Historiska
institutionen
Uppsala universitet
Kingship in Print
early modern kingship in newspapers
Patrik Larsson
Early Modern Studies
May 2013
i
Innehåll
Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... 3
Background ....................................................................................................................................... 3
Earlier Research .................................................................................................................. 4
Aims and purpose ............................................................................................................... 6
Theory and method ............................................................................................................. 8
Sources and method ............................................................................................................ 9
Kingship in Print – early modern kingship in print ......................................................................... 10
Titles of Majesty ............................................................................................................................... 11
Similarities ........................................................................................................................ 11
Style 1 - Royal Majesty ...................................................................................... 11
Style 2 - Graceful Kingship ................................................................................ 18
Style 3 – King and Lord ..................................................................................... 18
Differences ...................................................................................................................................... 18
Meaning and understanding kingship ............................................................................................. 19
Conclusions ..................................................................................................................................... 20
2
Introduction
We live in a post-monarchical world. Some kings and queens still reign but few of them rule, the
time when kings and queens ruled the world is gone. But the world in which we live is a world
largely formed by monarchies, the monarchical systems set the boundaries of both politics and
nations. Boundaries, which we to some extent still follow and abide. The societies in which we
live were to a large extent created when monarchies ruled.
Today monarchy is at best seen as a link with history, a tradition, a national rallying point
or a stabilizer in a tumultuous political world. At worst, monarchy is seen as an outdated,
undemocratic or even tyrannical institution. Monarchy, were it still exists has undergone an
identity crisis, not fulfilling the same purpose in society and meaning the same thing today.
This forms a hinder in our understanding of early modern monarchy, we live in a different
society, governed by other ideals and ideas. All societies are governed by “master fictions” a
rationality explaining the hierarchical structure of said society. Whether it be the divine right of
kings, equality for all or the rule of the people, it is still a fiction or a discourse explaining,
visualizing and legitimizing the right of the governor over the governed. This master fiction has
since change so fundamentally that we cannot begin to perceive the profound impact monarchy
during the early modern are had on the society and how fundamentally and self-evident if was
perceived.
For a long time that master fiction was monarchy, it is not today. But we still follow the
same basic rules that all governments follow, it still needs to be perceived as legitimate, it must
still fulfill the basic needs of the people and it must to be perceived as legitimate in some way
present itself, visualize its power, fiction or not, there is always a master fiction. Or to put it like
Clifford Geertz
Thrones may be out of fashion, and pageantry too; but political authority still requires a cultural
frame in which to define itself and advance its claims, and so does opposition to it. A world wholly
demystified is a world wholly depoliticized.1
Background
Early modern governments were often monarchical. In Europe most territories were subject to
the rule of emperors and empresses and kings and queens. Only one territory in Europe was
commonly perceived as non-monarchical, the most serene republic of Venice with its elected
Doge was not subservient to any true monarch like the territories of Germany, formally subject
to the emperor, even the free cities of Hamburg and Bremen were formally subjects to the
emperor, the republic of Genoa was a satellite state of Spain and the Republic of the United
1
Clifford Geertz p.31 rites of power
3
Provinces was clearly monarchical in its essence with its elected statdholder who at the same time
held the title prince of Orange.
The semi-elective monarchical structure of the republic of the united provinces leads us to
the very words of monarchy and republic. Today perhaps seen as contradictory concepts, but this
was not the case during the 17th and 18th centuries. The concept of republics, inherited into the
early modern society from the classical era, was a well perceived concept during the 18th century.
According to Jonas Nordin, there existed two different contradictory meanings of the concept of
republic. One meaning was simply that of a state and the other one being that of a state with a
constitution. Neither of them concerned the status or the position of the head of state. There
then existed a diffuse difference between monarchies and republics, and the difference between a
republican monarchy such as Sweden during the 18th century and the monarchical republics of
say the Netherland.
A government then was mostly equal to that of monarchy. Monarchy was the default
government of the early modern era, and new governments like that of Cromwell (“the king in all
but name”) was clearly monarchical in its structure and manifestations.
The monarchy of Sweden had been officially limited and specified in the form of
government of 1634, although no adult monarch in Sweden acknowledged it.2 When Karl XII
died, without legal heirs the official position of the Riksdag was that the crown was once again
elective in its essence, and they only agreed to pass the crown to Karl´s sister if she formally
swore and pledged to give up much of the power of the monarchy, this resulted in the form of
government of 1720, at its time the most elaborate and complex written constitution. On year
later, on the condition that the monarchy was even more downsized in power, the crown was
passed to her husband, Fredrik I.
Great Britian similarily changed from a strong, almost absolute monarchy under the reign
of Charles II to the contested and more restricted monarchy of George II. This depended on a
lot of different factors, the glorious revolution, the advancement of the parliament, the
development of the king´s government and the prime minister, the foreign aspect of the early
Hanoverian monarchs,
Earlier Research
2
herlitz
4
It is not possible to here recount the massive amount of earlier research regarding monarchy, but
in this chapter some general lines in in the earlier research will be presented together with some
research directly relevant for this thesis.
