Talk:Grand Duchy of Finland

ALT.TALK.ROYALTY

In email group "ALT.TALK.ROYAL" there was recently a discussion of the position of Finland as Grand Duchy, which shows how sadly inaccurate the "popular" knowledge is around the world.

Some points, mostly to correct misconceptions:

"Grand Duchy of Finland and Russian Empire"

The Grand Duchy of Finland was an autonomous part of the Russian Empire. Not a separate realm. The title of Grand Duke of Finland was a subsidiary title of the Emperor (император). I.e, without that title, he would however have been ruler of Finland as Emperor of Russia.

It is somewhat incorrect to claim that the thing joining Finland and Russia together was a personal union. Finland belonged to Russia, whose Tsar was automatically ruler of Finland.

The theory of personal union has been an invention of nationalist-minded writers, but was essentially not true at its time. Propagandists tried to introduce that sort of argumentation of nationhood and personal union during the last couple of decades of autonomy, as a measure against Russification etc. (Afterwards, in independent Finland, it was usual to try to rewrite the history regarding this factual background.)

When Finland became independent, it was an utilization of Russian internal problems (1917 revolutions). However, even at that point, Finnish parliament and administrative cabinet recognized the temporary government of Russia as Tsar's successor as ruler of Finland. Some months later, the Russian representative of TemGov was ousted, and Finnish organs took the full powers, leading to dclaration of independence.

Finland was pactically conquered by Russians from Swedes until the end of 1808, but in 1809, Sweden ceded the territory officially, in a Peace Treaty which was made in Hamina (Fredrikshamn), in September 1809.

To attract the positive feelings of Finns and pacify Finland as quickly as possible, Tsar Alexander I, great-great-great-grandson of Charles XI of Sweden (whose subsidiary title had been Grand Duke of Finland), granted the wide autonomy, as well as in his French-language speeches in Porvoo Diet mentioned something of Finland having been elevated into a position amongst nations (which has been interpreted even as a beginning of nationhood of Finland). Basically it meant business as usual for the Finns: Finland retained its Swedish laws, which, however, did not limit the Emperor's power as suppreme ruler.

In Finnish official documents, such as in legislation, the sovereign was usually called "The Emperor and Grand Duke" ("Keisari ja Suuriruhtinas", "Kejsare och Storfurste").

Russian Grand Dukes and Princes did not use any particular title referring to Finland. They were grand dukes of Russia. Finland, as well as a number of other titles (King of Kazan, Duke of Estonia, Grand Duke of Moscow) were subsidiary titles of the sovereign, unnecessary to use even in his short titulary, and not present in titulary of other members of his house. Even the heir to the throne, the tsarevich, did not use any subsidiary titles derived from the long lost of the sovereign's titulary. The tsarevich was known as "Tsarevich, Grand Duke of Russia".

The ordinals of sovereigns were identical in Finland to those in Russia. Even if there had been a ruler whose name had been in use by earlier Swedish rulers of Finland, Grand Dukes of Finland, it is rather clear that the ordinal would have not taken that into account. And were there a ruler whose name had been in use by an earlier Russian ruler who was not a GD of F, that would have not changed the ordinal regarding Finland - this could have happened with Alexis (son of Nick II) who would have been Alexis II of Russia, and it briefly and theoretically happened with Tsar Michael II (whose reign went unnoticed by official Finnish documentation).

In practice, the five sovereigns who held true power in Finland (A I, II and IIi, N I ad II), were as original names in Russian sovereign list as in Finland, and their ordinals were identical already for this very reason.

In 1555 John, the second son of King Gustav I Vasa, was given Finland proper, titled as duchy, as an apanage by his father, residing at Turku (Åbo) castle. The very same John, having become King of Sweden (John III), and being in war agains Russians, chose to elevate his titulary in 1581 by taking the title Magnus Ducatus Finlandiæ, this referring to all of Finland, all Finnish provinces and not only to Proper Finland around Turku. The russian-style Grand Principality is sadly and incorrectly always called Grand Duchy in English language. John's action was to compete with titles with the enemy sovereign. John's son Sigismund, heir to the Grand Principality of Lithuania and the Kingdom of Poland through his mother Queen Catharina Jagellonica of Sweden, was not the person to whom the title was created.

There is a claim that Dukedom of Finland was eventually granted to King Sigismund's younger half-brother Duke John. At least truthful is that he later held Duchy of Ostrogothia. (claimed that in 1608 he forced to exchange Finland for Ostrogothia.)

An unverified claim states that the future Gustav II Adolf was made Duke of Finland as heir to Charles IX (who was youngest son of Gustaf I, and King of Sweden after the deposed Sigismund as a result of victory and confirmation by the Estates (crowned 1608). It is also not confirmed in Regeringsformen of 1772 that the Kingdom of Sweden and Grand Principality of Finland was in personal union. What is now Finland was a part of Sweden just as any other part of the country was.

In 1806 Prince Carl Gustaf (+1808) younger son of Gustaf IV Adolf was made Grand Prince of Finland.

The Finnish war of 1808-1809 meant that Finland became an autonomous part of the Russian Empire by resolutions and declarations in Porvoo Diet 1809, and Russia obtained claims of the territory from Sweden by the Treaty of Hamina of 1809.

The Emperor and Autocrat of All Russia was the Grand Prince of Finland as well as King of Poland, King of Kazan and Grand Prince of Moskow, etc.

Finland was from 1809 an autonomy, an own entity. Before, it had been an integral part of Sweden, as a bunch of provinces beyond the sea. Up to 1809 Finland was a geographic entity only, while at that time becoming also a political one. 62.78.104.175 05:47, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Citizenship

What kind of citizenship had the people in Finland during that time? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.233.220.208 (talk) 14:14, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

The word citizen is a republican consept and usually not used in monarchies. For example, only recently have British people been refered to as citizens, previously they were only subjects of the British monarch.

The people of the Grand Duchy were never Russian subjects. They where Finnish subjects of the Russian Tsar, or in todays terms Finnish citizens.

When staying or living in Russia, Finnish subjects were treated as foreigners. When traveling abroad, they carried a Finnish passport.

