The Three Thrones

[Mr.Bluenote]

The name of a united Scandinavian kingdom would simply be "Scandinavia" (...)

Yes, I agree. Scandinavia would do just fine.

I'd say Scandinavia would try to align with Brittain, since there'd be a feeling of them having helped us in the war (and also a realization that aggravating them would be stupid). So going after the Congo or Cameroon sounds right.

It sounds likely that Scandinavia will develop strong ties with Britain. Britain is fairly sympathetic, open-minded and would most likely appeal to many Scandinavians for being democratic (like ourselves) and an ideal trading partner for a "new" country trying to industrialize and once the farms are up and running again!

I don't know about the colonialisation bit. If the Scandinavia, or in this case primarily the Danish, population is decimated due to war, disease and what not, will colonisation of godforsaken places be on the top of our to-do list?

I'm not really sure whether I think your idea about depopulating Denmark will really work, Justin, but I'm looking forward to see how its going to play out.

Finland wouldn't be forgotten in Sweden that fast just because of a union with Denmark and Norway (...)

No, but the fact that Svandinavianism plus the entire new country thing with all its many political, economical and social implications might draw attention and interest away from Finland. To be frank, I don't know much about how the ordinary Swede felt in regards to Finland, but I suspect that a unified Scandinavia would do a lot to everybody's, be they Swedes, Danes or Norwegians, mentality and perspective. Second, Denmark, and I suspect Norway as well, willl not want to tangle with Russia.

Also I'd say Kristian would be a bad name for a king of Scandinavia - we've only had two, both were Danes and the last one is known as "the Tyrant". How 'bout (in the vein of Scandinavism) looking further back for suitable names like, say, Björn (Scandinavian for bear)?

Yeah, but Karl-Frederik den Første (the First) for example has a nice ring to it, I'd say. Unless of course the whole Scandinavian movement has people carried away and an old name will be revived, like Redbeard's Rolf or some such thing.

I really like the reworked and expanded timeline - you're the shizznit dawg!

Arh, yeah, I second that 'n tha hauz and stuff! Na, just kittin'! The rewritten ATL is brilliant, Justin! Well done!

The protrected (trench?)warfare does the pop-drop nicely. On a side note the earlier urbanization will also lead to a diffrent urbanization patterns, could (esp. in combination with a united Scandinavia) make for a bit less Copenhagen-domination...

Good point! The massive drop in population could stem from protracted warfare - first a bunch of costly field battles - the danes actually fielded over 40,000 men after the universal concription law - then a series of long, drawn out sieges and finally a few field battles. Naval blokades, troops runnign around, sieges and what not. Disease and hunger will spread like wildfire.

With Slesvig, or Sønderjylland - Southern Jutland - as the Danes would probably call it, some focus will shift from Copenhagen, but at the time Copenhagen was pretty mush the only true city in Denamrk, so i suspect it will always be the dominant city.

Oh, Iceland. I nearly forgot! I believe they make a heck of a fuss in OTL, when they believed that a Common Constitution would merge them with Denmark. What about Greenland btw?

In regards to the Germano-Scandinavian War, just a little pip, but the British Royal Navy was not needed to blokade the German ports, the Danish ditto did so all by itself in OTL, and did it again in the Second War after having blown the Austrian Navy (which was ironically reorganized by a Dane, Dahlerup) along with a few Prussian gunboats to pieces.

In regards to the Crimean War. I have to agree with Redbeard - just saw his post - the different war will leave the Sund and Stræder on Scandinavian hands, and not as international waters, which also mean that letting Franco-British warships pass is akin to active Scandinavian participation in aformentioned war. Again, I don't think Denmark, and Norway, would like that much, but the Swedes might force it through if Finland is really on their minds!

As said, Justin, marvellous ATL! I must admiott, that it has been a while since I have been so thrilled and entertained by an ATL!

Best regards!

- B.

