventive strike against an increasingly strong opponent who is threatening. The theologians said it was against the word of God, the legal scholars said it was against the ius gentium . Akeleya emphasizes, however, that the ruler, whom God has entrusted with the care of his people, can only trust his own judgment and has to prevent, as far as it is in his power, that he is harmed. This was clearly directed against Sweden, from whose armament he expected disaster. The divine mandate postulated by him led directly to theocratic absolutism.
the initial situation
In 1658 the Swedish Imperial Council decided to intervene against Denmark if the king was considering proclaiming himself an absolutist ruler.
The desperate economic situation in Denmark after the war against Sweden required new sources of money. It was about imposing a consumption tax on various goods. But it was precisely at this time that Copenhagen, which had been declared a free imperial city, required exemption from taxes and tariffs for its residents as a new privilege. At the urging of the Imperial Council, King Friedrich called a meeting of the estates on September 8, 1660 in Copenhagen. It was about the nobility, the bourgeoisie, the clergy and the university. The representatives of the estates unanimously insisted on their privileges. But already on September 14th, the seeds of bitter opposition between the estates were planted: the clergy gave up their resistance and wanted to accept the consumption tax, even if all the other estates renounced their privileges and agreed to the consumption tax. The bourgeoisie agreed, the nobility refused. After all, there must be a difference between nobleman and citizen. It was also about monopolies and the burden of billeting soldiers. In addition, the bourgeoisie demanded that the fiefs should be withdrawn and made available to the crown, which they could then lease. That would have dealt the fatal blow to the nobility, who were dependent on fiefs. This now chose a new strategy against the bourgeoisie and clergy. He proposed higher tax rates and promised to pay them if the other estates would do the same. This move to take over the demands of the bourgeoisie for equal treatment of all, but with tax rates that they could not afford and with the expansion of the catalog to include goods that the bourgeoisie particularly had to hit, led to a protest note from the lower classes, which the king received on April 4 October was presented. The confrontation had reached its first climax. The first draft for the introduction of the hereditary monarchy dates from the same day. On October 5, 1660, a text proposal for the introduction of the hereditary monarchy was discussed in secret in a small circle of bishops, clergy and deputies of the citizens and of Copenhagen. The privileges should remain untouched. The king didn't know anything about it yet. When asked for his opinion through his secretary, he neither agreed nor refused. Thereupon the other delegates of the bourgeoisie and the clergy were introduced to the plan. You agreed. Then the application was submitted to the Imperial Council for forwarding to the King. But this one withheld it.
Some delegates of the nobility began to leave, so that there was a threat that the Reichstag would be blown up and civil unrest would arise. Therefore, on October 11, the mayor of Copenhagen doubled the number of guards in the city and closed the city gates and the locking chains in the port. The imperial council and the nobility now pressured the king not to allow any constitutional changes. The king issued a secret order to the German officers, who, unlike the Danish, were not members of the Imperial Council, to prepare for a civil war. But the Reichstag gave way. On October 13, 1660, the estates transferred King Friedrich III. the right of inheritance both in the male and in the female line. For the bourgeois classes this was a weapon against the nobility, which was deprived of the right to vote. The king had now become Hereditary King. The process was legal, although the delegates of the estates had exceeded their mandate. The decisive factor was the decision of the Reichsrat as the highest government body. He did not need a mandate. The king was not involved in the process. Rather, the armed lower classes had forced the nobility and council to change their minds.
But in 1660 conspiracy theories emerged that the king had planned the transformation of Denmark into a hereditary absolutism for a long time. There is not the slightest evidence of this. The originator of these theories was the bitter nobility, who had been deprived of their privileges. But even today it is claimed that the king only staged all of this with the help of the military. But in the city of Copenhagen the commander-in-chief was not the king, who at that time was quite powerless due to the still applicable election surrender, but the mayor. Given these existing power relationships, the estates would certainly not have signed untruthfully that they had transferred all power voluntarily and without the king's intervention. The only contemporary sources on what happened are letters from the ambassadors to their governments. Both the Austrian ambassador, Baron de Goess, and the Dutch and Swedish ambassadors reported to their governments that the honor for the idea of changing the state went to the lower classes.
