In 1768, towards the end of the period of Swedish history known as Frihetstiden, the Age of Liberty, King Adolf Frederick threatened to abdicate unless an extraordinary session of the Riksdag, the Swedish parliament, was immediately convened. The immediate issue concerned a new financial plan, but the king hoped that the parliamentary session would also lead to constitutional changes to strengthen his power.

The 16-member strong Council of the Realm, over which the king presided, was given three days to summon the Riksdag. Meanwhile, the king would not partake in any decision-making. In other words, he went on strike.

As I show in my new book, Monarchy in the Age of Liberty: Royal power and public life in eighteenth-century Sweden, this moment in Swedish political history poses an interesting question: does a monarchy need a monarch? The country at the time was a kingdom, yet it effectively had a republican form of government. In the events that followed the king’s ultimatum, his councillors even attempted to replace him with a signature stamp. It is one of the many paradoxes of this era that such a measure be taken not in opposition to the monarchy but in order to preserve its very essence.

A political revolution

Sweden’s Age of Liberty was ushered in by the death of King Charles XII during the siege of Fredrikshald, in Norway, in 1718. From 1680, Sweden had been ruled as an absolute monarchy. Now, fatigued by 18 years of continuous warfare, the four estates of the Swedish Riksdag decided to curtail the king’s executive powers. As formulated in the Instruments of Government, the Accession Charters and the Royal Elections Acts of 1719 and 1720, the Council of the Realm........

© The Conversation