Kings, Republics, and the Nordic Paradox: Why Scandinavia Stayed Royal

Monarchy on Trial in Europe

The French Revolution of 1789 unleashed a wave of republicanism that swept through Europe over the next two centuries. One by one, many old monarchies fell – from France itself to empires like Germany, Russia, Austria-Hungary and beyond. While most European monarchies have been abolished since that revolutionary era, a handful survive today: only twelve sovereign monarchies remain in Europe, including the three Scandinavian kingdoms of Sweden, Norway, and Denmark. This raises an intriguing question: why did the Scandinavian nations remain kingdoms even as so many others became republics? And what about their Nordic and Baltic neighbors – why did Finland, Iceland, and the Baltic states end up without kings at all?

In examining this, historical context is key. The endurance of the Scandinavian thrones was not due to stubborn absolutism – in fact, these kingdoms transformed themselves into constitutional monarchies early on, avoiding the fate of more reactionary crowns. Additionally, their national stories took different turns: some newer nations in the North (Finland, Iceland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania) either briefly flirted with monarchy or rejected it outright upon gaining independence. Below, we delve into why the Scandinavian countries kept their kings, what roles those royals play today, and how other northern nations chose republics instead.

Scandinavia’s Kingdoms: Why They Endured

Despite Europe’s “age of revolutions”, Denmark, Sweden, and Norway held onto their monarchies through the 19th and 20th centuries. They did so by evolving – turning their once absolute or elitist monarchies into democratic, broadly popular institutions rather than obstacles to progress. Several key factors explain why these kingdoms survived while so many others did not:

• Peaceful Constitutional Reform: The Nordic countries transitioned to democracy without overthrowing their royals. For example, Denmark’s king accepted a liberal constitution in 1849, ending absolutism but keeping the crown in place. In Sweden, King Gustaf V in 1917–1918 bowed to parliamentary democracy, allowing an elected government that “de facto stripped the monarchy of virtually all powers”. The monarchs became figureheads rather than autocrats, which removed the revolutionary impulse to abolish them.
• Stability and Lack of Revolution: Unlike France or Russia, Scandinavia saw no violent anti-monarchist revolutions. Reforms happened from above or via negotiations, so the kings were never forcibly deposed. The royal families also managed to avoid being on the losing side of World Wars that toppled other thrones. (Sweden remained neutral in both wars; Denmark and Norway, though occupied in WWII, had their monarchies restored as symbols of national unity afterward.)
• National Identity and Independence: In Norway, the monarchy was actually a tool of independence. When Norway peacefully dissolved its union with Sweden in 1905, there was debate over becoming a republic or retaining a king. The people chose monarchy – in a 1905 referendum, nearly 79% voted to offer Norway’s throne to a Danish prince. They believed a native king would lend the new nation legitimacy and stability. Prince Carl of Denmark accepted and became King Haakon VII, giving Norwegians a beloved symbol of independence. Similarly, Denmark and Sweden’s monarchies were tied to centuries of continuous history and culture, making them a natural part of national identity.
• Royal Adaptability and Popularity: The Scandinavian royals earned public goodwill by adapting to social change. They accepted strictly apolitical, ceremonial roles – a lesson underscored by Denmark’s Easter Crisis of 1920, when King Christian X’s attempt to appoint a government against the parliamentary majority led to public outrage and demonstrations. After that, Scandinavian monarchs understood their survival depended on staying above partisan politics. In the long run, this made them more popular. By the late 20th century, the Danish, Norwegian, and Swedish royal families were widely respected for their charity work, personal example, and ability to provide a sense of continuity without impeding democracy.

Thanks to these factors, the Scandinavian monarchies navigated the turbulent 1800s and 1900s without being overthrown. They transformed themselves from powerful rulers into reassuring figureheads. As one historian notes, a monarch in these countries became primarily “a state leader manifested in tradition and a hereditary succession that symbolises the [nation] as a whole”. In other words, the kings and queens turned into living national symbols – a role that made them less controversial and, in many eyes, useful to have around.

Finland and Iceland: Aborted Monarchies and New Republics

Not every northern European country retained (or even obtained) a royal crown. Finland and Iceland – two Nordic nations that gained independence in the 20th century – both ended up as republics, though Finland came surprisingly close to being a kingdom in 1918.