The way to sole rule
Hereditary monarchy
Denmark had been an elective monarchy since the Middle Ages, although only members of the royal family were eligible for election. So Harald Hen was preferred to his brother Knut the saint through an election of the chiefs . But in the 17th century the idea of hereditary monarchy began to prevail in Europe. In 1608 the Gottorf Duke Johann Adolf wrote a statute according to which, after his death, the Gottorf share in the duchies of Schleswig ( Sønderjylland ) and Holstein should go undivided to his eldest son, provided he was "capable of a fiefdom" and should be able to rule. After that, the eldest son should inherit the rule. With this he introduced the primogeniture for his domain . This led to conflicts with the nobility and knighthood when his son Duke Friedrich III. 1616 should be worshiped. He demanded the oath to "Our merciful Prince and Lord and heirs of His Princely Graces". But in the declaration of the knights and landscapes only he was mentioned, not his heirs. The cantons only verbally vowed to elect the eldest son in future. The same happened when King Friedrich III. should be worshiped. The introduction of the primogeniture in the royal part of Schleswig and Holstein, which was once King Christian III. in the division of the estate between him and his brother Duke Johann II did not change the attitude of the knighthood. The descendants did not mention any homage by knighthood to the duke and later to the king. During the negotiations in 1633 about the marriage between Magdalena Sibylle of Saxony and Prince Christian of Denmark , the Saxon delegates wanted the primogeniture to be laid down for the descendants. This was rejected with reference to the electoral monarchy in the Danish constitution. In the marriage contract between Friedrich III. and Sofie Amalie , however, an agreement with the Archbishop of Bremen has already been invoked with regard to male succession. At that time, however, it was not expected that he would one day become King of Denmark. In the marriage contract, Amalie reserved all rights to the Brunswick lands in the event that the Cellesche and Calenberg lines should die out. Braunschweig was one of the few places in Germany that knew the female line of succession.
Friedrich III. came to the throne as the last elected king. In the letter of homage from the lower classes, however, Friedrich is already mentioned as the "legitimate heir". That was something new and was not under their authority. But it coincided well with the speech by Norwegian Chancellor Jens Bjelke , who emphasized Norway's position as a hereditary monarchy. The Norwegian nobility did not follow this claim, however, but behaved as they did with the homage in Gottorf in 1616. In both places the highest class opposed the new demand, and in Norway Jens Bjelke was seen as a straw man behind whom the king was hiding. Frederick's relationship with the duchies was of particular importance. On August 2, 1648, Friedrich gave his councilors in the newly installed government in Glückstadt the task of considering introducing the primogeniture in his share. Negotiations began on September 5th. In 1650 primogeniture was introduced in the royal parts of Schleswig (Southern Jutland) and Holstein. Even before that, it had been recognized in Denmark that one had to elect whoever was elected as a king who elected the estates of the duchies to be duke in order to maintain the connection to the Kingdom of Denmark. Since the right to vote was now abolished, the eldest son of the late king had to be elected king in Denmark. Prince Christian was named "Prince-designate of Denmark and Norway" in Frederick III's will. appointed universal heir to the royal principalities and territories. What is remarkable about this will is the growing influence of women, in that the king's widow was appointed regent in the event of his death until the son came of age. He could not regulate the right of inheritance at his own discretion in Denmark or the duchies, but in his allodial estates , the imperial counties of Pinneberg and Uetersen . There he determined that daughters could inherit these goods too. There were two main lines of inheritance law on the continent: On the one hand, the "regnum hereditarium", where the general cognatic succession applied with the right of the ruler within the family to determine the successor within certain limits in the will, and the "regnum legitimum" in who had determined the people of the ruling family and the succession was determined by law, which the ruler could not change. Denmark could not be easily turned into a "regnum hereditarium", but the people could one day change the law. One had role models in the different variations of the cognatic succession in Austria-Hungary.