 

[benedict XVII]

*screams*

I need something that is simultaneously modern for the nineteenth century, hasn't been used before, and that doesn't sound inherantly ridiculous. If it is Scandanavian, that is a bonus but remember, the Bernadotte dynasty aren't exactly the most naturalised (Oscar)...please, can someone who isn't me decide.

I think it boils down to Henrik, Bjorn or Niels if you wan't a virign name. All others were used. Bjorn and Niels are more Scandinavian. Henrik is more royal, with a French (Bernadotte) touch, given it's been used in multiple other countries.

 

[Justin Pickard]

It sounds likely that Scandinavia will develop strong ties with Britain. Britain is fairly sympathetic, open-minded and would most likely appeal to many Scandinavians for being democratic (like ourselves) and an ideal trading partner for a "new" country trying to industrialize and once the farms are up and running again!

Yes, I think pursuing stronger Anglo-Scandinavian relations will be a key task following the union.

I'm not really sure whether I think your idea about depopulating Denmark will really work, Justin, but I'm looking forward to see how its going to play out.

In the longer term, it'll probably end up more densely populated, but by a wider mix of nationalities.

No, but the fact that Svandinavianism plus the entire new country thing with all its many political, economical and social implications might draw attention and interest away from Finland. To be frank, I don't know much about how the ordinary Swede felt in regards to Finland, but I suspect that a unified Scandinavia would do a lot to everybody's, be they Swedes, Danes or Norwegians, mentality and perspective. Second, Denmark, and I suspect Norway as well, willl not want to tangle with Russia.

They'll want Finland, but they won't be able to get it for fear of incurring the wrath of Imperial Russia. They passed up the opportunity in the Crimean War because they weren't strong enough to deal with the risk of retribution.

Yeah, but Karl-Frederik den Første (the First) for example has a nice ring to it, I'd say. Unless of course the whole Scandinavian movement has people carried away and an old name will be revived, like Redbeard's Rolf or some such thing.

I think I'm going to use Folke, for now, with a Rolf coming later.

Good point! The massive drop in population could stem from protracted warfare - first a bunch of costly field battles - the danes actually fielded over 40,000 men after the universal concription law - then a series of long, drawn out sieges and finally a few field battles. Naval blokades, troops runnign around, sieges and what not. Disease and hunger will spread like wildfire.

That's the plan. It will, however, effect Germany and, later, Prussia in a similar kind of way, which I have yet to work out the full effects of...

With Slesvig, or Sønderjylland - Southern Jutland - as the Danes would probably call it, some focus will shift from Copenhagen, but at the time Copenhagen was pretty mush the only true city in Denamrk, so i suspect it will always be the dominant city.

Flensburg, Husum, and Schleswig itself will be growing fairly rapidly, though. Not to mention Aalborg, Vejle, Kolding and Odense.

In regards to the Crimean War. I have to agree with Redbeard - just saw his post - the different war will leave the Sund and Stræder on Scandinavian hands, and not as international waters, which also mean that letting Franco-British warships pass is akin to active Scandinavian participation in aformentioned war. Again, I don't think Denmark, and Norway, would like that much, but the Swedes might force it through if Finland is really on their minds!

Okay, the Scandinavian's categorically weren't involved in the Crimean War in the slightest, right? After all, it's not active participation if the Russians weren't technically aware of it. The French and the British could have co-ordinated their attacks from bases in the English Channel, for all the Russians know. It's almost totally risk-free involvement, which passively strikes a blow to Russia and Finland.

 

[Justin Pickard]

The Germany situation is confusing me. Quite a lot, actually. I might need to change some of the royal marriages, to increase the Scandinavian links with Oldenburg, Hannover and suchlike, rather than Baden and Nassau.

The Frankfurt Parliament definitely survives slightly longer than OTL, gradually transforming into a smaller core group of (primarily) North German states who don't particularly want to ally with Prussia nor Austria. Would they leave the Zollverein, just because it is dominated by Prussia?

I'm also thinking that I might have Bismark die in the cholera epidemic of 1853. Any objections to this?

