I reverted some details about border between Altona and Hamburg. It is true that there are some nuances between "under the Danish king" and "part of Denmark". But for the visitor the interesting point (and sufficiently precise) is that Danish rule began in the suburbs of Hamburg. Holstein was part of the German Confederation (Deutscher Bund) which was a weak construction and not a sovereign state. From a practical perspective (not formal or constitutional) it was inside Denmark. So for instance the first "Danish" railway was built between Kiel and Altona. When the Danish king lost Holstein, a new port was established in Esbjerg. --Erik den yngre (talk) 11:45, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree that the rule of the Danish kings over Holstein is an interesting historical fact. And of course it is true that there are some Danish traces left in Altona. No doubt, Altona had a special relationship to Denmark. However I would strongly disagree to the assertion that it was only "nuances" between "being part of Denmark" and "being ruled by a Danish king."
The degree of affiliation to a country must be considered constitutional, administrative, political, military, economical, judicial, linguistic, cultural and with reference to the self-determination of the population. Here, Holstein only economically and militarily belonged to the Helstat, not even to the Kingdom of Denmark. Everything else was separate, not only in theory but also practically.
Many people who read "Danish rule" will understand "part of Denmark." Even most renowned encyclopedias are not helpful either, they are usually rather negligently inaccurate when using the adjective "Danish." What would one mean by "Danish" and what would one understand? Let's take the example "Danish railway." Is the railway in Denmark or was it commissioned by the Danish state? The enyclopedias misleadingly suggest former, the truth is latter.
My point is not that Altona was German but that it was not Danish. The myth of the "Danish Altona" is widely spread both in Altona and in Denmark because everybody simply wants to believe it. You know, I'm just tired of the people in Altona believing in myths and telling fairy tales to the tourists. Still I won't go that far demanding a scientifc waterproof text, let it be "Danish rule" without further explanation. I simply had to change, what's straightforward untrue.
It is not easy to understand all the twists and turns of "rule of the Danish king" in Slesvig & Holstein. Wars were fought over it. Holstein was certainly German in terms of language (my ancestors came from Altona and did not cross any border to get into Norway....I think). And the concept of sovereign states were not fully developed at the time, hence the strange situation that Holstein was under the Danish king yet as Duke of Holstein the Danish king was subject to the German-Roman emperor. Even Harald of Norway originates from the house of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg. Anyway the border post shown has the insignia of the Danish king. Wikivoyage can not go into all the details (leave that to Wikipedia), as long it is sufficiently precise and fair about interesting points we are happy. Erik den yngre (talk) 20:14, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Border of the Empire
Yes, I completely agree with you. By the way, there is a similar interesting artefact shown in the picture below. it marked the border of the German-Roman empire between Holstein and Sleswick at the Holsten Gate in Rendsburg. --Pod-o-mart (talk) 23:23, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