Cancellation of the election surrender
With regard to the electoral surrender, several variants were discussed: the complete abolition, a profound change to the whole and the moderate change while maintaining essential provisions. A basic stipulation was that the kingdom should not be divided and that the king should not accept any other denomination. The Reichsrat also insisted that its privileges should be retained undiminished. The new legal basis should be worked out by a commission of 20 people to be appointed by the king. It was about the four youngest imperial councilors, four nobles, three bishops, two chapter lords and seven civil class. Villum Lange was subsequently added as the 21st member. With regard to their attitudes, the bishops and the commoners were one block, the imperial councils, the chapter lords and the nobles were the other block. So there were blocks of 10 people loyal to the king and 10 people who were critical of the king, so that Villum Lange tipped the scales. This gave the impression of a neutral commission. But that could change if the social dividing line did not coincide with the political one. In the discussion, the nobles only wanted to exempt the king from provisions that were incompatible with the hereditary monarchy. That did not go far enough for the lower classes. The king was supposed to be released from his oath at all, since he now had a new quality. He had received the "ius majestatis" through the hereditary monarchy, and was therefore above the law and could not be held accountable by anyone. He could not share his power with other state organs either. Ultimately, however, there was no agreement. The resolution that was presented to the King contained, in addition to the repeal of the electoral surrender, only the request to uphold the privileges of the estates by law. Most of the privileges were based on the electoral surrender and therefore lapsed when they were revoked. Few were based on recipes or regulations. There was no longer any question of retaining the Assembly of Estates as a political organ. It turned out that the intended legal regulation of the new form of government and the future privileges was too difficult for the committee with its diverging interests. Finally, it was agreed to outline the content of the new law to the effect that 1. that the kingdom would not be divided upon the death of the king, that 2. newly conquered or acquired territories should become part of the kingdom and 3. that the succession would be regulated. In the final proposal submitted to the king, these demands were not included, but were given a completely free hand, but were taken into account in the "absolutism-hereditary monarchy act" of January 10th and included in the constitution of 1665. On October 16, the Assembly of Estates signed the cassation of the election surrender without reservation. Any negotiations with the estates about a new constitution were not scheduled. The booths should now list their privileges. But none of the classes managed to agree on their privileges. Neither were they able to solve the actual task of the estates to stabilize the state economically. One could only agree on a purchase tax. Most of the discussions concerned the billeting of the standing army.
When the “absolutism-hereditary monarchy act” ( Enevolds-Arveregeringsakten ) appeared on January 10, 1661 , it was clear that the future Danish constitution was dependent on the king alone. However, the stands complained in many places that their authorized representatives had exceeded their mandate. But the economic privileges granted by the king were so decisive that criticism was limited. The fact that he had successfully repelled the attack by Sweden in 1658 without the participation of the nobility also played a major role.
The privileges
In 1661 the privileges were regulated. Copenhagen received most of its privileges and was recognized as an imperial estate. The category of “unfree men” was eliminated from the lower classes. The cities received their mayors and councilors through the king, and the king's orders went to them instead of to the feudal people as before. The children of honest people should have the chance of honorable careers regardless of the person. The monopoly of the ox trade was lifted and cities other than Copenhagen were also involved. Other older privileges compatible with the sovereignty of the king were also confirmed. The clergy were assured of intercourse with the king through the bishops, the tithe, the exemption from the billeting of soldiers and from the suzerainty of the feudal people. The cathedral chapter and the university did not receive any privileges. The aristocracy was given the throat and hand rights over the peasants, but their tax exemption was based on the needs of the king. Shipwrecks on their land should belong to the nobles. They were also granted birch rights and were exempt from riding horses for 10 years.
The law
In order to consolidate his position, some legal regulations were required. Friedrich was now an absolute monarch, but by no means sure of his cause. The nobility insinuated that he had usurped his position by having the city gates closed and thus blackmailing the nobility and the Imperial Council.
