Weird History: King of Sweden

[mishalak]

Every once in a while history does something totally ironic (in the sense of something unexpected, not something disappointing). For example you would expect that the King of Sweden would be, you know, Swedish. Or at the very least the new king would be from some obscure branch of the family ruling Sweden imported from somewhere or other. Rather like how the British had a habit of importing minor Germanic nobility vaguely related somehow whenever they ran out the sons and daughters of their king or just plain didn't like the current one. Yet in 1818 something very odd happened...

It all started back in 1792 when Gustav III got assassinated. Gustav was probably a genius who had been busy centralizing the power of the throne to modernize Sweden and take away the power of the nobles, one of whom did him in at the opera as part of a conspiracy. In addition to being probably a genius he was also probably a homosexual like his uncle on his mother's side, Fredrick the Great of Prussia. He certainly only left one son as heir though there was (and is) more than a bit of talk that someone other than the king fathered Gustav IV. Whoever fathered him he didn't win wars and he didn't manage the nobles even as well as his predecessor did (and that's saying something considering that he got snuffed by them) and so the whole absolute monarch thing wore thin very quickly. Well fortunately his incompetence made him less of a threat (or something) and when the army deposed him in 1809 they just exiled him and his immediate family. They put in his uncle the duke (brother to the aforementioned Gustav the Three) as Charles XIII, but here was the catch. Both his children had died in infancy and by the time he was appointed king he was rather long in the tooth and so they knew that this was just a temporary measure until they could find a king they really liked.

Now here comes the extraordinary bit.

The Swedish army wanted a soldier as a king because it looked like there would be yet another war with Russia. Earlier Sweden had been at war with France and the general in charge was Jean-Baptiste Bernadotte. Now you might think that a general from the other side would be rather unpopular with the people and parliament of the nation he fought against. But you'd be wrong in this case because he apparently treated the Swedish prisoners of war very well. So hey this Baron Karl Otto Mörner guy gets it into he head that, wait, why not elect this general to be our king, because we can elect anyone we want, and so in the course of negotiations with the French he offers Jean (a commoner from Paris) the Swedish throne(!). Jean, being loyal, told Napoleon who thought this whole thing was ridiculous, but earlier he had sacked Jean from his military job and so this king gig looked pretty appealing in comparison with being governor of Rome. Jean was intrigued and said that he would do it if he got elected. And somehow this made him popular enough that the even though Karl got arrested for offering him the throne without authority to do so, they elected him Crown Prince.

So he is made official heir in 1810 and rules in all but name. During this time he is at first on okay terms with Nappy, but he is going to do what is best for Sweden. Such as joining with France's enemies against Napoleon 1813 and was part of what turned the tide against his former Emperor so he can grab Norway away from Denmark. He reigned offically as king from 1818 until 1844 and his descendants still rule Sweden and Norway.

And that's how a commoner from Paris who never learned Swedish and had a tattoo that said, "Mort aux rois!" ("Death to kings!") became king of Sweden. History's a funny thing, in't it?

Comments

[jufin.livejournal.com]

Well, it's weird for XIX century, but they just returned to the practice of Roman and Byzantine Empires. Most of the powerfull emperors at the late stages of both empires were commoners, proposed and appointed by army

[mishalak.livejournal.com]

But technically speaking Rome, Western or Eastern version, were not ruled by a king. They were ruled by an Emperor. Kings have almost, not not quite, always been from the nobility. The exceptions generally were because someone was so good at conquoring that he mangaged to seize the country at the head of the army.

[jufin.livejournal.com]

Well, more strictly technically speaking the Emperor of Western Rome wasn't too differ from the king, starting from Septimius Severus, and even more "Dominus et deus", starting from Diocletian. As for Eastern empire, the Emperor wasn't the main title. Starting from Constantine the Great(btw, still united Empire) they used "Βασιλεύς", which means "king" exactly, as well as "Αυτοκράτωρ", which means absolute monarch.
But anyway, I agree with you. What can be usual in Roman times is absolutely weird in XIX century Europe.

[nancylebov.livejournal.com]

That's a very cool story, and I'll add it my list of reasons for why you should treat prisoners of war well. Thanks.