WI Norway became a repubic in 1905

What been part of E.U. as to do with control natural resources ?

Norway has been in a Union with someone (who is in the EU today, hmm...) from 1400 to 1905. Half a millennium. At no point did Norway have much control of its natural resources.
 
Norway has been in a Union with someone (who is in the EU today, hmm...) from 1400 to 1905. Half a millennium. At no point did Norway have much control of its natural resources.

I do not think you can compare Denmark–Norway with the E.U.
I don't think Germany hydro-electrical resources are under France control or the nuclear power plants of France are under German control,what Norway could lose is taxes revenues (export ones if there are any )
 
The pubic perception, however, remains sceptical to any kind of overnational control.

And, the government would have to treat EU companies the same as local ones when they apply for a permit to exploit a waterfall. God knows what would happen to the special Norwegian legislation for oil extraction.
 
The pubic perception, however, remains sceptical to any kind of overnational control.
I know that

And, the government would have to treat EU companies the same as local ones when they apply for a permit to exploit a waterfall.
Yes that is true.

God knows what would happen to the special Norwegian legislation for oil extraction.
Nothing It will still be under Norwegian control,so Norway will be able to decide under what conditions it will be done.Norway will have to comply with the minimum safety requirement of E.U, for oil exploration/explanation. and yes it will have do give the same rights to other E.U, companies.
 
Nothing It will still be under Norwegian control,so Norway will be able to decide under what conditions it will be done.Norway will have to comply with the minimum safety requirement of E.U, for oil exploration/explanation. and yes it will have do give the same rights to other E.U, companies.

Wealthy of Norway bases to oil and it not give its oil money for poor countries. It has pay them and Norway hardly can negotiate about payments similar way as United Kingdom.
 

Flubber

Banned
The European powers of the time were, with one exception, monarchies and those powers were the ones who had a de facto if not a de jure "sign-off" on Norwegian independence.

If the proposed "new" Norwegian nation was going to be a republic, would the European powers have acquiesced to the split as readily as they did?
 
The European powers of the time were, with one exception, monarchies and those powers were the ones who had a de facto if not a de jure "sign-off" on Norwegian independence.

If the proposed "new" Norwegian nation was going to be a republic, would the European powers have acquiesced to the split as readily as they did?

Norway had already had already declared independence before the referendum, so the constitutional question was an internal matter.
 

Flubber

Banned
Norway had already had already declared independence before the referendum, so the constitutional question was an internal matter.

So it was, and international recognition was a matter in the hands of the European powers.

What I'm asking is whether it was somehow "unofficially" made known to Norway by the major powers that a constitutional monarchy was the preferable choice and that a choice perceived as too radical would have consequences.

We're dealing with realpoltik here and not some theoretical nicety. When some nations whistle, other nations jump. That's the way the real world works and has always worked.
 
Since the descision was made in a public vote by the citizenry, such a preference would have to be made very well known to have any effect. As far as I know, we haven't heard of it, and I don't see how it could have been forgotten or covered up.

So its a pretty safe bet that it wasn't a factor.

Maybe if France acts as a patron to the independence movement in Norway, and back Norway up when it looked like there might be armed clashes...the notion of making Norway a monarchy might simply never arise in the independence movement. It could be republican from the start?
 
So it was, and international recognition was a matter in the hands of the European powers.

What I'm asking is whether it was somehow "unofficially" made known to Norway by the major powers that a constitutional monarchy was the preferable choice and that a choice perceived as too radical would have consequences.

We're dealing with realpoltik here and not some theoretical nicety. When some nations whistle, other nations jump. That's the way the real world works and has always worked.

Portugal had revolution 5 years later and was recognised fairly quickly by the great powers, as long as Norway says it will honour its international obligations, nobody will see the need to needlessly block relations with Norway.
 
Had question about monarchy/republic very big deal on early 20th century? THere had quiet much republics on this time and monarchies of Europe had recognised them. And monarchies of Europe had constitutional monarchies or developing as constitutional monarchies so I don't believe that Germany, Russia or UK would have much care about that so long when they have good ties.
 

Zeldar155

Banned
The idea was that a Monarchy with a prince from another European Kingdom serving as King would help Norway gain recognition in Europe, as monarchies were the norm in Europe, and because of that, trade and friendly ties with European states.

Recognition and friendly ties with other European states isn't impossible with a Republican Norway, it would slow the process down, however.
 

Flubber

Banned
Had question about monarchy/republic very big deal on early 20th century?


Look at all the new nations slowly carved out of the retreating Ottoman Empire by the Great Powers during the latter half of the 19th Century. Greece, Bulgaria, Albania, and all the others. Each and every one of them got a brand spanking new king and constitutional monarchy courtesy of the Great Powers and usually involving some minor branch of a Great Power reigning dynasty.

Not one new nation created in Europe between 1815 and the First World War was a republic. All of them were monarchies of one sort or another.

