Anglo-Danish Union 1714

If an Anglo-Danish personal Union happened in 1714 what would happen

  • English Civil War II

    Votes: 1 3.4%
  • War of the English Succession with France involved

    Votes: 8 27.6%
  • A Coalition of Denmark's Neighbours declare War

    Votes: 3 10.3%
  • Not much at all

    Votes: 17 58.6%

  • Total voters
    29
Assume that everything basically goes as OTL, except that somewhere along the line, the King of Denmark-Norway becomes the heir to the British throne instead of the Elector of Hanover in 1714.

(Yes I know I'm killing a lot of butterflies here but I'm looking at this from the 10,000 foot level to get a sense of the issues involved).

In the short term...

Would this trigger something like the War of the English Succession (Danes and Whigs vs. Jacobites and Tories) or would the other great powers accept it knowing there wasn't much they could do about it? I can't quite see France wanting to get involved so soon after the War of the Spanish Succession but then again this impending Union would hardly be a surprise to anybody from about 1705 on.

Would Sweden accept this or try to build a coalition to break the Union by conquering Denmark or limit by conquering Norway?

Would the English/Scottish accept the Union? I don't see why they wouldn't, given that they accepted George I? On the other hand, a King with the resources of Denmark-Norway is probably a very different thing to a King with the resources of an Elector.

In the longer term...

How would the union work? Would it work at all? Could you see a move to some 'federal' system over time? Would it last a couple of Generations and then peter out in a rebellion somewhere?

I really have to go an find Tony Jones' Gurkani Alam.

David
 
I don't see war yet but you've probably guaranteed a Franco-Swedish alliance in any confrontation with Britain or Denmark.
The UK Parliament might not be happy at both less control over the monarch and a possible obligation to Danish foreign relations.
The Danes might not be happy for the same reasons.
Any war that decreases the territory of either will increase pressure to end the union.
 
Well the interesting part is of course suddenly a English King have access to an army not regulated by a certain Parliament :p
 
Some random questions:

Could the interests of the two kingdoms be kept separate, Britain looking west and south and Denmark looking east and south?

Would it be possible to forge a wider stable alliance that included Hanover and the Netherlands?

Would the ATL king have to spend more time in Denmark than the OTL king spent in Hanover?

Would/could the Danes use British support to take back Scania? Would the Baltic powers ever rest if the Danes got back control of the Oresund?

Would things be better if Sweden controlled Norway, perhaps as a trade for Scania?

Any thoughts would be welcome,

David
 
Well the interesting part is of course suddenly a English King have access to an army not regulated by a certain Parliament :p
Nope, the Danish also had a constitution that explicitly forbids the use of the army in a private investiture without coming before Parliament. It’s hilarious how little power some of the Danish Kings had.

Edit: Their governments would actually work quite well together, considering that they shared almost the exact same goals...
 
in 1714 the Danish king is a Absolute monarch since 1665 dictated by the King's law. Before that it is true that the Danish king could have very little power with the council of the realm wielding considerable power, but it was a archaic institution, which lay the ground work for much of the Danish losses during the 17th century (IMO)
 
Did not see the above post, so thought I would answer some of the questions to the best of my ability. Disclaimer this is on the top of my head, so details might be

Could the interests of the two kingdoms be kept separate, Britain looking west and south and Denmark looking east and south?

Denmark will likely keep looking south (I get to why later), east much less so. More importantly Denmark will eventually look west, no doubt about it. Furthermore Norway is already looking west, and Norway while at this point a mere "province" of Denmark and not a separate Kingdom. Is not without value (again I get to that in another answer)


Would the ATL king have to spend more time in Denmark than the OTL king spent in Hanover?
To be fair I don't know how much time the Kings spent in Hanover. But I do think the King of the Anglo-Danish union could get away with spending relatively little time in Denmark. A good suggestion for a royal governor or whatever you wanna call it for Denmark could be the bastards of the Danish kings. As a old and now banned Dane on this forum called the Gyldenløves (Surname given to a series of illegitimate sons of Danish Kings): They were embarrassingly loyal to the Danish throne.

