WI/PC: Mecklenburger Sweden

Albrect IV of Mecklenburg became king of Sweden, although he was later deposed in favor of Queen Margarethe I . His son, Erich was heir to the Mecklenburger claim to Sweden, and married to Sophie of Pomerania, but left no issue. His daughter was married to a Bohemian prince and her daughter became duchess of Luxemburg, as well as duchess of Brabant by marriage. Sadly, neither Erich nor Albrecht's granddaughter Elisabeth, duchess of Luxemburg left issue.

But what if Erich had left a pregnant wife? Would King Albrecht having an heir change anything in his policies? Maybe avoid him being deposed? Or would the Kalmar Union of OTL still come into being? And if Sophie has a daughter, might she be married to Margarethe's heir, Erich of Pomerania?
 
Albrect IV of Mecklenburg became king of Sweden, although he was later deposed in favor of Queen Margarethe I . His son, Erich was heir to the Mecklenburger claim to Sweden, and married to Sophie of Pomerania, but left no issue. His daughter was married to a Bohemian prince and her daughter became duchess of Luxemburg, as well as duchess of Brabant by marriage. Sadly, neither Erich nor Albrecht's granddaughter Elisabeth, duchess of Luxemburg left issue.

But what if Erich had left a pregnant wife? Would King Albrecht having an heir change anything in his policies? Maybe avoid him being deposed? Or would the Kalmar Union of OTL still come into being? And if Sophie has a daughter, might she be married to Margarethe's heir, Erich of Pomerania?

The Mecklenburgers never really had a claim to Sweden as such. Sweden first became a hereditary monarchy in the 16th century. Back in the 14th, it was down to elections at the Stones of Mora by the nobility. If you want a continuing Mecklenburger dynasty in Sweden, you've got to give the Swedish nobility good reason to continue electing Mecklenburgers.
 
The Mecklenburgers never really had a claim to Sweden as such. Sweden first became a hereditary monarchy in the 16th century. Back in the 14th, it was down to elections at the Stones of Mora by the nobility. If you want a continuing Mecklenburger dynasty in Sweden, you've got to give the Swedish nobility good reason to continue electing Mecklenburgers.

What if Erich survives? According to his wiki article, Erich defeated Sten Sture in the conquest of Gotland, but unfortunately died of the plague soon after (so primary POD he doesn't catch the plague). Sture had to swear allegiance to Albrecht. So, if Erich lives, and he's a not too incompetent warrior - I'm not thinking Carl XII or Gustaf Adolf or something like that - but manages to swing the tide in Mecklenburg's favor, maybe if Denmark gets their asses handed to them a couple of times, it would be enough for the nobles to think 'ja, these Mecklenburgers aren't so bad'. Of course, Albrecht can undo a lot of his son's work through his unfavorable policies, so maybe he dies a bit earlier?
 
What if Erich survives? According to his wiki article, Erich defeated Sten Sture in the conquest of Gotland, but unfortunately died of the plague soon after (so primary POD he doesn't catch the plague). Sture had to swear allegiance to Albrecht. So, if Erich lives, and he's a not too incompetent warrior - I'm not thinking Carl XII or Gustaf Adolf or something like that - but manages to swing the tide in Mecklenburg's favor, maybe if Denmark gets their asses handed to them a couple of times, it would be enough for the nobles to think 'ja, these Mecklenburgers aren't so bad'. Of course, Albrecht can undo a lot of his son's work through his unfavorable policies, so maybe he dies a bit earlier?

Even so, that's going to be tricky. What had made the Swedish nobility rise up against Magnus Eriksson in the first place was his taxation to fund his own wars in the East, as well as a centralization of power around the King. The Swedish coffers were empty from military campaigns, and Sweden was heavily indebted to the Hanseatic League. There really isn't an appetite for war among the Swedish nobility at current. Indeed, a decided lack of appetite of war was a big part of the discontent surrounding Magnus Eriksson.

