Gustav III? Ulrik I? or Frederik I?

What would've happened if one of Carl XI's younger sons, Gustav (1683-1685), Ulrik (1684-1685) and Frederik (1685-1685) or Carl Gustaf (1686-1687) survived to outlive Carl XII?

Obviously this would mean that instead of Queen Ulrike Eleonora bartering away the royal powers in exchange for being chosen as queen over her Holsteiner nephew, the royal powers would remain intact. But would Carl feel comfortable leaving his brother as regent in Sweden after the death of their grandmother? Or would he apply a sort of royal-substitution like Friedrich II the Great and Gustaf III (where he would force his brother to marry and produce heirs so he didn't have to)?

Thoughts?
 
If Charles XII was murdered, the conspirators would have secured the heir on their side, and royal power had been a bit too strong for too long under very strained circumstances, so the outcome might have been similar to OTL. And if he was simply killed by a stray bullet, one could expect the same.

On the other hand, another strong prince might have been able to get some more focus on the Baltic front from the government so they last a bit longer, and perhaps he would have avoided the OTL mismanagement of the post-1718 peace negociations, so Sweden gets Estonia and Livonia back.

During the Turkish years 1709-1714, a powerful and secure regent that does not bother with making correspondence back and forth for every major decision could have avoided some of the debacles of that period, if a brother could have acted independently.
 
During the Turkish years 1709-1714, a powerful and secure regent that does not bother with making correspondence back and forth for every major decision could have avoided some of the debacles of that period, if a brother could have acted independently.

Would Carl have trusted his brother to act independently of him though? It's one thing to agree to let the Queen Dowager to fill the position of regent - she's not gonna usurp his throne. His brother might be a different story.
 
Would Carl have trusted his brother to act independently of him though?
That is of course impossible to tell, since he had no brother, and women were discriminated back then, so his sisters give no clue here.

If we assume that the brother is a military man, which is probable, then that brother would be supposed to do anything possible for the good of the realm, and taking charge of resources for that aim would be viewed positively. Sweden as other countries had had powerful generals in charge of wars, so there is nothing odd there.

Making political decisions is a different matter, but if the king objects then he could travel home to do things himself, which was asked of him. This is a major handicap - the government cannot strike foreign deals unless the king gives his support, and he is far away, and obstinate, which means the OTL situation, unless the brother/duke really usurps power temporarily, which might be regarded as treasonous. Perhaps a parliament could be gathered to give this power to the duke "until the king is back." But how could he make peace and lose lands if the king disagrees? Or break/enter alliances?

Simply continuing the war is thus easy, but they were losing, so something drastic had to be done to rectify the situation.
 
I think maybe knowing that Parliament has given his brother, let's make it Gustaf (because he was the longest lived of the other boys), basically all the power of the king "so long as what the king is not in Sweden" might make Carl a little edgy and perhaps act as a sort of knowledge that he needs to go to wherever, beat the Russians/Danes/Poles/Saxons/whoever and get his ass back to Sweden asap. After all, he'd be the first Swedish king (not counting Carl X or bastard half-brothers) to have a brother since Gustav Vasa's sons. And with them it was basically "the one who is king (Erik XIV), the one who wants to be king (Johan III) and the one we should be worried about (Carl IX)".
 
knowing that Parliament has given his brother, let's make it Gustaf (because he was the longest lived of the other boys), basically all the power of the king
Perhaps not that much royal power. This time they would avoid repeating the mistake of granting Charles XII too much power. Here they can have a temporary regent who is answerable to the council and to the parliament, and who needs their support to do anything.
 
Perhaps not that much royal power. This time they would avoid repeating the mistake of granting Charles XII too much power. Here they can have a temporary regent who is answerable to the council and to the parliament, and who needs their support to do anything.

I wonder though if that wouldn't lead to parliament/the council demanding that the new king (Gustaf III) be answerable to them when he does succeed Carl?
 

yourworstnightmare

Banned
Donor
I don't think a brother Karl XII would have as much powers as past kings, but they would probably not be forced to give up as much power as Ulrika Eleonora was. The Riksdag would become stronger, but not rule the nation as OTL.
 
Lesser monarchic power is probable, but this depends on the situation after the king's death. OTL there was no clear successor, and the nobles were eager to get their influence returned to pre-Charles XI levels. Charles XI could use the misrule of the nobles to expand royal power, now the nobles could use the misrule of Charles XII to expand noble power.