Finally, when Prussia helps 'liberate' Holstein, does that mean that Holstein will be sucked into the Prussian sphere of influence?

-----

Any suggestions / ideas for the German situation would be more than welcome.

*pleads*

 

[Oddball]

The Frankfurt Parliament definitely survives slightly longer than OTL, gradually transforming into a smaller core group of (primarily) North German states who don't particularly want to ally with Prussia nor Austria. Would they leave the Zollverein, just because it is dominated by Prussia?

Even if others seems to disagree with me IMHO Prussia is the centre of gravity in northern Germany. If you does not have Austria kick Prussias ass at some point that is.

I'm also thinking that I might have Bismark die in the cholera epidemic of 1853. Any objections to this?

Oh, now you are definetly moving into heavy butterflies area... If you realy wanna do an alternate Germany in addition to Scandianavia, then yes, renoving Bismarck sure will do the trick

Finally, when Prussia helps 'liberate' Holstein, does that mean that Holstein will be sucked into the Prussian sphere of influence?

Yes, initialy. But without Bismarc later, absolutly all bets are off...

 

[Oddball]

It sounds likely that Scandinavia will develop strong ties with Britain. Britain is fairly sympathetic, open-minded and would most likely appeal to many Scandinavians for being democratic (like ourselves) and an ideal trading partner for a "new" country trying to industrialize and once the farms are up and running again!

Now were touching into one of the problems with "Scandinavia" in the first place.

Sweden: kinda industrialized on her own, historical aligned to Germany/Prussia

Denmark: exstensive farming, "controls" shipping in the sounds with taxation

Norway: dirt poor, but will latly develop whaling and a VASTE merchant marine. Very much aligned to GB

These three agendas does not realy match very well

I don't know about the colonialisation bit. If the Scandinavia, or in this case primarily the Danish, population is decimated due to war, disease and what not, will colonisation of godforsaken places be on the top of our to-do list?

Why dont you just go with expanding what Denmark already has? Especialy eastern parts of the Gold Coast has potentials.

As said, Justin, marvellous ATL! I must admiott, that it has been a while since I have been so thrilled and entertained by an ATL!

Agree

 

[Justin Pickard]

Part 6 - The butterflies are a flappin'...

In 1857, shortly before Kaiser Friedrich Wilhelm of Prussia suffers his stroke, the Frankfurt Parliament finally implodes. With Wilhelm (1797-1888) acting as Prussian Crown Prince, 1858 sees representatives of many former members of the Frankfurt Parliament meeting in the Free City of Bremen to discuss the twin threats of Prussia and Austria. Of the states in attendance, Oldenburg, Holstein, Mecklenburg-Schwerin, and Mecklenburg-Strelitz never joined the Zollverein; whilst Hessen-Kassel, Hessen-Darmstadt, Baden, Brunswick joined, but are now expressing doubts over security. Supposedly neutral observers from Denmark, Sweden-Norway, the United Kingdom and France are also in attendance.

King Oscar of Sweden-Norway dies in July 1859; he is succeeded by his son, who – in anticipation of the seemingly inevitable Scandinavian unification – takes the throne as King Folke of Sweden-Norway. With his approval, the Riksdag passes a series of liberal reforms, improving the status of women and religious minorities, and extending the electoral franchise.

The 1860 US Presidential Election returns a narrow victory for the Democrats, only just receiving enough electoral votes for Stephen A. Douglas to take the White House as the sixteenth president of the United States (1).

In 1861, Princess Maria of Sweden-Norway (1837-69) marries Louis IV of Hesse-Darmstadt (1837-92) in Frankfurt. And there was much rejoicing.

In 1862, Prince William of Sweden-Norway (1840-1911) marries Alice Saxe-Coburg (1843-78), a daughter of Queen Victoria, in London. And there was polite and restrained rejoicing.

-----

(1) With far less European immigration to the Americas between after 1855, slavery is less of an issue in the 1860 election, with the Democrat party (just) remaining united under a Douglas-Breckinridge ticket.