The earlier research, although massive still is incomplete. There is a lack of a synopsis for
monarchy, much of the earlier academical research has focused on either certain parts of
monarchy or on specific monarchies or specific monarchs or neglected it altogether. The need
for a reevaluation and the need for a synopsis of monarchy is general consensus in recent
scholarly works on monarchy.
Jonas Nordin identifies two different perspectives in the earlier and current research on
monarchy, firstly the focus on power, and secondly the focus on the rituals and the
legitimization.3
The power perspective is often focusing on the power of the king, and the scope of
monarchical power. This research is often centered on strong or the absolute monarchs, and is
often discussing the concept of absolutism. The ideology of monarchy on the other hand, and
the ideas behind monarchy are often neglected, so when the institution of monarchy is drained of
power it is seen as losing its importance. No interest is given to the meaning of monarchy itself.
The ritual perspective on the other hand builds on the assumption that the early modern
society used another rationality and another basis of legitimization than the modern political
institutions, and therefore it is trying to explain this early modern legitimization. This is done by
studying the rituals and the ceremonies and other modes of legitimization.
These perspectives, neither separately or together, gives a complete picture, they need to be
supplemented. There is need for a greater understanding of the meaning of monarchy itself
during the early modern era.
The need for complementing the synopsis of early modern monarchy has been called for by
several researchers, Jeremy Black calls for further comparisons of monarchies of different
nations, especially between Great Britain and other nations. This is needed since traditionally
British historians have treated France as a representative of European continental monarchy, thus
concluding that the Britain was not France, i.e. not the continent, further enhancing the idea of
the British Sonderweg.4
Even on the national level there is a lack of, and need for a reevaluation of, early modern
monarchy. From a historiographical perspective Great Britain has for a long time lived in the
shadow of their Whig historians. Focusing on the liberal political development and reducing
3
4
Nordin (2009) p.14.
Black (2007) p. 5.
5
monarchy to an institution that either accepted the development or stood in its way with
disastrous results. Monarchy as a concept was used in setting their political agenda, and used in
their view of development and evolution.5
Others calling out for the need of a reevaluation and further studies are for example Hanna
Smith,6 Jonas Nordin,7 and Anthony Upton.8 A larger synopsis of early modern monarchy is
needed, this thesis is a part of an reevaluation of early modern monarchy. It studies the meaning
of monarchy by studying the official presentation of monarchy in contemporary official
newspapers. The meaning of monarchy for each individual cannot be reached, but by studying
the newspaper I hope to be able to explain the general and collective meaning of monarchy.
This study is also a double comparison, by comparing two nations, Sweden and Great Britain I
will hopefully be able to see if there is a common meaning and a common language of monarchy
but also if the cultural differences played a role in the meaning of monarchy. It is also a study
over time, looking at the two nations at two different periods and with two different types of
monarchy. This is done to start to fill the gaps in the academical research on monarchy
Aims and purpose
This is a study of monarchy, and the meaning of monarchy. To be able to answer the larger
question of what did monarchy mean? I will pose the following question to the material:

How was early modern monarchs explained and presented in official newspapers?
To answer this question this thesis will examine the rule of four monarchs, two British and two
Swedish. One from respective nation from the late 17th century and one respectively from the
middle of the 18th century. At first the study will examine the rule of Charles II (1660-1685) and
Karl XI (1660-1697) and later George II (1727-1760) and Adolf Fredrik (1751-1771).
These have been chosen because both nations go through a similar but not identical
transformation. They move from the absolute monarchy to the constitutionally constricted
monarchy. Charles II and Karl XI have been selected as absolute monarchs, and George II and
Adolf Fredrik have been selected as representations of the contested, or the constitutionally
constricted monarchy.
5
Black (2007) p. 4-7)
Hanna Smith sees the need for a reevaluation of the court culture of the 18th century in her book: Hanna
Smith, Georgian Monarchy: Politics and Culture, 1714-1760 (Cambridge 2006) p. 9-15.
7 Nordin (2009) p. 15.
8 Anthony Upton, Charles XI and Swedish Absolutism, 1660–1697 (Cambridge 1998) p.xxi.
6
6
As said Sweden and Great Britain both go through the same transformation. Sweden and
Great Britain during the reigns of Charles II and Karl XI were strong monarchies, the absolutism
in Sweden was even institutionalized and formalized in 1680. But both nations leave the strong
absolute monarchy behind, Great Britain with their revolution of 1688, Sweden with less known
constitutional revolution in 1720.9
Michael Roberts have described the similarities of the revolutions, both of them
strengthened parliament at the expense of monarchy. In both cases some kind of “constitutional
fiction” had to be devised, explaining how the new order was merely a return to the old order.10
Both nations developed similar systems with early embryos of political parties, and a vivid
political life, both developed ideas of parliamentarism, formalized in Sweden in the “grundlag”
(constitution) of 1720.
A big difference between the countries is the differences between the countries in
constitutional and political cultures. The monarchies of the Swedish kings was to a far greater
extent institutionalized, the absolutism of Karl XI was law, and at a later time the constitutional
monarchy of Adolf Fredrik was institutionalized as well, he was as king president of the council
and had two votes there, not much more. The Swedish monarchy then is much easier to define,
and especially to delineate.