• Finland’s Brief Monarchy Plot (1918): After Finland declared independence from Russia in December 1917, its political right wing – having won a brutal civil war against socialist “Reds” in 1918 – proposed establishing a monarchy. They hoped a king would bring stability to the fledgling state, which had been a Russian Grand Duchy for a century. In October 1918, the Finnish parliament actually elected a German prince, Friedrich Karl of Hesse, to be “King of Finland.” For a short time, Finland was legally a kingdom under a regent‍. However, this plan unraveled within weeks. Germany, their patron, lost World War I in November 1918; the Kaiser (who was Prince Friedrich’s brother-in-law) abdicated, and suddenly a German-born king became politically untenable. The prince never set foot in Finland or took up the crown. In December 1918 he renounced the throne, and pro-republican parties swept the 1919 elections. Finland adopted a republican constitution that July, installing an elected president instead of a king. In effect, Finland’s monarchy was stillborn – a “failed attempt to establish a monarchy” that lasted on paper for only about a year. The aborted royal experiment illustrates how differently Finland’s nation-building went compared to its Scandinavian neighbors. Finnish society (especially the left and many centrists) preferred a republic once the German option evaporated, and the idea of importing a foreign monarch lost all appeal when independence could be secured without one.
• Iceland’s Peaceful Break with the Crown (1944): Iceland, unlike Finland, was actually a kingdom for a while – but with the King of Denmark as its monarch. Long a Danish possession, Iceland received limited autonomy in 1918 as the Kingdom of Iceland in a personal union with Denmark. It recognized the Danish king (Christian X) as head of state. This arrangement lasted until World War II. When Denmark fell under Nazi occupation in 1940, Iceland was cut off and governed itself with a locally appointed regent. In 1944, with Denmark still occupied and the union treaty set to expire, Icelanders seized the moment to become fully sovereign. They held a national referendum in May 1944, asking whether to sever ties with the Danish crown and establish a republic. The outcome was decisive – over 95% voted to end the monarchy and adopt a republican constitution. On June 17, 1944, Iceland was officially declared a republic, and the Danish king sent his congratulations as the Icelandic flag was raised in Reykjavík. The shift was peaceful and popular. Centuries of being ruled by Norway and Denmark had fostered a strong desire for Icelandic self-rule. Once it was practical to do so, Icelanders chose to have an elected president rather than continue with a distant foreign monarch. Today, Iceland’s national narrative proudly focuses on the ancient Althing (parliament) and the republic, with the 1944 break seen as the culmination of its independence movement.

In both Finland and Iceland, the timing and context of independence steered them to republicanism. Finland’s bid for a German-style monarchy failed largely due to external events (Germany’s collapse), coupled with the Finnish public’s wariness of monarchy once free of empire. Iceland’s path to a republic was driven by the simple fact that its monarch was foreign and effectively absent – it made little sense to retain a king who had no real presence in Icelandic life. Thus, while culturally and historically linked to Scandinavia, these two Nordic countries diverged by choosing no kings at all in their modern era.

The Baltic States: New Nations, No Kings

Further east, the Baltic nations of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania also emerged in the 20th century as republics – and despite a few monarchist schemes in 1918, none ended up with a native king. Their experiences highlight how most new countries in Europe’s north and east turned away from monarchy, especially when monarchy was associated with foreign rule.

When the Baltic states gained independence from the Russian Empire at the end of World War I, each formed a republic led by elected officials. This was a conscious choice. For centuries, Estonia and Latvia had been governed by Tsarist Russia and a Baltic German aristocracy, with no indigenous royal dynasty. Lithuania had been part of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth (its last king died in 1790s) and then under Russian rule. In 1918, as these nations broke away, the default model was self-determination through democracy.