NB. A map of the German situation follows. Scandinavia is blue, Prussia is red, Austria is yellow, Prussian/Austrian-orbit Zollverein states are orange, Non-aligned Zollverein states are light green, Non-aligned non-Zollverein states are dark green, Free Cities are very dark green.

 

[Redbeard]

Are the non-alligned non-zollverein states (dark green) a kind of Scandinavian sphere of influence?

Regards

Steffen Redbeard

 

[Justin Pickard]

Are the non-alligned non-zollverein states (dark green) a kind of Scandinavian sphere of influence?

Regards

Steffen Redbeard

Not specifically, although they are using Scandinavia as a counterweight to Prussian / Austrian domination.

 

[Mr.Bluenote]

Good update, Justin, and it's very nice with a map too!

Okay, the Scandinavian's categorically weren't involved in the Crimean War in the slightest, right?

Ehm, yes, but the warships had to pass through Danish/Scandinavian territorial waters...

Now were touching into one of the problems with "Scandinavia" in the first place. (...)These three agendas does not realy match very well

Some kind of synergy effect will probably be apparent. The three former kingdoms will have everything, perhaps exept knowhow, within their borders. They could fuel their own indutrialization. All three, with Sweden in the lead, I think, were already moving in that direction.

Why dont you just go with expanding what Denmark already has? Especialy eastern parts of the Gold Coast has potentials.

Oh, it's not the targets for colonization I disagree about, Red, it's the whole colonizaton business in the first place. If half your country, or at least most of Denmark, lay empty, why travel to Africa to start anew? There's plenty of good land in Jutland and jobs in Fyn (Funen?) and Zealand.

Best regards!

- B.

 

[Oddball]

Some kind of synergy effect will probably be apparent. The three former kingdoms will have everything, perhaps exept knowhow, within their borders. They could fuel their own indutrialization. All three, with Sweden in the lead, I think, were already moving in that direction.

Totaly agree, in theory, but:

Partially so was Sweden-Norway OTL too, but the Swedes totaly failed to develope a common "development plan."

And we all know what happened...

Oh, it's not the targets for colonization I disagree about, Red, it's the whole colonizaton business in the first place. If half your country, or at least most of Denmark, lay empty, why travel to Africa to start a new? There's plenty of good land in Jutland and jobs in Fyn (Funen?) and Zealand.

Yes as "settler colonies," but few colonies in OTL vere sucth. Most colonies were "occupation colonies."

 

[Mr.Bluenote]

Totaly agree, in theory, but: Partially so was Sweden-Norway OTL too, but the Swedes totaly failed to develope a common "development plan." And we all know what happened...

Ah, yes, but I suspect that the somewhat strained realtionship and bad feelings between Norway and Sweden did play a role here. In this ATL the three countries are more like equal partners, so...

Btw I wonder where Justin will put the Capital... Lund?

Yes as "settler colonies," but few colonies in OTL vere sucth. Most colonies were "occupation colonies."

Yes, but there will be no surplus population/resources to expand them and then they'll become serious drains as OTL on the economy.

Not that I mind seeing Scandinavia as a great, or at least lesser, colonial power with Congo and what not firmly in their greedy paws, but I don't think it will fly in this ATL!

Regards and all!

- Bluenote.

 

[Oddball]

Ah, yes, but I suspect that the somewhat strained realtionship and bad feelings between Norway and Sweden did play a role here. In this ATL the three countries are more like equal partners, so...

Not so sure about that The initial bad feelings after the Napoleonic wars are still the same (so Norway hardly is seen as "equal"). OTL that setteled fairly nice until the 1880thies when the wast difference in culture and economic development made the old feelings surface again.

But if the government can make Norway prosper I would guess it could be done...

Btw I wonder where Justin will put the Capital... Lund?

Gothenburg?

Yes, but there will be no surplus population/resources to expand them and then they'll become serious drains as OTL on the economy.

Like MANY other nations colonies.

Its all about tha prestige you know...

