Anglo-Danish-Norwegian Union...

In 1558/1559?

Queen Elizabeth I gains the throne from her sister, Mary I who put England into a personal union with Spain. There are some Catholics throughout the land who want England to revert to Catholicism especially after Mary I. Queen Elizabeth knows she needs to put people of from Catholicism and needs to cement the work done by her father and brother, how could she do this?

At the same time Prince Frederick of Denmark-Norway is the heir to the throne of Denmark-Norway which had been created just 22 years ago after a precarious union of all the Scandinavian states in the 'Kalmar Union' split with Sweden leaving with Finland, thus damaging Denmark's credibility. Frederick needs a good strong nation to help him develop a better and stonger nation and to also help regain land from Sweden, how will he do this?

The answer to both of these is simple, a marriage between Queen Elizabeth and Prince Frederick. The two protestant nations will come together in union like they had done before the Norman's invaded England and so both nations would be strengthened.

ASB or possible? You decide :)
 
Possibly, but you have to get rid of Elizabeth's OTL fear of marriage. Some say it came from what happened to her mother, Anne Boleyn, others say it's because she was molested by Thomas Howard as a teenager. If she does marry Frederick, there is also chance it is only a temporary union. If they have two sons, you could see one gain England, and the only Denmark-Norway. Heck, even with three sons they might decide to give each a portion of the kingdom. The marriage is certainly possible, but a lasting union much less so.
 

MacCaulay

Banned
Is it wrong that I saw Drake's name below the thread title and read it as "Anglo-Draka-Norwegian Union...", then cringed?

Wait...I think that's the right reaction to Draka stuff.
 
Is it wrong that I saw Drake's name below the thread title and read it as "Anglo-Draka-Norwegian Union...", then cringed?

Wait...I think that's the right reaction to Draka stuff.

Yay, I make people think of the Draka! :D Er... wait, that's a bad thing, isn't it?
 
Possibly, but you have to get rid of Elizabeth's OTL fear of marriage. Some say it came from what happened to her mother, Anne Boleyn, others say it's because she was molested by Thomas Howard as a teenager. If she does marry Frederick, there is also chance it is only a temporary union. If they have two sons, you could see one gain England, and the only Denmark-Norway. Heck, even with three sons they might decide to give each a portion of the kingdom. The marriage is certainly possible, but a lasting union much less so.

Not trying to be pedantic but why couldn't they stay united? Why wouldn't they want to?

This is more in general because when I've done these things before people always say nations will split up, but in OTL when james I came to the throne his son Charles I was the King of both nations without splitting the nations.
 

Valdemar II

Banned
Possibly, but you have to get rid of Elizabeth's OTL fear of marriage. Some say it came from what happened to her father, others say it's because she was molested by Thomas Howard as a teenager. If she does marry Frederick, there is also chance it is only a temporary union. If they have two sons,v you could see one gain England, and the only Denmark-Norway. Heck, even with three sons they might decide to give each a portion of the kingdom. The marriage is certainly possible, but a lasting union much less so.

I doubt they would split it, while the Denmark was a elective monarchy at the time, the Danish Kings was quite succesful in giving it to their oldest son, beside that there's little reason to split it up, Denmark was a major producer of foodstuffs, while Norway was a major producer of timber, and England was a major consumer of these products, so it would fit rather good in the economical theories of the time, and it would benefit the nobilities in all three countries.
 
Not trying to be pedantic but why couldn't they stay united? Why wouldn't they want to?

This is more in general because when I've done these things before people always say nations will split up, but in OTL when james I came to the throne his son Charles I was the King of both nations without splitting the nations.

Right, but Scotland and England had a direct border with each other and it had been a goal for sometime to see both Scotland and England united under one monarch. James I even styled himself as King of Great Britain although Parliament refused to give him the title.

I only say a split is likely because they are seperated by sea and it'd be difficult for the King to govern Norway and Denmark from London. Not saying it's impossible, but the Danes may find some resentment from being ruled from London and want their King to reside in Copenhagen.

I doubt they would split it, while the Denmark was a elective monarchy at the time, the Danish Kings was quite succesful in giving it to their oldest son, beside that there's little reason to split it up, Denmark was a major producer of foodstuffs, while Norway was a major producer of timber, and England was a major consumer of these products, so it would fit rather good in the economical theories of the time, and it would benefit the nobilities in all three countries.

Yeah, I can see the benefit, of course. I'd still say a split betwen England and Denmark-Norway is at least possible.

