https://tidsskrift.dk/historisktidsskrift <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> Den Danske Historiske Forening da-DK Historisk Tidsskrift 0106-4991 <p>Ophavsret til bidrag i <em>Historisk Tidsskrift</em> tilhører forfatterne og Den danske historiske Forening som udgiver af <em>Historisk Tidsskrift</em>. For illustrationer gælder den ophavsret, som står anført i billedteksten. Ophavsretslovens almindelige bestemmelser gælder, hvilket vil sige, at ophavsretten gælder i 70 år efter forfatterens død. Bidrag i <em>Historisk Tidsskrift</em> må derfor, med forbehold for en ”moving wall” på tre år, frit downloades, læses, gemmes, anvendes og citeres (med kildeangivelse) i privat og videnskabelig sammenhæng, men de må ikke helt eller delvis genudgives af tredjepart, heller ikke i redigeret form, uden tilladelse fra forfatterne og Den danske historiske Forening. Henvendelse skal i så fald rettes til <em>Historisk Tidsskrifts </em>redaktion på histtid@hum.ku.dk.</p> https://tidsskrift.dk/historisktidsskrift/article/view/149241 <p>Andreas Hojer and his History of Frederick IV (1731-34)</p> <p>Andreas Hojer (1690–1739) has a minor but respectable position in Danish intellectual history. He authored a controversial history of Denmark, was involved in disputes about natural law, became a trusted civil servant, royal Danish historiographer and eventually, after a period out in the cold beginning with the accession of Christian VI in 1730, professor of natural law at the University of Copenhagen from 1734 to his death. His main historical work is his history of Frederick IV (reigned 1699-1730): König Friederich des Vierten glorwürdigstes Leben (Most Glorious Life of Frederick IV), written during his period of disgrace in 1731-34 as a successful attempt to prove his worth in the eyes of the new king.<br />The present article discusses several points in connection with Hojer’s work. It demonstrates, first, that Hojer was no “runaway German messing with Danish history” (as claimed by literary historian N.M. Petersen) but a Danish patriot and a historian with a European outlook. Second, König Friederich des Vierten glorwürdigstes Leben is remarkably outspoken – Christian VI’s intense dislike for his bigamist father, Frederick IV, allowed Hojer to write with unusual candor – but was nonetheless intended for publication. Third, the work is political, didactic and analytic, thus an excellent example of so-called pragmatic history, and verges on so-called anecdotal or secret history as it also deals with hidden passions and personal conflicts behind the scenes. Fourth, it is informed by Hojer’s intellectual background in natural law, his markedly anti-aristocratic and anticlerical stance, and his strong tendency to moralize and anchor political decisions in personal relations and failings. Fifth, for unknown reasons, König Friederich des Vierten glorwürdigstes Leben first appeared in print in 1829. Had it been published in the 1730s as originally intended, it would have changed the face of Danish historiography and the perception of Denmark abroad, in both instances for the better.</p> Sebastian Olden-Jørgensen Copyright (c) 2024 Historisk Tidsskrift 2024-09-11 2024-09-11 124 1 1 32 https://tidsskrift.dk/historisktidsskrift/article/view/149244 <p>In 1905, the Danish parliament passed Denmark’s first national legislation on the upbringing of children, called “Børneloven” (The Children’s Law). This law allowed the state to legally revoke parents’ custody of their children and, if found necessary, forcibly separate children from their parents. This controversial law intervened in the private lives of Danish citizens and infringed upon the natural rights of parents to determine the life of their own children. Parents who came into contact with the Danish child welfare system had few rights and little influence on the fate of their children. Nevertheless, several parents challenged the decisions made by the authorities. In letters to the central authorities of the child welfare system, known as “Overværge-rådet”, parents used a variety of strategies in the hope of keeping their children or exerting some influence on their future. Mothers tended to use emotions in their letters to the central authorities. They expressed strong grief and longing, and some even compared the loss of their child to the loss of their own life, while some fathers expressed similar emotions, most focused on practical issues, like securing apprenticeships for their children. This difference reflects existing social norms: women were expected to show love and affection, while fathers were expected to ensure the family’s financial stability. The letters also reflect that the parents often were socially inferior to the authorities they were writing to, a power disparity that complicated parental attempts to navigate the system. Despite the variety of arguments Danish parents used to influence the authorities, very few of them succeeded.