That said, brief attempts at monarchies did occur amid the chaos of 1918:

• In Lithuania, the council of leaders initially decided to invite a European prince to take the throne, partly hoping to secure German protection against Russia. In July 1918 they elected Wilhelm, Duke of Urach (a German noble) as King Mindaugas II of Lithuania. However, this plan never went beyond paper. The proposed king never arrived in Lithuania, and after Germany’s defeat in November 1918, the idea was dropped. By 1919 Lithuania had formed a republican government.
• In Latvia and Estonia, which were also under German military presence in early 1918, pro-German aristocrats floated the idea of a “United Baltic Duchy.” This envisaged a joint monarchy for Estonia and Latvia under a German duke, in personal union with the Prussian crown. In fact, Duke Adolf Friedrich of Mecklenburg-Schwerin was nominated to this role by the local German nobility. But this scheme likewise evaporated once World War I ended. By November 1918, Germany surrendered and Kaiser Wilhelm II abdicated; the nascent Baltic duchy was never recognized. Both Latvia and Estonia instead solidified their independence as republics, with provisional assemblies declaring democratic statehood (Estonia on Feb 24, 1918, Latvia on Nov 18, 1918).

In essence, the people of the Baltics did not want new kings. Having just escaped the yoke of the Russian Tsar (an absolute monarch) and, in Latvia/Estonia’s case, centuries of rule by German barons, a monarchic system held little appeal for the broader population. As one commentary put it, getting rid of the German nobles and Russian czar meant the idea of a king was “not very endearing” to Estonians or Latvians at that time. Instead, they chose nationhood in the form of republics with elected parliaments and presidents. This remained true after World War II as well – when Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania regained independence in 1991 following Soviet rule, reinstating monarchy was never seriously considered. Their national heroes were freedom fighters and democrats, not princes.

Thus, among the eight Northern European countries we’re examining, the Baltic trio firmly belong to the republican camp, and historically any monarchist initiatives there were fleeting and foreign-driven. Their experience underscores that by the 20th century, monarchy was no longer the default for new states – especially where monarchy was associated with occupation or empire, it had no local legitimacy.

The Role of Royals Today in Scandinavia

In the three Scandinavian kingdoms that still have monarchs (Denmark, Sweden, Norway), what exactly do these royals do in the 21st century? In short, they serve as ceremonial heads of state and national symbols, with no direct role in governing. Over time, the Scandinavian monarchies have crafted a distinctive model: a modern, “bicycle-riding” royalty that personifies tradition, unity, and stability without wielding political power.

Some of the key roles and symbolism of these royal families today include:

• Apolitical Head of State: The king or queen is the constitutional head of state, but strictly neutral and above politics. This can actually be an asset – having an apolitical monarch means the country avoids partisan battles over who represents the nation as head of state. For example, Sweden’s monarch is “appointed” by birth rather than elected, and thus carries no political baggage, making it easier for the royal family to represent all Swedes. They open parliament, sign laws, and perform formal duties on paper, but always on the advice of elected officials. In practice, they “reign but do not rule.”
• National Unity and Continuity: Perhaps the most important function is symbolic. The monarchy provides a continuous thread linking the present nation to its past. In Denmark, Queen Margrethe II has described her role as giving “a body to the idea of a country,” acting as “the rallying point for everybody”. A Danish historian similarly noted that royalty’s main objective is to create a “sense of nation” and express national unity, tapping into traditions that give people comfort. In times of crisis or celebration, the royals often embody a sense of collective identity. For instance, King Haakon VII of Norway became a symbol of resistance during WWII (refusing to surrender to Nazi demands), and his son King Olav V famously rode the tram with citizens during the 1973 oil crisis. Such images cement the monarchy as a unifying father/mother-figure for the nation.
• Ceremonial and Charitable Duties: Scandinavian royals engage in a busy calendar of ceremonial events – from opening new hospitals and attending national holidays, to hosting foreign dignitaries and presiding over official banquets. They also devote much time to social causes and charity. Queen Silvia of Sweden, for example, founded the World Childhood Foundation; Crown Princess Mary of Denmark advocates for women’s rights and health; King Harald V of Norway has spoken movingly about inclusivity and diversity in Norwegian society. These activities bolster the monarchy’s relevance by showing it can move with the times and contribute positively in a non-political sphere.
• Cultural Diplomacy: The royal families act as high-profile representatives of their countries abroad. Royal tours and state visits often generate goodwill (and media attention) that elected politicians might not. There’s a certain prestige and fascination attached to royalty – even in today’s world, kings and queens garner “oohs and aahs” internationally, as one commentator wryly noted. This helps keep small nations like Norway or Denmark on the world’s cultural radar. Internally, the monarchy also patronizes the arts, sports, and national traditions (for example, the Swedish King hands out Nobel Prizes each year).

