Quote Originally Posted by King Kurt
Kraxis
What a fascinating fact - does that mean that since 936 Denmark has not been conquered to such an extent to bring about regieme change? In England, we usualy go back to William the Conquerer - 1066 and all that - but, to be fair we have had a couplle of changes where the line/ link is preety tenuious - James the First and William of Orange principally.

If Denmark has achieved that, then it is some achievment in deed, especially for a country so strategicaly placed at the mouth of the Baltic - very much a North/ South/ East/West crossroads.
Technically yes.

There was a couple of small interruptions. For instance when German merchants basically BOUGHT the country over a number of years (late 1300s), but the next king bought or recaptured it again. And it lasted only a few years.
Then there was a short period where the nobles simply didn't elect a king (early 1500s), and the country degenerated into something close to anarchy for a few years before the nobles elected a king (which had been the candidated they had rejected).

And the country was occupied a few times, but never truly conquered (Copenhagen had a nasty habit of resisting successfully), so it managed to be able to settle for rather unpleasant peace agreements, rather than face annexation.

The only time you can say Denmark didn't have a king of the line, what when Magnus the Good (Norwegian) ruled from 1042-47. But Cnut the Great's nephew by his sister, Sweyn Estridsen takes over (the two had even fought a series of battles over the throne), and the line is thus kept alive generationwise. Meaning each geneartion has had one king or more on the throne (Cnut's own son Hardecnut had ruled Denmark as well so it was already set, but Sweyn continued the line).