Even when dynastic lines reigning in European nations "died" out, as with Spain twice, the Great Powers of the 19th Century took care to replace them with other royals rather than allow a republic to be formed.

THere had quiet much republics on this time and monarchies of Europe had recognised them.

With one exception, those republics were outside of Europe. The only European republic was France. That republic was the result of the defeat of a monarchy and France, as a great power, wasn't going to be dictated to.

So, again, my questions are why would Norway buck this trend and would Norway be allowed to buck this trend? Every other new nation got a king and only one existing nation changed from a constitutional monarchy to a republic.
 
So, again, my questions are why would Norway buck this trend and would Norway be allowed to buck this trend? Every other new nation got a king and only one existing nation changed from a constitutional monarchy to a republic.

I think the old saying about correlation and causation applies here.

When Norway went independent, the Republic/Monarchy issue was settled by a public vote. There is no indication that the Great Powers cared one whit about this. In fact, initially it was assumed that the country would be a monarchy. The public vote and chance for a republic came about because the prospective King, from a different European royal house, and in a sense representing the great powers in the matter, insisted that he would not take the throne unless democratically elected.

The powers, his crowned relatives, etc, seem to have cared not one whit, fig or tottle that he insisted on a monarchy/republic vote.

So I think there is ample evidence that OTL, there really was no pressure from the great powers to go monarchy. New states went constitutional monarchy because that is what they were familiar with.

What I am trying to say here is that Norway itself is a good example of a very transparent process for deciding the monarchy/republic issue, where we see absolutly no pressure or even interest from the great powers.
 
Last edited:

Flubber

Banned
In fact, initially it was assumed that the country would be a monarchy.


So, it had already been assumed by the Great Powers that Norway would be a constitutional monarchy?

The public vote and chance for a republic came about because the prospective King, from a different European royal house, and in a sense representing the great powers in the matter, insisted that he would not take the throne unless democratically elected.
And the king whom the Great Powers already assumed would be king insisted on a vote as a sop to the classical liberal feelings of the period; i.e. We let the people vote and they chose a king.. And, as you noted above, the vote was a foregone conclusion anyway because everyone already assumed there would be a monarchy.

The powers, his crowned relatives, etc, seem to have cared not one whit, fig or tottle that he insisted on a monarchy/republic vote.
Perhaps they didn't care because of the assumptions you wrote of?

So I think there is ample evidence that OTL, there really was no pressure from the great powers to go monarchy.
No pressure because the vote was already a foregone conclusion.

New states went constitutional monarchy because that is what they were familiar with.
Exactly and that was my original point regarding the OP's question. Every new state in Europe prior to WW1 was a constitutional monarchy. Why would a republic even be considered? Why would Norway be different?

What I am trying to say here is that Norway itself is a good example of a very transparent process for deciding the monarchy/republic issue, where we see absolutly no pressure or even interest from the great powers.
Transparent or foregone? And absolutely no pressure because there was no need for any pressure?

Keeping those two questions in mind, let's return to the OP's original question. Let's suppose that, for reasons I cannot even begin to guess at, Norway goes to the polls and chooses to become a republic. The king-in-waiting, with the best of classical liberal sentiment and with the results seemingly foregone, insists on a pro forma vote and, instead of measuring the palace for new carpets, finds himself thrown out on his ass. Everyone's assumptions were somehow wrong.

What do the Great Powers do then? They'd expected a monarchy, but the voters didn't do what was expected of them. What happens then? Is Norway so inconsequential that no one is interested?
 
So, it had already been assumed by the Great Powers that Norway would be a constitutional monarchy?

Norway had been a constitutional monarchy since 1814. It was in a personal union with Sweden, where the King of Sweden was also King of Norway. But never King of Norway and Sweden.

Sweden had long disapproved of the Norwegian parliaments radical and anti-royal policies. Voting rights for all men over 25, palamentarism, ending the aristocracy and titles, limiting the powers of the King such as no right of veto, and the flag issue.

The flag Norway ended up with, over the objections of the Swedish King, was red, white and blue, hailing towards liberal republics such as the US and France, without a union mark. The flag issue was one of the major points of contention in the union.

The Great Powers were not irrelevant in the dissolution of the union itself, although Great Britain just requested that the Scandinavians keep it polite when it looked like there might be armed clashes. The French apparently refered to the whole affair as "Just a big comedy".

But their opinion did matter. Work was done to influence the opinions of both the public and the govenments.

And the king whom the Great Powers already assumed would be king insisted on a vote as a sop to the classical liberal feelings of the period; i.e. We let the people vote and they chose a king.. And, as you noted above, the vote was a foregone conclusion anyway because everyone already assumed there would be a monarchy.

The vote was not a foregone conclusion before it was made. Bjørnson himself was a republican! Also, the demand for a public vote was a surprise.

You're making some extraordinary claims about my countrys declaration of independence here. Are there any cites?

