WI Charles XI dies in war with Denmark, late 1670s

Charles XI attempted what seems like a fairly daring ice crossing in the Scanian War in the late 1670s, before he had any heirs. Now, maybe it wasn't as daring as I think and the ice was such that the area froze over most winters int hsoe days - that I don't know. But, suppose he dies during this endeavor (though less likely of coure if there *are* no mild winters in this Little Ice Age period.)

He's the only issue of Charles X to be legitimate - but I notice he did have one illegitimate son in 1647 and others before hsi marriage as well. OTOH, it's very unlikely such a child could take the throne, especially with a very powerful Queen Mother. In fact, from what I read, Hedwig Elenora was so powerful I suppose she could take as queen. Although then you'd have her as the Swedish Elizabeth I - not quite a Virgin Queen but one too old to have children but who would possibly make a number of the same decisions OTL's Charles XI and XII made.

If Hedwig can't get enough people around her to accept her as queen, who would reign instead? (Of coruse, Hedwig reigning herself could be a very intereting TL.)

Finally, I know quite a few like to envision a much later Kalmar Union forming. hedwig's father's mother was a daughter of Frederick II of Denmark. Is it possible that Denmark could claim more than Holstein Hottorp (which they did a few decades later) but try to claim Sweden? Although, it's probably more proper succession-wise to ask, could the Swedes claim Denmark? In toehr case, would it be accepted? I doubt it considering how far apart they'd grown, but it's one possibility I hadn't seen int he few Kalmar threads I searched. (Admittedly maybe becuase it wouldn't happen.)
 

Vitruvius

Donor
Wouldn't Frederick Magnus of Baden-Durlach be the prime candidate. He was Charles XI's first cousin (as a son of Charles X's eldest sister) and he was married to Hedwig Eleonora's younger sister so I think he's pretty well connected. I suppose Baden-Durlach would probably be passed to Frederick's younger brother if he became King of Sweden.

The other possibility would be Adolph John of Palatine Kleeburg, Charles X's younger brother. I suppose in some respects he has a better claim as a male descendent but I don't think he got along well in Sweden after his brother's death so he may not be invited in after his nephew dies.
 
thanks; going back a couple hundred years or so from "Created Equal" it's amazing and confusing with all these little statelets, several different Badens, Sexes, Palatinates, etc.; I guess it was even more complicated before the Thirty years War from what I read.
 

Redbeard

Banned
Charles XI attempted what seems like a fairly daring ice crossing in the Scanian War in the late 1670s, before he had any heirs. Now, maybe it wasn't as daring as I think and the ice was such that the area froze over most winters int hsoe days - that I don't know. But, suppose he dies during this endeavor (though less likely of coure if there *are* no mild winters in this Little Ice Age period.)

He's the only issue of Charles X to be legitimate - but I notice he did have one illegitimate son in 1647 and others before hsi marriage as well. OTOH, it's very unlikely such a child could take the throne, especially with a very powerful Queen Mother. In fact, from what I read, Hedwig Elenora was so powerful I suppose she could take as queen. Although then you'd have her as the Swedish Elizabeth I - not quite a Virgin Queen but one too old to have children but who would possibly make a number of the same decisions OTL's Charles XI and XII made.

If Hedwig can't get enough people around her to accept her as queen, who would reign instead? (Of coruse, Hedwig reigning herself could be a very intereting TL.)

Finally, I know quite a few like to envision a much later Kalmar Union forming. hedwig's father's mother was a daughter of Frederick II of Denmark. Is it possible that Denmark could claim more than Holstein Hottorp (which they did a few decades later) but try to claim Sweden? Although, it's probably more proper succession-wise to ask, could the Swedes claim Denmark? In toehr case, would it be accepted? I doubt it considering how far apart they'd grown, but it's one possibility I hadn't seen int he few Kalmar threads I searched. (Admittedly maybe becuase it wouldn't happen.)

I'm not quite sure what ice crossing you are referring to. It was Charles X who crossed the belts in 1658, and AFAIK the belts didn't freeze over in Charles XI time. Actually the belts very rarely freeze over, a couple of times each century, but the year 1658 was unusuallay cold as was 1941 and AFAIR 1969.

In the 2nd Scanian war in 1676-77 he crossed a small frozen-over river near Lund to make a surprise attack on the Danish army. The following battle was etxremely bloody but ended in a Swedish victory, not at least due to Charles personal courage and example.

Having Charles killed in the battle would not be an unlikely outcome if we could "rerun" the battle, and it most certainly would create a lot of interesting questions.

First the Swedish army seriously risk defeat, which will leave Scania under Danish control. If the European great powers (especially France) will allow Denmark ownership over both sides of the Øresund is another question, but anyway it will demand a much greater effort to dictate a staus quo if Denmark is in military control of Scania.

Next Charles XI not having an heir by 1677 certainly makes things complicated. I guess a lot of people would claim the throne and I guess we would be in for a Swedish Succession War. Anything could happen, but all other things equal it won't assist the Swedish Empire in staying intact.

Anyway - no Charles XII!

Regards

Steffen Redbeard
 
I'm not quite sure what ice crossing you are referring to. It was Charles X who crossed the belts in 1658, and AFAIK the belts didn't freeze over in Charles XI time. Actually the belts very rarely freeze over, a couple of times each century, but the year 1658 was unusuallay cold as was 1941 and AFAIR 1969.

In the 2nd Scanian war in 1676-77 he crossed a small frozen-over river near Lund to make a surprise attack on the Danish army. The following battle was etxremely bloody but ended in a Swedish victory, not at least due to Charles personal courage and example.

Having Charles killed in the battle would not be an unlikely outcome if we could "rerun" the battle, and it most certainly would create a lot of interesting questions.

First the Swedish army seriously risk defeat, which will leave Scania under Danish control. If the European great powers (especially France) will allow Denmark ownership over both sides of the Øresund is another question, but anyway it will demand a much greater effort to dictate a staus quo if Denmark is in military control of Scania.

Next Charles XI not having an heir by 1677 certainly makes things complicated. I guess a lot of people would claim the throne and I guess we would be in for a Swedish Succession War. Anything could happen, but all other things equal it won't assist the Swedish Empire in staying intact.

Anyway - no Charles XII!

Regards

Steffen Redbeard

Thanks; yes, I was confusing the two ice crossings. This is for part of something I'm putting together where Leopold I of Austria dies in 1670 after some butterflies lead also to France's Bourbons dying out about the same tiem...just thinking the butterlies might want to be an equal opportunity destroyer of some Protestant realms as well as Catholic (though much more Catholic - I just realized I'm probably going to wind up making Savoy extinct, too - but they had lots of growth in "Sweet Lands of Liberty" and would have further if I'd continued it, so it evens out.)
 
Top