Next year Norway will celebrate the bicentenary of its independence and the government yesterday announced (external link) that its jubilee present to Parliament will be a statue of King Christian Frederik, which will be erected in the middle of Eidsvoll Square in front of the Parliament Building.
Christian Frederik, the cousin of King Frederik VI of Denmark and Norway, was sent to Norway as Lieutenant of the Realm during the Napoleonic Wars and led the rebellion when Frederik VI on 14 January 1814 ceded Norway to the King of Sweden. Christian Frederik was persuaded to call a constituent assembly, which met at Eidsvoll in April and which passed the Constitution which is still in force on 16 May. Christian Frederik was himself elected King the following day. However, his reign turned out to be short, as Sweden attacked Norway in July. A ceasefire agreed in Moss in August led to negotiations which ended with Christian Frederik’s abdication and Sweden and Norway agreeing on an arrangement whereby Norway retained its independence and its constitution in a loose personal union with Sweden.
Christian Frederik, who eventually became King of Denmark as Christian VIII, was later chastised for not having fought harder, but eventually more and more people have come to realise that opening negotiations rather than fighting to the last drop of blood was probably what saved Norway’s independence and constitution.
The idea of a statue of King Christian Frederik was brought up already in time of the centenary in 1914, but nothing happened then. Two years ago the then Secretary General of Parliament, Hans Brattestå, stated that the Presidium had rejected the idea of erecting such a monument. However, this was overruled by the government last year, and the Minister of Culture, Hadia Tajik, has now revealed that the statue will be placed in front of the Parliament Building. This is, in my opinion, the best possible solution, and will correspond nicely with the statue of King Carl XIV Johan in front of the Royal Palace.
There will now be a competition among sculptors and it is intended that the statue will be unveiled before the bicentenary on 17 May 2014.
Sunday, 20 January 2013
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
It's sad that the 200th anniversary of the constitution that gave Norway democratic rule is to be celebrated with a monument of Denmark's last totalitarian king.
ReplyDeleteChristian Frederik made great contributions to Norwegian independence and he was indeed the last absolute monarch of Denmark, as it (for reasons not under his control) was not possible to go through with his wish of giving Denmark a constitution in his lifetime, something he instructed his son and successor to do.
DeleteYes, he did. But he has been portraied by his Norwegian biographer as the hope of the Danish liberals for 25 years after 1814. But proved to be a great disappointment when he became king. Thus was Denmark the last Scandinavian country to get rid of absolutism. How tragic a figure he was.
ReplyDeleteThere was great hope connected to Christian Frederik in the 25 years between his two reigns. But events mostly outside his control meant that it was not possible for him to grant Denmark a constitution, which certainly caused great disappointment to many. Thus I can agree that Christian VIII was a tragic figure, but that does not diminish his achievements as King of Norway.
DeleteHe was important to trigger the forces that gave Norway a constitution, possibly more liberal that he would have imagined. But in the end he did not want to fight. He did not rescept an internationally granted agreement between his native Denmark and the since 1809 more democratic Sweden. And he was not regognized neither by Sweden nor by the international great powers as the leader of Norway. Sverdrup influenced Christian Frederik to start the path towards a constitution. and Christie saved the constitution when Norway had to accept the Kiel-agreement. Christie got his monument outside the Norwegian parliament. Georg Sverdrup certainly deserves a monument, too.
ReplyDeleteChristian Frederik did fight, but had the common sense to stop it in time. For this he was heavily criticised by some who thought the loss of more blood would have been more glorious. An echo of this view could be found in a rather bizarre recent op-ed in Aftenposten by a retired officer who apparently likes to dress up and take part in re-enactments of battles. However, most historians today agree that what Christian Frederik did was right. Norway's military force was in no way intimidating and a continuation of the war would have led to Norway being militarily crushed. By stopping the war in time and negotiating a ceasefire one was able to obtain more favourable terms than what would have been possible after a military defeat. Under such a scenario the Constitution and this country's independence might very well have been lost (and the entire region would probably have been destabilised).
DeleteWhen it comes to Christian Frederik's "not respect[ing] an internationally granted agreement" this could be the topic of a long discussion, including the ideas of popular sovereignty and what right Frederik VI had to give away Norway without the Norwegians being consulted. And it should also be remembered that giving away parts of his realm was one of only three things the Rex Legia explicitly forbade the absolute monarch.
The fact that Sweden and the great powers did not recognise Christian Frederik as leader of Norway at the time does obviously not have any influence on the fact of his actually being so.
That Christian Frederik was influenced by others is self-evident and in the nature of things; no one operates in a vacuum. Christie did indeed rescue as much as possible of the Constitution during the negotiations with Sweden in October and November 1814, and was duly honoured with a statue in 1989. Indeed Sverdrup also deserves to be commemorated. My last word will be that honouring one does not rule out honouring another, and that the statue King Christian Frederik will finally get is well deserved.
I do totally agree that it would have been plain stupidity to fight the Swedish forces led by an experienced officer taking part in wars and battles for 20 years.
ReplyDeleteWhen you comment the role of Christian Frederic as leader of Norway in 1814 as "the fact of his actually being so", I could reply to your comment on Lex Regia that reality overturns written law and agreements. The Danish king lost a war, and was thus forced to give up Norway.
My point, initially and finally, is that Norway was lucky to rescue as much of the constitution as we did in 1814. Norway came out far better of than if continuing under Denmark. And would we this lucky if another than Carl Johan was in command in Sweden? My answer is no. And if Christian Frederik deserves a statue, Carl Johan deserves to be restored in the story about the events in 1814.
I can agree that Carl Johan deserves to be recognised for being so "generous", if that is the word, in 1814. But that does not change the fact that he did not succeed in achieving his political goals in Norway after 1814, and that the nature of the union made it difficult to uphold. But aside from certain advocates of a "black legend" it is not my impression that Carl Johan has had a particularly bad press; it is more the union in general which seems to be massively misunderstood by many.
Delete