I am currently writing a thesis at Uppsala University in church history, under the supervision of Professor Magnus Lundberg, about the rather peculiar Order Bishop, an official within the Royal Orders of Knighthood in Sweden, and its portrayal by Swedish press during the 19th century. Here is an extended version of the background chapter.
What is an Order Bishop?
The prefix in the title “Order Bishop” (in Swedish ordensbiskop) hints at the office’s particular circumstances — but what exactly is an order? An order is originally a term for an association that has chosen to submit itself to special rules and obligations, such as religious monastic orders like the Franciscan Order or the Bridgettine Order. As a consequence of the religious revival of the Crusades, chivalric orders emerged in medieval Europe, combining religious orders with the secular institution of knighthood. An example of a chivalric order is the still-existing Order of Malta. Over time, rulers found it advantageous to use order decorations — that is, the visible insignia of membership in an order — as rewards for various merits. Awarding a cross that could be worn publicly became a cheaper form of reward than distributing, for example, landed estates and pensions, but conferred at least as much status. This is the foundation of today’s orders.
In Sweden, Johan II had already distributed orders at his coronation in 1497. Erik XIV then founded the Order of the Saviour in 1561, Johan III the Agnus Dei Order in 1578, Karl IX the Jehovah Order in 1606, Queen Christina the Amaranth Order in 1653, and Karl X Gustav the Order of the Name of Jesus in 1656. These orders did not, however, outlive their founders. During the first half of the eighteenth century, proposals were raised to seriously establish a system of orders in Sweden.
In 1748, Fredrik I founded the Order of the Seraphim, the Order of the Sword, and the Order of the North Star. Gustav III then founded the Order of Vasa in 1772. Kungl. Maj:ts Orden (The Royal Orders of Sweden) is the organisation, with its associated chapter and chancellery, responsible for the Swedish orders.
The orders founded in 1748 were merit orders with the purpose, according to their original statutes, “to be able to commemorate virtue, loyalty, and honest service with reward” and “to honour Virtue, Manhood, Genius, Knowledge, and Merits towards Sovereign and Fatherland.” Knights were moreover to “voluntarily undertake supervision of hospitals and poorhouses.”
According to the statutes, knights of the Order of the Seraphim were to be invested on 17 April, later changed to 28 April, the birthday of King Fredrik I. On that day, a service was held in the Riddarholm Church or the Palace Chapel. There, the King’s Chief Court Chaplain preached to the newly invested knights about their duties and delivered memorial addresses for deceased knights.
In the 1751 statutes, the Chief Court Chaplain’s position as officiant at the Order of the Seraphim was formalised, stipulating that “His Majesty’s Chief Court Chaplain shall always simultaneously be the Order’s Preacher, and shall, as a sign thereof, wear a smaller Seraphim Cross hanging from a Gold chain around his Neck.”
In 1783, Gustav III established the office of Order Bishop. The origin of the office was connected to the king’s personality and political ambitions. Gustav III found the nobility an obstacle to expanding his power through the political influence they still exercised. The king desired a court nobility without political standing. Gustav III also sought to bind the clergy closer to himself, so that their political position would likewise be weakened. At the same time, the theatrical king had a great love of ceremony, including religious ceremony, and believed that a royal highness ought to be surrounded by magnificence and splendour. Gustav III personally directed elaborate ceremonies, and the king had also shown interest in the vestments of priests and bishops. For example, the bishops’ mitre came back into use during Gustav III’s time, despite some irritation among the clergy, as the practice was considered contrary to the prevailing church order. All of this illuminates a tendency in Gustav III, namely to emphasise solemnities with a large number of officiating priests and bishops. Gustav III also harboured a strong interest in the order system, since it cast glory upon both the court and the king. As Grand Master of the orders, the theatrically inclined king stood at the centre of this spectacle. The gravity and solemn character of this spectacle would naturally be enhanced further if the foremost spiritual officiant were a bishop rather than a mere court chaplain — which is what gave the king the idea of creating an Order Bishop’s office.
Gustav III was not afraid to use the forms of the Church for his own ends, and argues that the king felt little bound by legal forms in matters of church offices. The king did not hesitate to appoint C. E. Taube — during his earliest years as a priest — as Chief Court Chaplain, parish priest, and pastor primarius in Stockholm. Taube would eventually become the first person appointed as Order Bishop.