Arguably the most famous of these illegitimate sons is still alive in 1714: General-Admiral Ulrik Christian Gyldenløve, Count of Samsø. Though he would die just a few years later in 1719, 36 years old.
Now Frederik IV of Denmark the King that would become King of the union also had a bastard son, but the young one did not survive to adulthood (born in 1704) It is certainly not out of the question that in this version of history, more bastards would be born, and as such you have access to a loyal cadre of well educated governors.

Would/could the Danes use British support to take back Scania? Would the Baltic powers ever rest if the Danes got back control of the Oresund?

The union would happen just two years after a Danish (re-)entry in the Great Northern War, and I don't see the British stopping Denmark from doing anything in the war, on the contrary.

The goals for Denmark during this war is sorted down below, with the first being the most important (IMO)

1: The Holstein question solved, Holstein-Gottorp is too much of a thorn in the side of Denmark, this was the main goal of Denmark in the war (it was fulfilled)
2-3: Bremen-Verden, during the war it was overrun by Danish soldiers in 1712, in return of George I's aid, Denmark sold the occupied province to the Electorate of Hannover. In this timeline that won't happen, Hannover is nothing to Denmark without the personal union, it will stay occupied by Danish soldiers and likely is ceded to Denmark in the peace treaty, bonus points for Denmark now that Holstein is in Danish hands, in control large parts of the coast, including the Elbe and Weser estuary's. Remember Oldenburg during this timeframe is Danish.
2-3: Skåne, the Dane in me wants to say that Skåne would be the second most important objective for Denmark, but I think Bremen-Verden is a lower hanging fruit, nonetheless I could still see Denmark pushing for Skåne. Sure The Netherlands will object, but heavily declined I argue that Denmark is the stronger of the two.
4: Swedish pomerania, Rügen and Wismar.
5: Gotland - Estonian isles etc.
6: Norwegian lands lost in 1658.

It's important to note that Denmark during this time is HEAVILY militarized having a large number of the population in the military, just as Prussia and Sweden had.

Would things be better if Sweden controlled Norway, perhaps as a trade for Scania?
No (IMO).
Three reasons.
1: Norway will eventually look west, if it does not already do it. This mean the Norwegian population will benifit more from staying with Denmark.
2: While often deemed backwards by Danes, Norway was the cashcow of the Dano-Norwegian Kingdom, not Denmark. (not counting the Sound toll) Loosing Norway while winning the great Northern war makes no sense. Furthermore it have valuable resources that Great Britain will drool over. Noticeable crucial naval supplies.
3: I think it was @Jürgen that mentioned this a few months ago. The loss of Norway during the Napoleonic wars had a profound effect on Holstein and more importantly the emerging nationalism.
Before the loss of Norway, the center of "power" in Holstein was the eastern coast and trade in the Danish straits and Norway. While after the loss, the shifted west to the south-east, increasing ties with the emerging German states making sure German nationalism took roots in the 1840'tish. Eventually leading to to the loss of 40 % of the Danish state and 60 % of the economy.

Now as mentioned above I would go on to talk about which "way" Denmark was looking during this period. Traditionally it have been south to Germany due to the economic ties. Nationalism, the loss of Schleswig-Holstein and industrialization would change this. after the loss the UK became the most important trading partner of Denmark, but before the war it had already been a trend that trade was increasing with the UK, the war and nationalism simply cemented it. Due to this I argue that Denmark will at some point in the nearby future of 1714 change its trading patterns from the south to the west, keeping Norway and a union with the British isles will simply make certain it happens earlier than OTL (IMO)

---
Anyways I hope it made sense :p!
 
I have severe reservations regarding the plausibility of this, but one thing is pretty damn certain. The sound of the collective pants-shitting in Stockholm would be audible all the way to Beijing.

An Anglo-Danish union would reset all the reverses suffered at Helsingborg and catapult the Oldenburg state into a leading position in the anti-Swedish alliance - not exactly on par with Russia, but damn close. With Frederick IV on the English throne he’s pretty much assured an almost free hand during the peace negotiations, which (if a successful conquest is conducted) might very well include a redemption of Scania.
 
