English-Danish Union in 1730

[Valdemar II]

To give a idea of the country's size,

Denmark and Sweden had around the same population at this point 4 million all in all. England around 5,5 millions, Ireland around 2,5 million and Scotland around 1 million. It gives us 13 million somewhat lower than France 19 millions. But better than Spains 8-9 millions, and around the same as Austria (with German and Hungarian possesions).

[Velasco]

Most importantly, a complete domination of Baltic and North Sea trade and politics

[Valdemar II]

Originally Posted by Velasco

Most importantly, a complete domination of Baltic and North Sea trade and politics

To much greater degree than it look like at first, Denmark are a completely absolute state and has been so for a century, much of the elite base their power on the absolutism of the regime. Sweden likely also stay absolut. This mean that the English king has both his own navy and army, and the army are bigger than the British and the unified navies of Denmark-Sweden at this point aren't much smaller if I remember correctly. While this may be seen as a threat by the British parliament, it are also a oppotunity for more activist policies on the continent and both Sweden and Denmark are relative easy to defend at this point, if you have naval dominance. The personal union also give UK access to raw materials to it beginning industry.

[Valdemar II]

So how would a war turn out, at first I would say Austria would join but maybe not, this may be England-Sweden-Denmark alone against a Russian-Prussian-French alliance alliance. The weaknesses of vast Oldenburg inherience are the North German possesions (Holstein, Oldenburg and Swedish Pommern) and Finland. Other German states like Hanover may see a oppotunity to join the anti-Oldenburg alliance, but likely the Russians will start by invading Finland, if the Swedes are smart they go defensive. Prussia are military powerful, but in truth not stronger than the Danes, without having to defend Norway Denmark can bring several thousand more troops into play and are in a stronger position than Prussia. The biggest threat are when the French armies arrives on the scene. But as long as the Danish sounds doesn't freeze rich Funen and Zealand are safe from the French.

So as long as the Oldenburg goes defensive they are in a better position. They can simply wait their enemies out in their heartlands. The question are whom run out of patience first or whether new players join or one of the side does something stupid. The first are likely to benefit the Oldenburg and the latter are likely to benefit the Russian-Prussian-French alliance (there are simply fewer stupid thing they can do).

[Gonzaga]

Just an interesting thought I've had: considering that Ulrika apparently never became pregnant IOTL, and assuming that she keeps this fate ITTL, her marriage to William would have created a huge Anglo-Dano-Swedish Empire, but all of it would fall apart after their deaths. But then there would be the big problem of who would be their successors in each kingdom. I'm assuming that William would live at least as long as his father and die in the early 1740's, just when Ulrika died too IOTL.

[Thande]

Valdemar raises a good point with the fact that the king would have a private army. I think in the long run that might doom this union, given how unpopular the idea would be with the Briitish people.

Would Danish constitutionalists push for the idea of a closer union to get Denmark parliamentary representation via a united parliament I wonder?

[Valdemar II]

Originally Posted by Gonzaga

Just an interesting thought I've had: considering that Ulrika apparently never became pregnant IOTL, and assuming that she keeps this fate ITTL, her marriage to William would have created a huge Anglo-Dano-Swedish Empire, but all of it would fall apart after their deaths. But then there would be the big problem of who would be their successors in each kingdom. I'm assuming that William would live at least as long as his father and die in the early 1740's, just when Ulrika died too IOTL.

Yes I have had that thought too, in that case George II of Great Britain are likely the closest non-catholic heir to the English throne. While Karl Peter Ulrich of Gottorp are the closest heir to both Sweden and Denmark, or as he's known Peter III of Russia. But if William doesn't have any children, we are unlikely to see succession war in 1730, we will likely just see a accept of William inheriate in 1730 and the different pretenders making themself ready to his death.

Of course if Ulrika marry earlier the chance for her getting pregnant are much larger. She was a little over 30 whgen she married in OTL, even with modern medicine many women have trouble with fertility at that age. So I would put a 50/50 chance of her getting pregnant with a earlier marriage, as long as we don't have any medicinal record of the reason for her infertility.

[Valdemar II]

Originally Posted by Thande

Valdemar raises a good point with the fact that the king would have a private army. I think in the long run that might doom this union, given how unpopular the idea would be with the Briitish people.

To some point I agree, but I think pragmatism will win out if this 18th century are anything like ours. Simply because they're going to use those armies in war after war. England would also have the problem how to disconnect the royal Danish and Swedish inherience. Naval the Danish and Swedish navy would big enough to be a threat to the English. So they risk a war with the king if they try anything radical. I think the English parliament are going to adopt a large degree of pragmatism and have to yell "Lalalalala I can't hear you" when the problem are brought up, while the king will likely get a large pensions to keep his Danish-Swedish armies running, so he will likely try to upkeep status quo too, and only push the parliament in the peace negoations after the different war, where he has lend his army out, so he get something in those.