The newspapers also came from two very different cultures of printing, in Sweden during the
time there were very few news channels and therefore the newspaper dominated the news flow in
Sweden. But even if this was what was wished for in Great Britain by the king, there existed
already a flourishing printing culture, and pamphlets and news sheets were a big part of this
culture. The latter part of the 17th century saw the rise of a new printed culture, especially in
England. After the abolition of the Court of the Star Chamber the crowns ability to censor press
disappeared and the amount of printed material exploded, from three hundred thousand volumes
during the years 1576 – 1640 to two million during the years 1640- 1660.11
The printed culture was only a small part of the arising public sphere, and the transformation
from a subject to a citizen society. Leading to a society where monarchy lost its grip on political
discourse, and needed to find ways to legitimize and manifest itself within this new print culture.
These similarities and differences will be put against each other in the thesis and discussed
thoroughly. The similarities and the differences make them interesting to compare, and hopefully
Michael Roberts The Age of Liberty: Sweden 1719 – 1772 (Cambridge 1986): Michael Roberts Swedish
and English Parliamentarism in the Eighteenth Century (Belfast 1973) p. 3-5.
10 Ibid
11 Harold Weber Paper Bullets: Print and Kingship under Charles II (Lexington 1996) P.5-6
9
7
it will be possible to ascertain what role the similarities and differences meant for the monarchy
in each nation.
Theory and method
Often monarchy is view upon as something strange, we often forget, that monarchy after all is a
governmental system, although with another legitimization process and rationality than say
democracy, but still it follows some very basic rules of governments. It needs to fulfill the
expectations of the population and present itself as legitimate to rule,12 monarchy was a type of
government
This thesis stands on a tripartite theoretical foundation, the transformation of societies, the
legitimization of societies and ultimately the visualization of power in a society. They are all
interconnected, and highly dependent of each other.
The first part deals with the nature of societies, and the view of societies as flexible, or in
lack of a better word, as transformational. This is a theoretical conceptualization that can be
found in the works of Habermas as well as Fukuyama. Both Habermas and Fukuyama sees
societies as slowly transforming, Habermas mostly looks at the transformation of the
legitimization of the society and the
For this study, both the theoretical starting-point Habermas uses, the transformational
aspects of society are as important the transformation he describes. Habermas tries to explain a
transformation in how the early modern society was legitimized and the emergence of the public
sphere. A conceptualization of the slow rise of the rule by consent, and the emergence of a public
opinion and its rise to a force to be reckoned with and continuing to became the ultimate source
of legitimacy.13 The official prints used in this study, was part of the arising public sphere and the
arising printed culture led to the need for the monarchy to be present in the new sphere.
Both Habermas and Fukuyama have a Durkheimian view on structures, as they both view
them as slowly transforming, and hard to change, in their view, structures affect the individual
more than the individuals affect the structures. Leading to their views on structures as slowly
changing.
The thought of the transformation of societies is not a new thought, it was present in the
writings of the 19th century whig-historians, but they saw societies as advancing in a teleological
manner for the better, slowly aspiring towards the modern liberal state. But this essay starts in the
assumption that societies, as is present in the writings of Habermas and Fukuyama, slowly
12
13
8
change, and that the failure of a state or institutions to adapt to this change leads to political
decay and the loss of legitimacy.
The second part deals with the legitimization or the rationalization of societies. Part of the
theoretical foundation of this thesis is based on the fact that societies are governed by “master
fictions”, a rationality explaining the hierarchy of a society and the right of the government to
rule. In other words, a society needs a presentation, an accepted discourse of society visualizing
and legitimizing the hierarchical structure or the perceived structure of said society. As societies
change, so does their “master fictions” from for example the divine right of ordained kings to the
will of the people.
Francis Fukuyama identifies two parts of legitimization, the perceived legitimacy, and selfinterest.14 A state then need to present itself as legitimate and at the same time it needs to fulfill
what is perceived as their duties and functions. A failure to change when societies change then
results in political decay as Fukuyama calls is, “Political decay occurs when political systems fail to
adjust to changing circumstances.”15
This is however not the whole picture, it needs to be complemented with at least two
important apects,
The third part deals with visualization of power in a society, a large aspect of the concept
of “master fiction” is the fact that a master fiction must be presented. Power needs to be
visualized to be seen, and presented and explained to be understood.
If we add these three together we get the view on the state as slowly transforming, forcing
the state to slowly adapt. Failure to adapt to new “master fictions” could lead to disastrous
consequences, such as the revolutions of 1776 or 1779.
Sources and method
As stated earlier this study uses two official newspapers, one from Great Britain and one from
Sweden. The Swedish Post och Inrikes Tidningar (Mail and Domestic Newspapers) is the oldest still
published newspaper in the world, having started in 1645. Although it has changed name several
times it is still regarded as the world oldest newspaper still in print.
The London Gazette on the other hand was founded by Charles II in 1665 as the court
moved to Oxford to escape the plague in London. It is the oldest still published newspaper in
English.