I have severe reservations regarding the plausibility of this, but one thing is pretty damn certain. The sound of the collective pants-shitting in Stockholm would be audible all the way to Beijing.

An Anglo-Danish union would reset all the reverses suffered at Helsingborg and catapult the Oldenburg state into a leading position in the anti-Swedish alliance - not exactly on par with Russia, but damn close. With Frederick IV on the English throne he’s pretty much assured an almost free hand during the peace negotiations, which (if a successful conquest is conducted) might very well include a redemption of Scania.

Oh I admit it's a low probability event but so was OTL when the British had to skip whole sets of possible heirs until they got to the Hanoverians.

I'm just thinking about the mechanics of a different personal union in 1714.

I'm actually somewhat surprised that nobody has tied this into the end of the War of the Spanish Succession. Is that just because there's nothing the French could do about the union?
 
Honestly a lot of my analysis in the past of this union was based on small Danish-Norwegian borders, greater Denmark-Norway will change this union radical. As it would give Denmark-Norway half of the UK's population. I still agree that the king will stay in London, but Greater Denmark-Norway are a great power in its own right especially under a absolute regime. While the king is unlikely to be able to become absolute king of UK, he will be able to translate it into political power in London, he will have far more power over foreign policy as he will have his own army (likely bigger than the British one) and navy (smaller than the British one), which means parliament will pretty much have to ask him whether they can borrow his armed forces in foreign wars. Of course the Danish armies will also put the British in a much better position, as they will be less depended on their alliance network with the north German states to deliver the armies for British wars in the continent. This may enable the British to avoid the diplomatic revolution, I could see UK intervene in the Austrian Succession War.

One thing I think Sweden will keep Swedish Pomerania, they kept it for diplomatic/treaty reasons connected to the Westphalian Treaty in OTL, I think no one will want to open that can of worms by throwing the Swedes out of Germany. With the British-Danes in the ASW, I expect the Swedes won't start a war with Russia, but instead try to gain as much of Pomerania as possible instead. This will lead the Swedes to avoid the Hats Russian War, and likely making gain in Germany instead. This would lead to the Hats staying in power, and a more defensive Finnish border.
 
Oh I admit it's a low probability event but so was OTL when the British had to skip whole sets of possible heirs until they got to the Hanoverians.

I'm just thinking about the mechanics of a different personal union in 1714.

I'm actually somewhat surprised that nobody has tied this into the end of the War of the Spanish Succession. Is that just because there's nothing the French could do about the union?

Yes there isn't a whole lot they can do about it.
 
Did not see the above post, so thought I would answer some of the questions to the best of my ability. Disclaimer this is on the top of my head, so details might be

---
Anyways I hope it made sense :p!

Thank you, Bastiram you've given me a lot to think about and research.
 
Something like this, but earlier.

It's an interesting premise but, all else being equal, I don't see that happening for a long time. I don't believe there was a lot of cultural mixing between Britain and Hanover in OTL. I don't see why there would be more with Denmark-Norway.

I would think for it to happen you'd need a long period of cultural mixing, perhaps to the extent of a political union as well as a personal one...a real Anglo-Danish Empire as it were. Could that really happen before the mid-nineteenth century?
 
It's an interesting premise but, all else being equal, I don't see that happening for a long time. I don't believe there was a lot of cultural mixing between Britain and Hanover in OTL. I don't see why there would be more with Denmark-Norway.

I would think for it to happen you'd need a long period of cultural mixing, perhaps to the extent of a political union as well as a personal one...a real Anglo-Danish Empire as it were. Could that really happen before the mid-nineteenth century?
Very good points all around. The main difference I see is that the history of England and Scotland are much more closely linked to Denmark and Norway than to Hanover. Furthermore, Denmark and Norway aren't as tied up in the German intrigues that were rife in the later years of the HRE. Then again, they do have Schleswig and Holstein....
 
Top