Would Danish constitutionalists push for the idea of a closer union to get Denmark parliamentary representation via a united parliament I wonder?

Sweden are more likely to push for it, in Denmark the burghers and new nobles was pro-absolutism, while the old nobles would like the idea. But most likely the idea would be ignored, especially because there has been no Act of Union in 1707 to inspire it. Through when democracy movements hits in the late 18th and early 19th century, we may see it suggested, especially if the Danish-Swedish economies are heavily integrated in the English.

[Gonzaga]

Originally Posted by Valdemar II

Of course if Ulrika marry earlier the chance for her getting pregnant are much larger. She was a little over 30 whgen she married in OTL, even with modern medicine many women have trouble with fertility at that age. So I would put a 50/50 chance of her getting pregnant with a earlier marriage, as long as we don't have any medicinal record of the reason for her infertility.

Sure, I forgot that she married quite old for the time. Both scenarios would be interesting though, one where she doesn't have a heir and all the unions fall and other where this personal union Empire (that makes the Habsburg one ashamed) is kept.
Just a curiosity: while Britain and Sweden had no problem with female inheritance, Denmark didn't have this tradition. What would the Danish do if William and Ulrika's heir is a girl?

[Faeelin]

Originally Posted by Valdemar II

While this may be seen as a threat by the British parliament, it are also a oppotunity for more activist policies on the continent and both Sweden and Denmark are relative easy to defend at this point, if you have naval dominance. The personal union also give UK access to raw materials to it beginning industry.

here's a question. Would the Danish monarchs want to be bound by Parliament? I can see a major culture clash fairly quickly, and a lot of anti-Danish propaganda from the Whigs.

[Velasco]

I'm guessing they'd seek to marry her to the next male heir of their liking, as a means of securing the inheritance for him of the united empire. Alternatively, if Ulrika is childless, depending on his popularity William could be offered throne of Sweden (either for life or permanently) and other heirs excluded, or he marry the next available female with swedish royal blood and the intermediate heirs excluded. Or he take the throne by election or conquest.

Wouldn't be too unlikely for the respective heirs of each throne to seek to marry amongst each other to assure succession of all the thrones. So maybe George of Hanover marries into Danish/Swedish royalty.

Also, isn't there precedent for throne of Denmark being inherited through women?

[Gonzaga]

Originally Posted by Faeelin

here's a question. Would the Danish monarchs want to be bound by Parliament? I can see a major culture clash fairly quickly, and a lot of anti-Danish propaganda from the Whigs.

But how much "Danish" would be this Danish king after all? The first of them, William, would be born in Britain, raised as a British prince, and according to the POD he would only inherit the Danish throne 15 years after he had become the British king. And given the fact that England was the richer and most important of the kingdoms, his family would probably be raised there, or at least spend more time in England than in Denmark. Wouldn't they be then more used to the "British idea" of monarchy then the Danish one?

[Valdemar II]

Originally Posted by Gonzaga

Sure, I forgot that she married quite old for the time. Both scenarios would be interesting though, one where she doesn't have a heir and all the unions fall and other where this personal union Empire (that makes the Habsburg one ashamed) is kept.
Just a curiosity: while Britain and Sweden had no problem with female inheritance, Denmark didn't have this tradition. What would the Danish do if William and Ulrika's heir is a girl?

Denmark had semi-Salic law, you could inheriate through the female line, but ruling Queens* wasn't allowed. But because Denmark has a unclear inherience and a absolut regime, the king could theorectical just make his son-in-law hereditary prince (arveprins), which would mean that he became king if the king didn't produce any sons.

*Yes some will mention Margrethe I, but she was never queen only regent, we are just still to terrified of her to make any changes in the history books about her.

[Valdemar II]

Originally Posted by Faeelin

here's a question. Would the Danish monarchs want to be bound by Parliament? I can see a major culture clash fairly quickly, and a lot of anti-Danish propaganda from the Whigs.

Well it depend, the Danish absolut kings has a lot of power in Denmark, but they still had to build powerbases to keep the regime going. Struenses fundamental mistake was to alienate all potential allies, which was why he ended up a head shorter, other people had defacto been Stadholders of Denmark, when the kings was to drunk or stupid to rule the country. I don't think it will be a big problem, William has been raised in England, and will likely stay there, while sending a stadtholders/governours/viceroys to Denmark, Sweden and Norway. They will likely be smart enough to not alienate the locals, especially because in Denmark-Norway a competent royal bastard* are likely to end up stadtholder. While they likely also find a local relative they can trust in Sweden. This will be fundamental a English king ruling over this union, it won't be a Danish or Swedish.