Of course, I tend to hate blobbing of nations myself so I may be a bit biased... :eek:
 
Right, but Scotland and England had a direct border with each other and it had been a goal for sometime to see both Scotland and England united under one monarch. James I even styled himself as King of Great Britain although Parliament refused to give him the title.

Hmmm. There was a growing sense of coexistence and perhaps geopolitical brotherhood as regards Scotland, but I would be wary of suggesting that it was either inevitable or a lasting thing. Scotland largely relied on English trade to keep itself afloat and healthy, and the days of the constant Anglo-French antagonism which bred Scottish involvement in wars were gone, but there are plenty of ways that England and Scotland could have existed without deliberately sacrificing all other possibilities in order to guarantee union. There were plenty of supporters of Scottish independence, too.

I only say a split is likely because they are seperated by sea and it'd be difficult for the King to govern Norway and Denmark from London. Not saying it's impossible, but the Danes may find some resentment from being ruled from London and want their King to reside in Copenhagen.

Kind of yes, kind of no. These comments are correct, but they aren't the greatest concerns, and by themselves they are rather surmountable. The main concern is having Elizabeth choose to marry, and choose to marry Frederick in particular, of course, but it goes on from there. Denmark had been rather inward-facing for a while, concerned largely with Scandinavia, occasionally with Germany, and very rarely with anyone else. England was only just reaching a point where it was starting to look beyond western European concerns and expand political horizons to the rest of Europe. The match is possible, but it really wasn't for another generation that Denmark really opened up - as evidenced by Frederick's marrying a German from nearby Mecklemburg, and fathering a future English queen (Anne). In this regard, Sweden is a much better possibility. But let's look beyond that, because such things become non-issues if you find a way to make the match happen anyway. The more lasting issue is different.

So getting back on track, a split is entirely possible over the political distances, yes. However, the royal couple being in the wrong country isn't a crunching problem. England and Denmark particularly aren't a bad match at all because the travel distance is a mere week by medieval transport - two weeks in bad weather and you can travel by land in the same amount of time if you're desperate. It's nothing compared to the problems the contemporary Philip II of Spain created by trying to single-handedly run the entire Spanish Empire from the wrong side of the Atlantic Ocean. Norway shouldn't be considered a major issue though, since it was in essence an overseas territory of Denmark. It was run by Danish courtiers and took orders from Copenhagen. In fact those orders would probably take as long to arrive as decrees for Denmark written in London. Norway was used to delays and accepted them. Given the small journey time, Denmark would accept the delays too, as would England on the probably fairly frequent (maybe once every 6 months to a year) visits the royal couple would likely make to Denmark. It would be a disruption for sure, but in this era and particularly the century after it, bureaucracy is starting to take off. If anything, this match would make both governments better at handling business efficiently by themselves, though of course there would be teething problems for a while. The bigger issue, though, is over cooperation. On the face of it, the two countries share common ideals and styles. Both are countries somewhat overshadowed by neighbours but with significant punching power, both prefer to operate navally and are Protestant. Denmark is more Lutheran but I'd say it's feasible if not probable that the two would come to unify on a middle ground in religion - probably a middle ground significantly closer to Anglicanism but a middle ground nonetheless. However, their political spheres are totally different and that's the problem. England is interested in becoming important to the major European players - Spain, France, HRE, Austria, and to an extent places like Portugal, Italy. Denmark and beyond holds little interest factor aside from minor things like the Muscovy Company. Denmark is interested in controlling access to the Baltic, being a regional power in north Germany and trying to keep Sweden in line. There's very little overlap there. Denmark would benefit from the exposure to England's foreign policy but ultimately would lack the ability to be able to do anything except occasionally have a token part in minor skirmishes so that they could say they were there, meaning that the Danish would likely choose to ignore England's foreign policy to focus on their own affairs. England by contrast probably would have the ability to send troops to aid Denmark and be notable by the size of their commitment (it's hardly Spanish tercios, but they wouldn't be all bad) however this would be a drain on revenues and would gain England very little as it has no desire to get involved in the Baltic. This is the crunch issue. Denmark is of little use to England in the short-term at least, and England wouldn't want to be of use to Denmark. That is the real issue which could provoke a split - the two governments would both be urging a refusal to cooperate.
 
Thanks, Falastur. I have a big interest in the early modern period, especially the Elizabethan era, and that post was really enlightening! :) I sometimes forget how travel wasn't as slow as we believe it to be (at least, compared to modern times).

You're also right on Scotland. Even if the two don't unite, Scotland would become fairly pro-English. Pro-French interests reached their peak in the early 1500s and remained for some time under the Regency of Marie de Guise, but the growing Protestants favored relations with England -- England was a much more natural ally, and the Auld Alliance had brought nothing of value to Scotland.