They went with Albrecht in part because they wanted a monarch they could easily control. Whereas Magnus Eriksson was a patrilineal descendant of Birger Jarl, and could furthermore count Erik the Saint among his ancestors, Albrecht was a German princeling whose family had no power base in Sweden. He was a King made by the nobles, and could be unmade by the nobles. And they got what they wanted, as Albrecht indeed ended up being little more than a puppet of the nobility.
 
Even so, that's going to be tricky. What had made the Swedish nobility rise up against Magnus Eriksson in the first place was his taxation to fund his own wars in the East, as well as a centralization of power around the King. The Swedish coffers were empty from military campaigns, and Sweden was heavily indebted to the Hanseatic League. There really isn't an appetite for war among the Swedish nobility at current. Indeed, a decided lack of appetite of war was a big part of the discontent surrounding Magnus Eriksson.

They went with Albrecht in part because they wanted a monarch they could easily control. Whereas Magnus Eriksson was a patrilineal descendant of Birger Jarl, and could furthermore count Erik the Saint among his ancestors, Albrecht was a German princeling whose family had no power base in Sweden. He was a King made by the nobles, and could be unmade by the nobles. And they got what they wanted, as Albrecht indeed ended up being little more than a puppet of the nobility.

So, we need to keep the Swedes supporting someone who has no power-base. If Erich's too threatening, then him leaving a kid might work. Nobody likes a regency, but what better way can you get to run the country while Junior's still in leading strings. A rally around the flag is probably too nationalistic too early. But Sweden's empty coffers means that when someone comes knocking for war the Swedes are going to have no way of funding it/be at a distinct disadvantage. And when Albrecht tried to replenish the coffers through the nobility, they rose up against him. So Sweden's either going to be condemned to the rubbish list of state finances, or Albrecht/Erich is going to have to find a new way of refilling the coffers that doesn't piss off quite so many people. Now the obvious solution would be to raise taxation, but that would mean increasing the load of the peasantry. Or how else would you suggest the Mecklenburg king be able to do this without having to worry about the nobility wanting to be rid of him (obviously you're always going to have the duke of this or the earl of that not liking the king, but from what I can make out, this was sort a wholesale request from the nobility to dethrone Albrecht)?
 
So, we need to keep the Swedes supporting someone who has no power-base. If Erich's too threatening, then him leaving a kid might work. Nobody likes a regency, but what better way can you get to run the country while Junior's still in leading strings. A rally around the flag is probably too nationalistic too early. But Sweden's empty coffers means that when someone comes knocking for war the Swedes are going to have no way of funding it/be at a distinct disadvantage. And when Albrecht tried to replenish the coffers through the nobility, they rose up against him. So Sweden's either going to be condemned to the rubbish list of state finances, or Albrecht/Erich is going to have to find a new way of refilling the coffers that doesn't piss off quite so many people. Now the obvious solution would be to raise taxation, but that would mean increasing the load of the peasantry. Or how else would you suggest the Mecklenburg king be able to do this without having to worry about the nobility wanting to be rid of him (obviously you're always going to have the duke of this or the earl of that not liking the king, but from what I can make out, this was sort a wholesale request from the nobility to dethrone Albrecht)?

A regency would actually probably be the best shot you have, since then it's the nobility being in charge, not the King. The thing one has to understand is that Scandinavia in the 14th century isn't Game of Thrones.

People don't give credence to the notion that the throne is yours by right of blood.

People don't think that oaths of alligences really are unbreakable as much as arrangements for convenience.

Nobody really wants a strict hierarchical hereditary monarchy. People want a weak monarchy that is dependent on the continued support of the subjects for it's survival.
 
A regency would actually probably be the best shot you have, since then it's the nobility being in charge, not the King. The thing one has to understand is that Scandinavia in the 14th century isn't Game of Thrones.

People don't give credence to the notion that the throne is yours by right of blood.

People don't think that oaths of alligences really are unbreakable as much as arrangements for convenience.