Not that I mind seeing Scandinavia as a great, or at least lesser, colonial power with Congo and what not firmly in their greedy paws, but I don't think it will fly in this ATL!

Why not. For gods sake man, he is already dissmembering Germany!

Btw, OTL quite a few Scandinavians actualy did serve Leopold good in Belgian Congo.

 

[Justin Pickard]

Part 7a - Scandinavian territories circa 1836

King Frederick VII dies in 1863, and Folke’s subsequent inheritance of the throne of Denmark leads to the personal union of Denmark, Sweden, and Norway, under the House of Bernadotte.

Scandinavian Territories following the Union:

 

[Justin Pickard]

A more detailed post of the constitutional and legal aspects of the union will follow tommorow, but that map took ages... (I know some of the Canandian place-names are probably anachronous, but I couldn't be bothered to fiddle with it any more).

I still need to cover the immediate aftermath of the union, the Scandinavian economic situation, something about the varient American slavery situation, some Arctic exploration, some Scandinavian advances in astronomy & physics, stabilization in Germany, and the eventual holder of the throne of Greece.

I'm not particularly sure about Scandinavian colonies outside of Europe and the Arctic atm, as consolidation, industrialisation, and stability are going to be the main concerns. The Arctic territories should provide enough resources for economic success.

Okay, the Scandinavian's categorically weren't involved in the Crimean War in the slightest, right?

What I meant by this, was that the Scandinavians were fairly covert about their involvement, and that the Russians probably wouldn't have associated British and French actions with Denmark or Sweden-Norway.

 

[Dr Pervez Hoodbhoy]

Greenland, Iceland, and the Faroes had once been Norwegian possessions. Hallvard Devold, a Norwegian whaler, claimed east Greenland as terra nullis in 1931, and his government backed him, but the Permanent Court of International Justice thought differently in 1933.

I think the Norwegians would claim at least Greenland. If the Swedes are unhappy enough about sacrificing Norway, they'll support the claim to get even.

The colonies they'll sell to the British for Heligoland and a more favourable resolution to the Cod Wars when they arrive.

 

[Justin Pickard]

I think the Norwegians would claim at least Greenland. If the Swedes are unhappy enough about sacrificing Norway, they'll support the claim to get even.

The colonies they'll sell to the British for Heligoland and a more favourable resolution to the Cod Wars when they arrive.

There is no Norway, Sweden, or Denmark on this map - pink and red are Scandinavian territories, upon the personal union of the three thrones in 1863. The Cod Wars will probably be butterflied out of existence.

Also, Greenland and Iceland were Danish at this time.

 

[Justin Pickard]

Part 6b - the Gothenburg Constitution (warning: may contain constitutional law)

King Frederick VII dies in February 1863, and Folke’s subsequent inheritance of the throne of Denmark leads to the personal union of Denmark, Sweden, and Norway, under the House of Bernadotte. Attended by many major heads of state, March 15th sees the coronation of King Folke in Lund Cathedral (1). In the immediate aftermath of Folke’s accession to the throne of Denmark, the parliaments of the three composite nations (the Norwegian Storting, the Swedish Riksdag, and the Danish Folketing) proceed in the elections for the Gothenburg Assembly – a body tasked with the drafting of a common constitution.

A far more successful Polish Uprising against a significantly weakened Russia is sliding into stalemate as the Gothenburg Assembly debates the various merits of different forms of Constitutionalism. Whilst one, vaguely liberal, faction seems certain that a flexible constitution is the only way for Scandinavia to survive as a political entity; such sentiments are strongly opposed by those who see such a system as open to manipulation and subversion. Whilst Denmark, Sweden and Norway are certain to retain their independence in some form, there is also uncertainty about whether a federal or confederal distribution of sovereignty would be preferable; whether ultimate power should rest with the parliaments of the composite states, or with an overarching Scandinavian body. In June, the preliminary drafting is complete, and by early August, a comprehensive conclusion has been reached.