-- Petri Krohn 00:01, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

All subjects of the Russian Tsar were divided into 3 categories: natural subjects (noblemen, clergy, townspeople, peasants), non-Russians ("инородцы": jews, Eastern peoples) and Finnish citizens ("финляндские обыватели"). People of every estate enjoyed their specific rights and had their specific obligations. Moving from one category to another was sometimes hard if not impossible. 94.25.155.199 (talk) 21:41, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

"§12. Finnish citizens. A special legal status, and even a privileged one, is enjoyed by Finnish citizens, ie, persons who have the right of citizenship in the Grand Duchy of Finland. When being on the territory of the Empire, they enjoy all the natural rights of Russian subjects, at the same time the Russian subjects in Finland do not enjoy the same rights: they do not have the rights of public service, the right to participate in the community, city and sejm elections; Russian nobles are not equal to Finnish noblemen, and the acquisition of the Finnish citizenship by Russian noblemen is under rather constraining conditions." auto-translation from the book "The state system and administration in the Russian Empire" by Gribovsky. Odessa. 1912. 94.25.155.199 (talk) 22:03, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

The term "citizen", though a bit retrospective (not much: since French revolution, all the European countries understood it and at least unofficially it was used), is useful to the context of the autonomous grand duchy, because of the certain separateness. For example, Russians needed a passport to come to autonomous Finland. And, only Finnish "citizens" were eligible for appointments of Finnish offices, such as senators. We will not manage to express these things by saying that they were "subjects of the tsar", and it is yet somehow non-expressive to try to say "subjects of the grand duke" or "subjects of the tsar in his role as grand duke". Finlandais 17:18, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

True. In fact, a Russian noble could (and a number of them did) become a Finn by being inducted to the Finnish House of Nobility (Swedish: Riddarhuset). After 1856, this required the permission from the Finnish Senate. Commoners became Finns by petitioning the Finnish Senate for naturalization. On the other hand, the requirement of Finnish people to bear passports was born out of the needs of the Russian bureacracy. The Russians had a system of internal passports, and as large numbers of Finnish workers were employed in St. Petersburg, there was a distinct need for them to carry passports. How else could a sick and disabled worker be sent back to his home parish? --MPorciusCato (talk) 12:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

"Client state"

What is this nonsense? Client state, as I understand, refers to only formal autonomy, while Finland's autonomy was great. --Jaakko Sivonen 22:40, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Coat of Arms

There is a reference request related to the position of the "eastern" sword of the lion of Finland. However, it is not fully clear what part of the sentence needs to be referenced. --Drieakko 08:52, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

In the image now used, the lion holds the "eastern" sword in his pawn. I do not think this CoA was ever accepted by the Finns. The text says that "this was changed later in the 19th century". Who changed what and when? (References please, preferably a blazon) Or is this bastard CoA just Russian propaganda? -- Petri Krohn 04:40, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, there was no formal CoA of Finland before the 20th century when the current one was modelled after the engravings in the king's 16th century sarcophagus. During centuries before that, its free variations were in all kinds of usage. The variation widely used for the Grand Duchy was present in all official connections, and you still find it even in some 1960s stamps, long after the demise of the Grand Duchy. I try to get you references later on. --Drieakko 06:11, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

The official blazon from 26.10.1809 reads: "The shield has a red field, strewn with roses of silver, on which a golden lion with a crown of gold, standing on a silver saber, which it grasps with the left forepaw while holding in the right forepaw an upright sword". --Drieakko 06:11, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Can you provide a source? -- Petri Krohn (talk) 03:02, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

P.S. - This source says that the twisted CoA comes from Elias Brenner (1647-1717). The new/original upright CoA was taken into use in 1889. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 03:10, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Contemporary Finnish name

It should be noted that the version Suomen Suuriruhtinaskunta is a modern history-book term. Contemporary documents refer to it as Suomen Suuriruhtinaanmaa.195.16.202.19 13:44, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Successor state not kingdom

I tire of the successor state in the infobox being changed to Kingdom of Finland (1918). Finland declared independence on December 6, 1917 and in fact was lead by the Regent of Finland. Kingdom was proclaimed only on October 9, 1918. So Finland was already independent for many months before kingdom, which only lasted for a shorter period. So therefore the successor should just be Finland, yes? --Pudeo⺮ 15:56, 22 August 2008 (UTC) Since someone is still changing it let's make it clear:

• Finland declares independence: December 6, 1917
• Independence recognized: January 4, 1918 (Finland ruled by a regent, not king)
• Monarch elected: October 9, 1918 (several months later)
• Throne renounced: December 14, 1918

And while monarch was elected, it was never de jure or de facto in power, Pehr Evind Svinhufvud was the Regent of Finland the whole time. --Pudeo⺮ 09:48, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. Amazingly some people are still reinserting the false claim of the kingdom being the direct successor into the info-box. The successor state was the Republic of Finland. The "monarchy" came 10 months later. --89.27.36.41 (talk) 06:29, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I think the successor state would still have been the Grand Duchy of Finland that was now independant.Gerard von Hebel (talk) 19:41, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

The Declaration of Independence adopted on 6 December 1917 speaks of Finland being an independent republic (Suomi on oleva riippumaton tasavalta).[1] --89.27.103.116 (talk) 07:58, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Finland under Sweden

What was the official name of Finland when it was under Swedish rule? 199.117.69.8 (talk) 20:06, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

There was no official entity called "Finland" during the Swedish period. The contemporary literature (in the 17th and 18th centuries) recognized Finland as one of the four "lands" of Sweden. The other three were Svealand, East Götaland and West Götaland. Administratively, Finland was divided to several counties and the concept of four "lands" had no practical meaning after the early 17th century. On the other hand, after the Great Northern War (1700–1721) and the Russian occupations (1713–19, 1743–44) caused much greater suffering in Finland than in Swedish mainland, which was more or less untouched by the hostilities. Because of this difference between Finland and the Swedish mainland, the Finnish gentry and learned class developed a much stronger local identity than had existed during the previous century. This manifested itself especially in the early national romanticism in Academy of Turku during the late 18th century and in certain local seditious movements during the wars of 1743–44 and 1788–91. --MPorciusCato (talk) 14:33, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Latin name

I don't see a reason for mentioning the Latin name in the lead. Unlike the three other languages, Latin was not an official language. (Sure it was used in university publications up until the mid-1800s, but that doesn't make it an official language.) --89.27.103.116 (talk) 19:23, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it does look strange. Anyone who knows the reason for it? Närking (talk) 20:01, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

See the next question. It is this Latin name that would determine where the monarch of Finland would sit in the imperial diner table. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 22:49, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Was Finland a grand principality or a grand duchy?

ARMA MAGNI DVCATVS FINLANDIAE

As it stands at the time of this writing, the article forcefully insists that Finland was a grand principality rather than a grand duchy. Personally, I have no opinion or knowledge of the matter, but the Finnish minister to the United States in 1950, K. T. Jutila, writing in English, named 1809-1917 Finland a "grand duchy." It appears the Mr. Jutila, born in 1891, would have grown up in the grand duchy, itself; so one might suppose that, besides being minister to an English-speaking country, he would know the right word to use in English. Does the advocate of the term "grand principality" have an equal source? If he does not, then "grand principality" may be the wrong term. --Tbtkorg (talk) 01:44, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Finland was Grand Principality (In Finnish: Suomen suurruhtinaskunta). Luxemburg is only European Grand Ducy. Monaco, Liechenstein and Andorra are Principalities. Russian czars where Gran Princes of Finland (Suurruhtinas) not Dukes (suurherttua). It is mistake to say that Finland was Grand Duchy.--Mannerheim (talk) 13:12, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Totally irrelevant – this discussion is better suited to some on-line royalist forum.