The readership is hard to estimate, but according to Karl Erik Gustafson and Per Rydén the
news from the Swedish newspaper spread across the realm, the newspaper could be bought in
14
15
Fukuyama p. 10:16
Fukuyama p.7
9
bookstores and in post offices and were probably read aloud in church or at the market. 16 The
same is probably true for the London Gazette, England had a literacy rate at 45 % in 167517 and
almost all the members of the higher echelons of society could read, the same was true for
Sweden with its nearly 50 000 “högre ståndspersoner” (persons of higher standing ).18
The newspapers both follow a similar structure that albeit changing over time follows the
same pattern. This makes it easy to study large quantities of the material. The mostly present
news from abroad, in Sweden most of the news come from Hamburg and Germany at large,
while in Britain it comes from all over Europe.
The method of this study can be described as a construction-deconstruction-labeling. The
method starts in the theoretical assumption that through the material a description or
visualization of power is created.
This study then is conducted by deconstructing the
construction, and categorizing or labeling to be able to describe the officially presented building
bricks of monarchy.
For this study, the relevant newspapers, i.e. all the issues from the relevant years have been
examined. Then all the material relating to the king have been selected and assorted into two
primary categories, “the king is” and “the king does”. Then the material have been further sorted
into categories, these categories then represent the building bricks monarchy. By deconstructing
monarchy into its basal building bricks I will be able to construct monarchy and explain its
meaning
Kingship in Print – early modern kingship in print
Even though the amount of research on monarchy is massive, there is little written on the titles
of kingship, perhaps because of the focus on visual presentation of monarchy and kingship. The
printed culture, and especially the media of newspapers was in its cradle during the early modern
era, but the visual presentation of monarchy, in the style of Louis XIV had it days it days of glory,
it was a visual age, were kingship was viewed and acted more than printed and described.
But the titles themselves, as I will prove here, were an important and integral part of
kingship and monarchy. The title, if analyzed, had a larger function than merely showing when
the king was present in the text, it is more than a simple designation to show that they are talking
about the king. The titles were showing were the power existed, it is one of the most effective
Karl Erik Gustafson & Per Rydén (ed) Världens Äldsta – Post – & Inrikes Tidningar (Malmö 2005)
p.80-81.
17 Weber (1996) p. 8.
18 Gustafson & Rydén (2005) p.80-81.
16
10
ways to show power in a printed text, both that of the individual monarch and even more so, the
power of the office of the king.
Titles of Majesty
The titles of the king are the most frequent aspect of the presented kingship, it is constantly
present, it is the most basic presentation of kingship, one of the cornerstones or even the
foundation of the presentation of kingship. The kings are never presented without their titles, and
seldom are their names shown, they are simply and solely presented by the titles.
The most frequent style being that of “Royal Majesty”. Other titles and forms of address
are used as well such as “king”, “Our Most Graceful King” “Our Britannick Majesty” but not
nearly as frequently as the title of “Royal Majesty” which is used at almost all occasions in both
nations. From domestic to foreign matters, and both when the king is active and inactive.
Since the titles are such a fundamental part of the presentation of kingship, it is always
present, it is highly connected to the presentation of kingship at large. It is not only important
what and how the titles are used but also what they are used in connection to. This chapter then
will serve as an introduction to the analytical part of this thesis by analyzing the entire
presentation of kingship but from the perspective of the titles.
Similarities
The nomenclature of kings is an important aspect of the presentation and visualization of power
and kingship. Although an aspect not thoroughly or even slightly research and examined, perhaps
because of the academic focus on visual depictions and visual manifestations, it is the printed
substitute of a crown and throne.
The usage of titles in the two nations was, as will be shown, similar. It was similar not only
in style, what titles that were used and in what settings, but it was also similar but also in purpose
or meaning. They seem to fulfill the same functions in the presentation of kingship.
Style 1 - Royal Majesty
Stylistically the most striking similarity, as has been said before and will be said again, was also the
most frequent one, namely the use of the title “Royal Majesty” or “His Majesty”. It is the most
frequently used style of address for all four monarchs, and although it is used parallel to other
titles and styles of address it is by far the most important one.
11
In Sweden, Karl XI and Adolf Fredrik were almost exclusively called “Royal Majesty”
(“Kongliga Majestät” in Swedish) sometimes together with the additional style of address “our
most graceful king”. If we turn and look at Great Britain, Charles II, similarly was mostly called
“His Majesty” and the presentations of Charles II and later on of George II follows similar lines
as the Swedish presentation and follow the same development.
The Swedish king was most often presented by the abbreviation “Kongl. Maj:t” instead of
“Kunglig Majestät”, Charles is most often presented by the style “His Majesty”. A title that seems
to largely correspond to the Swedish usage of “Kongl. Maj:t” in both usage and meaning. And on
several occasions, as for example in 1680 the British king is called “Hans Kongl. Maj:tt” in the
Swedish newspaper, suggesting that there was little difference between the two, or at least that
they were considered similar. “His Majesty” as a title together with the titles of “Most Excellent
Majesty” and “Most Britannick Majesty” seem to together correspond to the title of “Kongl.
