Talk:Union between Sweden and Norway

The "How" and "Why" question

This looks odd:

"How this "job" was managed contrary to the dearest wishes of the Norwegians themselves, and how, finally on 1814 November 14 Norway as a free and independent kingdom was united to Sweden under a common king, Charles XIII of Sweden."

Scott McNay 20:06, 2004 Feb 16 (UTC)

Duplicate - merge?

Is this a duplicate of Sweden-Norway? --Leifern 16:15, 2005 Apr 12 (UTC)

Yes, they seem to handle the same thing mainly. I think merging any useful info in Sweden-Norway into this article and then redirecting here, plus adding a word or two about "Sweden-Norway" as an alternative name of the union in the introduction of this article, would be the best thing to do. The problem I can see with this as it is now, though, is that this article is really a part of the History of Sweden series, and the first paragraph is not even about the union. (The HOS series is pretty much a long sequential text only cut into chronological pieces for convenience.) But of course that paragraph could be transferred to the previous part, so this article could truly be about the piece of history that Sweden and Norway largely have in common, that is, it could be both a part of the HOS series and a part of the History of Norway series (whose main article now links to Sweden-Norway). -- Jao 17:22, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

Treaty of Åbo

The section "Personal union with Norway" refeers to the Treaty of Åbo of 1743!

Evidently it should refer to the meeting between Alexander and Charles John in Åbo on August 30, 1812. There is no entry for this meeting. Or is there?

-- Petri Krohn 16:58, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

what a mess

The following 2 phrases are the least understandable I have encountered in English language wikipedia this far:

Moreover, the United Kingdom and Russia very properly insisted that Charles John's first duty was to the anti-Napoleonic coalition, the former power vigorously objecting to the expenditure of her subsidies on the nefarious Norwegian adventure before the common enemy had been crushed. Only on his very ungracious compliance did the United Kingdom also promise to countenance the union of Norway and Sweden (Treaty of Stockholm, March 3, 1813); and, on April 23, Russia gave her guarantee to the same effect.

Dissolution twice

The dissolution is included twice which seems slightly excessive. Prezen 12:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Dissolution of article needed

The present article ought to be divided. Under the present headline, we need a total revision, giving a balanced and nonpartisan view of the Union, and not primarly from a Swedish point of view.

Large parts of the contents ought to be transferred to a new article in the History of Sweden series under a new name, perhaps Sweden in union with Norway.

The template History of Sweden should of course accompany the Swedish-related parts over to the new article Sweden in union with Norway.

Also, the Ïnfobox Former Country template should be deleted completely, as it is based on the false premise that the union was one single state, not a personal union of two states. The template has the "one-state-model" as a premise, which makes it difficult to adjust to the facts of this case, e.g. two capitals, two flags, two currencies, two parliaments etc. I have just removed a Swedish flag and the post-union greater coat of arms of Sweden, which are absurd in this context.

Apart from the very partisan treatment of the Union, large parts of the text are of inferior quality.

WARNING: I may soon start work on a ruthless revision of the Union between Sweden and Norway article, but I'll leave it to others to write the article taht is missing in the History of Sweden series. Roede 10:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Two monarchies

The template "Former countries" is somewhat misleading, since the union was one between two separate countries. Significant reminders of that duality is the union (and royal) coat of arms with two crowns above the escutcheon, symbolizing two kingdoms, not one; and the official name in both languages.

If the template is to be used at all, it must be modified accordingly with doubled information. Most of this is already taken care of. There were two capitals, two currencies, two constitutions, two national assemblies. (And in addition, two separate state churches, two separate legal systems, two separate armed forces, etc.) Consequently, two constitutional monarchies. To define them as one monarchy is inconsistent and misleading. I sincerely hope that these facts will be allowed to be reflected in the article, and that attempts to correct the article accordingly will not be reverted. Roede (talk) 14:51, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I interpret that part of the template to mean form of government as in theoretical type. I dont think that it is written in singular to reflect the number of monarhies. I am more curious to know why you insist on using the Royal coat of arms in stead of the regular one (which also has two crowns). Inge (talk) 14:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

If you read the template instructions you will get some more info.Inge (talk) 14:58, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

This is correct. The government_type-variable describes the type of government. Using ad hoc values disrupts the functionality of the template and places the article in a maintenance category. -- Domino theory 10:01, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Good morning, Inge. As I have written above, the template is tailored to suit former countries, and therefore does not suit the Union, which is not a former country. Because the constitutional status of the Union is not so well known internationally, many contributors to the article take it to have been a closer union, i.e. a state. To counteract that misconception, I have tried to elaborate on the template by informing readers that there were two capitals and two governments, with only the king and the foreign service in common.