What effect would the marriage of Frederick to Elizabeth have on the Elizabethan religious settlement? IOTL she favored a moderate course and only cracked down on the Catholics after the Babbington Plot. Might a marriage to a more solidly Protestant Prince influence the religious settlement in a more 'purist' direction to get rid of some remaining Catholic rituals? I've always wondered what would've happened had Elizabeth married a Calvinist prince.
 
What effect would the marriage of Frederick to Elizabeth have on the Elizabethan religious settlement? IOTL she favored a moderate course and only cracked down on the Catholics after the Babbington Plot. Might a marriage to a more solidly Protestant Prince influence the religious settlement in a more 'purist' direction to get rid of some remaining Catholic rituals? I've always wondered what would've happened had Elizabeth married a Calvinist prince.

It depends somewhat on the personality of Frederick, but my immediate response is "not a lot". Elizabeth had a very dominant personality, and wouldn't be pushed aside on her natural line. She might be persuaded into a slightly more pro-Protestant line on certain issues when she sat on the fence and wasn't prepared to make a call either way, but when she had her heart set on something she wouldn't be moved. The Catholics are not going to end up being persecuted from the start and England isn't going to become Lutheran, not by a long shot. Rather what we're likely to see is more of a movement to remove bits of Catholic pomp and ceremony from services in a nod to England's new ties with a Lutheran country, and perhaps a stronger pro-Protestant backlash to major religious incidents such as the assassination/dethrone attempts, but really it's going to be a question of shades of the same colour. The real religious differences are going to form over time (if you can sustain the union) as time and different figures start shaping the two countries to conform more with each other.
 
I figured that might be the case, but at any rate, even a slight movement to make Anglicanism more 'mainstream' in regards to Protestantism would probably appease the growing Puritan ranks in England. Their largest qualms were with the Catholic rituals that remained in the Church of England. This is definately one of the more interesting marriages of Elizabeth that could have happened in history.
 
I figured that might be the case, but at any rate, even a slight movement to make Anglicanism more 'mainstream' in regards to Protestantism would probably appease the growing Puritan ranks in England. Their largest qualms were with the Catholic rituals that remained in the Church of England. This is definately one of the more interesting marriages of Elizabeth that could have happened in history.

Re: Puritanism - quite. However, remember that Puritanism as a noteworthy and "dangerous" (in terms of potential, not intention) force only really appears in the 1630s or thereabouts, and not really in Elizabeth's era, especially with her ability to keep such things in check by dominating the loyalties of the influential figures in the country.

Re: most interesting matches for Elizabeth - very true, however I did once read a TL proposal about a marriage to Ivan the Terrible. Yes, Ivan the Terrible, you read it right. There are 101 ways to shoot it down as implausible (it makes travel distances between London and Copenhagen seem like peanuts, though it still doesn't touch on the sheer mindbogglingly idiotic inefficiency of Philip II) but there was a crazy match for Elizabeth if ever I saw one.
 

Valdemar II

Banned
It depends somewhat on the personality of Frederick, but my immediate response is "not a lot". Elizabeth had a very dominant personality, and wouldn't be pushed aside on her natural line. She might be persuaded into a slightly more pro-Protestant line on certain issues when she sat on the fence and wasn't prepared to make a call either way, but when she had her heart set on something she wouldn't be moved. The Catholics are not going to end up being persecuted from the start and England isn't going to become Lutheran, not by a long shot. Rather what we're likely to see is more of a movement to remove bits of Catholic pomp and ceremony from services in a nod to England's new ties with a Lutheran country, and perhaps a stronger pro-Protestant backlash to major religious incidents such as the assassination/dethrone attempts, but really it's going to be a question of shades of the same colour. The real religious differences are going to form over time (if you can sustain the union) as time and different figures start shaping the two countries to conform more with each other.

Frederick was if I remember correctly not especially interested in religion (through he supported other Protestant powers), he cared little for the matter and focused mostly on worldly matters. So he would likely mostly keep out that bussiness, in all likelyhood he would spend much of his time trying to reconquer Sweden, and I guess the English would have supported him to keep him away from London (through most of monetary support would come from his own possesions). Through he's not a bad match for Elizabeth, he is intelligent, charming and good looking, through also a drunk even by the standards of the time, but the fact that he will use much of the time in European wars which he mostly pay himself, will leave her to rule England alone, and he had little problem with a quite political active wife in OTL.
 
Top