ATL there is a clear heir, so we do not have a break with the previous regime. We can assume that the invasion of Norway continues, so Frederikshald and Akershus are captured in 1719, perhaps along with most of Norway sunnanfjells, and Armfelt's army is perhaps still around in Tröndelag.

A peace deal with Russia is struck in 1719. Russia keeps Viborg and Narva and the areas between, but returns the rest of Finland, Estonia and Livonia. There is also an alliance with Russia against other Swedish enemies, so Russia supports Swedish rule over Courland, Polish Livonia, Samogitia, and also Stanislaw as Polish King. After some campaigning in Poland with a joint Swedish-Russian army, Augustus accepts defeat and returns to Saxony. Denmark agrees to return the Swedish provinces in Germany and cedes the southeastern parts of Norway. Prussia and Hanover gets nothing, and loses nothing, in the peace.

By 1722 king Gustavus III makes his triumphant entry in Stockholm. Would anyone really want, or dare, to diminish the power of the greatest conqueror in Swedish history?
 
Karl XII maintained very good relations with his family OTL and seem to have trusted Ulrika Eleonora as a regent pretty much. Despite them disagreeing on many things, he was always loving, polite and friendly in his letters to her.

A brother which had gotten the same upbringing as himself, he would have trusted even more. However, I think that brother would have been with Karl XII in the field rather than at home. Perhaps he could have been sent home to become regent 1708, as Karl XII invaded Russia, or placed in command in Poland and Courland and gone back home 1709 to become regent after Poltava.
 

yourworstnightmare

Banned
Donor
Lesser monarchic power is probable, but this depends on the situation after the king's death. OTL there was no clear successor, and the nobles were eager to get their influence returned to pre-Charles XI levels. Charles XI could use the misrule of the nobles to expand royal power, now the nobles could use the misrule of Charles XII to expand noble power.

ATL there is a clear heir, so we do not have a break with the previous regime. We can assume that the invasion of Norway continues, so Frederikshald and Akershus are captured in 1719, perhaps along with most of Norway sunnanfjells, and Armfelt's army is perhaps still around in Tröndelag.

A peace deal with Russia is struck in 1719. Russia keeps Viborg and Narva and the areas between, but returns the rest of Finland, Estonia and Livonia. There is also an alliance with Russia against other Swedish enemies, so Russia supports Swedish rule over Courland, Polish Livonia, Samogitia, and also Stanislaw as Polish King. After some campaigning in Poland with a joint Swedish-Russian army, Augustus accepts defeat and returns to Saxony. Denmark agrees to return the Swedish provinces in Germany and cedes the southeastern parts of Norway. Prussia and Hanover gets nothing, and loses nothing, in the peace.

By 1722 king Gustavus III makes his triumphant entry in Stockholm. Would anyone really want, or dare, to diminish the power of the greatest conqueror in Swedish history?
I don't see it as plausible for Russia not to demand the Swedish Baltics.
 
Estonia and Livonia had been destroyed earlier in the war, with Estonia within modern day borders losing 60 % of its population, so they might not be that rich at the time.

Sources, well, most books tend to only give the final situation, and it was almost a decade ago that I found at least some stuff concerning the more interesting parts of the negociations before december 1718. Unfortunately, while the Russian side had a serious intention, the Swedes were more devious and intended to turn the tables at a later moment, so I grew tired of it, and do not remember the details.

Anyway, in the final peace 1721, the Swedes wanted most lands back, but Russia only agreed to leave Finland, except Viborg, and were not open to any withdrawal from Estonia or Livonia. That was when Sweden no longer had an active army, and the fleet was beaten, and the country was ruled by conspirators, so who would care to give anything back?

Way earlier, at Prut 1711, Peter had accepted leaving everything except Ingria, so that was most important. In 1699, Poland was supposed to get Estonia and Livonia, so they had not been in the Russian sphere then.

The only two details I have at hand to point in this direction is that Margus Laidre comments that even after the king's death, the Russians were prepared to return Livonia for one million dollars, or alternatively lease it out for forty years. Boris Grigorjev and Aleksandr Bespalov mentions concerning the 1718 negociations that the czar was ready to abandon his allies, sacrifice Finland and Livonia, and make an alliance with Sweden.

They do not mention Estonia (i.e. the northern part of modern Estonia), but that area was sometimes included in "Livonia".
 
Top