Another Historical Curiosity: Kingdom of Finland (1918)

[The Ripper]

Here is what wikipedia has to say:

The Kingdom of Finland was an abortive attempt to establish a monarchy in Finland, following Finland's independence from Russia. Had the German Empire endured, Prince Frederick Charles of Hesse would have been installed as King of Finland.

At the urging of the German Empire, Finland had declared independence from what was the former Russian Empire, at that time embroiled in the Russian Civil War, on December 6, 1917, leading to a fierce debate on whether the new state should declare itself a republic or remain a monarchy. At the time of the declaration of independence, monarchists were a minority in the Finnish Eduskunta (Parliament), and Finland was declared a republic. A civil war followed, and afterwards, while the pro-republic Social Democratic Party was excluded from the Eduskunta, Frederick was elected to the throne of the Kingdom of Finland on October 9, 1918.

Lithuania had already taken a similar step in July 1918, electing Wilhelm Karl, Duke of Urach, Count of Württemberg as King Mindaugas II of Lithuania. In Latvia and Estonia, a "General Provincial Assembly" consisting of Baltic-German aristocrats had called upon the German Kaiser, Wilhelm II, to recognize the Baltic provinces as a joint monarchy and a German protectorate. Consequently Adolf Friedrich, Duke of Mecklenburg-Schwerin was nominated Duke of "the United Baltic Duchy" by the Germans.

Independent Finland initially had, like the Baltic provinces, close ties with the German Empire. Germany was the only international power that had supported the preparations for independence, not the least by training volunteers as Finnish Jäger troops. Germany had also intervened in the Finnish Civil War, despite her own precarious situation. Finland's position vis-à-vis Germany was already evolving towards that of a protectorate by Spring 1918, and the election of Prince Frederick, brother-in-law of Kaiser Wilhelm II, was viewed as a confirmation of the close relations between the two nations.

The adoption of a new monarchist constitution had been delayed, and the legitimacy of the royal election was based upon the Instrument of Government of 1772, adopted under King Gustav III of Sweden, when Finland had been a part of Sweden. The same constitutional document had also served as the basis for the rule of the Russian Tsars, as Grand Dukes of Finland, during the 19th century.

Governmental archives reveal that the monarchical designation of the king was intended, at least tentatively, to be "Charles I, King of Finland and Karelia, Duke of Åland, Grand Duke of Lapland, Lord of Kaleva and the North" (Finnish: Kaarle I, Suomen ja Karjalan kuningas, Ahvenanmaan herttua, Lapinmaan suuriruhtinas, Kalevan ja Pohjolan isäntä).[I love this bit ]

On November 9, 1918, Wilhelm II had abdicated and Germany was declared a Republic. Two days later, on November 11, 1918, the armistice between the belligerents of World War I was signed. Although little is known of the Allied powers' view regarding the possibility of a German-born prince as the King of Finland, Frederick renounced the throne on December 14, 1918, and Finland subsequently adopted a republican constitution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Finland_(1918)

[LouisFerdinand]

Which castle or palace would have been the royal residence of the sovereign?

[Harkonnen]

This was a absolute fringe movement which was not going go through in any case. There are nutters in every country. My great-grandfather was actually one of the leaders in the political counter-movement to this nonsense.

This was their statement:


The newspaper Helsingin Sanomat, May 27, 1918:

To the citizens of Finland.

The people of Finland has now won the highest victory in the nation's history so far. The domestic battle was directed against the combined attack by Russian oppressors and our own insurgent citizens, and in this battle both the foreign oppression and the rebel terror are now broken.

This victory resulted from the righteous-minded strength and devotion shared within the nation and making people to sacrifice all for the political independence and legitimate social order of Finland. The victory we won gives us courage and strength to work for the political and social reforms now expected to be solved. With full confidence in our people we have to face also the important question, now brought to us by the very need to execute the full power of Finland's independence, namely, the question about the form of government.

Somewhere in capital city circles has emerged a demand that the Finnish people should adopt a monarchical form of government which is the only way, as they say, by which our nation can be rescued from re-emerging political and social disasters, similar with those we just were able to ward off. For our farming population the idea of establishing monarchy is totally alien and is met with resolute opposition.

Deeply convinced of the benefits and necessity of the republican form of government we, the undersigned, want shortly motivate why there is no necessity to abandon the principle of a democratic republic, once unanimously adopted by the government and the Diet and for which goal the defenders of the legitimate order have fought their battle.

A monarchy lacks all domestic roots in Finland. The monarchical system has well a long history behind it but there never existed our own native royal house. At us, the king has no such aura, glorified by ancient heroism and deep-rooted national conscience, which could now blind us with its brilliance. The question about the form of constitution should simply be dealt with true circumstances and in the light of the factual popular opinion.

Our nation is in need of a strong government which will be able to secure the social order and the rights of every citizen. However, this kind of power should not be delegated to a king introduced here from a foreign country, or, to his heirs whose suitability is not known to anyone but with whom our nation would thus become joined for times to come; such powers might more safely be delegated to a head of state who is a man of our own people and is elected by the people itself. Our own circumstances have implanted in the minds of our people such a supposition that the duty, entrusted a man in a high political position, shall entail him a deep responsibility in front of his people and the history. A head of state who has been entrusted by the people with the highest political power can have a unifying, elevating and factionalism lessening effect, but a monarchy, influenced by some narrow alien circle, can easily arouse disgust and suspicion in broad social layers of our people.

This will be the case if the supreme holder of the governmental power has a real decision making and in constitution laid power instead of being a mere decorative figurehead. The latter kind of a ruler will not be missed here when genuine interests of the country and of the people are taking care of.

But is it not question about reasons of the foreign policy that are dominant when striving for a monarchy? It is argued that for defending the Finnish independence we have to find support from the mighty Germany without whose participation the Finnish fight for independence would have demanded a lot of more victims; the arguing also goes that the German protection will be secured best if we adopt a monarchy and invite a German prince to become our king.

We, too, think that the present political situation do demand close relations with Germany whose mighty assistance is still important to our nation. But even leading statesmen in Germany have clearly pointed out that the real interests of the German Reich give no grounds for German interference in Finnish internal affairs. Finland might become a much more valuable ally of Germany if the Finnish constitution enjoys support of domestic standing and of the national spirit of Finland instead of an alien way of life forced on us and lacking all such political consciousness what we respect. In the light of her interests and cultural duties Germany can maintain relations equally with either a republican or a monarchical Finland. And there is no justification for such an insulting suspicion that Germany is seeking a way to subjugate us into a status of an dependent vassal state through a monarch got from there.

Our deep conviction is that by securing the republican form of government and giving up all experiments to plant a monarchy here, a system that is very alien to the majority of our people, will prove to be the best way for Finland to develop the democratic culture inherited from our fathers and it will thus secure best her status as an independent country respecting the law and culture.

When the parliamentary groups last April nearly found a common consent to introduce a republican constitution based on democratic principles and a strong government, the prospects were that it will be adopted at the sitting of this Diet in which it enjoyed the statutory majority. This opportunity is now jeopardized by a new tendency seeking monarchy, it threatens to postpone the very type and form of the constitution, now at hand for Finland, to an unknown future. The only remedy to repel this danger is a quick and firm confirmation of the independent republic of Finland.

Helsinki, the 27th of May, 1918.