Your question about the coat of arms is an easy one to answer. I have contributed both versions to the article, but I prefer the more elaborate version because it is the design that seems always to have been used officially. Contrary to what you think, the "full achievement" with pavilion and supporters is the "regular" one, while the other one is an artistic rendering of the escutcheon alone, not an official design. And this full achievement is not solely the royal coat of arms, but also the one and only Union arms. It was not often used in Norway, but you will find it on the frontispiece of every volume of Skillingsmagazinet between 1846 and 1885. It was better known abroad, since it was used by our foreign service. The coat or arms that you refer to as "regular" is scanned by me from the frontispiece of the illustrated publication "Oscarshal", celebrating the completion of that edifice. Inside it and on the various garden pavilions you will also find other versions of the union arms. Roede (talk) 08:52, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Former countries deals with all historic geopolitical entities, not merely singular countries or individual sovereign states. This includes entities such as empires, federations, confederations and unions of various types, which has as a distinguishing feature that it includes more than one country.

This article is listed on the History of Sweden-series, with the role of describing the historical period of the union in Sweden. Yet there seems to be no corresponding article for Norway, even though this talk page has been tagged by the Norwegian history project. Nor is there an article on the union itself, rather than as a period of national history. The solution is not to keep adding information to the infobox, which was never intended to be there. The solution is to have a proper article about the union, where the infobox includes information common to the union, not crammed with enumeration of properties regarding its component countries. There should also be a separate article for Norway as an autonomous part of the union, and the infobox of that article should contain information specific to Norway and its status within the union. -- Domino theory 10:12, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Name change

The article title has been stable for a long time now so it seemed like it had a good name. It is not easy to find a good name for this phenomenon (espeshially on en:) as this union will most of the time be compared to or viewed in the same light as the UK one. This is not correct. The union in question was not a union of two states into one. It was a union between two states and remained so for its duration. I believe the name Union between Sweden and Norway is more fitting. Inge (talk) 15:31, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't matter what seems more fitting to you. It matters what people actually call it in English. You can gloss any confusion that arises. — LlywelynII 11:39, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Structure

It'd be nice if there was a bit more on the structure of the union. How did it work? In particular, what common institutions were there besides the person of the monarch? My sense is that pretty much everything having to do with foreign affairs was conducted from Stockholm during this period, but I don't know whether this was a case of a common institution that functioned as a foreign ministry for both countries (like the foreign ministry of Austria-Hungary), or a case where a dependent country's foreign policy was conducted by the state of which it was a dependency (this, for instance, was the way things were for the British Dominions before 1931, or for the Cook Islands now). Basically, what exactly was this union? Was it a union of two fully sovereign states, joined only by the person of the monarch, like the various Commonwealth Realms today, or like Hanover and the UK before 1837? Given that all foreign policy was conducted from Stockholm, this doesn't seem to be the case. Was it the case of the two countries united into one, with the monarchy and certain other common institutions uniting them, like Austria-Hungary between 1867 and 1918? Or was it a case of one sovereign state (Sweden) and a non-sovereign dependency (Norway) with certain rights to self-government, as for instance the relationship between Russia and Finland in the same time period, or that between the UK and its dominions before the Statute of Westminster? More clarification on these issues would be helpful. john k (talk) 07:06, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Your questions may be (partly at least) answered by the total revision that I have completed today, as I threatened to do on 22 May 2007 - "Dissolution of article needed". I have extracted this article from the "History of Sweden" series, and removed most of the contents that dealt with Swedish matters only, in order to make it correspond to the heading. It was also very partisan, in that most of the contents was taken from Swedish sources. This last revision is written by a Norwegian with access mostly to Norwegian sources, and may of course be slanted in the opposite direction. I have added a lot of information on events in Norway, because the Union was established by actions of the Norwegian government - although under Swedish threats of war. I cordially invite all displeased readers to set the article straight. (However, the Union broke up over the interpretation of its intended nature - equality or disparity - and we would do well to avoid a rerun of that discussion and the bloodshed that it almost caused). The bits about internal Swedish matters have been transferred to a completely new article, Sweden in Union with Norway, which is meant to be included in the "History of Sweden" series. It may of course be even more slanted than this one, but I trust my Swedish friends to improve it. As I wrote two years ago, my intention was to leave the writing of that article to others. But I found that I had to start it, to avoid a gap in the series. I will elaborate my articles with more notes and literature by and by. It is too late tonight. Roede (talk) 22:20, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

One country or two countries?

