The Danish King Frederik X, in his first New Year’s address since ascending the throne, unveiled a redesigned royal coat of arms, a customary practice for new monarchs. However, one alteration sparked considerable controversy across the Øresund strait: the removal of the Tre Kronor (Three Crowns), a prominent Swedish national symbol. This decision, initially met with disbelief by historians like Dick Harrison, effectively ends a 500-year symbolic conflict between Denmark and Sweden over the emblem’s inclusion in the Danish coat of arms. The contentious symbol, which represented a long and bloody history of territorial disputes, had been a source of tension between the two nations for centuries. Harrison likened the news to a shocking historical discovery, underscoring the symbol’s significance in the historical narrative of both countries. The act represents a significant departure from tradition and a symbolic burial of a long-standing point of contention.
The Tre Kronor, adopted by Sweden in the 14th century, became part of the shared royal coat of arms during the Kalmar Union, a late 14th-century political union encompassing Denmark, Norway, and Sweden. Following the union’s dissolution, successive Swedish monarchs, starting with Gustav Vasa, demanded the removal of the Tre Kronor from the Danish coat of arms, a demand consistently rebuffed by Denmark, leading to devastating wars and immense loss of life. The symbol thus became deeply entrenched in the historical and political relationship between the two nations, representing a long and contested history. Historian Dick Harrison emphasized the historical weight of the decision, suggesting the removal would have been met with immense celebration in Sweden had it occurred in earlier times. The decision, therefore, marks a symbolic closure to this historical chapter, signalling a new era in Danish-Swedish relations.
Ronny Skov Andersen, the royal heraldic artist behind the redesign, stated that the committee responsible for the change did not consult the Swedish royal house, deeming it unnecessary. He stated that the primary motivation was to create a coat of arms that reflected the modern reality of the Danish kingdom, emphasizing Greenland and the Faroe Islands as integral parts of Denmark rather than historical curiosities. Andersen downplayed the controversy surrounding the removal of a symbol associated with centuries of conflict and considerable loss of life, asserting that the coat of arms should solely reflect the present state of affairs. This rationale underscores a shift in Danish national identity, prioritizing the contemporary geopolitical reality over historical symbolism.
The old coat of arms, dating back to 1972, juxtaposed with the new design clearly reveals the absence of the Tre Kronor. This visual representation underscores the significance of the change, marking a clear break from the past. Danish historian Sebastian Olden-Jørgensen also downplayed the significance of the change, interpreting it as a modernization effort aimed at removing outdated symbols with little relevance to contemporary Danes. He argued that the move aligns with the current political objective of strengthening ties within the Danish commonwealth, composed of Denmark, Greenland, and the Faroe Islands. This perspective emphasizes the current political climate and the desire to reinforce internal unity within the kingdom over maintaining symbolic ties to historical conflicts.
The recent political maneuvering surrounding Greenland, particularly former US President Donald Trump’s expressed interest in purchasing the island, has likely influenced the decision to enhance Greenland’s prominence in the Danish coat of arms, according to royal expert Lars Hovbakke Sørensen. He posits that the Danish royal family’s desire to strengthen Greenland’s symbolic ties to Denmark is a direct response to these external pressures. This interpretation suggests a strategic move to reinforce Danish sovereignty over Greenland in the face of international interest. Sørensen further stresses the need for the monarchy to continuously modernize and adapt to changing times, highlighting the evolving nature of national symbolism and its role in reflecting the political landscape.
While acknowledging Sweden’s prior adoption of the Tre Kronor, Sørensen argues that the symbol eventually evolved into a representation of the Kalmar Union and its constituent countries. He attributes its continued inclusion in the Danish coat of arms to a desire to honor positive Scandinavian relations, a perspective challenged by Harrison, who dismisses it as a typical Danish explanation. Harrison argues that the retention of the symbol stems from heraldic conservatism and tradition rather than a genuine desire to celebrate Scandinavian unity. Andersen partially concedes this point, admitting that while the symbol was initially retained to commemorate the Kalmar Union, it also served as a tacit assertion of Danish claims over Sweden. This multifaceted interpretation of the Tre Kronor’s symbolism reveals the complex historical and political context surrounding its inclusion in the Danish coat of arms and the varied interpretations of its meaning.