The Grand Duchy of Finland is the established WP:COMMONNAME in the English language. I have reverted your edits and reverted your page move. If you really want to push this issue further you needed to start a proposed move discussion. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 14:07, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I will say it in Finnish. Oliko Suomen suuriruihtiaskunta herttuakunta (Grand Duchy) vai oliko se Grand Principality eli ruhtinaskunta. Was Finnish Grand Duchy herttuakunta (Grand Duchy) or was it suuriruhtinaskunta?. Luxemburg on ainoa herttuakunta Euroopassa. Luxembourg is the the only Grand Duchy in Europe. Monaco, Andorra and Liechenstein they are Principalities. Monaco, Andorra ja Liechenstein ovat ruhtinaskuntia. Was the Russian Czars Dukes of Finland of Grand Princes of Finland. Oliko Venäjän tsaarit Suomen suuriruhtinaita vai herttuoita? --Mannerheim (talk) 18:18, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Again this is irrelevant. Basically you are asking where the monarch of Finland (if he was not a Tsar) would sit in the imperial diner table. Whatever the people on Finland or Sweden would call him has little relevance on that issue. The English language common name "Grand Duchy" comes from the Latin name Magnus Ducatus Finlandiae, which first appears engraved in stone in the grave of Gustav I of Sweden from the 1580s. See File:Coat of Arms of Finland.jpg. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 22:45, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I know how are you. You are Petri Krohn member of SAFKA.Your behavior in Finland is very od. Your political ideas are mixted in to your idea that you are somting speacial. If you can decide Vladimir Putin should crown him self as Vladimir III and be a Czar of Russia and Grand Duke of Finland and Poland.--Mannerheim (talk) 08:41, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

No conspiracies here, please! This issue is about an English translation of a Russian or Swedish title, which did not originate in Finland, and the translation issue is not about Finland specifically. --vuo (talk) 09:57, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

On the topic, Великое княжество Финляндское refers to suurruhtinas. The Russian title of Великий Князь is translated as Grand Duke in English. The alternative translation "Grand Prince" is not used, even if it's more accurate. See Grand duke#Russian grand dukes and List of Grand Dukes of Russia#About the Grand Duke of Russia in translated contexts. --vuo (talk) 09:57, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

There are "Grand Prince" instances in Latin: Gustavus Adolphus, ... Princeps magnus Finlandiae, Dux Esthoniae... Actes et documents pour servir à l'histoire de l'alliance de George Rákóczy, p.4 at Google Books, Nos CAROLUS ... Magnus Princeps Finlandiæ, Dux Scaniæ... Copia Literarum Regis Sueciae ad Electorem Palatinum, p.3 at Google Books (Yes, we are discussing the English translation!) --219.15.206.1 (talk) 15:57, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

@vuo Grand duke = Великий герцог, where duke = герцог and Grand = Великий. Indiana State (talk) 23:24, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Looking at the Russian WP article "Великий герцог", I see that it is a literal translation into Russian of a Western European title. There are no Russian Velikiy Gertsogs mentioned. At any rate, I say the the complicated and ongoing argument over the "correct" English translation of the Russian title belongs elsewhere; here we should simply use the conventional, established, old-fashioned English term, namely Grand Duke, which is the one that people are in fact likely to encounter when reading Russian or Finnish history. At the very least we need to harmonize the title and the content of the page, which I will now go ahead and do. I hope we can all agree that it is desirable to use the same term throughout. Anyone who wishes to insist that "Grand Principality" should be used instead will please take it up as a proposal to move the page instead of introducing a discrepancy between title and content.--Rallette (talk) 06:08, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I have again restored "Grand Duchy" throughout the article. It is the conventional and established English for storfurstendom/velikoye knyazhestvo. (And "Grand Duke", too.) Anyone wishing to promote the position that "Grand Principality" is more accurate will please do just that: argue for that position instead of simply editing the article to reflect their preference for a term for which we do not even have an article. If the title and content of the page do not match there is something wrong.--Rallette (talk) 08:50, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

References

Constitutional or absolute monarchy

As it is, the article states the Grand Duchy was a constitutional monarchy. This is very much a controversial question. The tsar was an autocrat over his empire and never said otherwise. On the other hand, the government of Finland during this time arguably had constitutional features, and "absolute monarchy" may be a misleading description. I will change the description in the box to a more neutral "Monarchy" in the hope it will not be reverted without a cited source.--Rallette (talk) 12:58, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

The question is, indeed, an extremely controversial one. In practice, Finland was ruled according to a Finnish interpretation of the Swedish constitutions of 1772 and 1789, with minor exceptions. The question which laws actually made up the Finnish constitutions was never settled officially, and was actually painstakingly avoided throughout the 19th century. However, the general opinion of Finnish lawyers and politicians of the late 19th century was that the Russian emperor was bound by these laws. The Russian government never acknowledged this. When it started, in 1899, a program to streamline Finnish government with the Russian, this resulted in political upheavals and disturbances that markedly decreased the support for the union with Russia, and paved way to the Finnish independence.

In fact, the question is still controversial, and very clearly a political question. Although there are a few Finnish historians that consider the Russian interpretation to be a more objective, the mainstream Finnish historiography and mainstream Russian historiography still mirror the respective political stances from the 19th century. Thus, plain "monarchy" is a good choice. Writing "absolutist" takes the Russian viewpoint, and "constitutional" the Finnish POV. No one denies it was a monarchy, though. --MPorciusCato (talk) 16:48, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Grand Duchy of Finland existed since at least 1772, maybe even since 1634

It's not correct to say "the Grand Duchy of Finland existed between 1809 and 1917 as an autonomous part of the Russian Empire". Finland was recognized as a separate entity with limited autonomy within the Kingdom of Sweden already in the 1772 Swedish "regeringsform" and probably even earlier. This regeringsform (government form) was in effect in Finland all through the Russian occupation until 1917. The current article gives a misleading idea as if a new form of government / legislation was introduced in 1809, which was not the case.

https://www.histdoc.net/historia/se/htm1772_1.html: 15 § "Thesse Hofrätter skola hädanefter, som hittils, trenne vara: then förste i Stockholm, under hvilken lyder hela Svea Rike, thet så egenteligen i gamle Lagen kalladt; then andre är altid uti Jönköping, och under thenna hörer hela Götha Rike; samt then tredie, som i Åbo har sit säte, hvarunder Stor-Furstendömet Finland hörer." 2001:999:250:7098:7A24:AFFF:FE37:1555 (talk) 23:13, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

It is about the grand duchy within the Russian Empire, the article Finland under Swedish rule is about the period before. As far as I am aware, "Grand Duchy of Finland" refers to Finland under Russian rule only. Mellk (talk) 01:34, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

2nd paragraph: "Originating in the 16th century as a titular grand duchy held by the King of Sweden, the country became autonomous after its annexation by Russia in the Finnish War of 1808–1809." The statement is wrong and gives a totally wrong idea. No new constitution (regeringsform) was introduced in 1809. Also, "the new title Grand Duke of Finland did not result in any Finnish autonomy" only applies to the time before the name "Grand Duchy of Finland" was introduced in the Swedish constitution. By then, in 1772 Finland already had its own "hofrätt" (court of appeal) in Turku (Åbo), which was an early local governing body. There were three such "hofrätter" (self-governing areas) in the kingdom of Sweden: 1st was in Stockholm, 2nd in Jönköping and 3rd in Turku/Åbo, "under whose governance the Grand Duchy of Finland belonged".