In September 1783, Gustav III was about to begin his Italian journey. During the king’s absence, however, two Order Days were to fall, and so the king sent letters to various individuals with instructions they were to carry out in connection with the celebration of those days. Bishop von Troil was, among other things, requested to preach at the great Order Day, provided he had not been succeeded by a new Order Preacher. The day before his departure, the king had been occupied with drafting a plan regarding a change to the status of the Order Preacher. In a dictation signed by the king, it is stated “that the Order Preacher shall henceforth be called Order Bishop, be consecrated as such, and enjoy the same standing and dignity as the other Bishops of the Realm.” In a letter from the same occasion, the king declared that “[s]ince I have on this date ordained that an Order Bishop is to be appointed, I hereby appoint to this office my current Chief Court Chaplain Baron Carl Edvard Taube.” Taube also followed the king on his journey to Italy (the header image is a painting by Desprez from Gustav III’s visit to St. Peter’s Basilica – Taube should also be in the painting). The letter concludes by stating that “concerning his consecration in the customary manner, an order will be sent to the Archbishop.” The appointment was made public two months later, during a regular meeting of the Order Chapter, at which Taube also received the insignia of the Order of the Seraphim. Taube had thereby obtained his place as officiant in the Order Chapter, the orders’ highest governing body — but a bishop’s consecration still remained.
In a letter to Archbishop Mennander, Gustav III ordered the Archbishop to consecrate the Order Bishop according to “the Church’s customary ceremonies.” The king had previously wished to establish a Diocese of Stockholm for Taube, which Mennander had opposed. Gustav III, in order to circumvent the Archbishop, had therefore created the Order Bishop’s office. In December 1783, Taube’s consecration as bishop took place in Uppsala Cathedral. Archbishop Mennander’s address at the consecration was a “subtle and fearless” comparison between the state of the Church during the Middle Ages and the present day. Mennander clearly expressed his disapproval. Below is Mennander’s address as it was recounted by Axel von Fersen the Elder:
The Archbishop had, among other things, remarked that during the Middle Ages “there were created many bishops, who were chosen from among the most distinguished of the nobility, who, according to the Roman Catholic church’s system, let their duty consist in pomp and outward honour, the usurpation of property, splendid ceremonies at the altar, and, under the protection of the cope, seizing power in the Realm, sowing discord and war between kings and their subjects, wielding the sceptre in the regent’s hand unsteadily and rendering its effect powerless.” But since the time of Gustav Vasa, the Swedish clergy had preserved the calm, the simplicity, and the unity that characterises and must always characterise their estate. It had always endeavoured to awaken in the congregation love for God and king. “This duty is, according to our confession of faith, that which falls particularly upon a bishop.”
The Order Bishop wore at the order’s services a special vestment including a mitre and cope, both decorated with the insignia of the Order of the Seraphim — seraph heads and patriarchal crosses. The grand order badge was worn on a ribbon around the neck or on a gold chain. For a time, the Order Bishop also wore a golden cross around the neck, in the manner of other bishops. According to the Dean Wåhlin, it was Order Bishop Murray who had begged for this at his consecration, along with a pectoral cross. This cross was subsequently worn by those Order Bishops who were not also diocesan bishops.
In total, nine Order Bishops were appointed between 1783 and 1880. Four of these were consecrated to the office — Taube, and also Flodin, Murray, and Wallin. Flodin was consecrated at Storkyrkan in Stockholm in March 1795, Murray in December 1810, and Wallin in March 1824. Of their respective consecrations, no more detailed accounts have been found. Four Order Bishops were already consecrated diocesan bishops at the time of their appointment — Benzelstierna, Agardh, Heurlin, and Annerstedt. The last appointed Order Bishop, Grafström, was as is known never consecrated — this we shall return to. Two Order Bishops, Murray and Wallin, were later appointed to ordinary bishoprics (in Wallin’s case, even to Archbishop), without receiving any new consecration.
