In a previous issue of Scandia (2019:2), historian Liesbeth Geevers argued that "new dynastic history" has emerged as a field within the discipline of history. This article elaborates on some of her suggestions discussing the fraternal conflicts in Sweden in the 1560s from the perspectives of dynastic centralisation and "the problem of the spare". The conflicts between Erik XIV and his brothers, Duke Johan and Duke Karl, in the early 1560s and the rise of the dukes in 1568 are mainly studied through printed source material in the form of public speeches, libels and accusations exchanged between the brothers. The article argues that the conflicts and accusations exchanged between the brothers were part of dynasty formation processes. Erik XIV worked towards dynastic centralisation and sought to obliterate the ambiguous status granted to the dukes as royal spares, thereby asserting his view of the common ground that should form the basis for the joint project of dynasty. However, the ambiguity of the ducal roles resulted in the emergence of multiple dynastic projects rather than a single joint project. There was a divergence in the common ground, expressed through the brothers' accusations of disregarded fraternal expectations, obligations and rights. Erik XIV's construction of a centralised dynasty with himself as coordinator turned into an increasingly difficult task, especially as he acted as an older brother and as various coexisting norm systems could be invoked to support his brothers' dynastic claims. The king turned dynasty and state formation into a joint enterprise whereas the dukes increasingly turned to "the social order" in order to gain support from the nobility, legitimise their claims and delegitimise those of Erik XIV. The king was presented as a tyrant working towards the breakdown of the social and dynastic order they wished to uphold with reference to hereditary, patrimonial and patrilineal rights. The implications of publicly accusing the opposite party of not having lived up to the expectations or fulfilled the obligations of a brother was a question of dynasty formation, yet also tied to processes of state formation. From such a perspective, the regime shift in 1568 can be seen as a dynastic shift, building a common ground for a brief period enabling the joint project and coordination of dynasty. However, subsequent developments in the sixteenth century demonstrate that the problem of the spare continued to haunt the formation of one dynasty.