Maj:t” or “Royal Majesty”. The usage of these three titles combined follow a strict system of
styling the British monarch, and all three respectively deals with different aspects of the “Royal
Majesty”.
The titles of “Royal Majesty” or “His Majesty” were used in most of the settings the king is
presented in, it is shown in connection with the constitutional duties and actions, in connection
with religion and in connection with the king ruling.
Perhaps the most important of the settings were the “Royal Majesty” is present is the
constitutional duty, with this is meant the role of the king in parliament, opening, prolonging and
giving royal assent to bills, fulfilling his role as both part of the governmental system and as its
head.
When the Swedish monarchs Karl XI and Adolf Fredrick deal with parliament they are
doing so as the “Kongl. Maj:t”. Focusing first on Karl XI, he deals with parliament in different
ways and he is always called “Royal Majesty” when for example in 1686 the king is calling for a
parliament, “Last Friday was the Riksdag by the Royal Majesties’ herald declared and
published”.19 Parliament then was called and assembled in the name, not of the king, but of the
“Kongl. Maj:t”, in other word in the name of the office of the king.
It was also the “Royal Majesty” who dealt with the parliament in other matters, for example
in 1680, after the estates had entered the chamber “then His Royal Majesty with the Councilors
of state” arrived, and “then the Speakers of the estates their orations to His Royal Majesty
delivered”.20 This procedure then is repeated at all the shown opening of parliament. The “Royal
19
20
Poi nr 37 1686 13/9 p.4/4
Poi nr 47 1680 23/11 p.4/4
12
Majesty” is not only shown as opening and listening to parliament, a couple of weeks earlier, for
example, was the “Royal Majesties propositions the Estates in the Chamber of the Realm read
and communicated”21. Karl XI in parliament is not shown as an individual, he is power, deindividualized and officialized. His name is not mentioned, his is not shown acting as such, but
things are acted in the name of the office of the king.
Adolf Fredrik is depicted in a similar way as “Royal Majesty” when dealing with the
constitutional duties, the most illustrating example is the accession of Adolf Fredrick to the
throne in 1751. He is immediately transformed from “Royal Highness” to “Royal Majesty” and
sign a royal assertion, a tradition in Sweden followed by all Swedish monarchs except the absolute
Karl XII from 1574 up to this day.22 Adolf Fredrick signs this document as “Hans Kongl.
Höghet” (His Royal Highness) and is after the signing called “Hans Maj:t, Sweriges, Göthes och
Wendes Konung” (His Royal Majesty, King of the Swedes, the Goths and the Vends). This royal
assertion was handed him by the council and the estates. And in accepting their demands by
signing the assertion, he is made into “His Royal Majesty”. It is clear that it is the “Royal Majesty”
who deals with the parliament and the council, and in turn the parliament and council deal with
“the Royal Majesty”. And Adolf Fredrick needed to be elevated to “Royal Majesty” to be
celebrated as king and to be allowed to deal with parliament and council.
And it is also important to note that Adolf Fredrick is the monarch who is the least present
in the newspapers of the four monarchs, and he is nearly exclusively present as “Royal Majesty”.
When ascending the throne in 1751, as mentioned earlier he is shown transforming into the
“Royal Majesty”, in the earliest depictions then, the ones regarding his accession he is both office
and individual. But the individual completely disappears from the presentation of monarchy later
on. For example in 1765, a new parliament is called, “Yesterday was all the Estates of the Realm
in Royal Majesties high Name through two Chamberlains called to the Hall of the Realm.” 23 The
parliament then is no longer called for by the king but in the name of the “Royal Majesty”, this is
the way parliaments was called for in the reign of Adolf Fredrick, gone are the formal
proclamations of Karl XI.
The constitutional aspect of the British monarchy is often presented by the title “Most
Excellent Majesty”. Both Charles II and George II are called “Most Excellent Majesty” when
conducting official business. For example in 1680 Charles II as the “Most Excellent Majesty”
“hath given directions to the Lord Chancellor of England, for the issuing out of Writs in due
21
Poi nr 40 1680 5/10 p.4/4
http://www.ne.se/lang/kungaf%C3%B6rs%C3%A4kran
23 Inrikes tidningar 1765 24/1
22
13
Form of the Law, for the Calling of a New Parliament.”24 Charles is also called “Most Excellent
Majesty” when conducting other parliamentary duties. For example when issuing proclamations,
then he is called the “kings most excellent majesty”,25 this can for example be seen in 1678 when
“At the Court at WHITEHALL, January the Seventeenth, 1678 present, The Kings Most
Excellent Majesty and the Lords of His Majesties Most Honorable Privy Council”.26 Charles is
also, similarly to Karl XI shown to go to parliament:
This morning His Majesty went to the House of Lords, where appearing in His Robes and with the
Crown on his head; after a kind and affectionate Speech made to Both Houses of Parliament, He
was Graciously pleased to pass several Publick and Private Acts, Prologuing the Parliament till the
10th of October next. 27
But on the other hand George II similarly calls for a new parliament in 1727 but not as
“Most Excellent Majesty” but instead as simply “the king”, this could be since the style of calling
a parliament seems to have changed and is instead done by a proclamation “By the King […] For
dissolving this present Parliament, and declaring the calling of another.”28 This is the new style
of calling and dissolving parliament, and it is followed by similar notices when parliament is
dissolved and called again in for example 1741.29
But George II is presented as “Most Excellent Majesty”, but not in regards to parliament,
but in many of the addresses that are printed and addressed to the king. The addresses are a new
part of the presentation of the British monarchy that are not there during the reign of Charles II.