At a bishop’s consecration, a letter of appointment was to be read aloud. At least Taube, Flodin, and Murray received letters of appointment issued in the same manner as those for diocesan bishops. Church law prescribed that the ordinandus — the appointed bishop — after the letter had been read, was then to swear an oath at the bishop’s consecration. The oath taken by the Order Bishop differed markedly from that of a diocesan bishop. The oath, with only minor changes, is the same as the oath taken by Seraphim knights at their investiture — even though the Order Bishop was in a strict sense only an officiant in the order. The oath taken by other officials at the Order Chapter was moreover entirely different from that of the knights. The blending of the ecclesiastical and the order-related is characteristic of the Order Bishop’s position, and is expressed here. At the consecration — an ecclesiastical act — the Order Bishop swears an oath that is purely order-oriented. This oath reads:
I — — — promise and swear before God and His holy Gospel, that I will and shall hold the pure Evangelical-Lutheran Faith and doctrine in reverence, be loyal and faithful to my King and Realm, guard Their and the Realm’s best interests, and promote that which is beneficial, resist injustice, and uphold peace and right. I shall also have care for the sick; comfort with the Lord’s word the afflicted; protect orphans, widows, and the poor, visit hospitals and poorhouses, and, according to the call of this Bishopric, guard their interests. I shall also, to the best of my knowledge, observe the Statutes that are prescribed to me. So help me God.
Among the Order Bishop’s duties was, as already mentioned, to preach at the great Order Day. The order’s statutes have little to say about the form of the service, but some other accounts have survived. For example, an order of the service’s various elements, dated to sometime between 1783 and 1798. The Order Bishop’s task was to deliver the sermon, but it is not clear from this source which other elements of the service, beyond the benediction, fell to him. An account of the 1785 service suggests that the Order Bishop had a passive role at the altar. Another account describes the Order Bishop carrying the royal sword to the altar before the investiture of new knights. The surviving order sermons’ content was shaped by the order statutes’ prescriptions concerning duty towards God, the king, and the fatherland — the undeniable purpose of the order service was that the knights should reflect upon their obligations to these. After 1832, order services ceased to be held. No explanation for why they were discontinued emerges from the sources. In addition to the services, the Order Bishop delivered memorial addresses for deceased Seraphim knights. Knights also had the option of choosing a special Seraphim funeral, which entailed a particular ceremonial — as well as costs. Such Seraphim funerals were rare and quickly fell out of use. The last was probably the funeral of Axel von Fersen the Elder in 1794.
Among the Order Bishop’s further duties was also the obligation to oversee hospitals and orphanages (before the Medical Board and the Board of Health assumed responsibility, it was the Order of the Seraphim, and later the Seraphim Order Guild, that was charged with caring for the sick and the poor in Sweden). The creation of order dignities for clergymen, as well as the establishment of the Order Bishop’s office, had aroused discontent, and that the Order Bishop’s supervision of the clergy who ran the Order of the Seraphim’s hospitals and orphanages gave the Order Bishop’s office at least an apparent connection to church law.
What function did the Order Bishops serve once both the order services had ceased and the Seraphim funerals had fallen out of use? In the later period of the office’s existence, the Order Bishops are reported to have only attended meetings of the Order Chapter, and at certain times not even that. The Order Chapter’s minutes from 1852 to 1880 do not record the Order Bishop’s presence at any chapter meeting at all. The Order Bishop had received an annual stipend — from 1825 this was 150 riksdaler — but in 1860 it was decided that the stipend should cease, on the grounds that “in recent times the duty of service has been called upon only very seldom and is also not likely to be frequently required henceforth.” Instead, the Order Bishop was henceforth to receive a fee for each occasion on which he served.
We should also briefly examine the Order Bishops’ right of ordination, that is, the right to ordain priests. There are two known instances in which ordination was performed by an Order Bishop. Taube, acting in his capacity as Order Bishop, conducted a priestly ordination in 1783 for the Diocese of Linköping, only a couple of weeks after his own consecration, while Wallin ordained four candidates for priesthood for the Diocese of Västerås in 1825. In both cases, practical circumstances appear to have been the deciding factor. Bishops without a diocese did not exist in Swedish church law, but that another bishop could be asked by a cathedral chapter to ordain during a vacancy. The Order Bishop was, after all, consecrated like other bishops, but was not the head of a diocese.
When the Chief Court Chaplain and parish priest Grafström was appointed Order Bishop by Oscar II in 1880, he did not receive a bishop’s cross. He would not receive one until the king had spoken with the Archbishop, “for Dr. Grafström ought first to be consecrated as a Bishop by the latter, before he is considered to have the right to wear a Bishop’s cross.” Grafström was, however, never consecrated as a bishop by Archbishop Anton Niklas Sundberg. It was therefore the king himself who hung the bishop’s cross around Grafström’s neck, whereupon he took his place in the Order Chapter. So why did Archbishop Anton Niklas Sundberg refuse to consecrate Grafström?