What I am getting at here is, was it "The Kingdom of Sweden" and "The Kingdom of Norway" both having the same king or "The Kingdom of Sweden" which included both present day countries and their accosiated territories? This matter should be clearly outlined in the opening paragraph of the article because it is unclear at present which one is the truth. Please make this statement specific because the opening paragraph should state this clearly. (Include a source if possible). Vadac (talk) 23:41, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

The former. john k (talk) 01:48, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Correct, and to make it even more clear, the union was very similar to the personal union between the Electorate of Brunswick and Lüneburg (Braunschweig und Lüneburg) (informally called Kurfürstentum Hannover) and the Kingdom of Great Britain, established when Elector/Kurfürst Georg Ludwig acceded to the British throne in 1714 as King George I. In 1801 Great Britain was united with Ireland to form the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and in 1814 the electorate was elevated to the Kingdom of Hanover, but the relationship between the countries remained the same: Two separate states sharing one monarch. This union was dissolved in 1837, since Victoria was legally precluded from ascending the throne of Hanover.

The personal union between Sweden and Norway was in fact also similar to the one between England and Scotland, formed in 1603 when King James VI of Scotland became King James I of England. The Crowns remained both distinct and separate, despite James's best efforts to create a new "imperial" throne of 'Great Britain'. England and Scotland continued to be independent states with separate parliaments, despite sharing a monarch, until the Acts of Union in 1707. From then on they were together in one united state, the Kingdom of Great Britain, with one parliament. The plural form of the official name "United Kingdoms of Sweden and Norway" (or "Norway and Sweden" in Norway) is significant, as are the two crowns above the escutcheon of the union arms. Roede (talk) 19:42, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

The answer to that question depends on wether you look at it from the inside or the outside. Internationally the United Kingdoms of Sweden and Norway was clearly a single political entity. Foreign ambassadors were accredited to the United Kingdoms of Sweden and Norway, not to Sweden and/or Norway, with embassies to the union located in the de facto single capital of the union, Stockholm. Likewise all ambassadors to foreign countries brought with them accreditation letters from the United Kingdoms of Sweden and Norway (to complicate things the foreign affairs of both member states in the union, that is both Sweden and Norway, were handled by the Swedish Foreign Office in Stockholm, since there was no joint Foreign Office...). And international treaties were signed by people representating the United Kingdoms of Sweden and Norway, not by representatives from Sweden and/or Norway separately. With the United Kingdoms of Sweden and Norway being listed as a signatory state, not Sweden and/or Norway separately. So internationally it was clearly a single political entity, that is one country. But inside that "container" were two separate kingdoms, each with more power than states in the US or bundesländer in modern Germany. Or England and Scotland for that matter. As for the comparisons to Great Britain/Braunschweig-Lüneburg and England/Scotland made by Roede those comparisons are incorrect since neither of those two personal unions had a "container" (that is overlying political entity) even remotely similar to the United Kingdoms of Sweden and Norway. Allan Akbar (talk) 22:44, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

It is important to remember that at the time of the beginning of the union foreign policy was the personal prerogative of the King. This is reflected in the Norwegian Constitution. It was the King's prerogative to enter into treaties and they were signed by or in the name of the King of Sweden and Norway, not by the "United Kingdoms of Sweden and Norway" (a term I would be careful to use). An ambassador was the King's personal envoy and foreign envoys were received at the King's court, not at Parliament or by the prime minister. At the beginning and at the end of the union the Norwegian parliament and government had responsibility and right over all things Norwegian independently of Sweden except those reserved by the king personally as King of Norway, ie foreign policy. Over the years of the union a democratisation process led to more power being transferred from King to Parliament. All over Europe foreign policy was passing more over to the influence of politicians. If you are going to write about this topic you have to make sure you have a good grasp of this as it is one of, if not the reason the Norwegains got rid of the Swedish King. As long as foreign policy was in the hands of the King of Norway according to what was perceived to be his prerogative it was acceptable. When the parliaments around Europe started to demand more say the King of Norway started to give in to Swedish politicians. This was in the end not acceptable to the Norwegian parliament. As such Foreign policy is a poor gauge of the two countrie's relative independence of each other. Inge (talk) 21:02, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

