On November 12, 1905, the people of Norway voted, most improbably, to elect a new King. It seems strange to our modern, republican sensibilities that a people would vote for monarchy when they could have just as easily selected a republican government. But in 1905, the Norwegian people were coming off a century of semi-self-determination, and were facing an uncertain future, one that may have seemed easier to navigate with a king at the helm.
A century earlier in 1807, Norway made what would prove to be a blunder of a decision and joined the fight in the Napoleonic Wars. While they joined the French, definitely the stronger side at the time, Norway was left exposed at home and was soon invaded by its neighbor Sweden. In its weakened state, Norway was unable to completely fight off the Swedish aggressors, and a treaty was struck creating a unified state of the two nations with Norway accepting rule under the Swedish King. This wasn’t such a bad deal as Norway was permitted to keep its parliament, but it surrendered all final decisions and foreign policy to Sweden in the agreement.
This union lasted for nearly a full century before Norwegians decided they’d had enough. The countries, still very much two separate nations bound only by treaty, grew in different directions. Most notably, Norway became a worldwide supplier of cod, the fish that drove their entire economy (And had everything to do with ending their failed experiment at prohibition (LINK)). As it became a bigger player on the world stage, Norway was left with the inability to represent itself, as it had surrendered all rights to diplomacy to the Swedes in the treaty. When the Norwegian parliament proposed that Norway be allowed its own diplomatic corps, the Swedish king refused. Parliament responded by declaring that Sweden was remiss in its promises of self-determination to Norway, and organized a nationwide referendum on the question of whether the union should continue.
There are landslide victories, and then there is the Norwegian plebiscite of 1905. The Norwegian electorate, at this point still all male, voted 99.95% in favor of a dissolution of the union, with 184 votes out of around 368,000 against. It was undeniably clear what the people of Norway wanted. Anticipating this result, the Norwegian parliament had already sent a delegation to Denmark to meet with Prince Carl to assess his interest in becoming the new Norwegian king. Carl, who understood Norway well, and who would also likely never inherent the Danish throne as he was a second son, agreed to take the throne in Norway only if the people supported a monarchy. Following their dissolution vote, the Norwegian parliament organized a similar one to ask the question of government.
It’s important to understand the type of monarchy for which Norwegians were voting. The days of absolute rule by a single figure were long gone, replaced by strong parliaments and weakened, but still present kings and queens. When 79% of Norwegians voted in favor of continued monarchy in that referendum, they were essentially electing a Prime Minister for life, rather than a king who would rule with an iron fist. Regardless of the type of government and the powers held, we are still presented with the odd situation of a modern and relatively educated people electing a King, a position typically immune from the will of the people. And while it may not have represented a sea change in Scandinavian political will, we are still at least left with an interesting bit of trivia.