WI/AHC: Sten Sture (Older or Younger) Becomes King of Sweden, Establishes Dynasty

So both men were "Regent" Riksföreståndare of Sweden under the Kalmar Union. Both were in favour of a separatist Sweden (at least according to wiki). So, what if either one had gone that step further and proclaimed himself (or had himself acclaimed) de facto king of Sweden? Obviously, with Sten Sture the Elder, it would be a short-lived dynasty, since he had no children (however, had there been children, they would've had a double dose of blood from the preceding Bonde dynasty). But at the same time, Sten the Elder was regent of Sweden for 27 years (ergo, plenty of time to stage a coup), while Sten the Younger was regent for 8 years.

So what if they'd revolted against the Kalmar Union? Would they have had the support (a la Gustaf Vasa later) to stay independent of Denmark? Or would they have been more like Carl II/VIII who they deposed and reinstated several times during his life. Would a Sture Sweden look different from a Vasa one?
 
Well, Gustav Vasa was very close with the Younger Sture and when he eventually came to the Swedish throne his policies mirrored those of the Sture Party pretty much one to one
: centralisation and independence secured through an alliance with the lower estates. The ecclesiastical and constitutional struggle between on one hand the Swedish archbishopric and the higher nobility and the Lord Stewards on the other, was already well in progress at the time of Sten Sture the Elder.
 
Well, Gustav Vasa was very close with the Younger Sture and when he eventually came to the Swedish throne his policies mirrored those of the Sture Party pretty much one to one
: centralisation and independence secured through an alliance with the lower estates. The ecclesiastical and constitutional struggle between on one hand the Swedish archbishopric and the higher nobility and the Lord Stewards on the other, was already well in progress at the time of Sten Sture the Elder.

Would there be no real difference then? Only later would we see a divergence - like, IDK, lack of strife between brothers (as with Gustaf's boys)... No Swedish king of Poland etc
 
Pretty much.

However, there's also the fact that Gustav Vasa's rise to power was helped by the lack of any other pretenders for the Swedish crown (Christian II had chopped the heads off the majority of the higher nobility).
 
Pretty much.

However, there's also the fact that Gustav Vasa's rise to power was helped by the lack of any other pretenders for the Swedish crown (Christian II had chopped the heads off the majority of the higher nobility).

So, if we move a little further back to Sten Sture d.A., would his policy as king be very different from his policy as regent? Although as I said, he's going to need an openly acknowledged heir to make a go of it. Was his lack of one perhaps the only reason he didn't run for kingship OTL? Or was it more of a Cromwell thing, why be king when you can be regent/protector and have more power...?
 
So, if we move a little further back to Sten Sture d.A., would his policy as king be very different from his policy as regent? Although as I said, he's going to need an openly acknowledged heir to make a go of it. Was his lack of one perhaps the only reason he didn't run for kingship OTL? Or was it more of a Cromwell thing, why be king when you can be regent/protector and have more power...?

He did not necessarily need an heir as Sweden was an elective monarchy (with very strong hints of an outright noble republic). If you look at Charles VIII, he was elected despite the lack of an heir. There were many reasons for the Stures not to declare themselves kings in their own right during OTL, and the constitutional limitations placed upon the monarch was one of them. Another was the simple fact that the Oldenburg kings stubbornly maintained their claim to the Swedish throne, and a proclamation of kingship would most certainly result in a very strong military response from the rest of the Kalmar Union.
 
He did not necessarily need an heir as Sweden was an elective monarchy (with very strong hints of an outright noble republic). If you look at Charles VIII, he was elected despite the lack of an heir. There were many reasons for the Stures not to declare themselves kings in their own right during OTL, and the constitutional limitations placed upon the monarch was one of them. Another was the simple fact that the Oldenburg kings stubbornly maintained their claim to the Swedish throne, and a proclamation of kingship would most certainly result in a very strong military response from the rest of the Kalmar Union.

Makes sense.

Which means that this thread is dead in the water, then? Or would replacing Gustaf Vasa with Sten Sture d.J. mean that the Swedish monarchy remains elective for longer?
 
Makes sense.

Which means that this thread is dead in the water, then? Or would replacing Gustaf Vasa with Sten Sture d.J. mean that the Swedish monarchy remains elective for longer?

If the younger Sture somehow wins the 1520 campaign (unlikely but plausible) you would very likely see him claim the throne as the circumstances would be ideal. The 1522/1523 rebellion against king Christian II would most probably still happen given the great expenses the invasion incured.
 
Top