A very one-sided article

Roughly 90% of the content of this article is about Norway and Norwegian history, and what little there is about the union as such and Sweden is seen through revisionist Norwegian glasses. So it is definitely not a neutral unbiased historically correct view of the "United Kingdoms of Sweden and Norway". The union between Sweden and Norway came about because Sweden was on the winning side of the Napoleonic wars and Norway on the losing side of those wars, with the pecking order between the two countries confirmed by the short war between Sweden and Norway in 1814. It was never a union between two equal partners, but a union of a senior partner, Sweden, and a junior partner, Norway. With the king of Sweden also being king of Norway and Sweden controlling the foreign policies and foreign affairs of Norway through the Swedish Foreign Office in Stockholm. And to back it all up Sweden had roughly 2.25 times the population of Norway and a correspondingly larger army. So I suggest that someone either does a total rewrite of the article, and makes it what it should be, or renames the article to "A revisionist's history of Norway 1814-1905". Allan Akbar (talk) 16:36, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I could add that a country that has a foreign king as it's head of state, cannot pass laws without the approval of that foreign king, has part of it's cabinet, including the prime minister, residing in a foreign capital and is not allowed to manage it's own foreign affairs (including not having their own embassies in foreign countries, not having foreign embassies in their own country and not being able to enter into treaties with other countries) is not an independent country. So all claims that the "United Kingdoms of Sweden and Norway" was a union between two independent countries are patently false. Which should be reflected in the article. And the name of the article should be "United Kingdoms of Sweden and Norway", as that was the official name of the union in English, and not "Union between Sweden and Norway". Allan Akbar (talk) 14:07, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

One more thing just to get it over with: The United Kingdoms of Sweden and Norway is/was a historical political entity and the article should be about that historical political entity, as it was then. A political entity that signed international treaties (such as the Hague convention of 1899/1900, which among it's signatories lists The United Kingdoms of Sweden and Norway, not Sweden and Norway as separate countries). It should not be about the internal politics of Sweden and/or Norway during the same time period, 1814-1905, because that is best done in two separate articles, one about Sweden and one about Norway. As it is the current article is written to be as close as possible to what is currently politically correct in Norway. And in order to do that even the name of the historical political entity was distorted by moving it from "The United Kingdoms of Sweden and Norway", the official name of the historical political entity, to "Union between Sweden and Norway", in order to make it appear as if the historical political entity was a union between two equals... Allan Akbar (talk) 19:05, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Proposals for a totally reworked page

I suggest that:

A. A new page named "United Kingdoms of Sweden and Norway" be created following the template "Former countries" (which, like it or not, the United Kingdoms of Sweden and Norway was since it was the union that signed international treaties, both bilateral and multilateral, from 1814 to 1905, not the individual member states; treaties that were binding for both Sweden and Norway...), dealing with the historical political entity "United Kingdoms of Sweden and Norway" from a neutral contemporary point of view (I even offer to write such a page...). Such a page should be short and contain only facts about the union, with the exception of a brief description of the reasoning, and important events, in each of the two member states when the union was created and when it was dissolved. Everything else should be in either of the two pages suggested below, which should be linked to from the "Union page".

B. The current page named "Union between Sweden and Norway" be moved to "Union between Norway and Sweden from a Norwegian perspective".

C. A similar page named "Union between Sweden and Norway from a Swedish perspective" be created using material that is already available on Wikipedia.
Allan Akbar (talk) 16:39, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Nope. Swedish and Norwegian perspectives on the same thing would be a POV fork. Just include the content of both here. — LlywelynII 11:40, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Royal standard 1815–1844

The royal standard of this period is as yet unconfirmed, but if it existed, it is likely to have been a modification of the war flag introduced by royal decree on 7 March 1815. That flag had squares along the hoist, unlike Swedish flags after 1844. The canton with the "Norwegian" colours was always square in the union flags of 1815 and 1818. See: Munksgaard, Jan Henrik (2012): Flagget – Et nasjonalt symbol blir til. Kristiansand, Vest-Agder-museet, pp. 67-83. ISBN 978-82-91178-26-4. Roede (talk) 21:52, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