First of all, Friedrich intended to enact a law of succession and commissioned his law firm in Glückstadt to work out a proposal whose name should be " Kongelov" (King's Law). One started from the primogeniture and wanted female succession as well. But in detail it became very difficult and very complicated in which order the inheritance rights should follow one another if there are no direct male heirs. In addition, there were the questions that arose from an inability to govern due to intellectual disabilities. In addition, in the case of minors, guardianship had to be regulated in the government. Finally, in the autumn of 1661, a bill was presented to the king. But he was not followed up by the king. The reason was that other priorities had to be set. The estates were to receive their economic privileges, the state finances were to be reorganized and a procedural system with regulation of the instances was to be created. But when the military tender for the land regiments came up, the king was reminded that there was still no regulation regarding the form of government. The royal government promised a meeting of the estates, but the king himself had not yet made a decision. During this time, a number of other bills were submitted to him. They concerned the judicial system and the duties of the general tax office. The king took everything but was silent. In the summer of 1662 he dissolved the first legislative commission without having made a decision about the position of the king in the administration of justice, and finished work on a draft of the Succession Act. Therefore the inheritance status of the four daughters remained unclear. In the summer of 1662, the first agreements were made for the daughter Anna Sophie to marry Prince Elector Johann Georg von Sachsen . The main question was whether Anna Sophie and her descendants would be entitled to inherit the Danish-Norwegian throne if there were no more male heirs, for example whether the sons of the daughters might be preferred to the daughters of his son. Friedrich's negotiators wanted her to renounce any claims to the throne before marriage. Finally, after years of negotiations, it was agreed that she would waive any succession claims against her older brother and all of his descendants. So the marriage could be concluded on October 9, 1666.
The royal law is dated November 14, 1665. The long hesitation seems to have had dynastic reasons: Although Anna Sophie was now engaged, it seemed wise to wait for the other sisters as well. One could also satisfy their possible suitors if one had not yet made a decision. But there were also domestic political reasons: Despite the strong words in the “absolutism-hereditary monarchy act”, it was still unclear at court how far the royal power extended in detail. But the unfortunate battle in the Bay of Bergen on August 2, 1665, which could produce dangerous foreign entanglements, made it seem advisable to speed up the domestic political problems while there was still time. The result could be kept secret until the younger daughters were married too.
The first version was written in Latin and was written by Peder Schumacher Griffenfeld. The Danish version is a translation. However, only this was signed and sealed by the king in four copies and thus received the force of law. There are four copies, one of which is dated November 14, 1665, while the other three are dated to the end of 1668. Two are written on parchment, two on paper. The order of the versions can be determined on the basis of the changing orthography.
content
In the introduction to the King's Law, the King describes that God himself saved the country from great danger and that all, the Imperial Council and the whole people, with the consent of all classes, inspired by God, voluntarily renounced their previous right to vote, the election surrender signed by the King in all repealed their provisions and released him from the oath without exception and voluntarily gave him the highest and unbound power, all regalia and majesty rights with the hereditary title and the rights of one real, as head and first acquirer and the descendants of both sexes who descended directly from him absolute king transferred. They also left him to regulate a lex regia (Latin for royal law) on the form of government, succession, guardianship and government during an interregnum at his own discretion and vowed with an oath that this lex regia would be adhered to forever as a constitution if necessary, defended by force of arms. He, the King, was touched by such divine grace and the love of his subjects, and after a brief reflection he had tackled the form of government and the succession.
The portrayal of divine intervention in great danger relates to the attack on Copenhagen on February 11, 1659, which is also depicted on a 1-crown silver coin, where a hand with a sword out of a cloud a hand that reaches for the crown, chops off. However, the text avoids attributing the salvation of Denmark directly to God and making the king the image of divine majesty. The view of natural law doctrine that the power of government is transferred from the people is clearly in the foreground. After an introduction in the completed form of the diplomacy of the time, the regulatory body begins. In contrast to the previous drafts, it does not begin with the succession, but with the provisions on the constitution in Sections 1 - 7. This is followed by the provisions on legal age and guardianship (Sections 8 - 14). Sections 15-18 regulate the king's accession to power and Section 19 the indivisibility of the empire. This is followed by provisions that could be called the house law of the royal family (§§ 20 - 25) and in § 26 the protection of the absolutist form of government. The succession is only regulated in §§ 27 - 40.