*Bastards are worth their weight in gold in personal unions or large states, they doesn't have any claim on the inherience, but they have a princely education and they have some of the respect people give the dynasty. If they are somewhat competent they make excellent viceroys.

[Gonzaga]

Originally Posted by Valdemar II

Well it depend, the Danish absolut kings has a lot of power in Denmark, but they still had to build powerbases to keep the regime going. Struenses fundamental mistake was to alienate all potential allies, which was why he ended up a head shorter, other people had defacto been Stadholders of Denmark, when the kings was to drunk or stupid to rule the country. I don't think it will be a big problem, William has been raised in England, and will likely stay there, while sending a stadtholders/governours/viceroys to Denmark, Sweden and Norway. They will likely be smart enough to not alienate the locals, especially because in Denmark-Norway a competent royal bastard* are likely to end up stadtholder. While they likely also find a local relative they can trust in Sweden. This will be fundamental a English king ruling over this union, it won't be a Danish or Swedish.

I wonder what would happen in the Scandinavian realms when Nationalism starts to become popular among the intellectuals (assuming that it still happens ITTL) and every unpopular measure or economical problem that happens there is blamed on the "English dominance". If such nationalistic movement appears, could it involve the three kingdoms, eventually creating an united Scandinavian country, or each country would develop its own Romantic/Nationalist agenda?

BTW, I think this idea of Anglo-Dano-Swedish personal union as interesting as plausible. I really would like to read a TL about this, even if just a short one.

[Valdemar II]

Originally Posted by Gonzaga

I wonder what would happen in the Scandinavian realms when Nationalism starts to become popular among the intellectuals (assuming that it still happens ITTL) and every unpopular measure or economical problem that happens there is blamed on the "English dominance". If such nationalistic movement appears, could it involve the three kingdoms, eventually creating an united Scandinavian country, or each country would develop its own Romantic/Nationalist agenda?

Nationalism are going to interesting, I lean toward a common Nationalist movement developing, if the three countries has been in union for decades if not a century when the romantic movement really hit, there will exist a pressure to integrate the three kingdoms. I don't think we will see a large degree of hostility to England in Denmark-Norway, which will follow OTL policies, Sweden are more likely especially with the competion from English industry, but fundamental I think we will see a pressure for a integrated Nordic state in personal union with England (think Austria-Hungary). Why I think we will see a single national movement, are because the states will share written language* and religion, some of the areas Sweden conquered from D-N in 17th century will also reingrate with D-N again even through they will stay part of Sweden. Which would make separate national movements quite ugly.

*none of the languages had been fully stardardlised yet, through we had seen the start.

BTW, I think this idea of Anglo-Dano-Swedish personal union as interesting as plausible. I really would like to read a TL about this, even if just a short one.

I'm thinking about it.

[dreadnought jenkins]

Originally Posted by Valdemar II

I'm thinking about it.

I'd read that timeline. It would be incredibly interesting.

[arctic warrior]

Originally Posted by Valdemar II

Denmark had semi-Salic law, you could inheriate through the female line, but ruling Queens* wasn't allowed. But because Denmark has a unclear inherience and a absolut regime, the king could theorectical just make his son-in-law hereditary prince (arveprins), which would mean that he became king if the king didn't produce any sons.

*Yes some will mention Margrethe I, but she was never queen only regent, we are just still to terrified of her to make any changes in the history books about her.

If you go through the Kongeloven af 1665 (royal succession act 1665) article 26 mention succession in government to a inheritance princess, article 27 that woman of male lines have primogeniture over men of female lines, article 28 men have primogeniture, article 29 that George and his line shouldn't be elegible for inheritance unless as stated in article 30 that Christians (V) line is extinct and finally article 37 that any male marrying the ruling inheritance queen of Denmark and Norway doesn't gain the right of power nor the royal line which rest with the inheritance queen!

So:
female rulers are not impossible except that Fredrick III did what he could to prevent that of course, as expressed in the 19. century that male lines was to be preferred so as to be able to keep the German lands where Salic law had to be obeyed.

And:
Georgies line is only elegible for inheritance when all of Christians (V) line is extinct.

I haven't dug deeper into the foundations of your ATL but I guess you've been through all this.

BTW the Kongeloven also state that the King is the superior of all cleresy of Denmark-Norway; i.e. empower his enforcement of appointing office. Which I thing would make no problem in relation to the King of England/Britains stature in relation to the Church of England per se.

[CaptainAmerica]

I would read a TL about this in a heartbeat. I dont think that a marriage to Ulrike would be possible I like the idea of William marrying his half-aunt which would stabilize the Kingdom

[Velasco]

I would love to do a TL on this, or collaborate to one if someone more experienced decides to take it up.