There are various sources for it, that's all we need. Also if the canton is square, change the SVG, don't keep replacing it with a PNG that is up for deletion on Commons. Fry1989 ^eh? 18:56, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

rename

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus. --BDD (talk) 16:56, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Union between Sweden and Norway → United Kingdoms of Sweden and Norway – if the country was named United Kingdoms of Sweden and Norway, then that should be the article's title. Relisted. Favonian (talk) 18:23, 11 September 2013 (UTC). Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 13:49, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. While it may be difficult to establish the common English-language name of a union ("the country" is not a fully correct terminology!) dissolved in 1905, neither the Swedish nor the Norwegian versions of Wikipedia include "kingdoms" in their name for this union, and very few present-day countries use their full and official form as the article name, if a separate such form exist. So the Wikipedia articles are called Norway rather than Kingdom of Norway, Sweden rather than Kingdom of Sweden, and United Kingdom rather than United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Tomas e (talk) 10:09, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The ambitious wars waged by King Charles XII, however, led to the loss of that status after the Great Northern War, 1700–1721.??????????????? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.73.217.230 (talk) 08:48, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (non-admin closure) Calidum ^{Talk To Me} 04:56, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

---

Union between Sweden and Norway → Suedo-Norwegian Union – In Norwegian it's called Den svensk-norske union, and in Swedish it's called Svensk-norska unionen. In English, this becomes the 'Suedo-Norwegian Union; a much shorter, yet precise, description, that also is more similar to the native names. Ssolbergj (talk) 15:04, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose: the different format between the country names feels awkward. There must be better alternatives. Why not "Swedish-Norwegian Union" or simply "Sweden-Norway"? HandsomeFella (talk) 16:16, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment: "The different format" you refer to is conventional English à la Franco-British, Austro-Hungarian, Anglo-Saxon, Americo-Liberian, Italo-Turkish, Russo-Georgian, Germanophile etc. - Ssolbergj (talk) 02:15, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose - Many readers English of English are unacquainted with Latinate naming conventions. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 15:45, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. Perhaps, but this is an encyclopedic article on European history, and in such a context this naming convention is appropriate IMO. Dumbing down the language should not necessarily be a goal. One could note that e.g. the article on the 2008 Russo-Georgian war concerns much more recent events, -Ssolbergj (talk) 16:33, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose I cannot substantiate the nominator's claims that the union is predominantly known as the nominator claims. Conversely, I casually checked some random sources and they use a multitude of terms. The current term is a good title when such ambiguity exists. Arsenikk ^(talk) 11:37, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Name

Well, the current format is clearly unworkable. We can't have the page titled one thing and all the discussion in the lead calling it by a different one.

The posters above had their hearts in the right place; the current namespace is awful: "Union between Sweden and Norway" is the title of a period of time, not a state. Even "Personal Union of Sweden and Norway" would have been preferable. But we've got to do this according to ENGLISH COMMON use and not just what we think sounds appropriate. (No, the local name has no weight whatsoever. We don't redirect China to "中国".) Surely there were some treaties signed and some convention at the time on what to call this thing. Ngram doesn't pop up anything immediately helpful, but I'll go see if I can't find some solid numbers or official usage. — LlywelynII 11:47, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Initial perusal of British and American treaties and notes shows it standard to use the short forms Sweden at first and then Sweden and Norway (UK by 1820s; US by 1866). The full term seems universally the United Kingdoms of Sweden and Norway but (as mentioned) it's never abbreviated to "the United Kingdoms":

Additional Article to the Treaty concluded at Stockholm, 6 November 1824, between Great Britain and Sweden for the prevention of the traffic in Slaves [signed at Stockholm, 15 June 1835].

Declarations of Sweden respecting British Commerce in the ports of that country [signed at Stockholm, 24 Apr. 1824].

Treaty between His Britannick Majesty and His Majesty the King of Sweden and Norway for preventing their subjects from engaging in any Traffick in Slaves [signed at Stockholm, 6 Nov. 1824].

Sweden and Norway: Convention between Her Majesty and the King of Sweden and Norway for the Regulation and Improvement of the Communications by Post between Great Britain and Sweden and Norway, signed at London, August 24, 1850.

Denmark, Sweden and Norway: Correspondence relative to the Neutrality of Denmark, Sweden and Norway [2 Jan.–20 Jan. 1854].

Sweden and Norway: Treaty between Her Majesty, the Emperor of the French, and the King of Sweden and Norway, signed at Stockholm, November 21, 1855.

Further Reports. Part II. Netherlands, Portugal, Russia, Spain, Sweden and Norway, Switzerland.

Treaty between Her Majesty and the King of Sweden and Norway for the mutual surrender of Fugitive Criminals, signed at Stockholm, 26th June 1873.

Convention between Great Britain, Germany, Austria-Hungary, Belgium, Denmark, Spain, the United States, the French Republic, Italy, Morocco, the Netherlands, Portugual, and Sweden and Norway, for the Settlement of the Right of Protection in Morocco. Signed at Madrid, 3rd July 1880.