So at the same time George II is not called “Most Excellent Majesty” when it comes to
parliament, but on the other hand a new kind of royal presentation appears that is much more
frequent than the parliamentarian aspect of kingship.
George II is a couple of times presented by the title “Most Excellent King in Council”30 a
title not used at all during the reign of Charles II, suggesting a transfer of focus from the “Royal
Majesty” to the council, or at least that the council is more present in the presentation of
kingship.
The “Royal Majesty” is also a title used in connection to the king ruling, not merely
fulfilling the constitutional aspect of kingship, for example appointing, issuing proclamations,
inspecting troops and meeting foreign ambassadors. These are all connected, as they show the
24
London gazette issue 1583 17/1 1680
London gazette issue 1379 3/2 1678
26 Ibid
27 London gazette 7/2 1677 p.2
28 London gazette issue 6605 5/8 1727 p. 7/8
29 London gazette issue 8009 25/4 1741 p.1/4
30 Ibid
25
14
king as an actor or someone is acting in his name with the king as the highest source of authority.
The previous part presented the king as the head of, but still part of the governmental structure.
Karl XI is presented as acting a lot, and often these actions are conducted by the “Royal
Majesty”. In 1680, we can in several numbers of the newspaper read about how Karl XI, as
“Royal Majesty” meets with “Russian” or “Muscowite” envoys. When they arrive, they are
greeted by “His Royal Majesty”31 in a “public audience”. Later on however they are meeting “His
Royal Majesties Councilors in a conference”.32 These are representative examples of how the
diplomacy was presented. It is completely done in the name of the “Royal Majesty” even though
he might not always be present himself, it is still conducted in his name. And in another number
from 1683, the ambassador to Denmark is called “His Royal Majesties Extraordinary Envoy”.33
Adolf Fredrick on the other hand, is barely mentioned in the newspapers. Besides his
ascension to the throne, he is almost completely missing from the newspapers, besides the
fulfilling of the constitutional duties that has been discussed earlier. But at his ascension to the
crown he is presented as meeting ambassadors, the first one being the French ambassador, “At 5
in the afternoon arrived at the Royal Court the French Ambassador and all here residing foreign
ministers who left their condolences and congratulated His Royal Majesty”.34
Charles II on the other hand is frequently seen in the newspaper, the presentation is very
similar to the presentation of Karl XI. Charles is for example presented as conducting diplomacy
in the same way, we can read that “The French Ambassadors have acquainted his Majesty that
they have received orders of Revocation from their Master, and that accordingly they intend to
depart in a few days.”35 In the same newspaper we also see that Charles receives “An envoy sent
from the Court of Savoy. To complement His Majesty upon the occasion of that Dukes
marriage with Mademoiselle de Neumours, hath had audience of His Majesty with the usual
Ceremonies. “36 A couple of days later we can see that:
This day the French Ambassadors took their leaves of his Majesty in the usual manner, being
conducted to their Audience in his Majesties Coach, by Sir Charles Cotterell Master of the
Ceremonies ; where they acquinted his Majesty, that their Master had for him that he would
on all occasions give testimonies of it : whereupon they took their leave, and were from
31
POI 1683 41 9/10
POI 1683 44 23/10
33 POI 168335 7/8
34 POI Nr 25 1751, 28/3
35 London Gazette 16/11 65 p.2
36 Ibid
32
15
thence conducted in the same manner to the Queen, and thence their Royal Highnesses
where they made like Complements.37
George II similarly receives and sends diplomats as “Royal Majesty”, for example:
This Day the Marquess Grimaldi, Envoy Extraordinary from the most Serene Republick of
Genoa, at a private Audience, took Leave of His Majesty, and afterwards presented Sig.
Gastaldi, to deliver his Credential Letter to His Majesty, as Secretary to reside here from the
fame most Serene Republick ; to which Audiences they were introduced38
It is clear then that in both countries and all four monarchs that foreign policy and diplomacy
was an important aspect of the role of the “Royal Majesty”.
Another important aspect present in at least three of the monarchs presentations is the
appointments, Karl XI is often depicted as appointing, for example in 1684, “His Royal Majesty
have with several offices seen in fit to make the following changes”39 or 1687 “His Royal Majesty
have decided to choose and ordain that His Excellency, Mr. Royal Councilor and Mr. Lieutenant
General Bielcke to Governor of Estland.”40
Charles II is also shown appointing “His Majesty hath appointed […] to serve as
High Sheriff of Cardigan”41 and also:
His Majesty hath made choice of Sir John Kneeling Knight, one of the Justices of the Court
of Kings bench, to fill the place of Lord Chief Justice of that bench….he hath been admitted
to the honor of kissing His Majesties hand.42
One last aspect of the kings presented as ruling, is the military. Again at least three of the
monarchs as presented inspecting the troops, “Thursday and Saturday last have his Royal Majesty
here inspected its Life-guard at foot”43 This is a very representative example and a symbolical act,
the king cannot inspect all the troops, but by inspecting one and presenting the inspection, the
king is shown both inspecting the army as well as the commander of the army.