</p> Camilla Madsen Copyright (c) 2024 Historisk Tidsskrift 2024-09-11 2024-09-11 124 1 33 56 https://tidsskrift.dk/historisktidsskrift/article/view/149252 <p>Despite vigorous debates on the post-World War II court settlements, interest in internal disciplinary settlements of professional associations has been limited in both Norway and Denmark. The major exception in Norway has been a heated debate following the report from the Norwegian Authors’ Union’s disciplinary committee (æresrettutvalget) in 2018. <br>This article compares the disciplinary settlements and purges in the two countries following liberation. A major difference was in the willingness to review disciplinary measures taken by associations before World War II. Danish courts showed far greater willingness than their Norwegian counterparts to review disciplinary decisions that association members found unjust. The quality of decisions by Danish courts improved still more after the Danish Sagførersamfundet came to understand that members who felt they had received unfair treatment could turn to the courts with a real chance of having the decision overturned. <br>In Norway, only one appeal of a disciplinary action (expulsion) was brought to the courts after liberation. This occurred in 1953, long after the disciplinary settlements were over. In other words, association purges in Norway after liberation took place without court supervision. This fact has been almost absent from the debate since the 2018 report of the Norwegian Authors’ Union’s disciplinary committee. <br>Bar associations could be expected to provide more comprehensively for their members’ legal protection than other post-liberation professional associations. This was indeed the case in the well-regulated Danish Sagførersamfundet, but less so in the Norwegian Sakførerforeningen. In Norway, the possibility of contradiction seems to have been very limited, meaning that the accused had no real opportunity to challenge an accusation before the sanction was imposed, especially for members who had been affiliated with the National Socialist Party. Additionally, there was no appeals process. Perhaps the most problematic aspect of the Sakførerforeningen’s purification process was that key leaders, who played a central role in formulating the guidelines for sanctioning „unpatriotic attitudes,“ had themselves engaged in similar behavior during Norway’s occupation.</p> Harald Espeli Copyright (c) 2024 Historisk Tidsskrift 2024-06-30 2024-06-30 124 1 57 98 https://tidsskrift.dk/historisktidsskrift/article/view/149253 <p>For the first and only time, in 1974, the Danish capital metropolis got a regional body: the Capital Metropolis Council (Hovedstadsrådet). This body provided important regional framework conditions for the functioning of the metropolis as an urban region, at least for a few years. The article sheds light on the political-administrative processes and factors behind the erection of the Capital Metropolis Council in 1974, the decision in 1989 to close it down, and the attempts during the 90s to establish a similar body – until the so-called Structural Reform (Strukturreformen) in 2007 brought all to an end.<br>The process reflected national political differences concerning the governance of the Danish capital region. For Liberal and Conservative parties on the political right, the metropolis had to be freed from the smothering control of municipal bodies so that the competitive power of the capital metropolis could work its magic. On the other hand, for the Social Democrats, a strong, coordinating regional body was crucial to stabilize the metropolis’s infrastructural and social cohesion and, thus, to promote international competitiveness.<br>As a result of a fortuitous moment amid changing parliamentary constellations, the Capital Metropolis Council was established as a compromise between a weak Social Democrat government and its Liberal-Conservative opponents in 1974, and abolished in 1989 by a Liberal-Conservative government inspired by neoliberalism. Then, during the 90s, Social Democrat governments pushed for a new regional body. Thus, the so-called Capital Development Council (Hovedstadens Udviklingsråd) was initiated in 2000, but a new and even more neoliberalist Liberal-Conservative government dissolved it in 2007. The overall result has been an absence of coordinated governance of the capital metropolis since 1990 and, consequently, the metropolis has suffered from an increasingly pronounced lack of regional planning.