Constitution
Of particular interest today are the first six precepts that make up the absolutist constitution. § 1 instructs the king to serve and honor God according to his word and the Augsburg denomination and to preserve the two kingdoms under the same faith and to defend them against all heretics, mockers and atheists. This also corresponded to the draft of the Glückstadt college. § 2 declared the king to be the supreme head of the subjects on earth, the highest judge in both ecclesiastical and worldly matters, above all human laws, so that an appeal can only be made to God himself against his judgment. According to § 3 he had the unbound legislative power. In the Latin text it says "... leges figere, refigere, interpretari, interpolare, abrogare semper, cum ita visum illi fuerit" . He could also exclude anyone from the law at his own discretion. However, this did not apply to this "lex regia" , this unchangeable constitution. According to § 4 he could call anyone to an office and remove him again because his power is derived from the unbound power of the king. According to § 5 he also had the supreme armed force, so he could declare war and make peace and alliances and levy customs duties, taxes and similar charges as required. Finally, § 6 declared the king to be the supreme ruler of the church and the clergy, who had to regulate everything that concerned the worship service and could convene councils, synods and religious discussions or even forbid them. However, he did not call himself a head like a Pope, and therefore did not interfere in internal religious discussions. At the end of this section it is stated in § 7 that all acts of government are to be carried out in the name of the king and under his seal and, when he is of age, to be signed by him personally.
Further regulations
The Crown Prince is of legal age at the age of 13 and declares himself to be of age. The king can arrange guardianship himself in the event of his previous death. If he has not done so, the mother, as regent, is the guardian to whom the seven highest ministers are bound. If it is no longer there, the next male relative who has reached the age of 17 will take its place. All further eventualities are then played through.
The house law (§§ 20 ff.) Regulates the relationship between the king and family members, for example that no family member living in Denmark may marry without the king's permission. The appanage and maintenance of the princes is also regulated there.
The Succession Act begins with the stipulation that the oldest male descendant born in wedlock excludes all other children from inheritance. A male offspring excludes the female offspring, not just herself, but their offspring as well. A son's daughter goes before his sister's son. The succession then remains in this line, so that a change to another line, for example because an older male descendant lives there, does not take place. Only when the agnatic succession is exhausted does the cognatic one come into play.
The consequences
The Reichsrat had resigned. Its existence was incompatible with the absolutist power of the king. All his documents were brought to the king's castle on October 20, 1660. The new government began on October 18, 1660. First, the state colleges were created as new organs. While the imperial councils had formerly consisted of nobles appointed by the king for life who were not paid but were entitled to a corresponding fief, the members were appointed by the king from nobles and non-nobles who were also paid by him. There was the Chancellery, the State Chamber College, the War College, the Admiralty, and the Supreme Court. They should work out the templates for the king, which he then had to decide on. The State Chamber College only existed until 1676. Centralization made the government heavily bureaucratized. With this measure, especially with the admission of non-nobles to the colleges, the king fulfilled a decisive expectation of the lower classes and also led to a professionalization of the officials.
The fiefs were withdrawn, which increased the king's income. They were transformed into circles administered by the king's permanent officials. The nobility lost their tax exemption. The noble academy in Sorø was closed in 1665. The nobility did not accept his disempowerment. Again and again he tried to restore the previous conditions in conspiratorial circles. This was not hidden from the king and fueled his fear of the nobility. As early as 1661 he had a citadel built in Copenhagen . The streets in the area had to be laid out so that they could be taken under fire from the bastions. In 1668 the royal family was gathered in Copenhagen. The cook almost poisoned the family. The king believed in an assassination attempt. This fear is also reflected in the absolutist powers of the king in the royal law.
Nevertheless, it is noticeable that no provision of the royal law that goes beyond the promise of hereditary homage to rule in a Christian and mild manner and the “absolutism-hereditary monarchy act” has ever been applied. The royal law was actually not obeyed at all. The king never extended the supreme power to which he was entitled as far as he was entitled under the royal law. A whole series of regulations were made in his name that he never took notice of. Absolute power was never based on royal law. She grew stronger on the basis of hereditary homage. As long as this foundation was stable, it was unchallenged; when that was no longer the case, it fell. The law on succession also never came into effect because there was always a male successor for the duration of the constitution.