The one and only 1772 constitution was in effect in Finland until 1917 and that means that officially the degree of autonomy remained the same during 1772-1917. In the Finnish Wikipedia article it says that "the constitutional Dukeship of Alexander I was based on Gustav III's constitution from 1772 and on the certificate of association and guarantee from 1789" which may further clarify the point I'm making. At present the article really gives the wrong impression as if Alexander I had introduced a new constitution in Finland in 1809, which he didn't do. Not only that but it took some 60 years before any legal reforms were made, still always under the existing 1772 constitution. Also, it should be added that the autonomy given by Gustav III wasn't meant to be permanent by Alexander I, but a temporary tool to establish the latter's power over Finland. It's hardly surprising as there was no constitution at all in Russia at the time. 2001:999:250:7098:7A24:AFFF:FE37:1555 (talk) 04:49, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Doesn't the name "Grand Duchy of Finland" refer specifically to the period under Russian rule? Even if Finland had some sort of autonomy before 1809, the statement "the Grand Duchy of Finland existed between 1809 and 1917 as an autonomous part of the Russian Empire" still seems valid.

The page regarding the 1809 valtiopäivät states that Finland was given its own administration: "Nyt Suomelle luotiin kuitenkin oma erillishallinto" (https://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Porvoon_valtiop%C3%A4iv%C3%A4t). Alexander moved the capital of Finland from Turku to Helsinki in 1812, with implication being that this was the administration in question. Did pre-1809 Finland have anything similar? Betelgeuse X (talk) 18:04, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

It does not refer to the 1809-1917 period only. That's just the point. The statement is not valid because an equally autonomous Grand Duchy existed already since 1772, as was determined in the Swedish constitution that year. The phrase should read "the Grand Duchy of Finland STILL existed... ". The term "erillishallinto" only refers to *domestic institutions such as the church, the university (neither of which had any legislative power in Finland in the 1800's) and the judiciary, but we already know there was a judiciary (hofrätt) in Åbo since at least 1772 and likely earlier too. As for the diet, despite the initial promises of Alexander I in 1809 in Porvoo, the diet only met in the 1860's, while a diet had already met in the 1600's under the Swedish rule. I.e. nothing changed and certainly no more autonomy was granted to the Finns in 1809 (than they had had since at least 1772) and this is what the reader of the article should understand. (*Thanks to the intelligentsia, the domestic institutions gained over time an ideological, political and nationalist meaning but did not increase autonomy.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:999:584:4023:7A24:AFFF:FE37:1555 (talk) 21:20, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

What exactly did the 1772 constitution give to Finland that wasn't given to the rest of Sweden? If anything, it seems as though the constitution solidified Finland as a formal part of Sweden.

Alexander specifically stated in 1809 that Finland would act as an autonomous part of the Russian empire. It kept its laws inhereted from Sweden, eventually obtained its own currency, and Finns weren't required to serve in the Russian Army.

The name "autonomous Grand Duchy" seems to describe Finland perfectly as part of Russia: it enjoyed its own set of laws and privileges not given to the rest of Russia. As part of Sweden, Finland was treated as an equal. Betelgeuse X (talk) 22:40, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

The claim “Originating in the 16th century as a titular grand duchy held by the King of Sweden, the country became autonomous after its annexation by Russia in the Finnish War of 1808–1809" is not only false, but misleading in many ways.

Finland was not a “titular grand duchy” only in the 1600’s and certainly did not become autonomous only after its annexation by Russia in 1809.

The misinterpretation apparently was born, when Alexander I declared that he would “elevate Finland to the ranks of nations”, when in fact he brought nothing new to the table, and certainly gave nothing that Finland hadn't already had previously. The purpose of Alexander’s speech was to establish his popularity in Finland, while he planned not to preserve Finland as a grand duchy.

The Turku “hofrätt” (court of appeals) had been established already in 1623, and it was the first separate “hofrätt” within the kingdom of Sweden. The term “hofrätt” meant that since 1623 there was a local administration or governing body in Turku, which took care of Finland’s affairs, yet the king also defined that the administration should not diminish his power over Finland.

Since 1623 Finland was governed by the Governor General of Finland, Nils Tuurenpoika Bielke, who remained in office until 1631. The first diet (an early form of a senate) gathered in Finland already in 1615.

https://www.histdoc.net/historia/se/waaranen1.html https://sv.wikisource.org/wiki/Regeringsform_1634

In the 1634 constitution Finland was already referred to as Grand Duchy (i.e. the use of the term grand duchy was not only titular): "The 3rd is Finland's court of appeals in Turku consisting of one president of the state council, 6 knights and 6 other moderate and learned men, as well as their secretaries, notaries and fiscal, and having themselves to obey everything under the Grand Duchy of Finland and Karelia.”

In 1634 a court of appeals was formed in Götaland too, but Götaland (Gauthiod in the catholic history books) wasn’t recognized as a grand duchy like Finland was. That means the 1634-1772 constitutions gave Finland a unique status within Sweden, not given to any other area in the Swedish realm.

https://www.histdoc.net/pdf/regeringsform1772.pdf

The 1772 constitution was in effect in Finland all through the Russian occupation. Finland’s status was not changed in 1809 by Alexander or his successors, but the status quo was preserved in order to avoid a revolt among the Finns who were already used to a degree of autonomy. It was only 70 years later in 1878 when conscription started in Finland but the reform was temporary and the army discontinued in 1901 as a result of the so-called 1st repression. Until the Finnish mark (markka) was introduced, both Swedish and Russian money was in use. Markka became the official money in 1860 only out of necessity: The Russian economy had become unstable due to the Crimean War, and Finland was no more able to redeem its ruble notes with silver.

The Russians did not enjoy the same privileges as the Finns because they didn’t enjoy the same constitution. There was no constitution in Russia at all at the time. Russia invading and occupying the Grand Duchy of Finland in 1809 should not be made to look like an autonomous Finland was born there and then, because Russia wasn't the one who gave Finland its constitutional autonomy. Whatever autonomy there would be, resulted exclusively from the 1772 Swedish constitution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:999:480:6603:7A24:AFFF:FE37:1555 (talk) 02:08, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

The section you refer to mentions that Götaland, Stockholm, and Finland were split into separate judicial districts. I don't see how this makes Finland autonomous; the U.S. is made up of states, as is Germany (not to mention that the U.S. has federal court districts). Australia has territories, etc. None of these subsections would be considered autonomous members of the country they reside in. The constitution did refer to Finland as a grand duchy, as you said, but this alone doesn't imply autonomy in my opinion. It seems to confirm what I said earlier, in that Finland was given an equal status to the rest of Sweden. Yes, this did come with a degree of independence with regard to judicial proceedings, but considering Finland to be an autonomous entity within Sweden due to this fact alone seems invalid, since the constitution also mentions other sections of Sweden that were given similar rights. The sentence "Originating in the 16th century as a titular grand duchy held by the King of Sweden" seems to be completely accurate.