Declaration between the Governments of Great Britain and of Sweden and Norway respecting the Privileges of Commercial Travellers. Signed at Stockholm, 13th October 1883. ["the United Kingdoms"]

Decision given by His Majesty Oscar II, King of Sweden and Norway, as Arbitrator under the Convention signed at Washington, November 7, 1899, between the German Empire, the United Kingdom, and the United States of America, relating to the Settlement of certain Claims on account of the military operations conducted in Samoa in the year 1899, given at Stockholm, the 14th October 1902.

Integrity of Norway and Sweden: Declarations between the United Kingdom, France, and Norway and between the United Kingdom, France, and Sweden concerning the abrogation of the Treaty of November 21, 1855, relative to the Integrity of Norway and Sweden. Signed at Christiana, November 2, 1907, Stockholm, April 23, 1908.

Rejiggering the ngram, not exactly useful but at least informative: the most COMMON period ENGLISH name was just Sweden (but Norway is nearly as common); next comes Sweden and Norway (but Norway and Sweden is nearly as common); then orders of magnitude lower are the official names. Obviously this article isn't about "Sweden", but that could lead to putting the article at Sweden (1814-1905). Aside from the Norwegian outrage, that's probably not what people commonly call it any more. I'm thinking the WP:NATURAL & WP:PRECISE name is going to end up being Sweden and Norway (this is the primary topic of that combination; it's already a redirect pointing here; & it kicks the current pagename's butt w/r/t WP:CONCISE) but maybe the UKSW has more support in modern-day scholarship about that era. I'll keep poking around. — LlywelynII 13:27, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Suedo-Norway

Just as an aside, I'll note that this name is a valiant effort by the editor involved but is not in any way, shape, or form English. The way we actually write what this is trying to do is Swedo- (never with a U) and this coinage actually means something different from what is intended: Austria–Hungary is a union of Austria and Hungary and Austro-Hungarian is its demonym but "Austro-Hungary" would be the Austrianish part of Hungary. "Swedo-Norway" would be some part of Norway turning Swedishy from an influx of Type-Ö migrants. Kindly do not ever restore that name here. Literally no native speaker has written it that way and we try to avoid WP:NEOLOGISMs (falls under WP:OR). — LlywelynII 13:52, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

[Ah. Apologies: the lead was written a bit better. There's nothing completely off about "Swedo-Norwegian union" and 2 non-native speakers have written that with the U before. All the same, it's simply not how the place is phrased in English.] — LlywelynII 14:40, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Union between Sweden and Norway. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20141119124317/http://www.ssb.no:80/sosiale-forhold-og-kriminalitet/artikler-og-publikasjoner/hundre-aars-ensomhet to http://www.ssb.no/sosiale-forhold-og-kriminalitet/artikler-og-publikasjoner/hundre-aars-ensomhet

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:51, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I propose to merge Talk:Kingdom of Sweden (1809–1905) and Talk:Kingdom of Norway (1814-1905) into Talk:Union between Sweden and Norway. Because Kingdom of Sweden (1809–1905) and Kingdom of Norway (1814-1905) are only redirect pages for Union between Sweden and Norway for a long time; Talk:Kingdom of Sweden (1809–1905) and Talk:Kingdom of Norway (1814-1905) are only blank pages from these talk pages were created until now, I think it is a good idea to complete this page merger.
123.150.182.179
08:40, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Add an economy area/section?

This article greatly lacks any mention of the economy of this nation and I believe there should be one. 108.58.204.26 (talk) 15:29, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 6 August 2021

Union between Sweden and Norway → Sweden–Norway – I've seen more people refer to this state as "Sweden–Norway" and this follows per WP:COMMONNAME so I'm wondering if that's a more appropriate title per guidelines. SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 02:24, 6 August 2021 (UTC) — Relisting. Adumbrativus (talk) 02:25, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

• Move to Sweden–Norway union as the clearest title. O.N.R. ^(talk) 08:33, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Sweden-Norway, as it implies an equal union, whereas Norway was subservant to the King of Sweden. Geschichte (talk) 10:14, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

• Why does the current title imply anything different than that though?--Yaksar (let's chat) 13:48, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

• Ditto. Other than the inverted alphabetical order, how could the asymmetry be gleaned from either title? On another note, the current title could be construed as the action rather than the state of union. —  AjaxSmack  19:09, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. Can't see a problem with the current title. It's much more intuitive English than Sweden–Norway union and there doesn't seem to really be a standard title in English-language sources. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:11, 18 August 2021 (UTC)