Nobody really wants a strict hierarchical hereditary monarchy. People want a weak monarchy that is dependent on the continued support of the subjects for it's survival.

I admit, that I'm a bit hazy on Scandinavian history of the pre-Kalmar days, and I'm only really up to speed once the Reformation, hereditary monarchy etc starts kicking in, so I apologize if I made it sound too much like Game of Thrones.

So a regency it is for little Albrecht II (unless they'd rather he be named Erik, and why not Sweden has a couple of kings with that name already). But that doesn't mean he's set for life. If he starts looking around at how the other kings in Europe do things, how would be the least antagonistic way of centralizing the monarchy? Obviously going at it slowly is going to be key here, but if the crown starts slowly nibbling away at the power of the nobility (and by slowly I mean glaciers might move faster). Or by a Gustaf III style coup going to work better? Although, if he's an elected king, it's as you said, a shortcut to being unmade again.
 
I admit, that I'm a bit hazy on Scandinavian history of the pre-Kalmar days, and I'm only really up to speed once the Reformation, hereditary monarchy etc starts kicking in, so I apologize if I made it sound too much like Game of Thrones.

So a regency it is for little Albrecht II (unless they'd rather he be named Erik, and why not Sweden has a couple of kings with that name already). But that doesn't mean he's set for life. If he starts looking around at how the other kings in Europe do things, how would be the least antagonistic way of centralizing the monarchy? Obviously going at it slowly is going to be key here, but if the crown starts slowly nibbling away at the power of the nobility (and by slowly I mean glaciers might move faster). Or by a Gustaf III style coup going to work better? Although, if he's an elected king, it's as you said, a shortcut to being unmade again.

Please, you have nothing to apologize for mate, I'm sorry if I came across as overly killjoy and trying to tear down on something you seem quite interested in. :)

A Gustav III-style coup wouldn't really work, I'm afraid. The difference in time of 400 years means it's simply inapplicable. That's a bit like saying that "What if Charles XI decided to introduce löntagarfonder?"

The process of centralizing the monarchy simply cannot be done over night. The problem is that the political infrastructure simply isn't there at this point in Swedish history. There is no parliamentary structure, there are no proper institutions for dealing with taxation, finance, etc. Titles and offices doesn't exist. If you want to centralize the monarchy, you're looking at a project that will take at the minimum a century.

The first step of which requires the construction of a political infrastructure.
 
Please, you have nothing to apologize for mate, I'm sorry if I came across as overly killjoy and trying to tear down on something you seem quite interested in. :)

A Gustav III-style coup wouldn't really work, I'm afraid. The difference in time of 400 years means it's simply inapplicable. That's a bit like saying that "What if Charles XI decided to introduce löntagarfonder?"

The process of centralizing the monarchy simply cannot be done over night. The problem is that the political infrastructure simply isn't there at this point in Swedish history. There is no parliamentary structure, there are no proper institutions for dealing with taxation, finance, etc. Titles and offices doesn't exist. If you want to centralize the monarchy, you're looking at a project that will take at the minimum a century.

The first step of which requires the construction of a political infrastructure.

So what would Albrecht/Erik's first move be? He's going to have to tread carefully as to walk the tightrope between the nobles and whoever else. Margarethe I seized a lot of land/power from the church (though I think this was only in Denmark), might this be an option? Or is there not really land to seize in 15th century Sweden?
 
So what would Albrecht/Erik's first move be? He's going to have to tread carefully as to walk the tightrope between the nobles and whoever else. Margarethe I seized a lot of land/power from the church (though I think this was only in Denmark), might this be an option? Or is there not really land to seize in 15th century Sweden?

Well, seizing land from the nobles was what got Magnus Eriksson deposed in the first place, and trying to seize lands again was what got Albrecht of Mecklenburg deposed in turn as well, as the Swedish nobles turned to Margaret of Denmark for help.

I would need more information on this land seize from the Church of Margaret's to be able to comment on that.
 
Top