Finland's status most definitely did change in 1809. Prior to this, Finland was an equal part of Sweden, given similar rights as the rest of the country. Beginning in 1809, Finland was treated differently, i.e. it enjoyed privileges not enjoyed by the rest of Russia - as you said yourself. So while the laws that Finland followed didn't change, what did change were the laws that everyone else in the same country were following, i.e. Finland was given autonomy. Betelgeuse X (talk) 00:38, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Are you sure you're qualified to discuss this topic? I mean confusing “hofrätt” with "judicial districts" etc.

Whoever wrote the article, wanted to give the idea that the 1809 Russian occupation had something to do with Finland becoming a grand duchy, but that was not the case.

The happenings in 1809 did not create a new grand duchy or increase autonomy within Finland as Finland merely continued to exist as a grand duchy and function under the already existing 1772 constitutional autonomy. No new legislation was introduced in 1809.

Simply having a new landlord, or a spokesperson does not make the tenant autonomous unless autonomy is already included in the original lease and the lease isn't changed. This was the case in 1809.

You asked if Finland was granted something nobody else in the kingdom of Sweden had, and I answered that Götaland was never recognized as a grand duchy. No other part of Sweden was given the same status as Finland.

Also, since 1623 Finland was governed by the Governor General of Finland, and this too was something that separated it from the rest of Sweden, including Götaland. Nor did any other part of the kingdom have its own diet. (diet = parliament)

The sentence "originating in the 16th century as a titular grand duchy held by the King of Sweden" is false because the term "grand duchy" since 1623 already referred to a self-governing body within Finland, rather than merely to a title in the king's name.

"Similar rights", are not a premise to autonomy, but a separate status is. Since 1623 (at least) the Finns already practiced some fairly substantial authority within Finland:

1. A governor general of Finland ran the country since 1623. Nowhere in Sweden did they have a similar governor.

2. Finland had its own diet since 1615. Nowhere in Sweden did they have a similar separate diet.

3. Finland was the only area within Sweden that was given a status of a grand duchy. No other area of Sweden was given the same.

4. Finland had its own "hofrätt", which of course does not have the same meaning a "court of appeals" has today. Hofrätt meant a state council that took care of most governmental affairs in its administrative area.

The "hofrätt" in Turku "consisted of a president of the state council, 6 knights and 6 other moderate and learned men, as well as their secretaries, notaries and fiscal, who all "worked under and obeyed the rules of the Grand Duchy of Finland and Karelia.” 2001:999:480:6603:7A24:AFFF:FE37:1555 (talk) 18:42, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Well that's funny, because the Swedish Wikipedia page on hovrätt indicates that it's a judicial body. And my point was that Finland's status in the Swedish kingdom could be described as similar to a U.S. state. States in the U.S., in case you aren't aware, enjoy a certain degree of independence. This doesn't make them autonomous entities within the U.S.

"Also, since 1623 Finland was governed by the Governor General of Finland, and this too was something that separated it from the rest of Sweden, including Götaland."

No, not "since 1623", because this wasn't continuous. The page on governor-general in Finland states that "The governor-general of Finland was the military commander and the highest administrator of Finland sporadically under Swedish rule in the 17th and 18th centuries and continuously in the autonomous Grand Duchy of Finland between 1809 and 1917.". Given your lack of understanding of this fact as well as what "hofrätt" actually means (not to mention the concept of autonomy in general), I'd say it's you who isn't qualified to discuss this topic.

"Simply having a new landlord, or a spokesperson does not make the tenant autonomous unless autonomy is already included in the original lease and the lease isn't changed. This was the case in 1809."

How can something so simple be so difficult to comprehend? Autonomy refers to the ability to self-govern. That's it. Under Russia, Finland enjoyed its own set of rights and privileges compared to the rest of the Russian Empire. Finns were under an entirely separate set of laws. This is a textbook definition of what "autonomy" means. Eventually, they also had Finnish citizenship. Their own currency. Their own army. This is the result of autonomy. The fact that the king of Sweden occasionally assigned a governor-general to Finland obviously does not constitute autonomy. Neither does the presence of a diet: U.S. states have their own legislatures, yet obviously aren't considered autonomous, because they all follow the same U.S. constitution. As I keep saying over and over: under Russia, a completely separate system of laws was allocated to Finland that did not apply to the rest of the empire. This is autonomy. Under Sweden, Finland followed the same constitution as the rest of the country. This is not autonomy. Understand? I'm tired of repeating the same simple things over and over. Apparently it's a surprise to you that regions within a country are given certain degrees of independence. This is true everywhere. But there's a fine line between this and actual autonomy, which clearly isn't making sense for you, made apparent by your silly landlord example. Betelgeuse X (talk) 23:04, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

"Hofrätt" meant a state council that took care of most governmental affairs in its administrative area. It definitely did not mean a judicial body. I even detailed it to you in the previous reply. This is not a matter of opinion but a fact.

And no, Finland's status was in no way comparable with the US today, because no federation or federal government existed here at the time.

No greater autonomy was granted to Finland after the Russian occupation in 1809. Thus and because Finland's status as a grand duchy had already been recognized in the 1600's, we cannot write "Finland became an autonomous grand duchy in 1809". This is what has to be changed.

Also the reference to a mere "titular grand duchy" is wrong information and must therefore be corrected.

"No, not "since 1623", because this wasn't continuous."

Yes, since 1623. There were nine (9) governor-generals after 1623, so the post was permanent enough.

Here's a list of the governor-generals since 1623: https://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suomen_kenraalikuvern%C3%B6%C3%B6ri

"Autonomy refers to the ability to self-govern."

Yes, but no greater self-governing power was given to Finland after 1809, because the constitution remained the same since 1772. How many times does one have to repeat this to you?

"Finns were under an entirely separate set of laws."

Those laws were not made by Alexander I, but the king of Sweden. If you occupy a country, but don't introduce a new constitution or legislation, no autonomy can be born there and then in the first place. Therefore, if we insist on using the word "autonomous", we must write "Finland remained an autonomous grand duchy after 1809 as well".

"Under Russia, Finland enjoyed its own set of rights and privileges compared to the rest of the Russian Empire."

Because there was no constitution at all in Russia at the time. Still, everything that happened in Finland between 1809 and 1917, was decided by the emperor of Russia. The situation was EXACTLY the same as it had been before 1809. The language of the ruler had changed and therefore new administrative officials were needed, but this did not bring along any new opportunities to make autonomous decisions on the interior policies for example.

"Eventually, they also had Finnish citizenship."

No, they didn't. Nationality was introduced in the Finnish constitution only as late as 1919.

"Their own currency."

No. Markka became the currency only 50 years later in 1860 when the Russian economy collapsed and Finland was no more able to redeem its ruble notes with silver.