Adolf Fredrick on the other hand is not presented as inspecting troops at all, they are
completely missing from the presentation of him.
37
London Gazette 23/11 65 p.2
London Gazette 6731 30/9 1728 p.1/2
39 POI nr 2 1684 1/2
40 POI nr 5 1687 11/1 p.2
41 London Gazette 16/11 65 p.2
42 London Gazette 20/11 65 p.2
43 1686 20 17/5
38
16
Both Charles II and George II are presented as inspecting troops, Charles does this at
several times, and similarly to Karl XI it is often connected with his travels. He also frequently
inspects the fleet:
His Majesty, and his Royal Highness, went down to the fleet, at the Buoy of the Nore, where
they remained Friday and Saturday, to view the state and readiness of the present equipage,
and this morning returned thence44
Another important aspect of the military aspect of the “Royal majesty” that is visible in
Great Britain is the appointments of officers as in:
His Majesty having been pleased at the same time to confer the honor of Knighthood upon
Cap. Robert Holmes, who is designed to have command of this Ship.45
But also another very important symbolical aspect that can also be seen in Sweden to some
extent is the fact that all troops and all ships are “His Royal Majesties”. For example “His
Majesties ship”46 or “By the power of His Majesties Arms”47 and “in His majesties Service”48
The last great aspect that is similar in connection to the “Royal Majesty” is the religious
aspect. There are two different aspects when discussing religion in connection to the monarchy.
First, we have the kings as religious leaders, and secondly we have the leaders as religious kings.
These two are two different things, the first one refers to the king as a priestly king or as head of
the church, a kind of monarchy described by several scholars.
The other one, on the other hand refers to the kings as being presented as pious, religious
and rightful leaders. Of these two the latter on is the one visible in the newspapers. The kings
attends religious service, they attend baptisms and they appoint official preachers to their courts.
The most religious of the monarchs are George II and Karl XI, suggesting two different
developments, one where religion increases in importance in Great Britain and one where it
decreases in Sweden over time. At least in connection with the “Royal Majesty”, Karl XI is
shown attending religious service on many occasions, often in connection to his constitutional
duties, for example when opening parliament, otherwise he is not seen attending service, but he is
shown for example, several times, to attend the baptism of Jews. For example both in 1686 and
44
London Gazette 3/5 1666 p.2
London gazette 14/1 1665 p.2
46London Gazette 25/12 1665 p.2
47 London Gazette 21/12 1665 p.1
48 Ibid
45
17
then in 1687, “Yesterday was a Jew baptized in the German church, and attending was His Royal
Majesty”49 Karl XI also hold some kind of festivity to celebrate that 100 years had passed since
the church meeting in Uppsala,50
Style 2 - Graceful Kingship
The king as a graceful monarch is a frequent recurring theme in the newspapers, and is an
important aspect of the nomenclature of early modern kingship. The title, which will be
suggested here, seems to refer more to the body of the king than the office of the king.
The most frequent recurring themes regarding the kingship of Karl XI is his travels, he is
traveling all across the nation and often visits the small town of Kungsör which was one of his
favorite places to frequent. When traveling Karl XI is always presented as “Wår Allernådigaste
Konung” (Our Most Graceful King) and it is never the “Royal Majesty” who travels.
Adolf Fredrick is not shown traveling at all, but he is still depicted as “Allernådigaste
Konung”, in several instances, often together with “Royal Majesty”. This again suggest a division
of the concept of kingship into body and office, Adolf Fredrick is called “His Majesty, our now
reigning Most Graceful king”51
Style 3 – King and Lord
In both countries the formal official title was king, the monarchs ruled over their respective
nations as kings (kung in Swedish). Despite this, king is a title seldom seen in the newspapers, at
least during the first part of the study and seldom on its own. Charles is called just king at a few
occasions, for example in 1666 in an notice from the heralds office, where “by the kings Especial
Appointment”52 the Arms of all the nobility is ordered to be preserved after the fire of London.
Otherwise the title of king is a title reserved for rulers of other nations. When presenting other
nations monarchs they are presented as kings in both newspapers.
Differences
49
50
POI 1687 nr. 8 21/2
POI 1693 nr. 9 27/2
51
52
18
The two nations as depicted were more similar than different in their use of titles and the
meaning of titles. But there also exist some important and interesting differences. The differences
are greater during the later period, when the individual and symbolical aspects of kingship had
been attenuated. But even though the kingship of Charles II and Karl XI were similar there exists
some important differences that need to be addressed.
First of all we have differences in style, Charles II has many more different styles of
address than Karl XI, and also seem to have a more developed system of addressing the
monarch.