I've nerver heard any claims that the Great Powers were interested in what form of government Norway ended up with. There was a highly surprising request for a vote by the prospective King, from a country that had bristled against the Swedish Monarchy for a while.

The vote turned out overwhelmingly in favor of the King, and this gave him considerable political capital to start off his reign.

Exactly and that was my original point regarding the OP's question. Every new state in Europe prior to WW1 was a constitutional monarchy. Why would a republic even be considered? Why would Norway be different?

Norway had already been a constitutional monarchy, formally for 90 years, informally for a 1000. To flip that, you'd need to strengthen the anti-royalist sentiments of parliament during the union, or maybe have a much harsher breakup, with aid from France. More republicans among the luminarries, like Nansen etc would help.

Or you could change the dissolution. Oscar II was assumed to have de facto abdicated. A different issue may have led to the Norwegian parliament, looking for excuses, to assume that Norway was no longer part of the Monarchys power, which would have led to a republic.

Transparent or foregone? And absolutely no pressure because there was no need for any pressure?

Transparent, not foregone.

Keeping those two questions in mind

Lets not. Unless there are some historical sources that never gets mentioned on may 17th, or in any classes, there is really no reason to.

let's return to the OP's original question. Let's suppose that, for reasons I cannot even begin to guess at, Norway goes to the polls and chooses to become a republic. The king-in-waiting, with the best of classical liberal sentiment and with the results seemingly foregone, insists on a pro forma vote and, instead of measuring the palace for new carpets, finds himself thrown out on his ass. Everyone's assumptions were somehow wrong.

Well, first off, at this point, we had almost a hundred year of friction with Sweden due to anti-royalist sentiments and legislation. Second, the geography of the conutry and the technology of the time really did not lend itself to polls. Third, the republicans included such political luminaries as Bjørnson, who wrote the national anthem in 1859, and won the nobel prize in literature only two years before.

So really, no-one assumed anything, as far as I know. The news that the prospective King had asked for the vote were said to have struck parliament "like a bomb".

What do the Great Powers do then? They'd expected a monarchy, but the voters didn't do what was expected of them. What happens then? Is Norway so inconsequential that no one is interested?

No-one expected anything. And Norway was pretty inconsequential. However, the people they had made deals with would remain. Russia still wanted the November-declaration of 1855 replaced, and the same people would be in charge of replacing it.

Note that Russia was the most enthusiastic supporter of dissolving the union, and did not care that the prospective King was married to the daughter of the later King Edward.

I think you are investing the royalty of the time with an importance and a power that had passed them by. In 1905, whether Norway settled on a republic or monarchy simply didn't matter to the powers. Stuff that mattered was resources, military, territory. If Norway had seemed to run some kind of revolutionary communist movement to kill the prospective King etc, that would have mattered.

In as far as the great powers are concerned, nothing changes. What does change, and butterfly things later, is the influence the King had on Norway. Norway of the 30s may have had a lot more unrest, and been stronger militarily.
 

Flubber

Banned
You're making some extraordinary claims about my countrys declaration of independence here.


I'm not making extraordinary claims. I'm asking questions. The Great Powers were intimately involved in the creation of the various new nations in southeastern Europe and I'm asking whether there was a similar level of interest in the creation of a new nation in northwestern Europe.

No-one expected anything. And Norway was pretty inconsequential.

And that answers my question. The new nations in southeastern Europe were important because they were coming into existence in a region of supreme interest to Austria-Hungary, Russia, and Ottomans while Norway's creation was of no real consequence at all.

Bulgaria, Serbia, and Albania, for example, had geopolitical consequences while Norway was just, well, Norway.

Norway had already been a constitutional monarchy, formally for 90 years, informally for a 1000. To flip that, you'd need to strengthen the anti-royalist sentiments of parliament during the union, or maybe have a much harsher breakup, with aid from France. More republicans among the luminarries, like Nansen etc would help.

Or you could change the dissolution. Oscar II was assumed to have de facto abdicated. A different issue may have led to the Norwegian parliament, looking for excuses, to assume that Norway was no longer part of the Monarchys power, which would have led to a republic.

So there could be ways for the OP's question to be answered?

What would you think the Great Powers', in particular Germany's, response would have been to the harsher break-up with aid from France?
 
If Norway becomes a republic and then Finland goes republic as OTL i guess Sweden will go republic after 1921, but as we always do, we compromise, so that Gustav V is our last monarch.

Then Denmark follow sometime before 1939
 
If Norway becomes a republic and then Finland goes republic as OTL i guess Sweden will go republic after 1921, but as we always do, we compromise, so that Gustav V is our last monarch.

Then Denmark follow sometime before 1939

I don't see anything reason why Sweden and Denmark would become republics if their neighbours are. In OTL Liechtenstein is monarchy although its neighbours Switzerland and Austria are republics. And in OTL is many monarchies whose all neighbours are republics, like Monaco and Bhutan.
 
Top