"Their own army."

No. No own army. The 1878 conscription reform in Finland was temporary and the army discontinued in 1901.

"The fact that the king of Sweden occasionally assigned a governor-general to Finland"

The post of a governor-general was introduced by the Swedish constitution, and a more or less permanent governor-general functioned in Finland since 1623.

You still don't seem to understand that there would not have been ANY governor-generals EVER in Finland without the Swedish constitution.

"Under Russia, a completely separate system of laws was allocated to Finland"

No. No new laws were allocated to Finland by the Russian emperor. None whatsoever.

No more autonomy was given to Finland in 1809 than it previously had had.

You really should step aside, because you are unable to judge this topic from a neutral and objective view point and we're getting nowhere going through the things I've already covered again and again. 2001:999:231:5915:BCFA:CFA8:ACEB:77F7 (talk) 19:35, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

""Hofrätt" meant a state council that took care of most governmental affairs in its administrative area. It definitely did not mean a judicial body. I even detailed it to you in the previous reply. This is not a matter of opinion but a fact."

Clearly you're wrong, because the page on hofrätt indicates otherwise.

"And no, Finland's status was in no way comparable with the US today, because no federation or federal government existed here at the time."

Right, because U.S. states enjoy more independence than Finland did under Sweden. And even U.S. states obviously aren't considered autonomous.

"No greater autonomy was granted to Finland after the Russian occupation in 1809. Thus and because Finland's status as a grand duchy had already been recognized in the 1600's, we cannot write "Finland became an autonomous grand duchy in 1809". This is what has to be changed."

I'd say it's obvious at this point that you simply don't understand the requisite terminology needed to engage in this discussion. Here's the definition of autonomy: "the right or condition of self-government". That's it. Nothing to do with "previous status" or any other irrelevant topics you keep suggesting. The fact that Finland was occasionally granted a governor-general did not make it autonomous. It operated under the same laws as the rest of Sweden.

"Yes, but no greater self-governing power was given to Finland after 1809, because the constitution remained the same since 1772. How many times does one have to repeat this to you?"

Again, simple concepts are proving too difficult for you to understand. Maybe this might help: A color-coded map of laws that Finland followed, prior to 1809, would apply to all of Sweden (Finland included). No autonomy there. Beginning in 1809, only Finland would be included. Because Finland was autonomous. As much as you try to convince yourself otherwise, Finland did not enjoy autonomy under Sweden.

"The situation was EXACTLY the same as it had been before 1809"

Good God, NO IT WAS NOT. Operating under its own set of laws is obviously NOT the same as operating under the same set of laws as the rest of country - as was the case with Sweden. It's amazing that you can't figure this out.

"No, they didn't. Nationality was introduced in the Finnish constitution only as late as 1919."

Wrong, again.

"§12. Finnish citizens. A special legal status, and even a privileged one, is enjoyed by Finnish citizens, i.e., persons who have the right of citizenship in the Grand Duchy of Finland. When being on the territory of the Empire, they enjoy all the natural rights of Russian subjects, at the same time the Russian subjects in Finland do not enjoy the same rights: they do not have the rights of public service, the right to participate in the community, city and sejm elections; Russian nobles are not equal to Finnish noblemen, and the acquisition of the Finnish citizenship by Russian noblemen is under rather constraining conditions." - "The state system and administration in the Russian Empire" by Gribovsky. Odessa. 1912.

You then proceed to say that Finland did eventually get its own currency and army, exactly as I said in my previous post. Or maybe you missed the part where I said "eventually". Try reading it again.

"Yes, since 1623. There were nine (9) governor-generals after 1623, so the post was permanent enough."

Huh? "Permanent enough"?? It's obvious that Finland was not even close to being an autonomous entity if Stockholm occasionally granted, at its whim, a governor-general to Finland. Something that actually was permanent starting in 1809.

"No more autonomy was given to Finland in 1809 than it previously had had."

Finland was not autonomous under Sweden. The fact that you don't understand this is not my problem. And I'm not going to waste anymore time explaining this to you.

"You really should step aside, because you are unable to judge this topic from a neutral and objective view point and we're getting nowhere going through the things I've already covered again and again"

I'm starting to think that you're trolling here. You obviously aren't qualified to discuss the topic in the first place, given: your inability to grasp basic concepts such as "autonomy", your lack of understanding regarding Finnish citizenship under Russia, your insistence that a period of governor-generals allocated to Finland with major gaps in between successors is somehow "permanent enough", your repeated comments on hofrätt, etc. You then make silly comments about "qualifications" and "stepping aside". All this from someone who doesn't even have a username. You've done more to prove the very thing that you're arguing against when you point out that Finland under Russia did eventually have its own currency, its own army - and yes, citizenship. Feel free to take your own advice and step aside. This conversation has run its course. Betelgeuse X (talk) 12:43, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

This seems a strange discussion, because the 1772 constitution is quite clear in the matter of 'Hofrätt'. It is definitely a judicial body: "§ 15. - - - Thesse höge Domstolar äga hvar å sin ort hafva upsigt och vård, at Lag och rätt försvarligen och väl skipas, efter Sveriges beskrefne Lag, Stadgar och Förordingar, hvilka, utan vrängande, efter rätta ordaförståndet måste i akttagas, samt vid dömandet följas; - - - Thesse Hofrätter skola hädanefter, som hittils, trenne vara: then förste i Stockholm, under hvilken lyder hela Svea Rike, thet så egenteligen i gamle Lagen kalladt; then andre är altid uti Jönköping, och under thenna hörer hela Götha Rike; samt then tredie, som i Åbo har sit säte, hvarunder Stor-Furstendömet Finland hörer." 'Höge Domstolar' are High courts of law. The three courts cover the whole of Sweden proper (not the German provinces), which is divided in three areas: Svea rike, Götha rike and storfurstendömet Finland. Obviously Svea and Götha "rike" are not any real states within Sweden, and the same goes for Finland as well. They are used as geographic entities only.

The peace treaty of Hamina between Sweden and Russia (1809) did not mention any "Grand Duchy of Finland". Instead, it lists "les Gouvernemens" of Sweden, which the king of Sweden gracefully gives over to the emperor of all Russians: "Sa Majesté le Roi de Suède tant pour Elle que pour Ses Successeurs au Thrône et au Royaume de Suède rénonce irrévocablement et à perpétuité, en faveur de Sa Majesté l'Empereur de toutes les Russies et de Ses successeurs au Thrône et à l'Empire de Russie, à tous Ses drois et titres sur les Gouvernemens ci-après spécifiés, qui ont été conquis par les armes de Sa Majesté Impériale dans la présente guerre sur la Couronne de Suède, savoir les Gouvernemens de Kymenegård, de Nyland et Tavastehus, d'Åbo et Björneborg avec les isles d'Åland, de Savolax et Carelia, de Wasa, d'Uleåborg et de la partie de Vestrobothnie jusqu'à la rivière de Torneå, comme il sera fixé dans l'article svivant sur la démarcation des frontières.