Meaning and understanding kingship
The two studied monarchies are similar in both style and meaning, the monarchy seemingly
fulfills the same functions and the same meaning in their respective societies. We see here two
similar systems that evolve differently. The styles of kingship for Charles II and Karl XI are
similar, in style and in meaning. But as the monarchs lose their grips on the “Royal Majesty” the
kingships evolve differently, in Sweden the body or the individual seem to disappear and the king,
Adolf Fredrick, is absorbed by the office of king, the kingship of Adolf Fredrik then is depicted
as only office and no body. But on the other hand George II is depicted as more body and less
office. He loses the grip of the “Royal Majesty” but compensates by becoming more person,
more body, more individual than previously, the title of “Royal Majesty” almost disappears from
George II, at least in constitutional aspects, only to be replaced by “King in council”.
There are several different, sometimes contradictory, meanings and purposes of the titles.
Most fundamentally there is the difference in perceived and presented meaning. This study
however focuses entirely on the presented meaning of monarchy, since the perceived meaning is
hard to get at, especially with the sources used.
One of the most fundamental meanings is of course legitimization, the titles are used to
legitimize in different ways and thus also seem to mean different things depending on the settings
and context.
Firstly, the titles show authority, they are a visualization of the societal hierarchy. They
show were the power is located, fictional or not.
The titles are, as said, used to show were the power is located. In both countries the king as
“Royal Majesty” is used as to legitimize the use of power. This is done in several different ways in
both countries, for example all four nations show the king appointing, proclaiming and ordaining,
when this is done there is only office, the kings as persons are seldom seen in the newspapers. In
19
both nations the kings are shown passing laws, the laws then derives their legitimacy from the
king and because of them being authorized by the king. But the most important fact is not just
that the monarch has approved them, it seems to be important that they are approved by the
“Royal Majesty”, the title here is important.
Secondly the titles are also shown in highly ceremonial settings, showing the titles of the
king in connection with highly ritualized and ceremonial settings. The title of “Royal Majesty”
then is used in highly ceremonial and official settings, such as the official proceedings of
parliament. There is a clear ceremonial aspect of the “Royal Majesty”, and once again focusing on
the “Royal Majesty” makes the person behind the title disappear.
Also, the use of the titles is a reference to tradition. This is perhaps one of the most
important aspects of kingship. The transformation of the and dehumanization of the king, he is
by the use of the titles changed from the mortal and earthly being into an immortal end eternal
being, this is done by the titles, they connect the king to the long line of kings before him, they
make him into power, and power into him.
Lastly the titles, and their connected use is used as to show a symbolical kingship. The
previously discussed dual kingship of office and body is important in both aspects. In some
settings the king is depicted as only office, but in others, of equal importance he is depicted as
more individual than office. There are to very important parallel processes occurring here, firstly
the transformation of the individual into the office, making him part of the eternal and immortal
system of power and legitimization that was previously discussed. But the reverse process is
perhaps
equally
important,
namely
the
transformation
of
the
eternal,
abstract
powersuperstructure into an understandable, physical and substantial being, namely the individual
of the king. Interestingly enough this is achieved by the same strategy as the reverse process of
transforming the individual into the eternal, namely the use of titles, and to some degree even by
using the same titles, what has changed is the settings in which this is done.
Conclusions
Early modern kingship was so fundamental that it is hard for us today to perceive it, we do not
understand this fundamentality of the concept. This also makes it hard for us to understand the
meaning of monarchy. What is then the meaning of monarchy? It is more, and much more than
just legitimization of a system, of a hierarchical power-structure. The legitimization of the powerstructure is there, of course, every time that the kings title is signed on a law, an appointment or a
decree it was legitimized. But kingship is more than that, it meant tradition, security, stability, and
20
most of all it changed the abstract and complex power-structure into a man, a man can be
perceived and understood, a man can be bowed to, pleaded to and talked to, a man can be
celebrated and yes again understood.
But as mentioned earlier the opposite is also true, for this man, must be more than a man,
he must be the king. We can in this study see two different complex dualities, the body and the
office, used for different settings and different meanings, but we can also see the complex divide
between humanizing power into man, and dehumanizing man into power.
In style and meaning, the two nations are much more similar than expected, this suggests a
larger language and universal meaning of kingship, with smaller differences due to culture,
politics and perhaps the means of presenting kingship. The British printing culture was much
more developed, leading to a much more sophisticated presentation of kingship.
On a larger scale, it seems that there existed a European language and meaning of kingship,
the two studied monarchies are more similar than different, at least during the early half of this
study, then they evolve differently, in one the body wins, in the other the office. The holes in the
earlier research has to a small degree been filled, but a lot of further research is needed on
monarchy during the early modern era, especially the titles and the meaning of the titles since no
earlier research could be found on that subject. This study could also be extended by adding
more monarchies, monarchies different from the two studied, what would happen if say France,
Prussia or Denmark is added to the study? Thrones may be out of fashion, but the same rules
still apply, power needs to be visualized, but when no one believes in the right for the kings to
govern something else must take its place, parliament, prime ministers, riksdagar and
statsministrar has taken over but the live in a world created by kings.
21