WI independent Grand Duchy of Finland?

I don't know if anyone has done this already, but WI, during the commotion between the Russian Revolution and the Russian Civil War, when Finland becomes independent, it remains as a grand duchy?
 
I don't know if anyone has done this already, but WI, during the commotion between the Russian Revolution and the Russian Civil War, when Finland becomes independent, it remains as a grand duchy?

Pretty tough one, IMHO. The title of "the Grand Duke of Finland" was not, during the autonomy, an independent position as such. In effect it was just another title for the Tsar, kind of a different legal persona for him because his rights were (in theory) different as the ruler of Finland than as the ruler of Russia.

So, quite simply for Finland to stay as a Grand Duchy, you need Finland to be a part of a bigger nation. If you rejoin Finland with Sweden, the King of Sweden could add it to his titulature.

An independent Finland reverts to becoming a kingdom (as per the old Swedish constitution, "a vacant throne", as the Royalists argued in 1918) or then becomes a republic.

Unless you have a creative, seriously pre-WWI POD, I guess.
 
Last edited:

Susano

Banned
Wha? Finnland never was traditionally a Kingdom. It was a Grand Duchy under Swedish rule as well.
 
Pretty tough one, IMHO. The title of "the Grand Duke of Finland" was not, during the autonomy, an independent position as such. In effect it was just another title for the Tsar, kind of a different legal persona for him because his rights were (in theory) different as the ruler of Finland than as the ruler of Russia.

How different?
 
There was, IIRC, a German Prince who was chosen to be ruler of Finland, but he was to use the title of King (not Grand Duke). After the allies won WW1, the prince renounced his claim to the throne and Finland became a Republic instead.
 
Susano said:
Wha? Finnland never was traditionally a Kingdom. It was a Grand Duchy under Swedish rule as well.

Finland was never traditionally independent either.


How different?

At "the Diet of Porvoo" in 1809 the Tsar promised to uphold the traditional laws and rights of Finland. This was considered to mean, together with the ordinary codes and statutes, especially the Swedish Instrument of Goverment of 1772. This promise and the oath of allegiance the Finns took was later considered to have resulted as the creation, for the first time, a political entity to be called a Finnish nation.

Therefore, the theory goes that as the Grand Duke of Finland the Tsar had in Finland the same rights as the King of Sweden would have had. Which were, of course, more circumspect than the rights of the Autocrat of Russia.

This was the Swedish constitution the Royalists tried to invoke in 1918, saying that after the revolution in Russia, "the throne of Finland" (created, you see, in 1809) was left vacant and a King needed to be elected.
 
Sorry. :eek:

Oh, and DrakonFin: why rejoin Finland with Sweden? (besides all the historical bits)

Oh, that. Just one way of keeping the title of Grand Duke in existence post-1917. It guess rejoining with Sweden would not be very plausible in the twentieth century anymore. The Finnish peasant-soldiers were already used to stage enough Swedish imperial adventures before 1809, thank you very much...
 
Oh, that. Just one way of keeping the title of Grand Duke in existence post-1917. It guess rejoining with Sweden would not be very plausible in the twentieth century anymore. The Finnish peasant-soldiers were already used to stage enough Swedish imperial adventures before 1809, thank you very much...

OK, I see. So you only see a reunion with Sweden as the option for this?
 
OK, I see. So you only see a reunion with Sweden as the option for this?

I guess one could try to change the Russian rule in Finland in a way that the office of Grand Duke was detached from Tsardom early on.

In that case Finland could have a true, resident Grand Duke (maybe a younger Romanov) in Helsinki. Give a well-liked and adored Duke or two, and maybe by the time independence becomes an option, the constitutional situation will be interpreted in a way that a foreign prince will be elected into that position rather than to become a King.

But even then, people could be critical towards the perceived subservient rank of the Finnish leader to the Kings in the other Nordic countries and make him King, if only to save face.:rolleyes:
 
I guess one could try to change the Russian rule in Finland in a way that the office of Grand Duke was detached from Tsardom early on.