Ces Gouvernemens avec tous les habitans, villes, ports, forteresses, villages et îles, ainsi que les dépendances, prérogatives, droits et émolumens, appartiendront désormais en toute proprieté et Souveraineté à l'Empire de Russie, et Lui restent incorporés."

The title of "Stor-Fursten" of Finland is a small detail, which is just found useful for pacification of and governing the newly conquered land areas and new subjects. And of course it adds a nice little thing in the already long list of titles of the Emperor of All Russians. (Jouko Törmä) 91.154.77.25 (talk) 18:18, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

All the constitutions of Sweden since 1634 mention the Grand Duchy of Finland and Alexander I, too, in his March 28, 1809 declaration states...

"That, Providence having placed Us in possession of the Grand Duchy of Finland, We have desired hereby to confirm and ratify the Religion and the Fundamental Laws of the Land as well as the privileges and rights which each class in the said Grand Duchy in particular, and all the inhabitants in general, be their position high or low, have hitherto enjoyed according to the Constitution. We promise to maintain all these benefits and laws firm and unshakeable in their full force."

https://www.histdoc.net/history/alex1.html

Any grown-up realizes Alexander doesn't claim the Grand Duchy was born there and then but that the already existing Grand Duchy was only "placed in their possession".

Hofrätt in the 1800's meant an administrative body. Not only a judicial body like today. 2001:99A:200A:E800:DC95:E83A:FA97:D817 (talk) 22:15, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:999:60C:3E00:7A24:AFFF:FE37:1555 (talk) 14:26, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

The term "hofrätt" then meant an administrative body, not merely a judicial body like these days. How many times did I already explain this to you?

"the U.S. states enjoy more independence than Finland did under Sweden."

Did you forget Finland didn't enjoy more autonomy under the Russian rule than it did under the Swedish rule?

-> The transition from Swedish rule to part of the Russian Empire did not change the political-administrative structures in Finland.

There you have it in writing and that is why we cannot write "Finland became an autonomous grand duchy only in 1809".

"Here's the definition of autonomy: "the right or condition of self-government".

Yes and no more autonomy was introduced in Finland after the Russian occupation in 1809.

"The fact that Finland was occasionally granted a governor-general did not make it autonomous."

Why then do you claim that Finland all of a sudden became an autonomous grand duchy in 1809?

"It operated under the same laws as the rest of Sweden."

Did you forget Finland operated under those same Swedish laws all through the Russian occupation from 1809 to 1917?

The paradox is in your very own reasoning and understanding.

"A color-coded map of laws that Finland followed, prior to 1809, would apply to all of Sweden (Finland included). No autonomy there. Beginning in 1809, only Finland would be included. Because Finland was autonomous."

Your problem is that you're fighting against the basic reality: The amount of autonomy in Finland did not increase after the 1809 Russian occupation even if the ruler changed. I already explained you all of that.

"Operating under its own set of laws is obviously NOT the same as operating under the same set of laws as the rest of country as was the case with Sweden."

Your reasoning requires a self-governing body to make sense, but there was no such thing in Finland after 1809 either.

On the other hand, if we consider the Diet and Hofrätter self-governing bodies, then the same amount of autonomy existed already during the Swedish era.

The laws were EXACTLY the same as they had been before 1809, i.e. no Finnish government was established in Finland after the Russian occupation in 1809.

For your logic to work, we need a government to perform its tasks autonomously. Yet everything that happened in Finland after 1809 was decided by the Russian Emperor through his governors.

"No, they didn't. Nationality was introduced in the Finnish constitution only as late as 1919."

"§12. Finnish citizens."

The above does not refer to nationality at all, but to the Finnish speaking population living in the Grand Duchy. Nationality was introduced in the Finnish constitution only as late as 1919.

You must be incredibly naive to think there weren't Finnish citizens living in Finland already during the Swedish era.

"You then proceed to say that Finland did eventually get its own currency and army."

I already explained to you Finland didn't get its own currency thanks to an increase in Finland's autonomy. That was what you tried to prove with your point.

As to an "autonomous" Finnish army, there never was such a thing in the Grand Duchy during the Swedish or Russian eras.

If you think the existence of a governor-general was a measure of autonomy, then you just have to accept the same autonomy existed already during the Swedish era.

"Finland was not autonomous under Sweden."

Finland was no more autonomous under the Russian rule and that is why we cannot write "Finland became autonomous only in 1809".

All along you have presented anything but neutral points of view and your childish reference to an unverified Russian document trying to disprove the known Finnish laws and constitution is especially revealing.

I don't think you should edit Wikipedia in the first place, because you clearly have a strong ideological pro-Russian stance as the motive behind your reasoning. 2001:999:60C:3E00:7A24:AFFF:FE37:1555 (talk) 16:37, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

You're repeating the same rambling nonsense that we already went over. The fact that you choose to ignore reality is not my problem. You consider anything that doesn't fit your viewpoint to be "unverified documents" or a "pro-Russian stance".

Fortunately, Wikipedia is not a place for original research, and actual historians do indeed state that the Grand Duchy of Finland was formed in 1809. Betelgeuse X (talk) 11:46, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Nobody is interested in your Russian fairytales and unverified claims. -> "The transition from Swedish rule to part of the Russian Empire did not change the political-administrative structures in Finland... The structures of the Finnish administration have long historical roots. The central bureaus of Gustav II Aadolf and Axel Oxenstierna have been role models for Finnish central bureaus as well. This peculiarity of Swedish origin remained in Finland's administration as a central agency system until the 1990s..." (Quotes from a study from Hki Uni)

1. No Finnish nationality existed in the grand duchy in 1809-1917.

2. No historian has stated that the Grand Duchy of Finland was formed in 1809, because it existed already earlier. No new constitution or form of government was established in 1809 but the already existing constitution and form of government from 1772 merely remained in effect, until 1917. No more autonomy was granted to Finland by any of the Russian emperors. In 1809 nothing but the grand duke changed.

I'm inviting an educated, unbiased moderator to participate in editing the article, because your knowledge is too limited even for discussing the topic from a neutral point of view. So, off you go.

For those interested, a link to a map of Grand Duchy of Finland (Magnus Ducatus Finlandiae) from 1662. https://www.doria.fi/bitstream/handle/10024/123066/Magnus_Ducatus_Finlandiae.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:999:60C:3E00:7A24:AFFF:FE37:1555 (talk) 02:35, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

"No historian has stated that the Grand Duchy of Finland was formed in 1809, because it existed already earlier."

Funny how this article already has a source stating that the Grand Duchy of Finland existed from 1809-1917.

Again, I won't respond to the rest of your comment as all you do is repeat the same nonsense over and over while throwing out silly insults. Betelgeuse X (talk) 05:39, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

The article states the Grand Duchy "existed between 1809 and 1917 as an autonomous state within the Russian Empire", which has an entirely different meaning.