Even when Grafström had been appointed Order Bishop, the Bishop of Linköping, E. G. Bring, had sent a letter to the Archbishop sharing his thoughts on the appointment:
“A bishop’s office and episcopal consecration on the basis of an appointment in an order chapter! This is, from an ecclesiastical standpoint, an utter nonsense and an absurdity so great that I would never have been able to conceive of it as a possibility, had I not believed myself to know that former Order Bishops, e.g. Wallin, were actually consecrated as bishops and subsequently on one occasion or another performed episcopal acts, e.g. the ordination of priests. But even if this occurred in the past, it need not therefore occur now. To use the current ritual for episcopal consecration at such a consecration would be meaningless and therefore verging on a farce? If, on the other hand, the ritual were to be altered, then precisely that which is essential within it would have to be removed — that is, precisely that which makes the act a bishop’s consecration — and then such an act would again be without meaning.”
What Sundberg replied to Bring is not known, but it is probable that Bring’s letter influenced his position. The Archbishop had been associated with what was called “the great faculty” in Lund. Among the representatives there was the aforementioned Bring, who was a professor of pastoral theology. The two had also worked together on Svensk Kyrkotidning. This friendship could be a contributing factor. Grafström submitted his own letter to the Archbishop requesting, with reference to Gustaf III’s letter to Archbishop Mennander in 1783, to be consecrated as a bishop. The response was that Archbishop Sundberg refused to consecrate Grafström. Grafström then turned to the Bishop of Karlstad, Rundgren, and asked him instead to perform the consecration. To encourage the bishop, Grafström had sent him a memorandum from Marshal of the Realm Sparre, which showed that previous Order Bishops who had not been bishops had always been consecrated, and that Order Bishops who had later been given a diocese had not been reconsecrated. Rundgren did not wish to decide the matter himself and wrote to the Archbishop. Sundberg explained his refusal in his reply to Rundgren, but indicated at the same time that he would not be displeased if Rundgren, having taken note of the reasons for the refusal, nevertheless consecrated Grafström. Rundgren, however, deferred to Archbishop Sundberg’s view. In the letter to Rundgren, Sundberg suspected Grafström of holding “an Anglican view” of the episcopal office (which was actually the prevailing view in Sweden at the time), namely “a genuine ordination in the same sense as ordination to the priesthood,” whereas Sundberg himself regarded episcopal consecration as an installation — “an installation into a real, not nominal, episcopal office.” Gustaf III’s letter to Mennander, Sundberg did not regard as a general regulation with binding force. The order statutes’ prescriptions that the Order Bishop ought to be consecrated did not compel a consecration either, according to Sundberg. When the order statutes were written, the church handbook of 1693 was in force, which contained no form for episcopal consecration. The 1811 handbook did however prescribe how a bishop was to be installed in office.
Grafström died suddenly in 1883 without having been consecrated as a bishop. After him, no Order Bishop has been appointed. As late as the 1902 order statutes, the Order Bishop is mentioned as having “the same dignity as other bishops,” but any requirements for consecration had been removed. It was not until 1952 that the office of Order Bishop was removed from the statutes. At that time, a major change was made to the Swedish order system and, among other things, the orders were opened to women.
There was a proposal to revive the Order Bishop’s office in connection with the creation of the Diocese of Stockholm in the early 1940s. The idea was that the diocese’s bishop would also become the Order Bishop. The proposal did not, however, find resonance with those leading Kungl. Maj:ts Orden. With the Swedish honours reform, new statutes for the royal orders were adopted as recently as 2023. Paragraph 13 states that “[t]he Order Chapter consists, in addition to the Grand Master, of the Order Chancellor, the Vice Order Chancellor, and four further members appointed by the Grand Master.” Whether, in light of the honours reform’s historic changes to the Swedish order system, there are any plans to reintroduce the Order Bishop’s office is not known.
Sources: Löthner, Lennart, “Ordensbiskopsämbetet”, Kyrkohistorisk årsskrift 60, Svenska kyrkohistoriska föreningen, Uppsala, 1961