Crucially, the Scandinavian monarchs maintain a very modest personal profile relative to earlier eras. They adhere to unwritten rules of decorum – no politics, no overt interference, and a generally “down-to-earth” public image. In Denmark, after the misstep by Christian X in 1920, his successors made sure to “embrace their apolitical roles” completely. The current generation of royals often emphasize their ordinary side: one can spot Crown Prince Frederik of Denmark jogging in public races, or Sweden’s Crown Princess Victoria taking her kids to school. This approachable style has helped keep them popular in egalitarian Scandinavian societies.

Overall, the role of the Scandinavian royals today is largely symbolic, but not trivial. They symbolize the state and people’s collective history, serve as non-partisan figureheads in domestic life, and represent the nation with a bit of fairy-tale glamour on the international stage. As long as they fulfill these roles with dignity and empathy, they contribute to a sense of national continuity that many citizens appreciate.

Public Sentiment and Movements for Republics

Given the democratic, egalitarian values of the Nordic countries, one might wonder: Is there any push to “get rid of” the monarchy and become republics?  Such republican movements do exist in Scandinavia, but so far they remain relatively marginal. Public opinion in Denmark, Norway, and Sweden continues to favor keeping the monarchy, albeit with some generational and political differences.

Current polls and trends show monarchy is enjoying comfortable support in the Scandinavian countries:

• Denmark: The Danish monarchy is one of the most popular in Europe. As of 2018, about 76–77% of Danes wanted to keep the monarchy, while only ~15% preferred a republic. This was a dramatic rise from the early 1970s, when support for the monarchy was barely above 40%. The upswing is credited in part to Queen Margrethe II’s long and well-respected reign, during which she modernized the royal image and connected with the public. In 2023–24, upon Margrethe’s 50+ years on the throne and her son Crown Prince Frederik’s impending accession, approval ratings for the royal family were around 80–90% – an almost unprecedented level. Clearly, the Danish royals have won over the vast majority of their people, leaving republican voices very isolated.
• Norway: Norwegians also show strong royal support. A 2017 survey found 81% of Norwegians approved of keeping the monarchy. Polls in the last few years still put support in the 70–80% range, with only around 15–20% favoring a republic‍. There is an interesting democratic exercise in Norway: every year in Parliament, republican-minded members (often from the small Socialist Left party or similar) table a motion to abolish the monarchy – and every year it is voted down by a large majority. This annual vote is almost a ritual affirming that the monarchy remains the preferred system. The Norwegian royal family, headed by King Harald V (who has reigned since 1991), is generally very well liked. King Harald in particular earned admiration for his heartfelt speeches about national unity (notably a 2016 speech embracing Norway’s diversity of immigrants, religions, and LGBTQ citizens). Such actions reinforce the monarchy’s image as a unifying and positive force, blunting republican arguments.
• Sweden: Support for the Swedish monarchy, while still a majority, is somewhat lower and has seen a gradual decline in recent decades. A poll commissioned by the Swedish Republican Association in 2010 found only about 58% of Swedes favored keeping the monarchy – implying around 42% were open to a republic, nearly double the percentage a decade prior. This trend caused some alarm in royal circles, though other surveys have shown higher support in subsequent years (for example, a 2016 Statista poll showed roughly 74% of residents in Stockholm still wanted to retain the royal family). Part of the difference may be generational – younger Swedes tend to be less enchanted by royalty – and part may be due to specific controversies. Sweden’s King Carl XVI Gustaf has faced a few personal scandals and is seen as more distant, which has affected popularity. However, the saving grace for the Swedish monarchy is the immense popularity of Crown Princess Victoria, the heir. She is consistently rated the most trusted or popular public figure in Sweden. Even many republicans concede that Victoria would make an excellent ceremonial head of state. This suggests that as the throne passes to a new generation (King Carl Gustaf is in his late 70s), the Swedish monarchy might regain some lost support. For now, Sweden’s republican movement (organized in groups like Republikanska föreningen) remains a vocal minority. No government has seriously moved to hold a referendum on the issue.