No serious historian could claim the Grand Duchy of Finland was formed or existed only since 1809 as no new form of government was introduced in Finland in 1809. In his speech Alexander I "took the Grand Duchy of Finland under our governance" so he too recognized its previous existence.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Me_Alexander_I_-_Suuri_Ruhtinas_Suomen_maasa.jpg The earlier existence must be added to the article as the misinterpretation has spread wide.

"Again, I won't respond to the rest of your comment..."

Try to understand that you shouldn't have taken part in this "conversation" in the first place.

2001:99A:200A:E800:5477:CEA6:CA68:A989 (talk) 16:21, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Finland in WW1

This article could say more about Finnish participation in WW1. Currently the only reference to to "unrest" caused by WW1 precipitating Finnish independence. Were Finns conscripted into the Russian armed forces, etc? McPhail (talk) 10:38, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Finns were exempt from conscription. Betelgeuse X (talk) 19:25, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Wording

@Dresson354: This is not an improvement in the wording. Same with this. "Under Russian Empire's reign" is awkward wording. You are not only doing this on this article but across a range of other articles along with changes such as "full independence" rather than simply "independence". Mellk (talk) 23:30, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Seconded regarding "full independence". I've seen edits in several articles adding that silly phrase. Betelgeuse X (talk) 17:37, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

@Betelgeuse X Please don't blame and think that "Full independence" is my invention. The dependency of Grand Duchy varied across the 19th century, but most moments it could be classified as "semi-independent", please note semi independent doesn't mean independent, it means some degree of independence eg. autonomy etc, and Grand Duchy did have high autonomy. So after 1917 nation became fully independent. I don't get why you're critiquing.

You would want to argue that it didn't become a fully independent in 1917? Dresson354 (talk) 22:37, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

@Dresson354 A country either is or is not independent. Yes, Finland had a certain degree of autonomy within the Russian Empire, but it was still part of the Russian Empire. In other words, not independent. Betelgeuse X (talk) 05:04, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

@Betelgeuse X I must disagree with you, there are semi independent countries even today, for example Taiwan or Scotland. The position of Grand Duchy of Finland was similar. It had not only "some degree of autonomy" but full autonomy and identity.

The Grand Duke and Emperor of Russia officially ruled Russian Empire and Grand Duchy, which was also recognized as separate entity with own borders and border guards for example. The fact that later the special status of Finland began to shrink is true, however most of the time the country's special status remained with high self governing status.

I don't claim that Grand Duchy of Finland was independent, no it was not. It was still under Emperor's crown. But term semi independent in this matter is correct and used not only by me.

I highly recommend to check more about history of Grand Duchy, to understand it's status. Dresson354 (talk) 11:39, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

@Dresson354 Scotland is not an independent country, hence why they had referendum on independence ten years ago. Taiwan on the other hand is independent, regardless of what China thinks. Or so you suggest that Ukraine is not an independent country due to Russia's stance?

If you have reliable sources stating that Finland achieved "full independence" in 1917 then please list them. Wikipedia does not allow original research after all. Betelgeuse X (talk) 04:57, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

First of all, I never claimed Scotland being independent country. Please read through my last message more carefully. Yes, Scotland might be a bad comparison, but Taiwan is a semi-independent country. The fact that Grand Duchy of Finland existed as separate entity is completely true.

With wording "completely free", "fully independent" it's underlining special status of Grand Duchy.

Here's official document of Finnish parliament. Yes it doesn't state exact wording that I wrote, but for example it says "completely free".

[2]https://histdoc.net/history/itsjul.html

Please also do read more about Finland's status as Grand Duchy:

[3]https://www.britannica.com/topic/history-of-Finland#ref360103

What's semi-independent:

[4]https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/semi-independent

Although most sources do't include word "fully" before "independent" for practical reasons, it doesn't wipe the fact that Grand Duchy of Finland was a semi-independent nation. Dresson354 (talk) 11:59, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

@Dresson354 You said that Scotland is "semi-independent". It's part of the United Kingdom and therefore not independent, "semi" or otherwise.

Taiwan hasn't formally declared independence as you pointed out. But they are de facto independent, and act like it. The same cannot be said about the Grand Duchy of Finland. The Governor-General was subordinate to the Russian emperor. Some even lived in St Petersburg as far as I'm aware. Nothing similar applies to Taiwan's relationship with China. Taiwan's leadership is entirely independent and China has no control over it.

Finland's place in the Russian Empire was not disputed. Yes, it had autonomy, but it was part of the Russian Empire - ruled by Russia - and therefore not independent. Terms like "semi-independent" and "full independence" are ambiguous and silly, hence why you haven't found any sources stating that "full independence" was attained by Finland in 1917. Nothing to do with "being practical" as you put it. Betelgeuse X (talk) 10:15, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

@Betelgeuse X With the logic what you say about Grand Duchy of Finland, then Taiwan is not independent and is direct part of China. That's obviously not true.

Again, please check the history of Grand Duchy and I would like to ask to not compare words independent and semi-independent. Word semi-independent is widely used and not "silly". Unfortunately your comments seem to prove that you haven't read much about what Grand Duchy of Finland was. You are speaking about Grand Duchy like it was some region, but in reality it was far from "some region". Finland had own government that functioned "semi-independently", yes the government had some degree of independence. The Governor General was a persona whose task was to control the government's decisions, however again, the independent decisions were made often due to country's special status. And that Governor General was directly affiliated with the Emperor under whose "protection" Grand Duchy was. The status of Finland wasn't stable, but mostly it acted and functioned as separate entity apart of "big" decisions that were made by the Emperor. So already at that time Finland had most factors of an independent nation. I don't argue about the fact that Russian Empire wanted to fully annex Finland and also did some steps to achieve its goals. And I don't argue that Russian Emperor was the head of state.

If you haven't yet, please read through these links, they explain about Grand Duchy better than I do.

[5]https://www.swedishfinnhistoricalsociety.org/grand-duchy-of-finland-1809-1917/

[6]https://www.britannica.com/topic/history-of-Finland#ref360103

I already provided enough sources to prove my words about Grand Duchy, and I am actually fine now with word "independent" without "fully", but your claims about Grand Duchy of Finland are totally wrong. Dresson354 (talk) 14:54, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

@Betelgeuse X Sorry, small correction, I wanted to say "So please don't think that I am not agreeing with all, but unfortunately I can't agree with many things you said." instead of "So please do think that I am not trying to agree with you, but unfortunately I can't." Dresson354 (talk) 14:58, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

@Betelgeuse X So, you are right that most sources don't say "fully independent", but your claims about Grand Duchy of Finland's status are not true. Dresson354 (talk) 12:04, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

@Betelgeuse X Also answering your thing about Ukraine, Ukraine is fully independent nation. But Taiwan isn't independent, because it haven't yet declared it's independence from China. Dresson354 (talk) 12:18, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

The whole idea is false. Finland had no more legislative independence or autonomy under the Russian rule, than it had had during the Swedish rule. The 1772 Swedish constitution as such was in effect in Finland all through the 1800's. 2001:99A:200A:E800:5477:CEA6:CA68:A989 (talk) 16:55, 13 October 2024 (UTC)