The royal law was only replaced by the new constitution of 1849 , the succession to the throne was not reorganized until 1853. Only section 21 (now section 5 (3) of the Succession Act of March 27, 1953: members of the royal family may only marry with the permission of the king, otherwise they are excluded from the succession) and section 25 (the king or a Person authorized by him is the only judge over princes and princesses. Now 1st book, 2nd chapter No. 1 Danske Lov by Christian V.) in force.
literature
- John O. Evjen: The state upheaval in Denmark in 1660. Leipzig 1903
- Otto Kähler : The Danish royal law of 1665 and Schleswig-Holstein. In: Schleswig-Holstein advertisements 1950, p.109 – ll2.
- Knud Fabricius: Kongeloven. Dens tilblivelse and plads i samtidens Natur- and different udvikling. En historisk undersøgelse . Copenhagen 1920. Reprographic reprint 1971. ISBN 87 7500 810 6 . (There is nothing newer on this topic).
- Ole Feldbæk: “Danmarks historie”. Gyldendal 2010 ISBN 978-87-02-10163-8 . P. 111 ff.
- Julius Albert Fridericia: Frederik III. In: Dansk biografisk lexikon vol. 5. Copenhagen 1891. pp. 293-300.
Web links
Individual evidence
- ↑ Lexicon of History . Orbis, 2001, ISBN 3-572-01285-6 , pp. 447 .
- ↑ Fabricius p. 3 f. citing a study by Julius Albert Fridericia , Historiske Afhandlinger III, p. 98.
- ^ For example, the Danish historian Julius Albert Fabricia in Danmarks Riges Historie IV. 1902 p. 507.
- ↑ Fabricius p. 16.
- ^ Fabricius p. 17.
- ↑ Fabricius pp. 19-20.
- ↑ Fabricius p. 90 f.
- ^ Fabricius pp. 96-100.
- ↑ Fabricius p. 105 f.
- ^ Fabricius p. 107.
- ↑ Fabricius p. 109 f.
- ↑ Evjen p. 53.
- ↑ Evjen pp. 65-67.
- ^ Fabricius p. 153.
- ↑ Evjen p. 101.
- ↑ Evjen p. 103.
- ↑ Evjen pp. 104-106.
- ↑ Fridericia p. 298 and Feldbæk p. 111 f. Fridericia at least admits that it is an unproven assumption.
- ↑ Evjen p. 105.
- ↑ Evjen p. 99.
- ↑ Fabricius p. 130 f.
- ^ Fabricius p. 131.
- ^ Fabricius p. 135.
- ↑ Fabricius p. 144 f.
- ^ Fabricius p. 151.
- ^ Fabricius p. 171.
- ↑ Evjen p. 107.
- ^ Fabricius p. 184.
- ↑ Evjen p. 113.
- ^ Fabricius p. 191.
- ↑ Fabricius p. 195.
- ↑ Right of neck and hand was originally the right to prosecute things that could result in physical or life sentences, to try them and to enforce the judgments. Crimes that did not result in corporal punishment were later also included. Source: Keyword Hals- og Håndsrett
- ^ The birch law was a Danish legal institution. It was the lowest judicial district called "Birketing". The residents of the Birk district were subject to this birketing. The Birkrecht gave the authority to appoint the judges of the Birketing, who were called "Birkeskriver" or "Birkefogd", and to collect the fines that were imposed. Source: Keyword Birk .
- ↑ Evjen p. 143.
- ↑ Evjen p. 131 f.
- ^ Fabricius p. 223 f.
- ↑ The Fiskal was the prosecuting authority for criminal offenses in the public area, i.e. breaches of the peace, crimes of majesty and the like, as well as the administrator of the fines imposed for them.
- ^ Fabricius p. 242.
- ^ Fabricius p. 289.
- ^ Fabricius p. 291.
- ↑ This extensive emphasis on the voluntary nature of the transfer of power by the estates was directed against the assumption of the usurpation of power by force. Evjen S. 133. The text is limited to "without compulsion, invitation, guidance or desire of the king". The threat of violence from the lower classes is not denied.
- ↑ Fabricius p. 306 f.
- ↑ Illustration of the coin 1 Krone from 1659
- ^ Fabricius p. 309.
- ^ Fabricius p. 311 f.
- ↑ On the following Fabricius pp. 312 - 319.
- ^ Fabricius p. 318.
- ↑ Evjen, pp. 138-140.
- ↑ Evjen p.141.
- ^ Parliamentary question in the Folketing.