Inspired by the model of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, the Gothenburg Assembly proposed that the three composite nations of Scandinavia should give up much of their sovereignty, but not their independence, to form the Scandinavian Confederation (2). The national parliaments would endure, with deputies from each parliament meeting as a central legislative body. The central legislative body would then appoint a central executive body (3), which would have control over defence, foreign affairs, and other pan-Scandinavian concerns. An independent Scandinavian judicial body able to appoint its own members would be created from the combined judiciaries of the component nations. Already accepted as the state church of Sweden, Denmark and Norway, Lutheranism would also be recognised as the established religion of the Scandinavian Confederation. This structure would be enacting through a predominantly written – but uncodified – Confederation constitution, which was designed to rest fairly unobtrusively on the existing constitutions of the component states. National parliamentary ratification through a two thirds majority vote would be needed in each of the three parliaments, followed by some limited amendments intended to synchronise the component legislatures.

The Riksdag and Folketing ratified the ‘Gothenburg Constitution’ with majorities well over the necessary two thirds. In Norway, however, it was passed more narrowly, with 81 in favour to 33 against.

-----

(1) The former site of the diocese of Scandinavia, the historic location of a number of famous skirmishes between Swedish and Danish troops, and the birthplace of Scandinavianism – Lund was carefully chosen as location that would reflect the common cultural heritage of Scandinavia.

(2) Not actually a Confederation; but a combination of Federation, Confederation, and something else entirely.

(3) Nominally headed by the monarch, and including the Prime Ministers of Sweden, Denmark and Norway.

 

[Chris S]

Good TL Justin,

been reading it and I don't quite understand the last post. How is Russia "significantly weakened" against a land based Polish Uprising when the only difference in the Crimean War was a major naval defeat? And how is the Polish Uprising more successful? In OTL, there is no way Prussia and Austria would stand by and let it happen. At most Austria would stay neutral but offer no safe haven to the Polish rebels and Prussia in OTL actually aided Russia in one of the uprisings.

Also, why the sudden governmental union in Scandinavia? I believe in an earlier post you said that this Scandinavia would be like the United Kingdom in its earlier days, but in the earlier days it took 104 years between the union of the crowns of England and Scotland (giving "Britain") before the governments were unified in the United Kingdom of Great Britain. I would figure that once the dynastic union occurred, "Scandinavia" would continue as 3 kingdoms ruled by 1 King/Queen for at least a few years before various acts of union occurred giving a final "Kingdom of Scandinavia" (and IMHO Scandinavian Confederation doesn't sound quite as strong as "Kingdom of ----", but that's just me, I don't know how the others feel).
Also following along this line of thought, since King Folke (BTW, from the list of names persons forgot "Haakon", "Albert/Albrekt" and "Hans" (a version of "Johan" I believe) as past names of kings) ascended the throne of Sweden-Norway first, then like with James I of England, his capital should be in that country (Stockholm in this case) and the basis of the flag should be that of Sweden-Norway, however since this situation is slightly different from England-Scotland-Ireland, then a new common capital is probably wisest or at least then each capital should have a separate function like in South Africa (I like the highly symbolic capital of Lund though ). BTW, what will the flag look like? Are you open to submissions from your readership?


I also don't understand why the Scandinavian kingdoms with their own heritage and the more recent example of their ally, the UK, to look to, would instead opt to model themselves off the defunct Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth which had an elected monarchy rather than a hereditary one. Forgive me, but I doubt Scandinavia would be that influenced by that particular extinct state and I also doubt that your POD would have such a great effect as to weaken Russia enough for the Polish Uprising to be more successful. It could be butterflies, but none that are as apparent as Moltke not going over to Prussia. Strengthening of Scandinavia does not have to equal to a weakening of all of her neighbours.

 

[Justin Pickard]

How is Russia "significantly weakened" against a land based Polish Uprising when the only difference in the Crimean War was a major naval defeat? And how is the Polish Uprising more successful? In OTL, there is no way Prussia and Austria would stand by and let it happen. At most Austria would stay neutral but offer no safe haven to the Polish rebels and Prussia in OTL actually aided Russia in one of the uprisings.