</p> Henning Bro Copyright (c) 2024 Historisk Tidsskrift 2024-06-30 2024-06-30 124 1 99 130 https://tidsskrift.dk/historisktidsskrift/article/view/149256 Therkel Stræde Copyright (c) 2024 Historisk Tidsskrift 2024-09-27 2024-09-27 124 1 131 148 https://tidsskrift.dk/historisktidsskrift/article/view/149260 Charlotte Christensen Copyright (c) 2024 Historisk Tidsskrift 2024-09-27 2024-09-27 124 1 156 165 https://tidsskrift.dk/historisktidsskrift/article/view/149261 Jan Pedersen Copyright (c) 2024 Historisk Tidsskrift 2024-09-27 2024-09-27 124 1 166 181 https://tidsskrift.dk/historisktidsskrift/article/view/149262 Sebastian Olden-Jørgensen Copyright (c) 2024 Historisk Tidsskrift 2024-09-27 2024-09-27 124 1 182 185 https://tidsskrift.dk/historisktidsskrift/article/view/149269 Joachim Lund Copyright (c) 2024 Historisk Tidsskrift 2024-09-27 2024-09-27 124 1 186 198 https://tidsskrift.dk/historisktidsskrift/article/view/149270 Bernard Eric Jensen Mogens Rüdiger Copyright (c) 2024 Historisk Tidsskrift 2024-09-27 2024-09-27 124 1 199 209 https://tidsskrift.dk/historisktidsskrift/article/view/149271 Rasmus Mariager Copyright (c) 2024 Historisk Tidsskrift 2024-09-27 2024-09-27 124 1 210 214 https://tidsskrift.dk/historisktidsskrift/article/view/149272 Hans Kirchhoff Joachim Lund Copyright (c) 2024 Historisk Tidsskrift 2024-09-27 2024-09-27 124 1 215 221 https://tidsskrift.dk/historisktidsskrift/article/view/149275 Sebastian Olden-Jørgensen Copyright (c) 2024 Historisk Tidsskrift 2024-09-27 2024-09-27 124 1 222 224 https://tidsskrift.dk/historisktidsskrift/article/view/149276 Jes Fabricius Møller Copyright (c) 2024 Historisk Tidsskrift 2024-09-27 2024-09-27 124 1 224 225 https://tidsskrift.dk/historisktidsskrift/article/view/149278 Karen Skovgaard-Petersen Copyright (c) 2024 Historisk Tidsskrift 2024-09-27 2024-09-27 124 1 225 228 https://tidsskrift.dk/historisktidsskrift/article/view/149279 Jørgen Bæk Simonsen Copyright (c) 2024 Historisk Tidsskrift 2024-09-27 2024-09-27 124 1 228 230 https://tidsskrift.dk/historisktidsskrift/article/view/149281 Sebastian Olden-Jørgensen Copyright (c) 2024 Historisk Tidsskrift 2024-09-27 2024-09-27 124 1 230 234 https://tidsskrift.dk/historisktidsskrift/article/view/149282 Jesper Munk Andersen Copyright (c) 2024 Historisk Tidsskrift 2024-09-27 2024-09-27 124 1 234 238 https://tidsskrift.dk/historisktidsskrift/article/view/149283 Charlotte Appel Copyright (c) 2024 Historisk Tidsskrift 2024-09-27 2024-09-27 124 1 238 240 https://tidsskrift.dk/historisktidsskrift/article/view/149285 Sebastian Olden-Jørgensen Copyright (c) 2024 Historisk Tidsskrift 2024-09-27 2024-09-27 124 1 241 244 https://tidsskrift.dk/historisktidsskrift/article/view/149286 Mikkel Venborg Pedersen Copyright (c) 2024 Historisk Tidsskrift 2024-09-27 2024-09-27 124 1 244 246 https://tidsskrift.dk/historisktidsskrift/article/view/149287 Michael Bregnsbo Copyright (c) 2024 Historisk Tidsskrift 2024-09-27 2024-09-27 124 1 246 248 https://tidsskrift.dk/historisktidsskrift/article/view/149288 Claus Møller Jørgensen Copyright (c) 2024 Historisk Tidsskrift 2024-09-27 2024-09-27 124 1 248 252 https://tidsskrift.dk/historisktidsskrift/article/view/149289 Jens Lei Wendel-Hansen Copyright (c) 2024 Historisk Tidsskrift 2024-09-27 2024-09-27 124 1 252 254 https://tidsskrift.dk/historisktidsskrift/article/view/149290 Claus Bryld Copyright (c) 2024 Historisk Tidsskrift 2024-09-27 2024-09-27 124 1 255 259 https://tidsskrift.dk/historisktidsskrift/article/view/149291 Henrik Lundbak Copyright (c) 2024 Historisk Tidsskrift 2024-09-27 2024-09-27 124 1 259 266 https://tidsskrift.dk/historisktidsskrift/article/view/149292 Therkel Stræde Copyright (c) 2024 Historisk Tidsskrift 2024-09-27 2024-09-27 124 1 266 273 https://tidsskrift.dk/historisktidsskrift/article/view/149293 Birgit Kirkebæk Copyright (c) 2024 Historisk Tidsskrift 2024-09-27 2024-09-27 124 1 273 280 https://tidsskrift.dk/historisktidsskrift/article/view/149294 Dino Knudsen Copyright (c) 2024 Historisk Tidsskrift 2024-09-27 2024-09-27 124 1 280 284 https://tidsskrift.dk/historisktidsskrift/article/view/149295 Annemarie Borregaard Copyright (c) 2024 Historisk Tidsskrift 2024-09-27 2024-09-27 124 1 284 286 https://tidsskrift.dk/historisktidsskrift/article/view/149296 Jesper Vestermark Køber Copyright (c) 2024 Historisk Tidsskrift 2024-09-27 2024-09-27 124 1 286 290 https://tidsskrift.dk/historisktidsskrift/article/view/149297 Sebastian Olden-Jørgensen Copyright (c) 2024 Historisk Tidsskrift 2024-09-27 2024-09-27 124 1 291 293