Across these countries, opposition to the monarchy tends to focus on principle and cost – critics argue a hereditary head of state is outdated or at odds with egalitarian democracy, and they point out the public funds spent on royal households. These arguments, however, haven’t galvanized a majority. One reason is that the monarchies have taken steps to address such concerns. The royal budgets in Scandinavia are relatively modest (the Danish royals cost far less than the British, for example), and recently the families have slimmed down the number of people receiving taxpayer support. In 2022, Denmark’s Queen Margrethe stripped royal titles from several of her grandchildren to streamline the monarchy, a move that received public approval as a prudent modernization. Sweden and Norway have undertaken similar cuts for minor royals. By “making it smaller, more effective, and cheaper for taxpayers,” as one analyst observed, the Scandinavian monarchies have shored up their viability.

Perhaps the strongest argument sustaining these monarchies is that “there are no real downsides” (as long as they behave). In practice, the Scandinavian kings and queens do not interfere in governance or rights; they exist as a ceremonial quirk that most citizens either enjoy or tolerate. As a politics expert noted about Sweden, any drawbacks of having a hereditary monarch are purely theoretical – “wholly a matter of principle and not something that negatively affects…democracy”. On the other hand, there are tangible upsides: the pomp and tradition, the tourism draw, the sense of continuity, and the apolitical head of state role. This pragmatic sentiment is echoed in all three countries. It would likely take a major royal scandal or a drastic shift in public values for the scales to tip toward abolishing the monarchy. As one Danish commentator put it, “Monarchy will survive as long as the person in charge behaves reasonably. The country could easily shift to a republic if some kind of fool came to be king.” In other words, the fate of these monarchies depends on the royals remaining respectable and in tune with society.

So far, the Scandinavian royals have managed to do just that. They have largely avoided the kind of scandals that have plagued, say, the Spanish or British royal houses. Minor controversies (like a Norwegian princess’s association with a self-proclaimed shaman, which led her to step back from duties) have been handled without damaging the institution as a whole. The monarchies have proven adaptable, preserving tradition while embracing modern values – for instance, all three now allow female succession by absolute primogeniture, and the royal families have welcomed commoners (and foreign-born spouses) into their ranks, reflecting more open social norms.

The bottom line is that there is no strong grassroots movement in Scandinavia to tear down the thrones. Polls show stable or even rising approval for the monarchies in Norway and Denmark, and only a mild softening in Sweden. In fact, a 2023 European survey noted that monarchy as an institution hasn’t come under serious attack anywhere in Europe in recent decades. In the North, as long as the royal families continue to reinvent themselves prudently – staying relatable, working for charitable causes, and minimizing any sense of elitism – they are likely to remain a feature of national life. The occasional republican voices serve as a reminder that the royals must not take public support for granted, but at present, the crown in each country rests securely on popular consent.

Conclusion

From the tumult of the French Revolution to the present day, the monarchies of Northern Europe have followed very different trajectories. Scandinavian nations like Denmark, Sweden, and Norway held onto their crowns by transforming them – turning royal power into soft power, and monarchs into beloved national grandparents. In contrast, Finland, Iceland, and the Baltic states forged their identities as republics, seeing monarchy as an unnecessary or foreign legacy when they gained independence. History provided each country a unique set of circumstances: for the old kingdoms, an opportunity to reform and survive; for the new states, a chance to start fresh without kings.

Today, the kings and queens of Scandinavia serve as living symbols of their nations’ continuity. They remind citizens of a shared heritage – embodying, as Queen Margrethe II said, “something we all run in together”. Yet these symbols have been flexible enough to adapt to democratic and egalitarian ideals. The modern Scandinavian monarchy represents an unusual compromise: it satisfies a nostalgia for tradition and ceremony, while coexisting with progressive society. As a result, even in an age when hereditary privilege seems anachronistic, a majority of Scandinavians still cheer their monarchs and pass them the crown from generation to generation.

Of course, nothing is guaranteed forever. Attitudes can shift with new generations, and each royal house will have to continue proving its relevance and humility. But the experience of Northern Europe shows that there is more than one path out of the Age of Kings. Some nations bid their monarchies adieu and never looked back; others found ways to keep their monarchies by fundamentally reshaping them. In the end, what the Scandinavian model illustrates is that a monarchy’s survival depends less on divine right or old glories, and more on winning the public’s trust in a changing world. So far, the monarchs of the north have managed to do just that – standing not on pedestals, but side by side with their people, as a cherished national emblem of both history and hope for the future.

‍