In that case Finland could have a true, resident Grand Duke (maybe a younger Romanov) in Helsinki. Give a well-liked and adored Duke or two, and maybe by the time independence becomes an option, the constitutional situation will be interpreted in a way that a foreign prince will be elected into that position rather than to become a King.

That actually makes a lot of sense.

But even then, people could be critical towards the perceived subservient rank of the Finnish leader to the Kings in the other Nordic countries and make him King, if only to save face.:rolleyes:

Should that be a problem, though?
 

yourworstnightmare

Banned
Donor
Finland almost became a monarchy, but for it to remain a Romanov Grand Duchy would be hard indeed. I guess DrakoFinn's idea could work, but the whole idea with the Grand Duchy was that Finland was tied with Russia through a common ruler, the Russian Czar as Grand duke of Finland.
 
Oh, that. Just one way of keeping the title of Grand Duke in existence post-1917. It guess rejoining with Sweden would not be very plausible in the twentieth century anymore.
Yeah. An early 20th century Finland was too nationalistic and anti-swedish for rejoining be plausible.

Though I suppose that some huge crisis might change the situation. After all, it actually did change during the WW2 in OTL.

The Finnish peasant-soldiers were already used to stage enough Swedish imperial adventures before 1809, thank you very much...
Well how else you think Sweden could have ever become a Great Power otherwise? ;)
 
I guess one could try to change the Russian rule in Finland in a way that the office of Grand Duke was detached from Tsardom early on.

In that case Finland could have a true, resident Grand Duke (maybe a younger Romanov) in Helsinki. Give a well-liked and adored Duke or two, and maybe by the time independence becomes an option, the constitutional situation will be interpreted in a way that a foreign prince will be elected into that position rather than to become a King.

But even then, people could be critical towards the perceived subservient rank of the Finnish leader to the Kings in the other Nordic countries and make him King, if only to save face.:rolleyes:

The only way I could see a resident would be to keep the Congress Kingdom of Poland alive, which had a resident Viceroy. Once that is destroyed, the whole IDEA of a resident disappears

Of course, if you do it BEFOREHAND I guess there's a chance. Paul after all had four sons, its just fate that only one produced a dynastic line... (the 4th, Grand Duke Michael had FIVE daughters)

Now, perhaps at Vienna it could be agreed that there's a place for, well Konstantine was Viceroy of Poland, but maybe being Grand Duke of Finland would beat that...

The main problem tho is that the Romanovs do not have a tradition of granting governmental titles to their scions - basically you could be a Viceroy (down to Alexiev the bastard in Manchuria) or governor, both emphasising the power that comes from the Tsar

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
Yeah. An early 20th century Finland was too nationalistic and anti-swedish for rejoining be plausible.

Though I suppose that some huge crisis might change the situation. After all, it actually did change during the WW2 in OTL.

Yes, I think the Swedish, Norwegian and Finnish political nationalism (aside from cultural nationalism) were one of the great tragedies in 20th Century. During the Second World War the situation changed, but after the war Norway and Denmark were too Western aligned, Sweden too neutral and Finland too much under Soviet yoke for necessary changes to occur.

Although, one must remember, things like free travel without passport and free movement of labour did occur in OTL and had a huge influence especially for Finland.

On the other hand, Finland and Sweden are so similar nowadays I think a political union might result in quite a small differences to OTL (such as common currency). Finland would benefit from better legal system (laws in OTL are copied and translated from Sweden, but Finnish judges are more corrupted) and better health care...
 
Last edited:
Finland would benefit from better legal system (laws in OTL are copied and translated from Sweden, but Finnish judges are more corrupted) and better health care...

I know there has been a tendency (in the past anyway) watch how new legislation works in Sweden and then make similar laws for Finland but I thin it often was bit more complex process than just copying and translating.

Also, do you have sources about Finnish judges being more corrupted?
 

Susano

Banned
I know there has been a tendency (in the past anyway) watch how new legislation works in Sweden and then make similar laws for Finland but I thin it often was bit more complex process than just copying and translating.

Also, do you have sources about Finnish judges being more corrupted?

...you messed up citation. Your quote links to my post and says I have posted this, but it has jukras text...
 
Top