Prussia and Austria, as I will detail later, are currently involved in an arms race of sorts. Without Bismarck, a far larger but also later Austro-Prussian war is brewing on the horizon. As such, the two nations will be unwilling to take sides against the Poles, especially when - with the damaged prestige of Imperial Russia, and conservatism in general - there is a chance they could end up on the losing side. In OTL, Russia also had promises of support from France; something which I can't see happening in TTL. It isn't a resounding victory for the Poles, however, and the tide may still turn, but in 1863, things are looking hopeful.

Also, why the sudden governmental union in Scandinavia? I believe in an earlier post you said that this Scandinavia would be like the United Kingdom in its earlier days, but in the earlier days it took 104 years between the union of the crowns of England and Scotland (giving "Britain") before the governments were unified in the United Kingdom of Great Britain. I would figure that once the dynastic union occurred, "Scandinavia" would continue as 3 kingdoms ruled by 1 King/Queen for at least a few years before various acts of union occurred giving a final "Kingdom of Scandinavia"

The governmental union in Scandinavia isn't really a union at all, to be fair. Scandinavia isn't going to be transformed into a unitary state; it's a loose [con]federation, at best. Furthermore, it is hardly sudden. The personal union under King Folke was anticipated by the former monarchs of both Denmark and Sweden-Norway and, when combined with a rising tide of pan-Scandinavianism which far stronger than that in OTL, I think that rapid moves towards a common constitution is both pragmatic and symbolic, co-ordinating a power bloc in a time when war seems to brewing, and signalling a new chapter in Scandinavian history.

IMHO Scandinavian Confederation doesn't sound quite as strong as "Kingdom of ----", but that's just me, I don't know how the others feel.

It isn't as strong as "Kingdom of ----", but for the moment, that is the whole point. The vast majority of the populations of Sweden, Denmark, and Norway would not being willing, at this point in time, to embrace the idea of a unitary state. A loose 'confederation' is the compromise of a hard-fought battle between liberal and conservative factions.

Also following along this line of thought, since King Folke (BTW, from the list of names persons forgot "Haakon", "Albert/Albrekt" and "Hans" ascended the throne of Sweden-Norway first, then like with James I of England, his capital should be in that country (Stockholm in this case) and the basis of the flag should be that of Sweden-Norway, however since this situation is slightly different from England-Scotland-Ireland, then a new common capital is probably wisest or at least then each capital should have a separate function like in South Africa (I like the highly symbolic capital of Lund though ). BTW, what will the flag look like? Are you open to submissions from your readership?

The individual nations of the confederation will retain their capitals, but I think that Lund (for monarchical matters) and Gothenburg (for central conferedate government) will become far more important. Flag proposals would be fantastic. I have some ideas, but they all look slightly clumsy.

I also don't understand why the Scandinavian kingdoms with their own heritage and the more recent example of their ally, the UK, to look to, would instead opt to model themselves off the defunct Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth which had an elected monarchy rather than a hereditary one. Forgive me, but I doubt Scandinavia would be that influenced by that particular extinct state and I also doubt that your POD would have such a great effect as to weaken Russia enough for the Polish Uprising to be more successful. It could be butterflies, but none that are as apparent as Moltke not going over to Prussia. Strengthening of Scandinavia does not have to equal to a weakening of all of her neighbours.

They did look at their own heritage, and the examples of the UK and, indeed, the United States, but the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, although defunct, was - with the January Uprising - far more visible than in OTL. In P-L, we have a multi-ethnic union, which embraced decentralization, combined elements of monarchy and republic, and which provided for a seperation of powers.

Russia isn't weakened much, it just has lost some of its allies from OTL to their own concerns. I also think that whilst the naval attacks of the Crimean War wouldn't have had that much of a direct effect on Russian defense, they would have made the Russian people feel dramatically more vulnerable.